[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good Monday morning, everyone. Today, you don't need to look any further than Fox News in The Wall Street Journal editorial page to find questions about whether the Trump administration is acting in defiance of the law. One of this morning's top stories, if you haven't seen it yet, is the detention again for deportation again of Kilmar Ábrego Garcia, who the administration admitted was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. A series of court rulings, even from the usually Trump-friendly Supreme Court, resulted in bringing him back. Remember the Garcia Ábrego story?

Then they charged him with a crime to detain him again, something that he allegedly did years ago in Tennessee. He pleaded not guilty and was recently freed. While fighting that case, he was fighting it on the grounds of selective prosecution to make a point, a political point. He refused a plea deal, which would have had him serve time in prison in the United States and then be deported to Costa Rica, where he could have apparently gone free. He turned down that deal to try to prove his innocence, they say.

This morning at a required immigration check, they detained him again with the intent, this time, to deport him to Uganda. He's from El Salvador, remember? The take on the Fox News website included this shortly before Kilmar Ábrego was detained, "Should ICE immediately arrest Ábrego Garcia, their actions would likely defy a court order handed down by US District Judge Paula Xinis, an Obama appointee, which sought to preclude ICE from immediately arresting Ábrego Garcia upon return."

Lawyers for the Justice Department vehemently opposed Ábrego Garcia's release from custody, arguing at an evidentiary hearing earlier this year that he was a danger to the community in describing him as a member of MS-13, a claim that was rejected by a judge in a ruling earlier this year. There's that development and that context from Fox News.

There's this from, of course, the largely conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board, same ownership as Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, as you probably know, headline, Trump's Vendetta Campaign targets John Bolton. This FBI raid makes clearer that second-term success for the president includes retribution. That is about the raid on Friday to look into previously dropped charges that Bolton may have disclosed classified information in a book he wrote. Bolton was the US national security adviser, you'll remember, in Trump's first term for part of it, but has since become a critic.

The editorial from The Wall Street Journal starts with these lines. President Trump promised voters during his campaign for a second term that he had bigger things on his mind than retribution against opponents. It is increasingly clear that vengeance is a large part, maybe the largest part, of how he will define success in his second term. That from The Wall Street Journal editorial board saying vengeance is maybe the largest part of how Trump will define success in his second term.

Adding to the whiff of authoritarianism around how that case, the Bolton case, is being conducted is Vice President Vance's defense of the investigation on NBC this weekend, referring to the Justice Department as we.

Vice President Vance: We are investigating Ambassador Bolton. If they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he has broken the law. We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that.

Brian Lehrer: Typically, the Justice Department is held to be independent of the president and vice president, accountable to the law and the Constitution as they see it. You've heard that distinction. Vance referring to it as we in that clip suggests that something profound may have changed.

I could go on to talk about the demand that the Smithsonian reflect Trump's favorite ideologies, his versions of patriotism, as we discussed last week, the threatened deployments of the National Guard to Democratic-run cities. They're saying Baltimore, Chicago now, maybe New York, that he doesn't have jurisdiction over like he does in DC, as he declares states of emergencies over various things that are policy and political disagreements, but not emergencies by the usual definition of the word.

Now, The Atlantic magazine's Tom Nichols has been using notions this year like authoritarian drift masked as political theater, slow march to authoritarianism. He's asked if we're authoritarian yet and things like that. His latest article is actually about California Governor Gavin Newsom's social media parodies of Trump. Now, with Nichols' military affairs background, which we'll tell you about, he's also been writing articles with headlines like Trump Keeps Defending Russia, Trump Buys Putin More Time, and The Administration Wants Military Women to Know Their Place. That's a headline from a Tom Nichols article.

We'll talk about as much of these, as much of this, as many of these as we can get to. Tom Nichols is a staff writer at The Atlantic and a contributor to The Atlantic Daily newsletter. He is a professor emeritus of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College, where he taught for 25 years. He is author of books including the Death of Expertise and Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from within on Modern Democracy. All that from his bio page, which also notes he's a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion. Tom, thanks a lot for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Tom Nichols: Thank you, Brian. Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: I didn't know you were a Jeopardy! champion. Is there one Jeopardy! answer that lingers as sweetest to this day because you knew the right question?

Tom Nichols: [laughs] Yes, actually, there is. Of course, we're talking now 30 years ago, but I was actually losing going into Final Jeopardy!. I was in that terrible third-place slot, and I had to hope that my two opponents were going to knock each other out. The question was about a British actress who had come to America in the 1850s and was best known for her starring role in this play. The category was history, not art. I thought, "Well, what historically important play could there have been?"

Both of my opponents somehow came up with Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was wrong. 10 seconds before the clock ran out, I said, "Right, it's the play Lincoln was watching. It was called Our American Cousin."

Brian Lehrer: Wow.

Tom Nichols: I pulled it out. I came out of third place. I won it. During the end credits, Alex Trebek leaned over and he said, "How did you know that?" I was a little put off by that because I thought, "Well, geez, I'm smart enough to be on Jeopardy!. I should have known it." That's the one that I've always felt best about because it saved my streak and helped me make my five-time run.

Brian Lehrer: That is an incredibly obscure, even though historically consequential thing to know. I don't think I've ever heard the name of play that Lincoln was watching when he was assassinated. All right. To a more recent and relevant to this conversation aspect of your bio, would you let listeners know about your Naval War College background? What did you teach there for 25 years?

Tom Nichols: Sure. I actually began my academic career as a political scientist and specialist in Soviet, which shows you how old I am, Soviet affairs, and then Russian affairs. I taught for many years at Dartmouth and Georgetown and other places. I'd always done a lot of work lecturing at the Naval War College. Finally, I moved there in the '90s, and I taught national security issues. I chaired the strategy department where we taught a lot of military history, strategic theory, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, that kind of stuff, as well as a specialization that I developed later on in nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy. All the fun, good holiday reading about nuclear war and genocide and World War 3, and all that stuff. That's what I taught there for 25 years to mid and senior grade military officers.

Brian Lehrer: August speech reading, if I ever heard of any.

Tom Nichols: [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: With that and the other serious things you write about and that are going on in the world, why did you write most recently about Gavin Newsom doing Trump-like social media posts, widely being described as parody? One example you give, this regards California's possible redistricting that's been in the news to respond to Texas's redistricting in all caps, of course, as a parody of Trump.

Newsom wrote that, "Many people are calling me Gavin Christopher Columbus Newsom because of the maps!. Thank you for your attention to this matter." Another one on a sort of lighter note. Again, all caps. "What is wrong with Cracker Barrel? Keep your beautiful logo. The new one looks like cheap Velveeta cheese from Walmart. The place for 'groceries' (an old-fashioned term)." Why did you write about those kinds of things, include those kinds of quotes in an Atlantic article?

Tom Nichols: I write a lot about politics because I worked in politics. In addition to all this academic stuff I've done, I worked-- Well, my very first job was in college working for my hometown mayor. Then I spent two and a half years while I was going to school working in the Massachusetts State House. I was the aide to the chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee there. Then I went on to Washington, where I worked as personal staff for defense and foreign affairs for the late Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania. I've always had a toe in writing about and working in actual--

I actually think political scientists ought to do this, by the way, rather than have a perfectly academic approach to it. They ought to go out there and get their hands dirty, too. The thing that struck me about Newsom is that, initially, I was kind of uncomfortable with it because I'm very old school about deportment and dignity in politics, which, of course, in the age of Trump, is just a quaint memory at this point.

I noticed watching MAGA world react online and on television and in the media, what Newsom's doing seemed to be breaking through, and I thought that was interesting because one of the theories, one of the bits of accepted wisdom about MAGA world, is that they live in a bubble, nothing gets through to them. There's nothing you can say about Trump that really matters.

I think what Newsom did was, instead of saying, "Look, Trump looks like an idiot when he does these things," or "Trump looks emotionally unstable when he does these things," and instead of just saying that in a hectoring or lecturing way, he demonstrated it. Instead of telling, he showed it. He said, "Okay, fine, you guys think this is a perfectly acceptable way to communicate politically? Here, let me try it." Of course, the reaction was outrage. What actually spurred me to write the specific piece that we're talking about was the reaction of Dana Perino of all people.

Brian Lehrer: Fox News commentator. I pulled this clip, so set it up if you want, but we're going to play the actual thing.

Tom Nichols: Sure. Dana Perino suddenly getting the vapors about Gavin Newsom imitating Donald Trump. I thought, "Wow." Of course, this is also hypocritical, but what I really thought, and it became the title of the pieces, "She's so close to getting it." That's what made me decide to write the article.

Brian Lehrer: Here is Dana Perino on Fox. Hilarious, as Tom sees it, because if it was someone else from the other side, they might be saying exactly this about Trump.

Dana Perino: Stop it with the Twitter thing. I don't know where his wife is. If I were his wife, I would say, "You are making a fool of yourself. Stop it." Do not let your staff tweet. If you're doing it yourself, put the phone away and start over.

Brian Lehrer: Newsom posted, "Dana 'Ding Dong' Perino. Never heard of her until today," in the style of Trump. How do you see that whole back and forth?

Tom Nichols: I thought that was perfect. I mean, it was so dead on. It's exactly what Trump would say. He'd make up some stupid nickname. Someone sent me the Perino clip, and I thought, "Well, finally, she's had enough of Donald Trump." That's actually how I began the piece because, when you first listen to it, you think, "Oh, at last, somebody on the right realizes how completely bonkers all of this sounds, how embarrassing it is."

Brian Lehrer: Maybe not, Tom. Maybe it's just politics. If you're on the right and somebody on the left does that, you say what Dana Perino does. If Trump does it and you're on the left, you say the same thing about Trump, rather than, yes, they're getting it. They're realizing that Trump is off in some way.

Tom Nichols: I think the second-order effect here was that after everybody went through the kind of thing you just said, Brian, of "Well, it's politics, so if Gavin Newsom doesn't make fun of him." I think there was a moment of saying, "Oh boy, I guess we really do sound like immense hypocrites and suckers for defending this." Then the next wave, my favorite excuse that came out was from JD Vance. He said, "Well, people like it from Trump because it's authentic and it's not authentic from Newsom."

As I wrote in the piece, what an odd defense to say, well, when Newsom engages in crackpot, weird hijinks, everybody knows it's just fake, but when Trump does it, they know it's real. I thought, "Okay, well, that's not a great defense." I think now a lot of folks in MAGA world are just sort of tangled up in their own rationalizations, and it's the first time I think you've really seen them wrong-footed about it because they've gone on and on with, "Well, this is just performance. It's just how he is. It's part of his act, it's his shtick." When Gavin Newsom says, "Okay, well, it's part of my act and I'm going to do it as shtick, and I'm going to sing the same songs," they say, "Well, that's--"

I think this is what did it. They reacted to him on principle. They said, "Well, that's undignified, that's wrong to do." One or two folks in Trump world said this. Instead of simply saying, "Look, when he does it, it's just not funny." Okay, fine. I suppose that's the best you can ask for is they say, "Well, if Trump does it, I think it's funny. If Newsom does it, I think it's he's just not as good a comedian."

I think what really tangled up a lot of these folks was to say, "Public figures shouldn't talk this way, okay? Again, you're so close to getting it." Take that one step further. "Public figures shouldn't talk this way. Therefore..." It just shows that, I think, millions of Americans, and not just Republicans, millions of Americans have decided that it's just normal to have a president who talks like an 8-year-old with a behavioral problem. I think Newsom held up that mirror and made people realize it.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, anybody out there right now following Gavin Newsom's Trump parody social media presence, anybody think it might matter to policy or politics? Who wants to talk to Tom Nichols from The Atlantic? 212-433-WNYC. We're going to talk about other things that he's writing about, much more grave things like Ukraine and authoritarianism. What about this? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. If you have anything to add or to ask, call or text 212-433-9692.

You do write, Tom, that you're conflicted about Newsom's approach. How come?

Tom Nichols: Yes. Because I do agree public officials shouldn't talk this way, that governing is a deadly serious business, and that this kind of war of memes, I mean, it really tells you kind of where Donald Trump has dragged us down to. I don't think, just in the way that you've just posed this question to your listeners, I don't think this is going to move the needle in some immense way about policy or politics, but I do think it's interesting that it's the first attack on Donald Trump's general weirdness that seems to have gotten through since the 2024 campaign when Kamala Harris and Tim Walz started pointing out that a lot of these folks in MAGA world at the top of the Trump campaign are just kind of weird.

I think that attack stuck for a while. I think Newsom has reinvigorated some of that. I think it's not a bad thing. I don't think it should go on longer. I say in the piece, Newsom's made his point, he should probably move on to other stuff. I don't think it's a bad thing to have people step back, even people within MAGA world, but certainly everybody else, and say, "Yes, this isn't normal. There's something wrong with people who talk this way." I think Newsom's shown that it's so formulaically strange that you can actually imitate it and make it almost impossible, that there's almost no way to be too outlandish, that it doesn't seem exactly like the original, and the kind of thing Trump would say.

That's why I laughed at the Dana "Ding Dong" Perino. That's exactly what Trump would do. He did it yesterday when he went off about sloppy Chris Christie and calling George Stephanopoulos George Slopadopoulos, I mean, this is a 79-year-old man. This is the commander-in-chief. This is the President of the United States. He's talking like a sugared-up toddler, and there's something wrong with that. While I was conflicted, and I hope Newsom doesn't go past the point of diminishing returns here, I think it was really important for him to say, "Look at what this looks like. If anyone else does it, you would think there's something wrong with that person."

Brian Lehrer: Some people who like it. Listener writes, "Good for Gavin Newsom. Still, it's a short-term attention grabber like Tom Wallace noting that Trump is weird. Constant creative efforts are needed to break through to MAGA." Another listener, all caps, "Gavin Newsom, the best. Hilarious." Another one, "Newsom gets it. I'm a Dem. Losing is hard. Losing without putting up a fight is too much. It's time to fight with strategies that actually meet the moment." Stephen in Queens is in that camp, too. Stephen, you're on WNYC with Tom Nichols from The Atlantic. Hi.

Stephen: Thank you very much. [coughs] Sorry. Thank you very much for taking my call. I just wanted to say that as a Democrat, I am glad that Newsom is doing that for the simple reason we as Democrats are still fighting like it's 1961. Sometimes I look at Democrats on TV and I want to yell, "Please, kids are not running the movies to see Sandra Dee. You need to turn around and stop acting with this so-called when it said they go low, we go high." It's like, no, they go low, you get yourself a shovel. You play it right back to them the way they're playing it because this is the stupidity that's going on.

Meanwhile, we have hurricane season, and I won't get into the many other things that's going on in this country, that we need to be concerned about. Thank you very much. That's all I want to say.

Brian Lehrer: Stephen, thank you. Thank you very much. Marvin in Brooklyn actually read your article, Tom. Marvin, you're on WNYC. Hi.

Marvin: Hi. Thanks for putting me on. I hope everybody listening is contributing to NPR to make sure we have wonderful shows like this. It's great article. At the end of the--

Brian Lehrer: You'll get your permission as we arrange before the show. No, I'm kidding. Marvin, thank you. Go ahead.

Marvin: [laughs] Hearing you every day is my commission. Tom, at the end of the article, you raise the question. You say, well, maybe they do get who Trump is. The reality is the Republican leadership has known who Trump is from day one. We heard throughout the first administration that senators and representatives and governors would quietly say to colleagues, "Yes, he's nuts. Yes, maybe he should even be impeached," et cetera, et cetera. Then they go and vote for him because they think that his popularity enables them to get legislation like the big ugly bill passed, which benefits them and their multimillion-dollar and billion-dollar supporters.

That's one of the real crimes is that the people who could put a check on Trump's craziness, his vindictiveness, like the lead in the story about Ábrego García, going to take people and to deport them who are following the law. The people who could stop that know, and they don't care. They sold their souls, if they ever had them, and they are just doing his bidding. The country will suffer for decades because of that.

Brian Lehrer: Marvin, thanks a lot. In Marvin's comment there, Tom, if I'm hearing him right, is if you think, as the headline of your article suggests, that people in MAGA world are this close to getting it as a result of Gavin Newsom's parody, well, they don't care. They think, as Marvin was saying, that he can benefit, they can benefit. It's a very effective communication style when coming from Trump. Taking Marvin's thought one step further that it doesn't show mental instability; it shows a certain kind of genius for political communication and keeping the base loyal.

Tom Nichols: Well, two things occur to me. One, and let me go back to Stephen's comment for a minute. One thing I think Newsom has done that I think is important is he could be opening the door here for Democrats to be happy warriors, to have a good laugh, and to hitch their pants back up and dust themselves off and to go into political battle with Donald Trump with good cheer, because I think that's important. I think the Democratic opposition has been beaten down. I hate the expression the resistance as-- I wish I could take credit for this comment, but my friend Steve Fish out at Berkeley, he said this is such a low energy, defeatist term that almost grants the Republicans the role of being the normal party of government, and everybody else just huddles behind the barricades. No.

Brian Lehrer: Because you're just on defense.

Tom Nichols: Yes. Look, there are actually more-- Donald Trump, the first time around, didn't win with a majority. The second time around won with a bare majority of the votes. He is not popular. The idea that somehow Donald Trump is this 10-foot-tall werewolf is just silly. There's a line that CS Lewis uses in The Screwtape Letters, where he-- I think he quotes Martin Luther. He says, "The devil, that proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked." I think it's Thomas More.

The idea that, at some point, a certain amount of mockery kind of breaks the spell around a lot of this stuff. Marvin's point, I think it's really important. I would suggest to Marvin, when you talk about Republicans, you have to divide out elected Republicans from the kind of rank and file Trump voters, some of whom are Republicans and some of whom are just independents or floaters back and forth, who either don't vote or change their vote.

Remember, in 2016, we actually had the phenomenon of Obama, Obama, Trump voters, people that had voted twice for Obama who moved to Trump. I think he's absolutely right about elected Republicans. They know exactly what Donald Trump is. They hate him. George Will has a great line that he used years ago. He said Republican Party is the first party in American history that actually hates and fears its own voters. Elected Republicans despise Trump. Very few of them are truly the MAGA faithful in New York.

Elise Stefanik, I don't think, believes any of this stuff, but she just made a very cynical decision to say, "Okay, this is how I stay in office. I guess this is what I have to do." JD Vance said it out loud. "I guess I just have to suck it up and change sides." They're afraid of him because of the way that the MAGA faithful will show up for primaries and kick them out of office. I mean, if Donald Trump says this guy's got to go, in primaries, which, unfortunately, in both parties are such low turnout events and dominated by the most extreme wings of their party, will turn out and they will kick people out of office. The rank and file--

Brian Lehrer: In fairness to--

Tom Nichols: Sorry.

Brian Lehrer: I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to JD Vance, and I don't know much about Elise Stefanik in this respect, but Vance's conversion to more of a MAGA point of view, there's some evidence that it's genuine.

Tom Nichols: I don't believe that for a moment.

Brian Lehrer: You don't believe that for a moment. A lot of the independents you're talking about who vote for Trump make it look like, at least Trump isn't just running on cult of personality, as many of his opponents would say, but they actually think that he's got better policies that are going to help their lives, and that matters.

Tom Nichols: Quickest way to get around that is to actually talk to them and ask them-- To go back to JD Vance for a moment, remember, JD Vance is the person who, in our magazine, The Atlantic, referred to Trump as cultural heroin. I think that was--

Brian Lehrer: In like point 15, 16.

Tom Nichols: I think that's what JD Vance actually thought. When he was running for Senate in Ohio, he was losing, and he was losing to a really-- again, great word, a really weird extreme candidate. Trump waded in and said, "No, no, this is my guy." Suddenly, Vance vaulted at the top. I think he said, "Okay, well, if I want to be a senator and I want to live in Washington and I want to have people pick me up every morning, and in a limo, and have a Secret Service detail, then these are the terrible and stupid and awful things I have to say." I don't buy that.

Just before the election, I went out to Western Pennsylvania, and I was doing some talks out there. I was talking with some MAGA voters, and one of them said things like, I said, "Are you in favor of tariffs?" She said, "He's not going to do that." I said, "He did it the last time." She said, "I don't remember that. I don't recall that." I said, "You're a small business owner." I said, "You're a small business owner in Pennsylvania, and you don't remember the tariffs?" Basically, it was, "Look, I like the fact that he makes people angry. I like the fact that he hates the people I hate. Then I will backfill all the reasons that I agree with him."

Brian Lehrer: Right, yes. That cultural grievance centerpiece of it, and the tariffs may turn out to be his undoing, his comeuppance, the way things are going. We will see. Here's how Newsom himself describes what he's up to with these Trump-like social media parodies.

Gavin Newsom: I hope it's a wake-up call. The President of the United States, I'm sort of following his example. If you've got issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he's putting out as president. To the extent it's gotten some attention, I'm pleased.

Brian Lehrer: What else are the Democrats putting out? Tom, here are two texts that are similar. One listener writes, "Good to see Dems doing away with respectability politics, but this is all pretty much meaningless without the policy to back it up." Another one writes, "I like sarcastic humor a lot, but the unfunny thing is we've got little else to offer. What do you say to those listeners?

Tom Nichols: As I said, I worked for Senator John Heinz. I'm from Massachusetts. I was a late '70s, early '80s Massachusetts Republican, so I don't naturally speak Democrat when it comes to policy. I think one of the things that surprises me about the Democratic coalition is that the threat of fascism doesn't seem to be enough to keep this coalition together. I understand that you can't just run on Donald Trump is terrifying and an authoritarian. On the other hand, certainly for me, as part of a pro-democracy coalition, that is enough. I guess it's always been--

Brian Lehrer: That's a large part of how Harris lost to him in the fall, isn't it? The Dems were running on Trump is a fascist, and we're running on a vibe of joy. I'm oversimplifying, but that's how they lost.

Tom Nichols: I'm not sure.

Brian Lehrer: If you agree.

Tom Nichols: Look, I also think the problem is--

Brian Lehrer: This is not to support the policies but just to characterize he's running on mass deportation and drill, baby, drill for your energy costs.

Tom Nichols: Well, he was running on hate, is what he was running on. I actually thought Harris, for the brief time she ran a campaign, ran a good campaign, but she was carrying a lot of baggage from years of being far to the left. Also, look, we have to say it out loud. The Democrats ran a Black woman, and there were just millions of Americans, including a lot of minority Americans simply weren't going to vote for her. That was it. There was no policy discussion. They just weren't going to vote for her.

I think that's an unfortunate reality of our politics even today. I actually thought Joe Biden was a very good president. I thought even when he did things I disagreed with, I didn't understand a lot of the fire that was being directed at him from his own left. I think part of the problem here is that this has to be a coalition based on saving democracy. I think at lower levels of government, mayor, state representative, governor, sure, dive into the wonky weeds all you want.

I think when it comes to national politics, think of how much is going to rest purely on whether or not the House flips by three or four seats in a year. If you're still arguing about student loans or Gaza or tax rates or carbon tradeoffs or whatever it is, then I think you're missing the point. I'm not running for office, so I know that's really ineffective.

Brian Lehrer: Not Gaza. Have you seen today's news?

Tom Nichols: I have not. I got up and I fired up my microphone to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: I could say it's more of the same, but with some striking individual examples of what's going on there. You're saying Democrats should leave that aside?

Tom Nichols: No, I'm saying if it comes down, as folks used to say, there were only two people on the ballot, which party is going to be the better party on these issues, then I think you definitely-- As Donald Trump, who has told Netanyahu, "Get in there and finish the job," is he going to be a better choice for the issues that you care about, whether it's Gaza or the environment or gay and lesbian and trans rights?

This is this kind of purity testing of I have to have my issue satisfied or I'm not going to help save democracy. In the end, all of these issues are better served if the Republicans are defeated. Withholding votes or aiming fire at Democrats over them, I think, doesn't make any sense if you actually care about Gaza or any of these other issues. That's the part of this kind of fragile coalition that I find just incomprehensible at times say, "Well, I know--" This is something I've said many times both in writing and in my discussions with people online. If you think this is a five-alarm emergency with fascism about to take power permanently in this country, then you need to act like it and vote like it.

Brian Lehrer: We've got a few more minutes with Tom Nichols from The Atlantic, which we will spend after this break, and change the focus a little bit to some of his writing on Ukraine, the military, how they're going all out to demote high-ranking women in the military. Also, we will touch on today's news about Ábrego Garcia and Gaza and John Bolton. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue with Tom Nichols, staff writer at The Atlantic and a contributor to The Atlantic Daily newsletter. He's a professor emeritus of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College, where he taught for 25 years, and is the author of books including the Death of Expertise and Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from within on Modern Democracy. Because we traffic in dialogue here, here's an independent, but voted for Trump, as he characterizes himself, caller Charles in Houston. Charles, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling in.

Charles: Good morning, gentlemen. How are you doing?

Brian Lehrer: Doing good. Thank you for calling.

Tom Nichols: Thank you. Good.

Charles: Awesome. I was just going to say I'm listening to your conversation, and first of all, thank you for the show or for WNYC. My son lives in New York City, so I'm in and out all the time. I really enjoy your show. I really enjoy the services. I actually support my local independent station here. I would just say that I think that you guys are missing the purpose of what MAGA has done. Listen, there's a difference. I am a conservative. I am an independent. I have voted for Clinton, for Obama. I have voted for Trump now once, to be honest, just once.

I think that the right is-- it's not just that Trump is doing what he's doing. We, in general, in this area, and I have a lot of friends here at Texas A&M, very conservative. My friends are saying the same thing. We understand Trump is Trump. We get it. Everybody laughs at him behind his back. To be honest, it's pretty funny, some of his shtick. I love that Newsom did that. I thought that was pretty funny. When it comes down to policies, the right doesn't support the policies of the left. They will do anything they can to not vote as Democrats.

It could have been any Republican pulled in here. Trump just happened to dog whistle his base, which is a very different base than Republicans, in my opinion, and probably your opinion. What I keep hearing, and I keep hearing my Democratic friends, because I have an incredible social media presence where I have both left and right people. The left does not understand. The right just vehemently does not want the policies that Kamala Harris was bringing in. They will do anything to vote for someone, including someone that does the outrageous conversations that Trump has.

Being from the Bible belt here, watching my far right Christian conservative friends vote for Trump, clearly what he says and does typically goes against the Bible, that's how desperate I believe they are to not have some of the policies from the left in place.

Brian Lehrer: Tom, talk to Charles.

Tom Nichols: I think that's a thoughtful comment. As someone who also identifies as at least an old-school conservative from 30 or 40 years ago, I get that. I mean, I've seen that as well. First, I think a lot of these people are reacting to a caricature of the left. I don't think Joe Biden or even the platform Kamala Harris ran on was all that radical. I think what's astonishing, and this is where Newsom, I think, did a service, it's not just Trump's style. If Democrats adopted the same policies that Trump did, people on the right would scream that this is socialism. Donald Trump just took a 10% stake in Intel. Trump-

Charles: Agreed. Yes.

Tom Nichols: -regularly runs roughshod constitutionally over the Constitution and over Congress. Trump is putting forward tariffs that, if Joe Biden had done this, they'd say the guy is a madman. He's out of control. He's going to destroy the economy. I think you see this in Texas. What you're telling me is that you're seeing this, that these folks have decided the left is so evil that they will simply vote for anyone, no matter how evil that person may be, to stop them. Again, I'm sorry, I think that's a rationalization.

Charles: It's sad.

Tom Nichols: I wrote a book called Our Own Worst Enemy, and I think there are a lot of folks there who say, "I don't like certain kinds of people. I'm angry about certain things that really can't be fixed." I mean, things like change. One of my own friends in Massachusetts, when I finally pressed him about why he voted for Trump, and I said, "Basically, you want us to be six, and you want it to be 1965, and you want to go to the corner grocery store that is now a bodega." He said, "Yes, that's what I want."

I said, "That's not a reason to vote for someone who is mentally unstable, emotionally disordered," I think is the kindest way we can put it, "and give him control of 2,000 nuclear weapons, let him go on a lawless rampage of revenge, put people in positions that don't belong there." When I see people saying, "No, no, I'm very happy with Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense," that's when I come to realize, like, you don't really care about-- and I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying the people who make these arguments-

Charles: Yes, I'm sure.

Tom Nichols: -that, "I really like seeing Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard in national government." What they really mean is, "I love that that infuriates other people, and I don't really care what that does to the country."

Brian Lehrer: Charles, you want one more 30-second response?

Tom Nichols: That's a rationalization. I think your position on this, I get it. It's a thoughtful position. I understand there are a lot of things that-- I'm willing to put up with a lot of policies that I personally don't like in order to protect the Constitution of the United States. That's the way I look at it.

Brian Lehrer: Charles, real quick?

Charles: I would say this also, and I would say the other last part of this. I voted for Biden the first time, by the way. Watching Biden and his decline was horrifying. Again, some of the gaffes were just gaffes. We get it. I also am a marketing person, so I completely understand optics. His performance in the debate was embarrassing on a worldwide stage. To have a party that's propping up at any price, the same way as Trump, they're propping this guy up at any price also. They're like, "Hey, this is the only guy that can beat Trump." I watched a field of people, "Heck, I would have voted for so many of the other Democratic candidates."

Tom Nichols: Can I ask you a question about that?

Charles: Yet, I heard the same thing. I just heard the same thing, that Biden was the only one who could beat Trump. Therefore, he's the guy we're going to put out there.

Brian Lehrer: That was in 2020. Go ahead, Tom.

Tom Nichols: I really want to ask you a question about that because I felt the same way. I saw the debate, and I said, "Okay, he's got to go. He doesn't have the energy--" I still think he could have governed, but I'd say he doesn't have the energy for a campaign. It's not going to happen. He has to go. My stomach dropped when I saw that debate. Think about what you just said.

Charles: Right. I understand.

Tom Nichols: This guy's visible decline, his embarrassing performance, and yet they prop him up at all costs. Didn't you just describe Donald Trump, too?

Charles: I did, absolutely. I also just said the same thing. At all costs, they wanted to win. I'm not disagreeing with any of this conversation you all are having. I am on the side of, I would love for it to be a different way. I really would. Kamala, I just didn't support some of her policies. I did not personally like her. I don't. I can't help it. Trump, I don't really love either. Again, I did vote for Biden, seeing his decline, but I would just turn it around and say it felt like the Democrats were just going to put Biden out there at any cost, which [crosstalk]

Tom Nichols: They didn't, right? In the end, they didn't, and they did the brave thing.

Charles: True.

Tom Nichols: They took him down. They had the vice president step in. She gave a nomination speech that I think was as centrist a speech as you've ever heard a Democrat give. I've said at the time, no, I'm not going to like a lot of her policies. I'm not a Democrat. That's just how it's going to be. I won't go to bed every night worrying about the nuclear arsenal or the safety of the Constitution. That's all I care about.

Brian Lehrer: Let me move on because we're overtime already. I want to get to one or two other things real quickly.

Charles: I appreciate your time, gentlemen.

Tom Nichols: Same here.

Brian Lehrer: Charles, we appreciate your call. Call us again, please. Tom, do you have a take on any of today's news? Maybe some of the things I referred to in the intro, Kilmar Garcia Ábrego detained for deportation again, even Fox News saying apparently in defiance of multiple court orders, or the raid on former National Security Advisor John Bolton, which The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls retribution, and JD Vance characterizes the Justice Department as we?

Tom Nichols: Yes. This is a rampage of lawlessness. It's exactly what Trump said he was going to do. It's what those of us who argued against electing Donald Trump warned he was going to do. Take him seriously when he says he's going to do these things. I think one of the really heartbreaking things is how many people are cheering it on when they wouldn't--

I mean, one of the things that makes us Americans is that you don't cheer on things that you wouldn't want to have happen to you. We all live under the protection of the law and the Constitution. It's really heartbreaking to see millions of Americans say breaking the law and stomping all over the Constitution is okay as long as you're doing it to that other guy. I think that that's where democracy really becomes in danger when you say, of course, I would never use the FBI as a personal police force to go after my enemies. Unless it's John Bolton, then it's okay, or I would never want my neighbor to be randomly arrested, and then said, "Well, either accept these charges and go to jail, or we'll send you to Uganda."

People have decided in very much an us versus them kind of mentality to say, "I want to see other people suffer." That's not American.

Brian Lehrer: Do you know why Uganda, by the way, if they're going to deport Ábrego Garcia to Uganda now, as they say? For you, as somebody with decades of experience in world affairs, international policy, and military stuff, do we have some kind of deportation agreement with Uganda that they'll take people from Latin America?

Tom Nichols: I don't know. I'm not a consular officer with the State Department. I suspect the reason they picked Uganda is because we're picking countries that we've called and said, "Hey, we want to kick people out. Will you accept them?" Also, it's to send somebody to the place most alien to wherever they're from. It's not like they're saying, "Well, take the deal or we'll deport you to Honduras or Costa Rica or Central America." They're saying, to put the screws to somebody, "We will send you to the middle of Africa and drop you out of a plane, and good luck."

I'm sorry, this isn't the country I grew up in. In their more honest moments, it's not a country I think even most Trump voters would want to live in. Your last caller was a man who's in marketing, and Trump's one. I think Trump is one of the least intellectually capable people ever elected, but he does have a genius for marketing. This is marketing. This is saying, "Look at how tough we're being." It gives a dopamine rush to people to say, "Yes, we're going to take these people and we're going to arrest them. We're going to send them to Africa and just kick them off the plane on the tarmac and fly off and leave them there."

Brian Lehrer: I even wonder if he's-

Tom Nichols: That's not just the country I grew up in.

Brian Lehrer: -setting up another way to tweak Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral nominee in New York, who's from Uganda, and wonder if he's--

Tom Nichols: Oh, that hadn't even occurred to me. It's possible somebody in the administration thought that was clever. It wouldn't surprise me.

Brian Lehrer: Does this matter at all to your judgment of authoritarianism for deploying the national guard in DC and, I think, to other cities raises even other questions? Even with respect to DC, CNN article: In the week beginning August 12th, the first full day, the Trump administration had control of the Metropolitan Police Department. Property crimes dropped roughly 19% compared to the week before, and violent crime dipped by about 17% according to the most recent public data published by the DC police. That's in one week. Do those results matter?

Tom Nichols: No, I think the whole point of this is to put troops in the streets to intimidate people in blue cities. This is authoritarianism. We can argue about whether it's fascism, but it is fascistic for sure. If this were really a president saying, "Look, I'm going to be a law and order president, I'm going to stomp on out-of-control crime," then he'd be starting in a lot of places in red states, but he isn't. In fact, he's in, again, this kind of dopamine rush of saying, "Hey, let's have all these guys from red states come in and get to strut around with guns in blue cities and in blue states."

I think that the object of this is very clear. As my colleague David Frum has brought this up, I very much worry that this is a dry run, a kind of a dress rehearsal for intimidating people during elections. Because I think Trump has decided, and the behavior of these folks in Texas, redistricting, they've all decided that they simply cannot be allowed to lose these elections, that this is, for them all, they're all in, all the chips are in the middle of the table, which goes back to my point that people who have gripes about particular policies, this, in my opinion, should be the only thing that people vote on in the next two to four years. Because the Republicans are acting this way.

Brian Lehrer: This is the last, last thing, just because it comes up all the time with callers and others. I think you made a distinction there between fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. Can you give us a 30-second primer, Professor Nichols from the Naval War College?

Tom Nichols: Sure. Fascism has a coherent ideology, a mass party movement. Think of brown shirts, and the black shirts, and the SS. It's not just one leader flexing a lot of muscle. Otherwise, every authoritarian government in Latin America or Africa would have to be defined as fascist. Words matter. I think, at this point, we can all agree this is undemocratic, anti-democratic, authoritarian.

I think the way Trump talks, and I wrote about this a few years ago, that once he started referring to his fellow citizens as vermin and basically dehumanizing other people, Trump himself, I think, has clearly crossed the line into fascism. I said just before the election, he has the soul of a fascist, but the mind of a disordered child. If he can make these things happen and the rest of the people around him agree to make them happen, then yes, we are on a rocket sled for a new kind of American fascism.

Brian Lehrer: Tom Nichols from The Atlantic, former 25-year professor at the US Naval War College, professor of National Security Affairs, that's what he taught, and author of books including The Death of Expertise and Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from within on Modern Democracy. Thank you, Tom.

Tom Nichols: Thank you, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.