At the Water's Edge
Geo-politics and national security from the practitioner's seat. Insight beyond the headlines.
At the Water's Edge
E22 Trump's Foreign Policy with Jamie Miller
Insights from Jamie Miller shed light on how Trump’s foreign policies align with the sentiments of his voter base. This episode reveals the evolving perceptions of national security among Americans and explores the implications behind Trump's strategic decisions.
• Unpacking Trump's "America First" philosophy
• The shift in Republican foreign policy strategy
• Voter perceptions on immigration, safety, and national security
• Understanding the implications of cabinet picks for Trump’s second term
• The possible risks of hardline immigration policies on geopolitics
• The evolving nature of America's role in global affairs
If you liked what you heard, please follow the podcast and share with your friends, and even consider going to the support the show link in the episode description.
Jamie Miller's Blog: https://reasonablearguments.com/
Good morning everyone and welcome to the At the Water Trench podcast, where we look for insights beyond the headlines to take your practitioner's view on national security and geopolitics. It's the 27th of February 2025. Let's dive in Now. If you're a foreign policy wonk, ever since Trump has been elected, oh my God, there's been a ton of stuff to keep up with and try to analyze. This guy is not slowing down for anybody. It's been entertaining, concerning fun, interesting depending on where you sit, but there's been a lot to go through.
Speaker 1:Now we're going to spend some more time unpacking this over the next couple of months. But to start off, had a great chance to talk to Jamie Miller. Jamie Miller is the former director of the Florida Republican Party, has worked with a bunch of different Republican campaigns over the years, mostly in Florida state politics, and I wanted to sit down and talk with him and try to get a sense of what does the average American, particularly the average Trump voter, want Donald Trump to do from a foreign policy perspective? What might we anticipate him doing in the future? How should we interpret some of these recent activities that he's been up to and understand what role foreign policy and national security really plays in the voting decisions of the average American. And with that let's get to Jamie. Okay, well, good morning Jamie. Welcome to the podcast. How are you doing this morning, sir?
Speaker 2:I'm doing better than I deserve. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1:Aren't we all? We're still above the ground. Yeah Well, super excited to have this chance to talk about Trump and foreign policy, and it's rare that a presidency is defined by foreign policy. I won't say that this one's going to be, but if you're a foreign policy geek boy, is there a lot of material to work with right off the bat. But before we start digging into some of that, can you introduce yourself and your background in politics with the Republican Party in Florida? Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2:I've had about a 30 year career in political campaigns, political consulting, mostly in Florida. I've also done races throughout mostly the Southeast and West Virginia. A lot of work in North Carolina. I'm a former executive director of the Republican Party of Florida and a senior advisor to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign in Florida in 2012. So those are kind of like the high points. I've worked a little bit in economic development and I do some local government relations here in Sarasota, Florida, for mostly environmental groups, to be honest with you. So it's kind of an interesting balance of my career. So I write a blog called Reasonable Arguments on Substack and me and my wife have a podcast of that same name.
Speaker 1:Awesome. Well, people should definitely go check it out after this, but first they should listen to the episode. Absolutely, absolutely so with your background in the Republican Party, trump has a very unique foreign policy style. So, right off the bat question for you what do you think Trump's main foreign policy objectives are, and do you think that his different approach to foreign policy is it more style or is it more substance? Where is he actually breaking with Republican orthodoxy as he enters the second term?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a tough one. I guess maybe it depends on the day. I mean, of course, his you know his philosophy is America first Right. Of course his you know his philosophy is America first right, and I think that's probably his center or guiding principle and I think that's where he tries to make all of his decisions are based on, you know what's going to be best for America today and for tomorrow. And you know, long after he is gone, I do think that he has a long-term approach, not just a you know, long after he is gone, I do think that he has a long term approach, not just you know.
Speaker 2:It seems like a lot of his decisions people are like, oh, he makes them on the fly and I, I just I don't disagree that it appears that way, but I disagree that it is that way what these decisions will have for future generations, as you know, not just future years. It is kind of interesting. You said you know, throughout most of our history, until about the 1950s, most presidents were elected on foreign policy. It wasn't domestic policy. It wasn't until really the 60s that presidents you know, the tipping point of presidents being elected on domestic policy Interesting 1960s, I should say.
Speaker 1:Good to know when it comes to Trump and the Republican Party. How has he reformed how the Republican Party approaches foreign policy? Because if you look over the past, I'd start calling it the Nixon era on Ford. But really by the time you get through Reagan into Clinton, there really was this bipartisan orthodoxy in Washington, this new liberal consensus about how we approach foreign policy in the global world order, and really the only thing that changed between parties was the talking points used to justify it. But the policies were, by and large, had the same thrust about America's world and the world and this multinational institution driven world order. Trump is really taking a hammer to some of those assumptions. Where do you think he's trying to change America's how America interacts with the rest of the world? Because it appears that it's going from this. We're part of this web of institutions too. We have our own individual relationships with every single country out there. Screw the system.
Speaker 2:Well, I don't know that he's saying screw the system completely. I think he's saying the system should reflect our leadership. You know we are the leader of the free world. The president is. You know we elect a president who is the leader of the free world.
Speaker 2:And you know, when we have these situations where you have other countries that are trying to dominate the discussion and exert their will on us and I'm not saying we should exert our will on them I think things have gotten to a point where too many people are like the Paris know, like the Paris Climate Accord. You know it's never been ratified by the US Senate. You know Obama signed us into it, which is not really legal, not constitutional for sure. You know Trump took us out. Biden put us back in. Trump took us back out. You know. But you look at those sorts of things where it's really kind of. But you look at those sorts of things where it's really kind of, you know, the rest of the world getting a pound of flesh out of America. You know, and those types of things are no longer going to be tolerated, at least not under this president.
Speaker 1:What lessons do you think Trump has learned from his first term in office, going into round two, having a four-year break to really revamp Project 2025 out there in the wings and get ready to hit the ground running?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think the biggest thing especially if you're not a Trump supporter, if you're like, okay, this four years is going to be hell on wheels because it's Donald Trump I think the difference that those folks can look at and say there's a difference and if you are a Trump supporter, I think this is a good thing as well is that. I simplify it to saying that in 2016, through the election of 2020, donald Trump practiced the politics of subtraction and now he's practicing the politics of addition. You know, you look at who he's adding to the cabinet Marco Rubio, rfk, tulsi Gabbard, elon Musk over at Doge, even though that's not a cabinet thing, you know. Those are all folks who, in 2017, wouldn't have been considered for anything. You know it would have.
Speaker 2:You know, and I think those four in particular are probably the high profile names where Trump has said you know what, to really have a governing majority and to move some of these things forward, I need to add more people to the team, and maybe some of these voices that were, you know, robert F Kennedy ran for president. Ramaswamy ran for president, you know, and Marco Rubio ran against him in 2016. President that Ramoswamy ran for president, you know, and Marco Rubio ran against him in 2016. Those in 2017, those were folks who would have been sliced and you know, right out of the, you know, don't ever darken the door of the Oval Office. And now he's looking at those folks from cabinet positions. So I think that's the one thing that people can say that is the main difference between Donald Trump 2017 and Donald Trump 2025.
Speaker 1:Do you think DeSantis would ever get that type of treatment? Do you think he'll ever be invited back into the fold?
Speaker 2:You know, ron DeSantis is in this precarious position and it's partly due to when Florida has its elections and we have term limits on our governor. So Ron DeSantis is term limited in 2026, which means he doesn't have a job for two years before the presidential election. He doesn't have a bully pulpit, so he's trying to make as much hay as he can. Right now there's a big controversy in Florida. I don't know if many of your listeners and viewers are following it, but it's we got a few Florida residents on the other side of the line.
Speaker 2:So it is a you know it boils down to Ron DeSantis trying to basically get in front of the president on the illegal immigration issue, and now the president hasn't weighed in one way or the other. But there's certainly a battle that's been brewing between DeSantis and the legislature for the last six years and it seems to be coming to a head. Right before this there was a special session this week and legislative session starts in March.
Speaker 1:What do you think Trump's trying to do with his cabinet picks? Because one of the things that cabinet picks do is they take control of what bureaucracy they're handed and they inform the president on what's relevant and enforce his policy objectives. But you got to walk a fine line there, because you can pick bureaucratic insiders who are incredibly good at their job but can wait you out until you're just gone in four years, or you can bring in complete outsiders who have no knowledge of how to run these institutions, and it seems like he's leaned hard towards bringing in complete outsiders who don't have knowledge of the institutions that they're trying to lead. And there seems to be just from the outside looking in, a threat there that his cabinet picks are going to be completely ineffective in actually wielding the power of the institutions they're in charge of.
Speaker 2:I completely disagree with that. It's like hiring the PayPal CEO to come in and be the CEO of Subway, right? Oh, you have no knowledge of the institution, but I know how to run a company and so you know many of those skills are applicable. So I'm not somebody who buys into that. Pete Hegseth can't be, you know, or Patel or Tulsi Gabbard or RFK are incapable of being the heads of these institutions simply because they don't have a career within them.
Speaker 2:You know, and this president has looked at the career within them. You know, and this president has looked at the career within the system as more of a negative, because the system, you know we have a lot of things going on. We're in this incredible age of cryptocurrency, ai you know it's. We haven't had this type of growth, you know, from a technical standpoint, since the late 90s, and you know the internet kind of becoming mainstream with a personal computer, so it is an incredible time to be alive. But government tends to move slower on these things. And, of course, institutional bureaucrats people who are successful within any institution like to keep the status quo because that's how they gain their success. Like to keep the status quo because that's how they gain their success, and so you have to bring in a disruptor to say, hey, we're going to make sure this institution is successful in a different way.
Speaker 1:So a lot of great points there and I agree with you broadly on most of them in principle. Well so, like someone like Tulsi Gabbard, coming in ideologically, has had a very interesting journey, was a Democrat, became a Republican, really marched with Peter Rowan Denver very much a disruptor. But it's also incredibly well versed in the issues that involve the office that Trump's trying to nominate her for. I'm sure she'll probably get it we're not quite there yet, but seems likely at this point. I'm sure she'll probably get it we're not quite there yet, but seems likely at this point.
Speaker 1:But particularly someone like Pete Hegseth. He not only does not have a traditional career in the military, which is totally fine, but he also doesn't have any experience running large bureaucratic organizations like CEO of a Fortune 100 company or any of these other non-traditional roles that may have actually given them the experience needed to be in that role. And we've gone from, you know, general Mattis to Pete Hegseth. There could not be a bigger dichotomy in who you're trying to have to run that institution and it really makes me wonder what is Trump trying to get out of a secretary of defense.
Speaker 2:I think there's no question. He wants a disruptor, he wants somebody who can articulate that disruption to the American people and you know he's certainly going to have the people surrounding him, who who can get the job done. So if you, if you go with the CEO analogy, you know it's the CEO and running the C-suite that really makes a CEO powerful, and a little bit of that is being able to manage up and manage down right. So you have people who can, you know, manage a C-suite but also work with a board, and so you know, I don't think this, these situations are much different than that.
Speaker 1:One of the very interesting things with the Trump cabinet is the creation of Doge, which love the name, love the troll there. It's awesome, great marketing, all about it. Here for it. Elon's coming on, awesome, brilliant guy, richest man on earth, wonderful, great when billionaires get together to do things. I'm curious, though, how much impact can Doge really have on the government, because it is an outside entity. Elon hasn't divested any of his interests and although, on principle, the idea of someone coming in and really just taking a hammer to the government and slashing the budget and all that stuff sounds great and all for it, is Elon, with no formal authority, really just whispering in Trump's ear to get him to sign executive orders, while also having a massive amount of defense contracts? That is driving his private interests? Is he really in a position, talents aside, to get any of this stuff done?
Speaker 2:I think so the short answer is I think he can. I think the point that you're making, the point I've made to people in the past, is that it's kind of funny because he's saying I want to get rid of things like member projects, but I have to go to members of Congress to get finance for Doge right, so even though it has an end date. So it's kind of this interesting dance that we're looking at. But the one thing that Elon Musk in particular has is the bullet bully pulpit Right, and so he can. When he shines a light on something, it's brighter than most. And so when he says oh there's, we've saved four hundred twenty million, 420 million.
Speaker 2:I think he tweeted today that it's up to a billion dollars per year that we're saving already in you know that both Elon and Bidik brought to the forefront of the discussion of not only are these things wrong from a policy standpoint, they're costing us a lot of money, and so you know so that I think in that regard, elon Musk can be very successful Now, whether they're successful in actually setting up the agency and getting funding for the agency and things like that. Agencies are hard to put together. We look at the Department of Education. They're hard to kill and they should be hard to put together and they should be hard to kill. That's the way our system is built right, but I think that Elon is probably uniquely positioned to have a positive impact.
Speaker 1:What do you think the residents of a state like Florida would want out of their president for national security and geopolitics? Because people who started off the professional career the way I did in the military and who follow this stuff for a living, we have this particular view of what national security and geopolitics is. It's a global war on terror, it's great power competition, it's some form of industrial policy, but it seems like for a lot of Americans today, the issues that they care about are much closer to home. It's the border, it's illegal immigration, and there's even talk about how do you use the military to take care of some of those issues domestically. So, for the average Florida resident or the average Republican voter who voted for Donald Trump, what do you think their national security priorities are? If you just had to ask them, how would they describe?
Speaker 2:it. Yeah, there's no question. It's safety right and it so, and it's safety in your driveway first, and more and more people have felt less and less safe in their own driveways, and you know, or in their own communities, and so when that becomes a problem and it's a problem everywhere, not Florida everywhere we are having this illegal immigration influx. The Biden administration has done, if you're pro-illegal immigration they did a great job of infiltrating our society in all corners of the country. You start looking at the amount of people who came across the border illegally in the last four years and it would probably, if you put them all in one place, probably be the fifth largest state in the country. I mean, wrap your mind around that. You know so you know. They didn't put them all in one place. They sent them to Sarasota and they sent them to little places like Arcadia or you know Amarillo, and you know so you're. But what they did was they sent them everywhere. So everyone is having this issue of they feel less safe in their own community, and that's one reason why Donald Trump was successful and why he has.
Speaker 2:I think in the past, like even five years ago, people would have said, oh, you're going to use the military at the southern border and people would have rejected that, I think Today, I think people said things have gotten so bad. If we need to use the military, do it, Because at some point this has to stop. We have to protect the sovereignty of our country. We have to protect voting rights. We have to protect, you know, us citizens and Democrats. You know 12 of the last, I'd say 13 of the last, if you include the COVID year, 13 of the last 16 years are you know? I think we failed to do that.
Speaker 1:So do you think people view using the military at the border different than using the military in US cities? Because one of the things that's come up as Trump's tried to push ICE to grab up more folks and ship them back to their home countries, is that ICE just doesn't have the manpower to actually find people and federate them out of the country in a meaningful way. If you actually look at how many bodies a day they can move and how many people have come here already, it becomes a logistical problem.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, so there really is only one institution in the U S government with the capacity to do that. It would be the U S military. But now you're talking about mobilizing federal troops to do domestic police work, which is a huge red line for a lot of folks, especially in the military itself.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I don't think they're going to use the military for policing. They may use the military for logistics and I think there probably is a fine line and people may say that's a slippery slope, but I think that's probably the line in the sand that's going to be drawn. Is that it's? You know? I don't think people have problems with? Ok, there's a military plane at Sarasota Airport, the sheriff's department has gone around and some people up. Right now it's easy to round them up Right, Because most of these folks are in jail and Biden just refused to deport them and we know that they're illegals. We know that they're in jail and Biden just refused to deport them and we know that they're illegals. We know that they're in jail, and so, while we've had some video of people getting their door knocked on and being arrested and people in the House being arrested, I think it's a huge majority of these. You know, the people who are on the tip of the spear right now being deported are people who are already in jail.
Speaker 1:So one of the interesting things that came out of our recent diplomatic engagement we'll call it with Colombia, where we set planes down there with immigrants that we were returning and they turned around because they're military aircraft. We worked all that out threats of terrorists, back and forth, everything else but one of the interesting things there is that China is immediately moving in then and saying, hey, if you're having an issue with America as a partner, we'll be your best friend. Is there a risk that a hardline immigration policy here at home and the techniques that we use to export immigrants back to their home countries countries could actually blow back on forcing nations south of us closer to China?
Speaker 2:Well, we've built this system where we kind of have this practical application problem and while we're all disgusted by the number of illegal immigrants, you know there are a lot and historically, you know, florida agriculture has been run with migrant workers, probably legal and illegal, for decades. California for decades. South Florida last night speak, and he was talking about how, you know, the strawberry fields in California, just there's nobody to pick strawberries because people are afraid to show up, because they're afraid of being deported. And so now you're, you know, and so all of those things hurt, you know, then hit you in the pocketbook, you know. I think your question is a little bit more on kind of the global scale of, you know, are we giving China the opportunity to infiltrate places like Colombia, south America, africa? And they're doing those things already. China's doing those things already. You know they're, and so, you know, does this accelerate that? Does it accelerate a possible confrontation with China sooner rather than later? Um, I guess the proof is in the pudding.
Speaker 2:You know, I would, I would, uh, rather rely on, on real foreign relations, um, experts on that. I don't consider myself a foreign relations expert but, um, you know, like I said to you earlier, I was like, uh, my knowledge is an inch deep in a mile wide, so I like to think I can talk about them, but you know these are complex issues and you know none of these actions are, uh, happen in a vacuum. And so, and so they all, you know, I don't want to say they have an opposite and equal reaction, but they, there are other. Um, I always say they have an opposite and equal reaction, but there are other. I always say there's conventional wisdom, and then there's. You know you can flip the coin over and oftentimes unconventional wisdom is what ends up playing out, and so you know we need to keep an eye on it.
Speaker 2:I don't know that we're going to deport, you know, five million people this year. I think we're going to get rid of these criminals for sure At some point. I think Americans say you know, hey, I didn't realize. The guy who owns the restaurant down the street was illegal and now the restaurant's closed, and you know that's. You know my friend, you know he came around and talked to me every time I came and ate. You know all those things. So I don't know that people, or the restaurant closes because there's no kitchen workers Right, or there's, you know, and you don't realize that there's that many illegals who are out here working and providing for their families and doing things like this.
Speaker 2:You know, the interesting thing about the Columbia issue was, you know, really more, the visas and the travel and passports that kind of came along with that. You know, in Florida we have, I think there's 400,000 Colombians who live in the United States. About 150,000, or more than a third, are in South Florida and so there was, you know, at least a mini uproar in South Florida while this was going on immediately, because it wasn't really the tariffs it was. You know, I'm here legally and I've just got my visa revoked.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And so what does that mean? And how can I, how can I not be part of this problem? How can I remove myself from this international political issue? I just want to work. I just want to raise my family here. I just want to. These are folks who are here legally, under visas. I thought it was a good line in the sand. I thought it was a good line in the sand. I thought it was a good saying, hey, we're doing this. Other countries need to be on board. But when you start looking at the cascading effect of how it impacts real communities in our country, or especially someplace like South Florida, it would have had a real impact.
Speaker 1:Yeah, someplace like South Florida it would have had a real impact. Yeah, now, I grew up in Connecticut and wasn't in a rich part of the state, wasn't in a poor part of the state either, but still Connecticut, and I worked construction and landscaping while I was in college to help pay the bills and all that, and I was other than the people who own the work crew and, like the general manager of the construction company, I was the only person there with a driver's license.
Speaker 2:I can imagine I grew up in rural Florida.
Speaker 1:Some of the best, most hardworking people you ever met, like good friends, like awesome folks. But yeah, you imagine what the impact it has for them and their families and they're trying to get their kids in school and stay enrolled.
Speaker 2:And so there are some practical application issues that we're going to face immediately, but at the same time, it things went so far, you know, and the pendulum is going to swing back. So where does? Where can we stop the pendulum without it? You know, while making the point, removing people who are dangerous from our country, while also, then you know, allowing people to, you know whether it's having some of these illegals apply and get you know at least temporary visas to work or whatever, while we sort it out, like there has to be some level of you know, you remove 20 million people from a population of 300.
Speaker 2:There's some unintended consequences that will occur.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and one would think I'm not sure if this would ever happen, but one would think that Trump, being a businessman in the cabinet, surrounded by businessmen, would do a cost-benefit analysis at some point. And he's a master marketer. He could sell almost anything he wants, like, hey, we got all the criminals out and now you know, these are people are great, they're hard working, we're going to bring them into the fold and he could sell that in two years if he wanted to. We'll see if he does.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think one of the issues is that you have people who are here and are not American citizens and we, as American citizens basically because we don't put our frontline police through hey, you need to figure out if this person's a citizen or not a citizen, because you have different rights, you know. But you know constitutional rights are specific to US citizens and we kind of have gotten to a point where we apply these rights to everyone, including the right to the American government. You have to question are these folks we want to have in the United States? They're not citizens, you know. They're here as guests. We should treat them as guests, but they should act as guests, but they should act as guests. And we've started to say no, you have the same rights as citizens. And I think that's kind of a line in the sand that you may see.
Speaker 2:Next, if you know, especially if people are protesting, you know the government and you know, because we know that some of these students are, you know, paid organizers, and so you know you can go on Craigslist and see that they're hiring people to participate in some of these protests not all of them, but some of them and so, if you know, where's that money coming from? Is that? Is it coming from communist China? Is it coming from? Where's it coming from? Is it coming from a domestic source? Is it coming from a foreign source? And so you have to kind of question, you know, are we allowing ourselves to our sovereignty to be diluted by international voices on our own soil?
Speaker 1:You mentioned before that sometimes unconventional outcomes occur as a result of policy decisions, and Trump with his very upfront throwing-down-the-gauntlet approach to Colombia. Definitely we'll see how that plays out. But another place where he's pulled that card is with the war in the Gaza Strip. I mean, he showed up immediately and sent who was it? Steve Witkoff, his Middle East envoy, over there and shut the thing down in a couple of days and basically got the same deal that Biden could have had back in July. Just didn't want to yank that chain on Israel. Where do you think that might play out? Because Trump, who's always outwardly a as a real supporter, gives them everything they want, along with every other American administration essentially for the past, however, many years just showed up and ended their party and completely stuck a middle finger off to what's essentially the largest lobbying group and most powerful lobbying organization in America domestically.
Speaker 2:Well, the one thing that I think is different between 2016 and 2017, 2025 is Trump tried to be a politician and now he's being a CEO, and you know. So he waded into this area of oh, this is how things were done. I'm going to try to keep the legacy of all these political things that need to happen and get some people from BC to help guide me through this, and I think the four years that he had in between really kind of I think he kind of saw that as an error, and so I think right now, he's leaning into. I'm hiring CEOs, I'm going to be a CEO, and CEOs take action. They don't sit around and study. They don't have a two-week study between eight different agencies to determine what should we do with the two plane loads of people that Columbia turned around. No, I'm going to take action right now, and I think that's what you're going to see out of this president for his entire four years.
Speaker 1:Well, just as an aside, maybe if he did take two weeks to think about things, he wouldn't have had so many bankruptcies, but that's a separate issue.
Speaker 2:Listen, I've never claimed bankruptcy, but maybe I'm thinking it's a better you know financial strategy because it seems to work out for him.
Speaker 1:I can't argue with the results.
Speaker 2:I can't argue it's just an accurate observation, not arguing with the results.
Speaker 1:I'm just like he's done better than I have.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, like, don't throw me in that briar patch right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Now, one thing that would be really if I could ask one thing of the Trump administration and what Doge is doing. If there's one thing that they could fix which I think would be amazing for our national security and amazing for our budget, is reforming the Department of Defense procurement process, Because the way we purchase munitions and purchase weapons and develop all that stuff it's incredibly expensive, it takes forever, it's non-responsive to the needs of the warfighter, but it's all governed by this massive federal acquisition regulations document that unless you are a full-time contracting specialist like the one number.
Speaker 1:One thing you need to do to sell the federal government is not develop a product that the warfighter wants or anything like that, or solve an issue for the warfighter. It's. You need the right consultants and the right accountants and the right contract managers to make sure you check all the blocks so that your stuff is acceptable, because the people buying it have no relation to the people using it.
Speaker 1:That's a good idea buying it have no relation to the people using it. So that's a good. In a world dominated by like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and all those large defense contractors and all the pork barrel spending that they get out of Congress, do you think they got a shot at fixing that Cause boy? Could we use some help there?
Speaker 2:Do they have a shot? You know you're rating into like. Certainly that's not. My expertise is government procurement.
Speaker 1:And I haven't even heard them talk about it, though that's a weird thing, like I'm not even sure there's a where that that problem exists out there.
Speaker 2:Well, let's try to use this podcast to make them aware, because I, you know, like I, there's so many ways that the government wastes our money Right, and it's. The problem has become that it's many of those ways are seen as oh, this is the way it has to be done. And so, if it, if we can now turn some of that, and I think the only chance we have of changing, I think the only chance we have of changing that is to bring in non-traditional disruptors. And you know so I've always said that the people who voted for Donald Trump voted for him. And the difference between people who voted for him in 2025, who did not vote for him in 2024, who did not vote for him in 2020 is the people who did not vote for him in 2020 did not appreciate the fires that Trump set. They came back and voted for him in 2024 because he leads us through fire, despite the fires he sets.
Speaker 2:And so I think the electorate had a mindset change, because Biden was so horrible that they said, okay, he's going to set some fires, but he's going to lead us through. And I think part of I think you're seeing that play out with all of these things Like, okay, the Columbia thing, all right. Well, that could have been a fire set, right. But at the same time, you're like I have confidence that he's going to lead us through. And I think the same thing with these cabinet picks, you know, are one of the one of these cabinet picks going to be a fire? Probably Right, but is is Donald Trump going to lead us through it? Yes, he will, and I think that's the confidence that he has with the American people right now.
Speaker 1:So one of the areas where he's really leaned into in his first couple weeks in office and it's no surprise is cutting back on DEI initiatives. And if you're going to look for a place in government where there's a bunch of money being spent with very little to show for it, I'm not sure it's at the top of the list. But I'm not going to say it's not on the list, because it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people in a lot of different places and it's not clear that, no matter how much money we spend, we're actually achieving the results that most DEI initiatives actually purport to achieve. So just taking the initiatives at their own word, it's not clear that they're actually working as intended. So why even fund them? To be a whitewashing of the contribution of folks with very different gender ideologies and sexual orientations have made to our national security in this smaller, more professional military that we have right now? I firmly believe that no one has a right to serve. Serving is a privilege. Lethalities are number one North Star, so everything that gets sacrificed on that altar, including personal preferences and lifestyle and whatever else, it was deemed to be incompatible with a lethal force.
Speaker 1:But I know right now, with the executive orders that have been signed just in the past several weeks, that there are trans service members who are serving honorably in the military in non-deployable roles. So that issue is off the line and they're wondering what does their future in the armed services look like if they get kanked at 14 years? Do they get a pension? They've done nothing but honorable service so far. And also, since the military it's a closed labor market. You can't just kick a major out and hire a major in to replace them. You've got to promote the captain which then draws up and then draws up. That's a whole other discussion about the closed labor system of the US military, which we need to address at some point. That's an aside. But as it stands right now, there are trans service members serving in key billets throughout the Department of Defense and they're wondering what's about to happen to them. Do you think Trump's approach with these executive orders that he's signing right now, do you think they're a net benefit? Do you think they're a net loss?
Speaker 2:I'm not, you know.
Speaker 1:Because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. But this seems to be very heavy-handed to folks who are serving in uniform right now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that what Donald Trump is going to look at or Pete Hegseth, I think, will look at in these situations are people. Were people promoted simply because of their sexual orientation, color, trans, whatever? Do those folks then get fired? I don't know the answer to that, but the problem with the DEI and I think we all agree that we don't you know, our system's based on conducting the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority right.
Speaker 2:And so we haven't always done a great job of protecting the rights of the minority. In this case I mean just the fewer voters, not necessarily a racial or whatever minority, but we need to apply it to those things as well. So the problem with DEI is that it flips the script right, like DEI is in place to promote the minority over the majority. So while you have DEI and I don't know what the percentage of people are quote DEI whether it's 20% or 50%, the percentage doesn't matter. But let's say it's 30%, it applies to 30% of the people in these positions, but it also it becomes a situation where it applies to 100% of the jobs and promotions, and so you end up denying 70% of the majority the opportunity for jobs and promotions because hiring managers and promoting managers, whether it's in the military or somewhere else, are afraid of being sued because they haven't applied this DEI barometer to the hiring process.
Speaker 2:So what ends up? Hiring is only DEI. People get hired and promoted, and so I think that's a situation where somebody who's trans in the military could be impacted, and I don't know how many people that is, or what promotions they received, or if they received promotions because they were trans. But if I were in there, I would be trying to look at my promotions and try to justify how I deserve them, regardless of my sexual orientation or whatever.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, it's curious because already just talking about DEI and talking about immigration and Trump's approach to foreign policy, we've already reached a level of nuance that we haven't seen the president or his cabinet picks or close advisors get into, and it's a messy conversation, no matter where you start, no matter where you end.
Speaker 2:But it's very it's. They're very complex issues. I mean, we, you know, and we've we kind of campaign. I'm a political consultant, so you kind of campaign on the headline you can put on a mail piece or bumper strip or you know, so it's, and so the public starts responding to that bumper strip and they're like, oh, you have to govern to the bumper strip and you know, know, like and and it's too complex, it's more complex than that when you actually are trying to govern.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so let me ask you, as the consultant, you have a chance to sit down with trump or his key cabinets picks or someone up there, um, would you advise? You know? Hey, slower approach, more nuance. It appears they've already learned some lesson.
Speaker 2:Absolutely not.
Speaker 1:Absolutely not, come on. Come on, give me something here.
Speaker 2:Okay, scott, so here's the practical.
Speaker 1:Yeah, tell me why.
Speaker 2:Here's the practical application issue, like because I don't disagree with you, like I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that politics moves so fast, and you you know. But because everybody, oh, he's elected for four years but the mandate, whatever mandate he has, is probably 18 months at best, because the next congressional campaigns are starting, the next congressional campaigns are starting, and so as those folks start campaigning and you start having public discussions on these issues, on these decisions that are being made today, they now become part of the country's conversation, starting in January. So, really, what he wants to get done, he needs to go ahead and get done Like he needs to. You have to move because the mandate can stop, you know, at any moment of time, or you can have a international incident where the country says, okay, now we're, we're not focused on this stuff anymore and we're going to, you know, focus on this. I mean that happened to George W Bush in 2001. And we're going to focus on this. I mean that happened to George W Bush in 2001. You know. So, you know he had a mandate. He didn't have.
Speaker 2:People would argue he didn't have a mandate, but you know, but he was kind of moving along for eight months and then September 11th, right? So? So you don't know. You don't know what the future holds, and so you have to make as you have to make, you have to, um, make as many positive changes you can as quickly as possible. So that's the reason why I would say just keep, keep as long as he's willing to lead us through fire. I don't mind the fires he sets.
Speaker 1:Okay, and of course we're not talking about the fires in California. We are not.
Speaker 2:We're talking about political fires. Political fires, yeah, okay, boy, I really threw you for a loop on that one.
Speaker 1:No, I just got like 5,000 follow-ups and I'm not sure where to start first. Okay, when it comes to trade these tariffs, it's one of the hallmarks of his foreign policy style and we'll see which ones actually get put into place. And you know, we certainly survived the ones that we had with China last go around, Not without pain, but we got through it. And again, to have to caveat, there's no solutions, only trade-offs. But do you think that his style of imposing tariffs to coerce other countries to fall in line with his policy directives, do you think that's going to work for him? Do you think that's something that the American people are going to support throughout all four years of his presidency? Or do you think this is all bark no bite, Because we haven't actually seen him put a bunch of stuff in place yet?
Speaker 2:I would not suggest that. He's all bark, no bite. I think the Columbia thing was real. I don't know that when he made this broad thing, I don't know that he realized the complete impact of it. And at some point you start asking 150,000 South Floridians, who are his neighbors, to leave because their visas got revoked. That has an impact, right, but I don't think there's any questions. He's willing to impose these tariffs and, you know, the question becomes how much does America tolerate before they start seeing a positive impact? Are we going to enter kind of this cold trade war, you know, with people over the threat of tariffs? And my guess is that we don't.
Speaker 2:You know, donald Trump is such a unique leader and I've worked with a couple throughout my career who I would say, normally I would suggest this, but for you it could be different, because they have there's, they're, they are unique leaders and so when you have a unique leadership style, it's um, you know, sometimes they have to go by gut, because if they go too much by the book, three, three steps down the road, their gut is not on the same page as the book, right, and so and I think that's what Donald Trump did in his first term. He's like you know, my gut's okay with step one, all right, step two, step three, but you're going to stay. You know page four of the book and now my gut is in conflict with the book, and that's where somebody like Donald Trump has a problem, or as you know. So I think this time he has said no, I'm going with my gut and the whole way, because I know when I get to step four, I'm still going to be with my gut.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Well, we've seen.
Speaker 2:I'm not sure if I answered your question or not, but hopefully that was close.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, well, we've seen. I'm not sure if I answered your question or not, but hopefully that was close. Yeah, it's all good stuff. What are the unique things about Trump's style, and especially how he talks about tariffs and other countries, and he's talked about immigration problems in Europe and trade issues over there. He's got a very unique relationship with the European continent compared to previous American presidents, but he's been incredibly critical of the NATO alliance and the inability of NATO members to meet their 2% spending goals as members of that alliance. At the same time, though, he's promised to talk down this war in Ukraine and get that wrapped up. How do you think he needs to walk that line between holding NATO members accountable for meeting their commitments but also presenting a unified front so that there is a bulwark against Russian expansion? Because he hasn't really done this yet, but if we go back to his previous term, we know it's coming. As he picks on European countries for not fulfilling their commitments, it also opens up fissures. That allows Putin to keep feeling like he can drive forward in Ukraine.
Speaker 2:Or do you?
Speaker 1:think Trump's style of just like I'm just going to talk to Putin top to the bottom of the scale, wrap this up, screw everyone else kind of like what he did in Israel Do you think that style is going to play out there?
Speaker 2:I think it could. You know, I've said for 20 years our biggest issue on the foreign policy front is if China, north Korea and Russia actually join forces in a real diplomatic type of access. If you will, and you know, we saw North Korea give Russia 10,000 troops right before the election. It was barely reported, and so those three are incredibly. The issue is certainly China and Russia. I don't know that North Korea has the ability, but China and Russia both have the ability to try to do the same thing, so how well do they work together to attain them to then be against each other, and so it's questionable how long an alliance there could last.
Speaker 2:But it was scary to me that North Korea even made the overture to give 10,000 troops to Russia and Ukraine. That was a scary moment for me and probably to me meant the greatest ability for that war to escalate in a meaningful way, and you know so. You know I'm going to trust the president until I can't, until you can't, right Like, and I just believe that he thinks that he can get it done, and I believe he can, and you know, is he is this one going to be the place where he's more measured and takes a little longer than you know he certainly. You know day one right, and you know I joke that. You know Biden screwed things up so bad that you know Donald Trump will probably have to wait until the second month to fix Ukraine. So he's fixing so many things domestically that he's going to we're almost there.
Speaker 1:We'll see what happens.
Speaker 2:Yeah, right, but I do think you're correct. Donald Trump's a man. I think the difference between these two presidents, sees, is that he has been a man of action through his entire life and some of those have been failures, and I think he's willing to risk the failure to get things done, and so I think he's going to trust his gut and try to get the things done that he's told the American people he's going to accomplish.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he's told the American people he's going to accomplish. Yeah, and the North Korean example, just to pick on that for a moment. It's very interesting to me because if North Korea is sending 10,000 troops somewhere else, even if it's a war zone, they don't like their folks to travel because they don't want them to realize how good it is elsewhere. Right, and even traveling from the North Korean border to the Ukraine front, they're going to see a lot of stuff which leads me to believe that once those 10,000 troops cross that border, they ain't ever getting crossed back. But we'll see how that plays out.
Speaker 2:Well, you've heard the story, you know. You've heard some stories in foreign press of North Koreans trying to surrender. Oh yeah, like, hey, take me please, do you want?
Speaker 1:to go back to North Korea, or do you want to be a Korean POW?
Speaker 2:You're a Korean POW. One of them was held. One of them got arrested by the North Korean army because he wouldn't get off his bed, because he kept watching the Internet Like, wow, this is great, you know, and so I think you're. I think you're right with that, and they probably don't want to come back and share with people how different the rest of the world is.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, we're getting close to time, but real quick before you go. If you had one thing that you're hopeful for with the Trump administration on the foreign policy front, what are you hopeful about?
Speaker 2:Gosh, I was hoping you would just ask me carte blanche and I would be like permanent daylight savings time. That's my number one goal.
Speaker 1:Well, hey, it's good to have goals.
Speaker 2:Permanent daylight savings time. Don't go to standard time. I hate it getting dark so early. What's the number one foreign policy goal? Wow, and he's put a lot on the table that no one expected.
Speaker 1:Greenland- Panama Canal.
Speaker 2:Canada, and you know.
Speaker 2:So I don't know that any of those three make my top, but I think you know people want to return to you know where we're not under this threat of war or war expansion in Europe, and certainly what's going on in the Middle East, and so I think that's kind of the goal.
Speaker 2:You know, you start looking longer term and you start thinking of, you know, the things like the Panama Canal and China's influence over it, and places like Africa and China's influence over it, and you know we certainly can't have an entire continent go be controlled by China, Another, you know, and so I think those are some of the things that the administration is thinking about long term, but they're, you know, I don't know that the average citizen is going to see major movement. I guess in Panama the Secretary of state's going down there immediately and the president of Panama said you know, there's no negotiation, there's no talking about the Panama canal, but there is going to be talk about China's influence and how we're not going to allow that, and so I think that's probably how that conversation goes.
Speaker 1:Cool, well, jamie, we're coming up on time. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk.
Speaker 2:Hey, it's been my pleasure. What a great conversation.
Speaker 1:Yeah and hey, before we go plug your stuff again, when can people find you?
Speaker 2:So, yeah, you can find me at Reasonable Arguments on both Substack, youtube and anywhere you watch podcasts. Me and my wife have a podcast called Reasonable Arguments News and Nonsense. My wife is completely non-political and so we argue about things that husbands and wives argue about with politics. But then she brings in some news stories. I like to say and I'm showing my age here a little bit kind of Paul Harvey-ish. I like to say and I'm showing my age here a little- bit kind of Paul Harvey-ish Don't even know who that is.
Speaker 1:No reference Paul.
Speaker 2:Harvey at one time was the highest paid entertainer in America. He was a radio host and so, yes, so if you're a podcaster, you should know Paul Harvey, because you may remember Paul Harvey's when he would tell one of his stories and he would end with and now you know the rest of the story Nothing, no idea. Go study Paul Harvey and let me know Like he was.
Speaker 2:That sounds vaguely familiar, but no, I can't say I'm really showing my age, but, but it's a. I'm really showing my age, but, but it's a. So she brings stories that you don't see in the mainstream, that are more entertaining rather than just political, is, I guess, the point. So and so maybe we're resurging Paul Harvey, we'll quit mentioning him and we'll just start mentioning Jennifer Bash, my wife, and she'll become the, you know, the new voice of. I don't want to. She's the one who picked the word nonsense. I always feel bad saying the nonsense stories, but you know. But she's so that. And then I've written a book called Great American American Speeches that Changed History. You can find that on Amazon. So that's a non-political book. It's just a collection of speeches, with me writing a short introduction to each and what they meant to me and kind of why they were important for that moment in time.
Speaker 1:Awesome, cool. Well, links to your stuff will be in the show notes for folks to look up and appreciate your time. Sir, thanks for speaking with us, thank you, thank you everyone for listening in today If you liked. Thank you everyone for listening in today. If you like what you heard, please follow the podcast and share with your friends, and even consider going to the support the show link in the episode description. Thank you and I'll see you all next time.