top of page
Search

‘Shellacking’: A liberal and a libertarian wrestle with the midterms — and each other

9 hours ago
49 min read



Shellacking. Rout. Whatever you call what Republicans just went through in the midterms, Moni, a liberal, and her friend Travis Tripodi, a conservative libertarian who lost his own statehouse race in the blue wave, had to have it out. No scoring points, no holding back. But can they actually make sense to each other?


Is Trump’s self-dealing a scandal, or a mix of shady habits and fair profit? Was the wave punishment for broken promises, or a rejection of MAGA’s extremes? When Trump said he’d accept the results, was Moni right to exhale, or was the fear media-made all along? Then, the debrief: What is Moni actually excited about now that her side won big? And what does Travis wish MAGA’s critics understood? 


Note: This conversation was recorded on November 5, two days after the midterm elections.


Credits




Call to Action



Please note that this transcript has been lightly edited for readability with the help of AI. Please forgive any slight errors.


[00:00:00]


Travis Tripodi:

It's kind of like a pendulum starting to swing out of control. Like, what you're gonna get is another repudiation in two years of that. And you know, I guess, like, there's something broken about our system. You know, it's supposed to be a representative government, but I don't think it represents — yeah, like, I don't know. Whatever's happening is not representing anybody.


Mónica Guzmán:

Hey everyone and welcome to A Braver Way. I'm Mónica Guzmán, your guide across the divide. And today I am joined by my good friend all the way across the country in New Hampshire and all the way across the divide, Travis Tripodi. How are you, Travis?


Travis:

Hey, good. How are you?


Mónica:

Well, it's been a week. We are getting together to do our thing just a couple days after the midterm elections.


I've heard words like shellacking, I've heard words like rout. What is your favorite word for what happened nationally in the midterms?


Travis:

It's funny that you say that. Shellacking is actually my favorite.


Mónica:

I think that's a fun one.


Travis:

Yeah, it's pretty bad.


Mónica:

Yeah. And Travis, you had a pretty unique experience going through these midterms. It was the first time you ran for office, for New Hampshire State House.


Travis:

Yeah, and just, I guess, for anybody listening that hears that and goes, that's a big deal — in New Hampshire, it's not as big of a deal. We have a volunteer legislature, so nobody's paid. I mean, it's a hundred dollar stipend a year. And we have four hundred state legislators. So I ran in my district. No other Republican wanted to run.


When you say shellacking, that's the word that our majority leader, or former majority leader, used as well. There's like a two hundred and forty seat flip for us. And so I was one of those people that lost. I think I got half the amount of votes as the Democrats that I was running against. So yeah.


Mónica:

My gosh. 240? That's amazing. Seats flipped. Dang. Jeez.


Travis:

Something like that. It was maybe give or take like twenty?


Mónica:

Okay. Let's talk a little bit about what we are doing here, because it is pretty different from our other episodes. Travis and I, completely different politics.


We want to talk as honestly as we can manage about the things going on out there right now that are bothering us. So we're not gonna shy away from it. We've actually come prepared, right, Travis?


Travis:

Yes.


Mónica:

We've come prepared. We each picked a couple of topics to bring today. One of the topics is something that bugs us a lot about the other side.


And the other one is something that we're either kind of surprised or maybe even happy about with regard to the other side, or that we're mad at our own side. And stick around, because after we record this conversation on these topics, we are going to come back a bit later and record a kind of debrief: what we understood better, what still feels like a hang-up, things like that.


And then a couple of things about what we're not here to do. We're not here to perform anything. Really, really. And obviously this is a podcast. This is a show. So that's hard to avoid on some level psychologically. But we're really, really trying to speak to each other almost as if no one was listening.


We can't represent anybody else. We could try, but we can't.


We're not really trying to be pundits or experts. That's the other thing. We might get things wrong in the moment.


And we are allowed, basically, either of us, to hit pause on the conversation if we hear the other person make a claim that we just can't get behind. We're like, wait, where does that come from? What? And then go and look things up together. Okay.


Also, a little bit of housekeeping before we dig in. This is our final special elections episode. So if you haven't been listening along, we're usually a biweekly podcast, but we've had a weekly episode for the last four weeks. So go back and check it out.


And our inaugural member event for A Braver Way founding members is coming up on November 17th. It is not too late to join and register. We're gonna be talking about surviving and maybe even enjoying divided holidays. So to register, you need to join as a member, and you can join at reclaimcuriosity.com/membership. So reclaimcuriosity.com/membership. As ever, our email is abraverway@reclaimcuriosity.com.


So we'd love to hear from folks, and we respond to everything. Please reach out. We may give you a lot to reach out about today. We'll see. So Travis, what's been bugging you?


Travis:

What's been bugging me? Well, it seems to me that across the country, any time that there were Republican policies on the ballot — things like voter ID, property tax caps, tax reductions, you know — those things were overwhelmingly supported by the voters. In some cases, voter ID was like seventy percent. But those same voters were going to the ballot box and then they voted for Democrats statewide, and nationally at federal races, where — we don't have to guess at this — their stated platform is that they're going to do the opposite of the things that they're voting for.


And I'd say that it's perplexing to me, on one hand, but it's also just very frustrating. I think it's hard for us to look at this election and really even understand what to take away from it because of things like that. So anyways, I'm curious what you think about it, Mónica. Do you feel like that's a fair takeaway? Or is my characterization not accurate in your mind?


[00:05:00]


Mónica:

Well, I have some questions, and I guess first, are you frustrated because it seems like irrational behavior on the part of voters? Or are you frustrated because it's a recipe for gridlock?


Travis:

Well, I guess I'm frustrated because — I mean, it's definitely irrational. Or maybe it's not, you know, but it seems irrational on the surface. But it doesn't bother me if there's gridlock. What bothers me, I guess, primarily, is that the newly elected politicians are probably going to take away some type of — you know, there's already conversations about a mandate, or some type of instruction from the population that their policies are —


Mónica:

Hmm. Like they're gonna read marching orders and they're gonna go in this direction, and it's gonna go against what people just said they wanted in these initiatives and other measures.


Travis:

Well, yeah, they're gonna take it as like, okay, people elected us, we have a mandate to lead. Our policies are the policies the American people want. And I think what you can see when you look at the ballot measures across the country is that that's just not the case. But there's something being conflated and there's something confusing people. And I think what we have is — it seems like a very irrational system, and it's just a recipe for more political divide, more vitriol, more people feeling like they're not being represented. So yeah.


Mónica:

Yeah. Yeah. I've been reading a lot of analysis that tracks with my gut instinct that for a lot of people in these national races, congressional races, it was less a vote for a candidate than it was a vote against — like a repudiation of a list of potential things. A repudiation of not focusing on the issues that voters cared the most about, like cost of living. A repudiation, maybe, I hope, of a style of politics that I have seen manifest in the Republican Party that I think people are tired of. So I see it more as a vote against some things. We saw a lot of folks who had voted Republican switch over. And I don't think that it's because they've suddenly become liberal or progressive in their policy preferences at all. So what do you think about that?


Travis:

I couldn't agree more. What worries me is that that's not what the takeaway is going to be for the people in Congress. And that's not what — you know, in my own state, who now have, at the House level, a Democratic supermajority — I think they're going to feel pretty emboldened to pass their legislation. And I think that that's the wrong message. And actually, just by way of a prediction, I'll tell you what I think happens from that.


It's kind of like a pendulum starting to swing out of control. Like, what you're gonna get is another repudiation in two years of that.


Mónica:

Yes, yes.


Travis:

And you know, I guess, like, there's something broken about our system. You know, it's supposed to be a representative government, but I don't think it represents — yeah, like, I don't know. Whatever's happening is not representing anybody.


And yeah, I think I'm gonna disagree with you, and maybe some of the topics that we have later on might be a better place to disagree on the specifics as to what voters are repudiating. But I think you're right that that's what it is. It's not a vote for socialism, which is my big fear — that that's what it's gonna be interpreted as. It's a vote against, I'd say, an administration that did not uphold the promises that it made its voter base.


Particularly the promises on the fringe that brought the coalition together — the people like me together with the super conservative Republicans that are more like the Bush Republicans —


[00:10:00]


Mónica:

Yeah. Yeah, we've talked about that before. Yeah.


Travis:

— with the libertarians. The issues that brought that coalition together are specifically the issues that this administration has not lived up to. Yeah.


Mónica:

Yeah, that he seemed to break promises on. And I wasn't on the right, so it didn't feel like a promise to me, but you were. And so I know we'll have a lot to get into. You mentioned, I think, a really important word: coalition. And I'm really glad, I guess, that you and I both seem to be on this level that's a couple of stories above just what's on the ground — of what got passed and what got rejected — where it seems like you and I are both afraid that we're caught in this trap.


Of a repudiation of an extreme. And so then the party in power thinks, so now we'll pursue our extremes. And then there's a repudiation of that because it fails, because it doesn't actually represent what people want. And then the other side does it again. And each side just fails, fails, fails, fails, fails. I think that that's exactly the trap we're caught in. And it's terrible. It's terrible.


A part of me hopes that this election is at least a bit of people going, enough, can we just do stuff already? Can we just do stuff that matters already, please? There's just been so much distraction and overreach and grossness that I can share more about in a bit.


Travis:

Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with that. I agree that people want real change. They want to see things moving. I think that that's what they thought they were voting for with Trump, and then you got a lot of the same on a lot of the issues that matter. I guess I just would kind of push back a little bit on the idea that it's a rejection or repudiation of the extreme. I'm feeling differently.


Mónica:

Yeah, no, that's fair.


Travis:

I do think — I'm feeling like it's not extreme enough. I think the voter base that flipped from Republican to Democrat this past election, it was like a punishment vote. It was like, you didn't do what you said you were gonna do. And even things like border security — it's like, you keep pretending like it's more than it is. You basically deported less people than Obama did, you know?


Mónica:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait, but don't you think —


Travis:

And anyways, that's my — go ahead.


Mónica:

I guess the way that I would insist on it being a repudiation of extremes is, I've seen plenty of evidence that the Republicans who switched their vote did think that things went too far. Immigration was Trump's number one issue coming into his second term, and he managed to turn it into a political liability by going too far — saying that he was gonna go after these people, not those people, and then he went after everybody.


Travis:

Yeah.


Mónica:

And in a kind of aggressive way, with ICE agents that were not well trained. The communication was awful. It was cruel. I don't think it was just the left that noticed.


Travis:

I mean, obviously we're gonna have our biases on how we view this, because I don't think there's super good data to support one way or the other. But my takeaway is not that. I don't think that a bunch of people that voted for closing the border and strict immigration laws and really getting control over the flow of people into this country just became, like, uber compassionate and —


Mónica:

Hmm. No, and I don't think it's about being uber compassionate, but don't you think it's possible for them to have wanted a more measured — you know, still strict and firm, but —


Travis:

I don't think that elicits a punishment vote, you know? 'Cause that's the thing. You —


Mónica:

Mm, okay. That's interesting.


Travis:

So you vote for the Democrats to just not do that then? Like, you know, under the Biden administration, how many millions of illegal immigrants did they let over the border or invite to come over?


Mónica:

Yeah, that was bad.


Travis:

And so I think that's super irrational, to then say the solution to not doing ICE enforcement appropriately is to just not do it at all. I don't think that that's where the vote flip is. I think it is some of the topics —


Mónica:

And — okay, go ahead.


Travis:

— where they just did the complete opposite of what they said they were going to do. It's like, okay, well, what's the point? It doesn't matter who's in there if you're just gonna do the opposite of what you said you were gonna do.


Mónica:

No, that's fair, and I think we will get to those topics. One more thing on the immigration piece is the way I see it — and I wonder if you can meet me at this — Biden's immigration policy, which in my opinion was too permissive, and I didn't see it at the time, and I see it now, it was extreme in the way it just got too loose, too open. And to me, that trap we're in, where we go from one extreme to the other —


That's actually a great example, because then Trump comes in and says, enough is enough. And there's, you know, some things to respect and admire, even from me, about enough is enough on some of that stuff. But then I think a lot of people on all sides saw him go really far the other way, with a lot of really cruel rhetoric and things like this. So I think Biden could have had compassionate immigration policies that were not so reckless, and Trump could have had responsible immigration enforcement policies that were not so reckless. So I worry about recklessness in our politics on all of these sides, when we're constantly just getting the loudest, craziest to get the most excited, and then the party wins with a mandate to pursue something like that. But we may be getting away from some of the core ideas we want to pursue. So —


[00:15:00]


Travis:

Yeah, no, I mean, if you want to move on to the next topic, that's fine. I think you and I probably disagree on just the relative cruelty compared to the pragmatic — just the reality of what the immigration policy has been over the past couple of years.


Mónica:

Yes. Yes. Yeah. I think that's likely. I've run into that with a lot of folks.


Travis:

I think it's hard to unravel, or it's hard to, like, repack Pandora's box. And I think that's the situation we're in. But yeah, we don't have to dig into immigration right now.


Mónica:

Yeah, and I will agree with you. I do think that it is a mistake for Democrats, now in so much more of a position of power in Congress, to read too much of a mandate. It's a mistake. I think that the right way to do politics in this era is to begin to build coalitions. And you've said that the way you saw it, Trump at the start was doing that and had accomplished that on the right, which I have a hard time seeing.


But I understand that that's how you see it, and you've actually convinced me about a bunch of that. So if a party just takes power and then takes some kind of mandate and then loses its coalition, then, you know, we start over and we start over and we start over. So I really hope Democrats don't make that mistake. So I agree with you on that. They should not take this as a mandate to just pursue a bunch of progressive Democratic policies. So we'll see what actually happens. And I think we'll deepen that a bunch with the topics that come up. So, okay.


So the thing that really bugs me is the fact that we have had a president who has been extraordinarily self-indulgent, who's engaged in what to me is a completely unacceptable level of self-dealing and cronyism — which I know is a vague word. I'm not even sure what it means, but it fits.


While Congress has done little to nothing to check that over the last couple of years. And we're talking about things like foreign investments and family ventures that seem kind of shady, revenue from crypto businesses in an industry he regulates, paid routes to seek pardons — you and I have talked about that before — and that wacky deal that he made with the IRS, you know, the president and his own department, to get immunity. Oh no, it wasn't with the IRS, it was with the Department of Justice, to get immunity for himself and his family. All those things — I just feel like in a prior era, there's no way. And yet, you know, they're just happening. They've just happened. Trump has dismissed concerns about conflicts of interest. At one point he said that he found out nobody cared. And I think very clearly what the midterms are showing us in exit polls is that voters do care.


So, a couple of things that I found really interesting. 62% of voters say they believe the president prioritizes his own personal interests over the country's interests. And seven in ten voters said Congress is not doing enough to provide checks and balances for the presidency. That includes four in ten Republicans. And also roughly nine in ten voters say that government corruption was at least a major factor, if not a crucial factor, in their vote for Congress.


So I find this to be a huge issue. And a part of me worried it was very few people who thought that. But what we're seeing in these exit polls is that that perception of corruption has increased. So I think this is gonna be a really important question, because once Democrats come into power, there's that temptation for their own revenge tour. And what's accountability and what's retribution?


How do we manage that? But I will tell you, I'm piping mad. I don't think that stuff's acceptable. I think it's ridiculous. And I think more people agree than before is what I'm hoping. Maybe because of the broken promises, maybe because they're disappointed, they're going, you know what? That's not okay.


[00:20:00]


Travis:

So can I offer some nuanced disagreement?


Mónica:

If you didn't, I'd be very disappointed in you. So yes, go.


Travis:

I don't see it the same way. Now, I share your opinion that we should have no self-dealing, no cronyism, no corruption. I actually don't see a huge difference between Trump and, like, not even just the former president or the presidents before, but historically. I think the wielding of executive power in self-dealing ways — that's the whole reason we should have a small, less powerful executive branch. I think it's natural, and some of it's even hard to — I have a hard time figuring out if it's really that bad of a thing. So I think I've used this example before, but if you are in the executive branch and you have the ability to reduce regulations on overregulated industries that your family just happens to have equity and stakes in —


That's what motivates people to run in the first place. They feel the impact on their lives. So, okay, I wanna run. You're overregulating the oil and gas industry. I'm an owner in the oil and gas industry, I'm gonna run so we can fix that overregulation. That's gonna make me a lot more money. It's not just about money. If that's your perspective, you believe that the product and the service that you're offering the world is making it a better place. And so the outcome of that is you making money. But it's hard for me to see that all self-dealing — quote unquote self-dealing, as it's called — is self-dealing. And the other piece — well, no, I mean, listen —


Mónica:

Hmm. Hmm. I'm having a hard time not interrupting, but I'm gonna let — yeah, keep going.


Travis:

That being said, I'm not claiming that that's the case for all of Trump's business interests. And it's certainly not the case for a lot of the people in his cabinet. I think Howard Lutnick — and we can talk about specifics — I think he's a particularly prolific self-dealer. And I think it's not ideal. The other piece I'd just say is that I don't think people care as much as you do.


The first question is, Trump is prioritizing his own interests over the interests of the country. Okay. If he was prioritizing the interests of the country in any way, I don't think they'd mind the self-dealing as much. But the primary issue in my mind is the war in Iran —


Mónica:

Is that he's not prioritizing the residents?


Travis:

— the persistent inflation. It's these things that people have a real, real problem with. And then that leaves it open for them to be like, yeah, he's self-dealing. You know, I don't like that too.


Mónica:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think I can meet you there. I think I can meet you there. Because there was something this year where Trump's poll numbers were going down. And apparently a lot of times there was some parallel with what was going on in the war and cost of living and inflation and everything like that. So I could totally see my way to thinking people care about corruption more if they think Trump is not serving them.


But if he's serving them, they care about it less — or they care about at least the self-dealing piece less. Okay. Let me ask you this, just to be clear. If you had been asked the exit poll question, to what degree does government corruption factor in your vote for Congress, would you say not at all? Would you say some? Where would you have been?


Travis:

It's funny. If I was to answer the question, it definitely matters to me. So I probably would answer it yes. Do I think that the people that answered that question — well, no, this is the thing.


Mónica:

Okay. Was it a major factor or a crucial factor?


Travis:

I think corruption — so, the Congress not holding the executive branch accountable is a huge problem. I think people like me think the system is broken. I think Mike Johnson and the leadership in Congress — the former leadership in Congress — are, I use the word feckless, and maybe that's too strong. But I just think that they don't do their jobs. And so I would say that that's a factor for me. But on the corruption issue, it's like, what are you replacing them with? I don't think we just sent a bunch of angels to Congress to replace them. They're also going to be corrupt. I don't think we solved the problem. Yes, it's a big deal to me, but —


[00:25:00]


Mónica:

Yeah. Yeah. So let's go up a couple levels.


Yes, because I think this is one of those where you and I have talked about this several, several, several times, where we get into these kinds of themes, and I'm gonna try to explain what I hear from you on this. I hear from you a sense that politicians have always, by their nature, been self-dealing and corrupt. And if Trump makes it more obvious and visible, that's all that is. But they've all been corrupt. And so, Travis, you believe that the answer is mostly to reduce the influence of federal government apparatuses and things like this, and to put checks on their power in certain ways. But otherwise, let's not be surprised and let's not really worry about it. Now, I cannot meet you at that. You need to know, like, that sounds absurd to me. Was it — okay —


Travis:

Okay. Well, that was a fair characterization of my perspective. Yes.


Mónica:

So at least we're there. So I think that's the theme that's being pulled into this thread, right? Where, for me — and I guess this is through my experience and lots of things in my own life — I believe that if you're going to be a public servant, you're gonna be an elected official, then you are a public servant.


And it is really important that you are not set up — conditioned in the ways your businesses are set up or your relationships are set up — to begin to undermine that public service. For me, it throws into huge doubt that you are working for the country or the community that you're serving when you are profiting from the office.


I no longer believe it. Because if you start letting politicians profit from the office, and there's no ethical boundaries there that you worry about, then what's to stop people from running for office in order to get rich? Trump reported over two point two billion dollars in revenue in 2025. One point four billion from his crypto businesses, which, again, conflict of interests all over the place. And to me, ethical public servants have come out and been responsible and said, I'm not gonna trade in stocks, or I'm not gonna do these things when I have a vested stake in it, because that questions my integrity. So I guess ultimately I'm like, how is it possible, Travis, that you don't see it that way?


Travis:

Well, I think there's a distinction. Some things that appear to be self-dealing are self-dealing, and some things that appear to be self-dealing are not. So it depends on what you think the role of government should be, and I think that you and I have a difference of opinion on this. I think if you think the role of government is to be doing things for the people, then there's —


Mónica:

That'd be great.


Travis:

— a lot of self-dealing possibilities there. It's like, okay, if you have some type of stipend or some type of program that pumps a bunch of money into daycare facilities or whatever, and then you happen to own daycare facilities, well, that's straight up self-dealing from my perspective, right? And if you vote for that —


Mónica:

Mm-hmm. Okay.


Travis:

But my belief is that the role of government is to protect our natural rights, period, full stop, and they shouldn't be doing anything in a positive direction. They should not be taking money through taxation and then giving it to any specific program. And so in that regard, their role is literally just to get out of the way of the free market. And I think it's because of where we've gotten in terms of the tangling of our economy — with the amount of regulations and how much is dependent on and tied into what the government does — removing regulations looks like self-dealing when it's a moral good, in my mind, in almost all scenarios.


Mónica:

Mm. So you kind of have, like, an economic-health-first way of looking at it. You care deeply about those markets operating with a kind of purity.


Travis:

Well, in my mind, that's the only way that's fair. I think that we got to the place we are because there's this idea that the free market creates inequity and unfairness. And I think sometimes you have really big companies that try to throw their weight around, and they do infringe on the property rights of the smaller players in the space, and so the government comes in to try to fix that. And that's where these regulations come from, primarily. But really what it creates is an environment where the big guys, or the Trumps or whoever, can then use the power of the government to self-deal. And so I'd like to see it just all taken away.


I think Elon Musk is a great example, where a lot of his businesses have benefited from utilizing government power to get out of his way, not to give him money. And people conflate those two things. They think it's self-dealing on both sides. Does that make sense? I'm sorry, I kind of went off on a tangent there.


[00:30:00]


Mónica:

Okay. Well, you know that wonky economics is not my strong suit. On a surface level, I think I understand some of that. I would probably need to spend more time with you hearing about it to really, really grok it. But I'd love to push you to comment on what I was saying about the integrity of an office, and having norms that help ensure that people are not profiting from their public service. Why couldn't both things be true? I understand you have an ideal vision. I think we're pretty far from that ideal vision of government right now. And I think we need to operate in the reality we're in. And the more proximate set of issues is human psychology. People like to chase money. They like to chase power. They like to enrich themselves. We know this president has no scruples whatsoever. He doesn't care what other people think. You know, he just doesn't care.


So he has enriched himself, and he's doing some stuff that's extremely shady, and lots of folks on both sides do not like. So what about that? Can you comment on that?


Travis:

I may not answer this directly, but I'm gonna try my best. My belief is that profit is a moral good when gained fairly. So it matters how that profit is attained. So you're saying somebody is seeking profit. I don't think we should limit our politicians from seeking profit, because if we do that, then we limit them from maximizing the moral good that can happen.


Mónica:

Hmm, interesting.


Travis:

I think it's when they use their power to create an unfair advantage for themselves or their families — that's the problem.


Mónica:

For themselves. Well, let's pause and look at crypto, because Trump and his administration are hugely influential in regulating crypto. And Trump himself is a big player in that industry. And not just him, but his family. They're making bank on an industry that they're regulating. How is that not exactly what you just named? The dynamic you just named.


Travis:

Well, I would argue it's actually — and it might be too much in the weeds to talk about it — but there's two primary things that Trump is involved with in crypto. There's the Trump coin and the Melania coin and things like that. And those are like trading cards. What the executive branch is doing in terms of regulating that is making sure that you can't lie.


I really think that that's all that needs to be done. And I don't think that there's any corruption there. He's selling his brand. People are buying his brand, and they are losing money for it occasionally, but it's entirely speculative. I don't actually think there's any problem there. I mean, the issue is if you're creating a regulation that gave a Trump-owned business a specific advantage over an equivalent business. Like, if he launched a coin and he wanted to then use that coin to underpin the US currency, and so he gave his company a hundred billion dollars in a budget — that would be an issue.


Mónica:

Okay. Well, let me stop you there. Do you trust him not to have done that?


Travis:

I know that he hasn't done that with regards to crypto.


Mónica:

How do you know?


Travis:

Because all they've done with regards to crypto regulation is create rules of the road, so that crypto businesses understand how to operate. And it's the same rules for everybody. Well, I will say this —


Mónica:

That's a lot of trust. 'Cause remember that this is a Congress that is not checking his power, right? Who has been strong enough to even take a look and investigate, right? Aren't you at least curious? 'Cause he's not somebody I trust to behave in these ways at all.


Travis:

Well, I could say there's two things. There could be corruption, in that he's not following the law and the Justice Department is not holding him accountable. And I don't know if that's the case. But my point is —


[00:35:00]


Mónica:

Yeah, and let's remember the Justice Department has become an enforcement arm for his grudges. So yeah, without an independent Justice Department, which I don't think we've had, it's really, really hard to trust that the president is being reined in at all.


Travis:

Listen, I don't disagree with that aspect of it, but we know what the laws are. The laws are the same for everybody, and he's operating within those, and they don't disproportionately benefit the Trump Organization in any way.


Mónica:

But again, where — how do you know?


Travis:

The only differential is that Trump is selling his brand on top of all of that. So he's convincing people to go and buy Trump coin or Melania coin because — you know, people believe that there's some speculative value to it because it has his name on it. That is shady, but it's not illegal, and I don't think it should be illegal. People should be able to spend their money how they want to spend it.


Mónica:

I can meet you on something about that — about, you know, selling your brand should be legal, that it should be okay to continue to have a business while you're in public office. Of course, of course, of course. But what I'm learning as we kind of butt heads here is that maybe part of the disagreement here is something about trust. Because I've heard you so often be so suspicious of people in power — that they're probably misbehaving — and yet here you seem to be saying, eh.


And I'm scratching my head, going, really? And even —


Travis:

Well, I don't —


Mónica:

Even you said that Congress is not very powerful and should be more powerful. So with weakened checks on the president, how can you be so sure? You know? And again, he made a deal with his own Justice Department to get immunity on tax scrutiny for him and his family. What in the blazes? How is that not an unfair advantage?


Travis:

Well, I mean, you could argue that that's the type of deal that anybody could make, you know? And maybe they're more likely to agree to it because — well —


Mónica:

I'm pretty sure it's just the president. I don't think so.


Travis:

I mean, yeah, I'm not trying to — I think we agree with regards to the morality of some of these things. It's more the specifics, or the logistics, of how it's implemented. I don't think people should be utilizing state power to create unfair economic advantages for themselves. But I think that there is —


Mónica:

Absolutely. We can agree on that.


Travis:

— like, when you frame the question, you point at it as, Trump has made one point four billion dollars on crypto. Making money is not a crime.


Mónica:

That's true.


Travis:

I don't see where the specific crime is, just with regards to crypto, you know?


Mónica:

Yes.


Travis:

And there's another nuance.


Mónica:

That's fair.


Travis:

Eric Trump also runs a Bitcoin mining business. I think Bitcoin mining is a really moral good. It's a good business, solid. There's no speculation. There's a lot of equivalent businesses. There aren't crazy margins. It's just good American business. Just because he owns that business and they make money off of it, and the administration is making rules for how that business operates, doesn't mean that there's corruption.


Mónica:

Well, I get your point that we can't assume guilt and crime if there's not actual evidence of guilt and crime. I think that's right. I think the other thing that I'm probably conflating is the difference between norms and laws. I think that when it comes to ethical behavior, there are norms. And those norms help safeguard trust. And Trump has trampled all over those norms. Am I to understand that you're kind of not that concerned about norms?


Travis:

Well, I think the norms need to be shifted. I think the norms are problematic. 'Cause you've had corruption for basically every president since the beginning of this country. And most certainly —


Mónica:

Is that true? I don't know if I can meet you there.


Travis:

With very few exceptions, I would say there's been self-dealing to some degree. I don't think anybody was just the hero, the way that we see them in stories, to come up and just put everything to the side and —


Mónica:

Sure. Does degree matter?


Travis:

— try to make the world a better place.


Mónica:

Because I would make the very strong case that in my lifetime there have been no more extreme examples of self-dealing in one president than Donald Trump. Would you say that that doesn't matter? That it's like a binary — all self-dealing is the same? Or would you say that the degree matters, that he's taken it farther than others?


[00:40:00]


Travis:

So I mean, we'll have this conversation for the rest of our lives, I think.


Mónica:

Yeah, fair.


Travis:

I think that degree certainly matters. Two million dollars stolen is worse than one million dollars stolen. However, I don't think that we have good visibility into the corruption that's occurred over the past fifty, seventy years, because you have a media that is complicit with the people that are corrupt.


Mónica:

And that's another theme that we've talked about a lot. Yeah.


Travis:

The big difference between Trump and all of those other people is that he's positioned himself as the enemy of the media. And so they are ready and rearing to call out his corruption. Whereas, I think a lot of people —


Mónica:

And I'm grateful, because at least they're checking up on him when Congress, whose job it is, is not.


Travis:

Yeah, I mean, you can have that gratitude, but it'll die with Trump. It's not as if the scrutiny over —


Mónica:

What will die with Trump? The scrutiny?


Travis:

— the corruption of the executive branch. As soon as —


Mónica:

Right, right. Yeah, I know that you see it that way. That makes sense.


Travis:

I mean, as soon as there's somebody that hasn't positioned themselves as the enemy, and starts to play ball with them, they'll stop looking.


Mónica:

Yeah, yeah. And you know what? Yeah.


Travis:

And so I don't think there's been a renaissance of journalistic integrity over the past —


Mónica:

No. But again, I think that journalists have unfortunately carried a higher share of the burden of checking for accountability and misbehavior than they should. And out of necessity, and while suffering the pressure of being called the enemy of the people by our president. But I agree with you that absolutely they did go lighter on Obama, because a lot of journalists are liberal and they like —


I think that's true and I think that's wrong. So, okay, wow, we managed to touch, like, every single thing that you and I disagree on on a large scale in that one topic. Shall we move on?


Travis:

Yeah, yeah. Let me tell you about what frustrates me about, quote unquote, my own side. And I think what might illuminate itself is that my own side is a little bit blurrier than it might seem sometimes.


Mónica:

Yeah.


Travis:

But what frustrates me is that, similarly to how the Democrats I think are going to interpret their win as a mandate, I think that the Republicans are going to interpret their loss as a rejection of MAGA by the American people. And when I say MAGA, I'm using that as a summary term, which is not very accurate, but I'd say it's more like the fringe coalition that Trump built to get elected in the first place. So it's not just MAGA, but it's a lot of the libertarian stuff. It's a lot of the —


Mónica:

Yeah, and I remember, just to clarify for folks — I think I remember you explaining it to me as sort of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Junior and Trump, they actually come from so many different parts of the right that it's kind of crazy that they ended up working together, right? Is that a way to begin to characterize that promise?


Travis:

It is a good way of characterizing that, except the two examples you gave didn't even come from the right, you know? They came from the left. RFK, yeah.


Mónica:

Well, which is even more of, I guess, an illustration that he can reach, you know. Anyway.


Travis:

And so, yeah, that coalition — I think he ran on a lot of things that he just did not do. And I think Vice President Vance summarized it relatively well. He made a post yesterday that was kind of a post-mortem, which apparently the administration was not a fan of him posting. But he said the four things that people have an issue with — they said in the — what do you call those polls that they take when they come out?


Mónica:

Exit polls, yeah.


Travis:

Exit polls. They wanted to end the war, focus on the cost of living and inflation, put America first, and change our relationship with Israel. I could not agree more with those four things. I think they're a little redundant. Putting America first is really what all of those things mean. And I guess what's frustrating to me is that I see a lot of people, the pro-war folks on the Republican side, that are just going, yeah, all that MAGA stuff was bad, and it was really vitriolic, and people just wanna go back to the center of the road, where we bomb Middle Eastern countries with impunity.


Mónica:

Interesting. Yeah, yeah.


Travis:

I think that that's the wrong takeaway. And it frustrates me that I can see it going in that direction, unless there's some really strong leadership on the quote unquote America First side that pulls the conversation back in the other direction.


Mónica:

Well, does it give you some comfort that the vice president is the person saying this?


[00:45:00]


Travis:

I have some optimism, you know.


Mónica:

He's gotta be the two or three most powerful Republican in the country, right?


Travis:

I have some optimism, but I always have skepticism about the vice president, just because he has taken the approach of not criticizing Trump at all, up until this point, which was —


Mónica:

Until that post, I guess. 'Cause that was big.


Travis:

Still soft. It was not a criticism of Trump, you know.


Mónica:

He didn't mention him.


Travis:

I think what a lot of people would hope that he'd said is that Trump betrayed his voters. And he said it in so many words, but I think we need to start having a more explicit conversation about how that's the case. And so, yeah, I'm optimistic, but maybe he's just being opportunistic. I don't know. So —


Mónica:

Yeah, it's hard to tell. I think it's really interesting how "put America first" on that list of four things sort of encompasses the others. And MAGA stands for Make America Great Again. It was understood, in sort of its most generous way, as just take care of Americans. Take care of the people. Let's do that. And so I find that compelling, I suppose. Right, so — hold on, let me gather my thoughts for a second.


Travis:

Well, I guess, do you see that happening? Do you agree that that's a —


Mónica:

It's a repudiation of all of MAGA. Here's why I'm not — yeah. Yeah.


Travis:

Yeah, I mean, I've seen that actually from a couple folks that we both know, and I've seen it from some people that — like the people who supported Nikki Haley. It's like they're coming out now and they're like, we should have gone with Nikki Haley. And it's like, that's not the lesson to take away from this.


Mónica:

Wow, interesting. Yeah, you are far more privy, obviously, to the conversation on the right than I am. I'm learning from you in this conversation.


Travis:

Mm-hmm. Okay.


Mónica:

But what I've seen is a pretty clear signal that at least number one and number two are really important after the midterms — ending the war and focusing on cost of living and inflation. Trump went from — whether it was on election night or the next morning — he said, you know, it wasn't because of the war, it was because of me. I wasn't on the ballot. But then later, and I don't remember if it was after Vance's post, he said, yeah, the war had something to do with it. The war had something to do with the loss. So if the president is acknowledging that the war was a big part — and the polls and a bunch of data, I think it's very clear, show the cost of living and inflation and the lack of focus on that, policy-wise, was a big part — then I guess I would say, what's left for you to be afraid is being diminished when people say this is a repudiation of MAGA? Because I think those things are being heard, from where I sit. But again, you're looking at the right.


Travis:

Well, have you ever heard the term "limited hangout"? And it's not a perfect —


Mónica:

No.


Travis:

So it's something that the CIA uses, where they give you a little bit to satiate you —


Mónica:

Yeah.


Travis:

— so then you stop asking questions. And I think it's probably more of that. I'll believe it when I see Susie Wiles out of the administration. I'll believe it when I see Marco Rubio resigning. You know, I'll believe it when I see Pete Hegseth —


Mónica:

Wow, yeah. Okay.


Travis:

— it looks like they're gonna impeach him. So, you know —


Mónica:

Are you one of the folks who would want Pete Hegseth impeached, I can imagine?


Travis:

I haven't been paying too much attention to the specifics of Pete Hegseth, but I do think that the Secretary of War, in a time of war, executing a poor war, should probably be impeached, or asked to resign by the president. I just think the American people have voted against everything that's been done on that side.


Mónica:

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, by the way, the reporting is that Trump is talking to advisors about Pete Hegseth. He's saying publicly he's doing a great job. But it sounds like behind the scenes there's something else going on. And that's happened a lot with Trump, where he'll publicly support somebody and the next day they're out. So again, I guess I'm seeing evidence that the issues that you care about most are being heard. But okay, you're talking about limited hangout. You're just not so sure. Okay.


Travis:

Well, yeah. I just don't know how you end the war without changing our relationship with Israel. And I think that that's a primary thing that's not gonna go away. We've talked about that before.


Mónica:

We have.


Travis:

I have not seen any willingness from the administration — and Vance throws this as number four on his list, but even from Vance, I haven't really seen — I mean, he's been critical of Netanyahu, but always measured. I don't know how we get to America First and end the war without fundamentally changing our relationship with Israel, and I'm not optimistic about that.


Mónica:

So I wanted to check. On election day, Trump said that the US will cut off about four billion dollars in annual military aid to Israel. Did you hear about that? 'Cause for that to have come out on election day seems like a step in the direction you're taking.


[00:50:00]


Travis:

It seems like him telling voters what they want to hear, so that they vote his way, so that they stop asking questions. They've been talking about this for years, and Netanyahu in particular is pushing for it, because they don't need the money anymore. That's not the issue. They get so much more support, and they can't wage this war against Iran without American involvement. And so it's not really about the four million dollars or whatever we send them for the Golden Dome. It's much more about the overall diplomatic cover that we provide to them to wage the war in whatever way they want to wage the war.


Mónica:

So it sounds like you're overall afraid that basically it's gonna be more of the same. That the war's gonna extend, the relationship with Israel's not gonna change at all, and with the focus on cost of living and inflation, people are gonna pay lip service to that but not actually do it. I mean, obviously things are gonna change in the next two years, 'cause now Congress and the White House are not gonna be on the same team, so there's gonna be gridlock in other ways. Yeah, I don't know. I guess —


Travis:

But the only people who want to spend more money than the Republicans are the Democrats. So I don't see —


Mónica:

Yes, you do always say that. You do always say that.


Travis:

It's been quite a while since the Democratic Party was one of balancing the budget, and I don't even think it's in the conversation anymore. It's, how can we do more programs, more policies that give more money to special interests, or —


Mónica:

Gosh. Well, I really hope we've learned, right? Because I think — whatever you want to call it, populism, MAGA, and all whatever — I think there's just been a pretty robust conversation about government waste and spending. I don't know. My hope is that Democrats don't get reckless. But obviously whoever's got power gets to do what they want to do. But they don't have that much power. Trump has the veto pen.


Travis:

Well, I'd say the really positive takeaway I have — and I don't know where it lands in the Senate — but I think they have enough of a majority in the House that they don't have to be beholden to the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA folks that were elected. Because I think that's where you're gonna get a lot of really, really negative policies, personally. And I'm hopeful that there's enough centrist Democrats in to not make the Democratic platform entirely socialist.


Mónica:

Yeah. And let me say something to that. I guess, from the left, from my position to the left, knowing that you're way over on the right, I would just kind of toss to you that what I'm seeing is the right totally overstate the influence of democratic socialists on the Democratic Party. I think they're doing it partly because it's red meat, right? When media plays on people's fears, you get more clicks. On Wednesday morning, right after the election, I went to FoxNews.com, and their giant banner story was, meet the radical socialists who are gonna, you know, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, what? I wish I had this in front of me. I don't, but I remember reading something that said that of all the people, for example, that were voted into the House, it's not like a flood of democratic socialists. That's a very, very small percentage of the people who came in. Mostly it's moderates.


We saw a lot of moderates. Not only that, Travis — here's the other thing that I hope can kind of assuage any fears you have about that — now we have Democrats from Texas and Kansas. They're not gonna come in as progressive rabble-rousers. They're trying to be in Texas and Kansas. You know what I mean? So the Democratic Party is going to have to become more moderate. I don't see another way.


Travis:

Maybe. You know, hopefully you're right. But I guess what I'll say is, it all depends on where you're standing. Socialism is relative, you know? And so from my perspective, the moderate politician, Democrat or Republican, is a socialist. And I think that, you know, it's the moderate —


Mónica:

Wait, can you say that again? The moderate — how did I miss —


Travis:

The moderate Democrat or the moderate Republican politician, and probably voter as well, is —


Mónica:

Is a social—


Travis:

— totally in support of socialist policies. And they might say that they're not, but if you break it down — and you and I have done this before, where we talk about, okay, well, I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist, and then we talk about specific issues — there are times where you're in support of socialist policies, like welfare, for example, or Social Security. Those are socialist policies. That's socialism.


Mónica:

I see. Okay. Right. 'Cause you come from a pretty, like, purebred financial, market-freedom libertarian thing that we've talked about a lot. Right, right, right. Okay. I'm seeing ya. Yeah.


Travis:

And so from my perspective — and maybe most of the Republican electorate is not as concerned as I am — but from my perspective, even shifting it a little bit, where now you have maybe five or ten percent of the Democratic Party, which has a majority, that is going to be floating socialist ideas through — they're gonna be on committees, they're gonna be —


[00:55:00]


Mónica:

You're worried. Yeah. Yeah.


Travis:

— it's moving an already too-far-socialist government even further to the left.


Mónica:

Okay.


Travis:

What worries me about that is that, from my perspective, people are voting to take away my rights. And we've had this conversation a little bit before, the difference between —


Mónica:

We have, yeah. And we don't have time to get too deep into it, because I'm looking at the clock —


Travis:

Okay.


Mónica:

— and I'm realizing, my god, we have to get into the last topic. But we have had that conversation before, and I'm grateful to hear you say that, because it helps me understand why you would still be very concerned. For you, it sounds like it's more about socialist ideas than it is about the label "democratic socialist" coming on a politician that just got elected.


Travis:

For sure.


Mónica:

Yeah, yeah. Okay. But sorry to rush you past. I think this one could be pretty short, but this is a topic that delighted me about the other side. And maybe, given what we've talked about in the past, you probably could have predicted this. I was so relieved when at about 7:30 p.m. Pacific — maybe a little bit after that, actually — on election night, there was a headline that appeared in the New York Times.


And the headline basically said, Trump says he will accept the results of this election. And I just — I can feel it now. Literally. I was telling you before we recorded that I've been having back pain.


Travis:

Mm.


Mónica:

It just deflated me instantly. And it was so great. And it felt so good. And I clicked on the story. I was like, really? Wait, for real? Already? We know this already? That there's not gonna be this kind of muck and awful? Really? And I read the story, I'm like, my God. My god.


And then it spread all over media. You know, the New York Times reports they talked to Trump, because they did. Reporters Erica Green and Tyler Pager got on the phone with him, 'cause sometimes you can just call him if you're a reporter and talk to him. And they had decided before getting on the phone with him, what are the questions we need? And the number one question was, we have to know if he's gonna accept these results. And when they heard that, they immediately wrote the story, just a very short story, and then later added detail. But they knew they had to get that out.


Because there is nothing more concerning, especially if you're on the left in this country, than that. But even folks on the right, you know — trustworthy elections. It's been a thing I keep bringing up. I know you and I disagree on the degree of concern about the 2020 election and all of that, I know. But there was just nothing that could make me happier than realizing that that was not going to be a problem. That even though the Republicans lost, and lost by a lot — as far as I can tell, none of them are saying it's fraud, it's cheating. None of them are. My god. So it feels like we've just come through something. Something that broke might have just gotten repaired. And you're going, eh. I so wanna know what you think, but I also want to be like, Travis, no, can we just — ugh.


Travis:

Oh, I don't know if we've broken through anything. In my opinion, at least, there's two major factors that are going into this. One — I don't think that Trump cares if there's Democrats in charge of Congress or if there's Republicans, because there's so much overlap between his policies and how he governs and the priorities of the Democrats.


Mónica:

There's so much overlap between how he governs and the priorities of a Democrat?


Travis:

Yeah. It's probably gonna be shocking to people. I think Trump is a very socialist president.


Mónica:

Whoa. Is that why he gets along with Zohran Mamdani? Say more. Fascinating.


Travis:

I don't think he's morally against that, or thinks there's any principles against that. So I think he feels like he can probably get things done with Democrats or Republicans. I think that where it matters, they're not gonna put any pressure on him to stop the war. I think that's the priority.


Mónica:

Wait, wait. The Democrats are not gonna put pressure on him to stop the war?


Travis:

I don't think so. And if I'm wrong, then, you know, my bad. But I don't think they will, and I think that that's the number one priority for the administration.


[01:00:00]


Mónica:

But are you on your way to saying that if he cared more about the result, he would fight it?


Travis:

Yeah, probably. Or at least call it into question. I just don't think that we've had some breakthrough with regards to that. I think calling into question elections is not over, for sure.


Mónica:

Interesting.


Travis:

Sorry, I mean, that's my opinion. I don't mean to burst your bubble here, but I do —


Mónica:

No. I mean, okay. Well, now I'll remember to be afraid in 2028. But it won't be him on the ballot, it'll be another Republican. Maybe it's just when he's on the ballot. I don't know. But the way I had read it before is that this is not a man who knows how to lose with honor. That's how I read it. And maybe that was a wrong reading.


Travis:

Well, the other piece that I'll say — and I really feel obligated to say this — is that I do feel like part of the relief — and I wish I could use better words here — is a little bit of media-induced delusion. I was never concerned about it. I always thought he was gonna accept —


Mónica:

About him not accepting the results of this election?


Travis:

At the end of the day, there was not gonna be a civil war over this election. Maybe he would have called out specific elections if there were voting integrity issues, and maybe that would have been interpreted as calling into question the election. But I was never genuinely concerned. I was never concerned at all, actually. It never even entered my mind that we wouldn't be getting past this and moving on.


Mónica:

Really? Even with all the moves he was making, you know, to have the federal government get voter rolls from the states to check eligibility, and start to meddle in a process that belongs to the fifty states? And he's been trying to meddle in mail-in voting and calling that into question, even though he voted by mail. It was a lot of moves. It was a lot of moves.


Travis:

Yeah. All of those things — it matters where you're starting from, right? And from my perspective, those were problems with the voting system, the system that we have. What does it look like to you to clean up a broken system, other than to call into question the integrity of that system in the first place?


Mónica:

That's a great point.


Travis:

And so that's my perspective, is that they were —


Mónica:

That's a great point.


Travis:

— trying to make it cleaner, so that people could trust them more. And that can be interpreted the other way.


Mónica:

Yeah. That's a good point. And yet, if you spent so much energy saying that an election was stolen when it wasn't, you're not gonna be the best leader of that process. You know what I mean? People are not gonna trust you to do that with integrity at all. They're gonna think, as just about everybody on the left, it seems like, thought, that you're trying to stack the deck. So he lost a lot of credibility.


Travis:

We'll have to have a conversation sometime.


Mónica:

You know, with me.


Travis:

We'll have to dig into whether or not that statement you made is unquestionably true. Because I think that there's a big question in a lot of people's minds, including my mind, whether or not that was a rightful questioning of the election process. Maybe it wasn't the exact things he was calling into question, but there are lots of problems with that election. I wouldn't say that it was an unquestionable situation. So —


Mónica:

Hmm. Yes, and we have brought that up before. And I don't know, maybe we need a special episode where we just dig into some of these things that keep coming up, that we kinda can't dig that deep into in these conversations. But maybe someday we really should. And maybe that would be really interesting. Okay, well, we've done it. We've gotten through our four topics. And as usual, Travis, this was really illuminating. Gives me a lot to think about. So we're gonna reflect a little bit and come back later for a debrief, which listeners are gonna hear immediately. But there's gonna be a little break for us. So thank you. Thank you, Travis, for doing this. This is great.


Travis:

Thank you. Looking forward to catching up later.


Mónica:

All right.


Well, Travis, we are back. It's been a few hours since we recorded, and we've had a little time to process and reflect. So we're gonna go to our first question. What's something you feel you understand better about the other person's perspective now, after today's conversation? So you wanna kick us off?


Travis:

Yeah. I was kind of, I guess, delighted to hear — and I don't know if I'm gonna say surprised, 'cause I'm not sure that that's fair — but just delighted to hear that you had a similar takeaway to me as to what the results of this election mean regarding the mandate for the current government. I didn't know what you thought at all about the subject going into it. That was certainly something that I took away — that if maybe we hadn't had the conversation, I would have maybe made a false assumption about how you felt about it. So —


[01:05:00]


Mónica:

And what would you have assumed?


Travis:

Maybe, you know, probably just more that you were excited about the potential of what this meant for particular legislation that you were excited about, or moving things forward in a direction that you think the country should go in. More focused on what can we get done now, and using that as evidence for why we should be doing that, you know?


You obviously can be excited about things that we can get done and all that stuff. And that's probably still the case. But it was just very nice and refreshing to hear, and I'm really glad that we had the conversation, so I could hear directly from you that you're not putting too much weight on it, I guess.


Mónica:

Yeah, yeah. And it's probably the nature of the work that I do. I care so much about the health of our overall system. And so I'm more excited about the possibilities there, and hoping that the party temptations don't outweigh that. So that's probably where it begins. But we could certainly someday have a conversation that's more about the things I'm excited about from a partisan place, which we will, I'm sure. All right, cool.


The thing that I felt I understood better about your perspective is you put such a high value on profit and generating revenue and generating money and value and wealth in our economy. And you look at it as private property, right? That is sacredly yours if you earned it. And I think in our discussion about corruption, the thing that I brought to the table, I just kept hearing that theme. That maybe it's not so much that, as I was reading it, Travis doesn't care about corruption, so much as he just holds such high regard for people's ability to make money. And he wants that really, really protected. It should be a big deal to put a cage around that. Is that fair? That's how I read it.


Travis:

Yeah, I would say that that's fair, but just to maybe soften it a little bit: the reason why I feel that way is because I think that that is how we alleviate the most suffering in the world.


Mónica:

Mm.


Travis:

It's really important to me because I see the connection between that and creating a prosperous world for my children, or for everybody's children. And so I think we can get wrapped up in it being about money. And people think that's kinda gross, like money's at the root of all evil and all of that. But I think the reason why that's the case is really something tied to humanity, and what's best for the largest amount of people, to bring people out of poverty.


Mónica:

Hmm. Yeah, interesting. So I feel like I understand your philosophy. Every time we talk, it feels like we hit those notes, and I just hear them a little bit more clearly every time. So that definitely happened today.


Okay, well, the second reflection question for this debrief: Are there any new questions, insights, or concerns that surfaced after the conversation, whether with regard to the subject matter or to the way the conversation went? Do you want to kick this one off as well?


Travis:

Yeah. And so it's actually related to what we just talked about in the first one. I realized coming out of the conversation that I don't actually know what you're excited about. You've got — maybe I'm making a little bit of an assumption — but you've got a government that looks a lot more like you would like it to. What would you like to see them do? Maybe the top one or two things.


Mónica:

Oh, what a great question. Oh man, what a great question.


I'm really excited about a stronger Congress that has to build more coalitions. I'm genuinely really excited to see Democratic politicians showing up in red places, because I think that's good for the kind of viewpoint diversity, and having to wrestle with different views, and introducing some complexity. And I know that's not a wonky answer. That's not an issue that I've just plucked out of somewhere.


But I think one of the things that most excited me about the results was the extent to which this might be a repudiation of a certain style of politics that people on both sides are really tired of. So I just can't right now think of a particular policy that I'm excited to get across. All of them, all of them. Everything that feels like it's just not moving forward. More responsible stuff on immigration, please, for the love of all that is holy. Cost of living.


Can we actually focus on that? Can we please focus on that? Health insurance, groceries — it's insane how much things are costing. Just plane tickets. I've heard from friends who are telling me that they can't go visit their families because the plane tickets are too expensive this year. It's crazy. So I want my government to just actually work on stuff that affects me and my friends and our neighbors and the whole country. And I think that there's some low-hanging fruit there that to me feels more important than anything explicitly partisan that I might be excited about.


And so that's what I'm excited about the most.


[01:10:00]


Travis:

Interesting. Yeah. I haven't put too much thought into what it would mean for our government and its function, and our ability to make real progress, to have — in either direction — blue representatives from historically or overwhelmingly red places, or the alternative. I think you're hitting on something there, where I think they'd probably be more accountable to the voter there, because it's more tenuous.


Mónica:

Absolutely.


Travis:

I think the worst type of politician is the deep red and the deep blue, where it just doesn't matter what they do —


Mónica:

Exactly.


Travis:

— they're gonna get reelected. And so, yeah, it'd be interesting. Something to look forward to, at least, to see how that dynamic plays out.


Mónica:

Yeah. I live in Washington State, and, like, nobody cared what happened here in the election. You know what I mean? It was all very predictable.


Travis:

Yeah.


Mónica:

And when it's too blue or too red, stuff gets very entrenched, and it can really miss out on a lot of the nuance in the community. So I'm excited to see about that.


Okay, the thing that I wanted to ask you — I was really fascinated by your second topic, where you said, if I remember correctly, that you're concerned basically that the baby's gonna be thrown out with the bathwater. That Republicans will see the election as a repudiation of MAGA. And what I heard you basically talking about was, MAGA represents some things that are really good and really meaningful to you, including, you know, kind of America First principles and some other things. And so you don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. And I guess, overall, what I want to ask you is, what parts of MAGA, and what MAGA means to you, do you want people in this broader landscape — including folks who are not MAGA or even kinda hate MAGA — to see differently than they currently do? 'Cause it's had a bad rap for a lot of people, right, who aren't MAGA or who aren't on the right. What are people misunderstanding?


Travis:

That's a really good question. I would say, before I answer that question, I'm not necessarily concerned that they're gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater unintentionally, but that the whole plan was to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Mónica:

I see.


Travis:

They're trying to throw the baby out, so they're like, I guess we have to get rid of this bathwater also.


Mónica:

Okay. So you're worried about a certain kind of — I don't know how you would label it, but establishment Republican or something — who's been waiting for a chance to get rid of some parts of a movement that you value.


Travis:

Yeah, not just Republican, but more like the establishment, or — I would call it globalist. Like people that have a certain perspective on what government looks like moving forward, in the future. So anyways, I would say that that's an important distinction to make.


The things that I'm most interested in: I'm not an isolationist, but I really think that it's important that we pull back from our adventurism in the Middle East and anywhere else in the world. I would like to see a reindustrialization of America. I think that that's important for security reasons, but it's also important because it creates a more robust middle class, and a country that I want to live in. And I think there's been some really bad dynamics from shipping all of the manufacturing jobs overseas, and creating this wealth disparity of kind of a top one to five percent that has really great jobs, or a lot of money, because they're getting low-cost products manufactured all over the world, with, again, a million different financial — it's not as straightforward as that, is all I'm trying to say. It's very messy.


And so I think those are the two things that are the most important to me. I'd like to see an end to the unnecessary wars — which I would classify almost every war America has ever fought after the Civil War as. And yeah —


[01:15:00]


Mónica:

Hmm. Wow. That could be a separate disagreement another day, but yes.


Travis:

And yeah, so I think those things can get lost if we say, like, enough of MAGA, we wanna throw all that stuff out. Yeah.


Mónica:

Yeah, yeah. So somehow to make a distinction between some things worth preserving and learning from, and, you know, maybe some things that could sunset, at least in my opinion, about what the MAGA brand has meant. But not everything. That's interesting.


Travis:

And there's more than that, you know. It may take me a while to actually unpack that whole question, because it's more complicated than those two issues. They're two big ones, though, for sure.


Mónica:

Yeah, I agree. But it leaves me with a sense of taking my own medicine. I often train and talk to folks about making sure that you don't flatten something or just believe stereotypes. And so, MAGA — what does that even mean? And when people talk about it, what does it mean? What do they mean when they say it? I think that'll be important, so that we don't end up talking past each other as we try to figure out how to move forward. Okay. Well, Travis, thank you so much. As always, this was fun.


Travis:

Thank you, Mónica. Great to see you.


Mónica:

All right. You too.


Travis:

Bye.


Mónica:

A Braver Way is produced by Reclaim Curiosity and distributed in partnership with Braver Angels, KUOW, and Deseret News. Our theme music is by the fantastic number one Billboard bluegrass-charting hip-hop band, Gangstagrass. You can subscribe to A Braver Way on YouTube and follow us on your favorite podcast app. Wanna chat? You can join our listener text line by texting the word BRAVE to 206-926-9955, or email us anytime with anything at abraverway@reclaimcuriosity.com. I'm your host and guide across the divide, Mónica Guzmán. Take heart, everyone. Till next time.


 
 

CONTACT

Want to drop me a note?
Fill out this quick little form and I'll get back to you ASAP.

Interested in booking me for a speaking engagement?
Fill out this form instead.

WANT TO INTERVIEW ME for your podcast or media outlet? THERE'S A FORM FOR THAT, TOO!

  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

Thanks for submitting!

Website by jasmine barta

bottom of page