Amna Nawaz:
Now, to unpack this week’s midterm primary results, President Trump’s lashing out at key allies and more, we turn to Brooks and Capehart. That’s “The Atlantic”‘s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.
Great to see you both.
Jonathan Capehart:
Hey, Amna.
David Brooks:
Good to see you.
Amna Nawaz:
Let’s go to Florida first, the Democratic Senate primary. That’s where we saw the Democratic Socialist candidate Angie Nixon beat the former Army intelligence officer Alexander Vindman.
Folks will remember Vindman as a key player in President Trump’s first impeachment trial. He was a witness. He was a whistle-blower serving on the National Security Council at the time. Jonathan, Democratic voters say again and again they want a fighter. The candidate who literally stood up to President Trump lost this race. Why?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, I think for several reasons.
One, the money that Vindman had, it was like something like $16 million, $17 million, and state legislator Angie Nixon had less than a million. So to me that says money was not a factor here. When Democrats say they want a fighter, sure, Mr. Vindman, yes, he fought, literally went up against President Trump in trying to hold him accountable.
But Democrats are also talking about someone who will fight for them, someone who’s going to give expression to their anger about what’s happening, whether it’s the war or high prices, high gas prices, inflation, or just the wrecking ball the administration’s taking to just democracy.
And Angie Nixon, state legislator who has been in the trenches there in Florida, working really hard, talking to people, she went out and asked for people’s votes, and they gave it to her. I mean, one thing to keep in mind, she joined the Democratic Socialists of America just a few months ago.
And since winning the — winning the primary, she is putting a lot of distance between herself and the radical parts of the DSA agenda. Will — does this mean that she even has a chance? It is unclear. But compared to Democrats in the past going up against Republicans in a deep red state like Florida, we will see if she actually — she might have some kind of a chance. I don’t rule her out.
Amna Nawaz:
David, what do you think?
David Brooks:
If she wins, I will know nothing about politics. So…
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
Which is entirely possible, let’s face it.
I think she — her victory was impressive. A, I think she was just a better campaigner. B, a lot of the other DSA candidates won really well with college-educated university towns. She did well in the poorer areas. And so that’s something — that’s a little break for DSA.
And I think it also shows that a lot of voters are moving on from Trump. And they’re thinking the economic issues are really beginning to eclipse their dislike of Donald Trump, and he’s never going to be on the ballots, we hope, any time soon.
And so I think that the affordability, the insurance rates, the gas prices, the grocery prices, these are the big issues now. And DSA, whether you like their policies or not, they’re big policies. And the mainstream Democrats, by and large, have not matched those.
One thing you admire about DSA is, they don’t back down from their positions. Like — last, a couple of weeks ago, they did a — they commemorated Fidel Castro’s 100th birthday. If you have got a candidate in Florida and you’re commending Fidel Castro, you are being pretty out there with your political views. So I don’t think she…
(Crosstalk)
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, just to be clear, she did not celebrate the birthday of Fidel Castro. And this is the point I’m trying to make.
Even though she joined DSA, and…
Amna Nawaz:
You’re talking about Angie Nixon in Florida.
Jonathan Capehart:
Yes, Angie Nixon.
Amna Nawaz:
Yes.
Jonathan Capehart:
Even though she joined DSA and she wanted their organizational help, keep in mind she was not endorsed by the DSA, the party organization.
Amna Nawaz:
Yes.
Jonathan Capehart:
She wasn’t endorsed by Congresswoman AOC, wasn’t endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders. She literally was out there by herself running against the Democratic establishment candidate, and she won.
Amna Nawaz:
Let’s talk about South Carolina too, another Republican race that we’re tracking. There’s the run-off election in a primary. South Carolina is where we find the president tonight. He is in Myrtle Beach. He is stumping for Darline Graham. She’s the sister of the late Lindsey Graham running to replace her brother against Congressman Ralph Norman.
David, we know Darline Graham was appointed by the president to fill out her brother’s term. She had this disastrous debate in which she came right out and said, I’m not that informed on national security. Did President Trump get out ahead too soon in backing her on this?
David Brooks:
I’m not sure about — sometimes, people don’t like appointees. They just don’t. Some people just don’t like — they got the seat for free. Like, that doesn’t seem right, especially a nepotism family member.
But a lot of people want the outsider. And she ran — she’s running kind of aggressively as the outsider. And if scholarly expertise were what voters were going for, we probably wouldn’t have the crew we have now.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
And so I think voters should think — being a senator requires a lot of expertise in public affairs. And — but I’m — I might be old-fashioned. They might be going for, let shake it all up.
Amna Nawaz:
Jonathan, how are you looking at this?
Jonathan Capehart:
Look, I’m not going to — I’m not going to grade senator on a curve here.
She — you are right to describe it as disastrous. Under normal circumstances, any candidate for Senate, any elected federal seat, whether Democrat or Republican, were to give that answer, folks would be saying, you must get out of the race.
And yet no one is not — that I know of has said that she should kindly step aside. But you know what? The voters of South Carolina, they will make their choice. And, to David’s point, if that’s what they want, she says she’s not a politician, if that’s what they want, then have at it.
Amna Nawaz:
Leave it up to the voters.
David Brooks:
Yes.
Amna Nawaz:
David?
David Brooks:
I happen to go on my social feed, and Roger Mudd’s interview with Ted Kennedy showed up. And if people remember this…
Jonathan Capehart:
Right.
David Brooks:
… he was running for president, and Roger Mudd said, why do you want to be president? And he sort of hesitated. It wasn’t a terrible answer. But — so that was the standard that ended your campaigns back then.
(Laughter)
David Brooks:
And now, I don’t know, you can say anything.
Amna Nawaz:
Different world these days.
Jonathan Capehart:
Or do anything.
(Crosstalk)
Amna Nawaz:
I will also say your social feed is very different than my social feed. We can talk about that later.
(Laughter)
Amna Nawaz:
I want to turn to the international stage, a bunch of stories we have been covering this week, and pull them all together, because we have seen the president lash out at key allies across the planet in very different ways.
He threatened to bomb Oman if they, in his words, got in the way of the U.S. talks with Iran. He ordered the joint military drills with South Korea be scaled back. He criticized South Korea for not joining the war with Iran and praised the North Korean leader.
And, as we speak, as we sit here now, the threat of 50 percent tariffs still looms over Canada. They say they’re close to a deal. We haven’t seen it yet.
But, David, is the benefit extracted from the threats and this pressure, is that worth the damage to these alliances?
David Brooks:
I don’t think so.
Donald Trump reacts very strongly when he feels somebody’s leeching off him, especially when it’s a friend who he thinks is playing us for a sucker. He thinks Europe has been doing that for decades. He thinks Canada’s been doing it. He thinks Oman is doing it in these negotiations. The South Koreans aren’t helping us with the — Iran and opening the straits.
And so he just — and he lashes out of friends and he kisses up to foes. And partly that’s because the kissing up the foes is partly about testosterone. He likes people who are tough or he who he perceives are tough. And so he has this policy of perversity, of destroying our alliances and kissing up to our — the worst regime in the world, North Korea, probably.
And so does it help? He might get some benefit. He might pressure people a little, but this is not how any business or political relationship works in the world. You — I had a friend who was in government. I said, what did you learn when you’re in government that you didn’t know beforehand?
He said, I used to think politics was 75 percent personality and relationships. Now I realize it’s 98 percent personality and relationships. And so Donald Trump is not great at building international relationships.
Amna Nawaz:
Jonathan?
Jonathan Capehart:
I’m sorry, when you were reading the — when you were saying the question to David, I was like, wait, what month are we in? Because this is Groundhog Day.
Tariffs, sucking up to autocrats who are traditionally America’s foes, but his friends, we have known this since the first Trump administration. So I have no idea why he’s lashing at our allies, cozying up to our traditional enemies.
Again, in a normal world, under normal circumstances, just one of those things, let’s say tariffs against Canada, would have a lot of people in this town wondering what’s going on with the president, and then hauling people up to the Hill for hearings. Neither of those things is happening.
Amna Nawaz:
Before I let you go, I need to ask you about sort of a strange saga around one of the president’s closest allies and aides, a woman named Natalie Harp, that’s been playing out this week.
She’s consistently by his side everywhere he goes. She’s one of the few people who controls his social media, and very few people knew her name until Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff name-checked her at a rally, and then we saw the White House and all the president’s supporters and right-wing media just erupt in defense.
Her name is all over the headlines now. Just today, The Daily Beast published some letters that she sent to President Trump via the biographer Michael Wolff. And she said things like: “You are all that matters to me. Thank you for being my guardian and my protector in this life.”
I will say this story could very easily veer into unproductive speculation here. But just what are you taking away from all of these headlines, David?
David Brooks:
I thought Ossoff was wrong to raise it in the way he did, because it was basically a sexual insinuation. And I just don’t think you should do that.
I also — when I look at her letters, I think that’s inappropriate workplace behavior. And so there’s fault on both sides, as we would say. But I think — first, I don’t know what’s in her mind or in her heart. Either she is — has a crush on the president or she understands the president and what he really likes to hear, because she’s laying it on thick, and people in the Trump administration are laying it on thick.
Just one final quick point. I have covered administrations for a while now, and people in presidential White Houses have a tendency to have crushes on the president because he’s powerful, he’s visionary, they’re spending all their days serving him, and they talk about their president in ways that are rawly emotional.
And when you get a president like Donald Trump, it’s going to be times five.
Jonathan Capehart:
What makes this even more strange is that the reason why Michael Wolff was able to get the letters is because folks within the administration found them, photocopied them, were sending them around to each other.
So this is something that isn’t just salacious. Well, it’s salacious, but it’s something that has been talked about inside the administration. And leave aside whatever is going on with Natalie Harp and the president, whatever the relationship is.
My biggest concern is something that came out from MS NOW’s Jake Traylor and Jackie Alemany, a story about how Natalie Harp did not have a security clearance for a year. That to me is the more important story here, because, if she is the human printer, as she’s been called, because she carries a printer and prints out lots of news for the president to read, she’s been with — at his side all this time, didn’t have a security clearance?
The papers that she’s seen, the conversations that she’s overheard, the national security implications of that alone should alarm everybody in Washington. And yet we’re talking about other things.
Amna Nawaz:
Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, always great to speak with you both. Thank you so much.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, Amna.
David Brooks:
Thank you.
