 Welcome back to Think Tech. This is American Issues Take Two. I'm Jay Fidel. And we're going to ask today what we really know about Kevin McCarthy's election. What deals did he finally have to make become a speaker? A lot of that is behind the screen, so to speak. For this discussion, we have Manfred Hennigson, our special esteemed guest, a retired political science emeritus from UH Manoa, and Stephanie Stull Dalton, who joins us as a contributor for every show. And in a moment, we'll come back to them and we'll pose these difficult questions to them. Welcome to the show, Manfred. Stephanie, nice to see you. So let's let me ask the question, do we know the whole story? Because although c-span cameras were watching last week, kind of last week seemed so long ago, we're watching the whole affair, the 15 votes last week. It's all, it's all superficial because there were these discussions going on. In front of our eyes, we can see them on the cell phones, subject to Pegasus, of course. I wonder if Pegasus was in the room listening to the cell phones. And, you know, privately, after hours, who knows, three o'clock in the morning, private little calls, deals being made. This was not easy, 15 votes. So we know some of the commitments that McCarthy made, but do we know them all? And are there even more draconian things that will surface later because of deals that he made? This is a very Swiss cheese kind of speaker arrangement, isn't it? Manfred, what are your thoughts? Well, I don't think we know all of the details. And we may never find out because Kevin McCarthy may not be a speaker for a long, long time, because they can take him out at any time. I think that was one of the deals that he agreed to, strangely enough. But I mean, what we have seen so far is that one of the most prominent election deniers, Jim Jordan, has become in charge of the weaponization committee. I mean, I don't know whether it's called the weaponization committee, but in any case, they want to find out whether Biden and the Democrats have weaponized the federal government. I mean, it's an absurd charge, but nevertheless, that's what they are going to do. That was on the front page yesterday of the New York Times. It's the pot calling the kettle, isn't it? Yeah. So I don't know how far it will go because you have to remember any action will stop at this point in the Senate because they don't have the majority in the Senate. The Democrats have still the majority in the Senate. So for that reason, you know, there will be a block, but including if they are trying to do an impeachment of Biden, which is a possibility also. Sounds like a press play. It sounds like they want to, you know, have dramatic hearings and try to get C-SPAN and the cable news companies in there and cover it. And I guess the question I have, this is for you, Stephanie, you think that C-SPAN and the MSNBC and CNN are going to roll their cameras in and cover it the way they covered the select committee, or are they going to pan it? And will Fox News cover it? Because Fox News may be slightly disenchanted with the GOP. All right. Yes. Thank you for the question, which is a good one. But I understand that it's not up to C-SPAN. It's up to McCarthy, the speaker, as to whether they're going to be cameras or maybe to hire, maybe to also McConnell. I mean, whether they're going to be cameras inside the chambers, I think that's blocked by the speaker's rules. But it's ultimately up to the television organizations. If they say, thanks, but we'd rather cover the storms in Seattle, you know, then they don't come. Sorry, we're not going to come down today. Well, you know, as you would well know, Jay, the expense of getting in there to do switches and moving around is much, much higher than stationary planted cameras. So I mean, there's certainly there's the authority involved and then the cost of it. I did hear some reports that it might be prohibitive for them to ramp up very fast to be able to do that, even if they could. So and without the sound, can we get the sound? I guess when you have that much rustling around, anyway, the sound is an issue too, I would think. But we are in for some pretty hard times with or without a closer look because we'll get a closer look as close as we can. And as we've had in the past, it's just like you say, if McCarthy is voted out soon, who's going to take his place? And then if Jim Jordan is going to be secretly and also the Marjorie is also making influential moves, who is going to have any confidence in the work that they do? And who is going to respond to any subpoenas, given the Republicans' response to all of the subpoenas to them from the January 6th committee. So I mean, this is a non-starter. It really is. A question about the sound that you mentioned. I mean, it would have been lovely to hear what this guy was screaming at Getz when one of his colleagues stopped him and put his hand over his mouth. But we didn't hear the sound. So there was no microphone near Getz and that controversy. And remember this really strange moment when McCarthy was leaving, or it looked as if he was going back to his seat, and then suddenly he turned around and the cameras caught this guy who was just going to Getz and another one put his hand over his mouth. I mean, it was one of the most extraordinary Hollywood scenes that you have seen covered by C-Span. Well, yes. Jay, can we get the police body cameras to be attached to our representatives in the house? Is that what we need? We have to be mic'd up each one. What I would like to inquire about though is remember the way they handled the Senate committee hearings. They have this dramatic witness come and no problem about sound or video and everybody taking pictures of the testimony and all that. And I think that's what the Republicans have in mind. They want to emulate what happened in the Democratic hearings. They want to emulate the press coverage of that too. They want everybody sitting at the tube every night trying to figure out how Biden was wrong and how the Democrats weaponized the government, all that. And they really can't make a case for it. But remember, if you're in charge of the house and you're in charge of these hearings, it's not two hands clapping. It's one hand clapping. And they can concoct testimony that is obviously incredible and they can lay it out to the public and everybody will be interested. So the question I put to you guys is if you're the press, if you're MSNBC or CNN or Fox, are you going to bite on that? Are you going to bring your cameras down to a hearing which emulates the select committee and listen to one hand clapping about how the Democrats weaponized the government? Or are you going to have a tune of your sandwich instead? Maybe you can have both at the same time. But what I'm saying is I think these hearings are going to be a she-buy and strictly political of no value in terms of finding the truth at all. And they're going to kill time and try to aggravate things. And that's my question. Are people going to watch that? Is MSNBC going to believe that anybody will watch that? Is this actually going to happen in the way that it might if the Republicans had their way? Manfred, what do you think? Look, remember the deniers were, it's not only the question of the deniers that are in Congress. It's the reality that they were voted into Congress. So you have a majority of Republican voters who believed in what these guys were saying about the weaponization. And I think in all of these discussions, we are focusing or people are focusing on the members of Congress and forget to emphasize the fact that they were voted into Congress by majorities and their districts. That's what the sickness is really all about. It's not only the sick Congress. No, it's a sickness that is in parts of the American society. And when you read, I mean, I told Jay that I just got yesterday the report of the January report, this 800-page document. When you read that, I have only read 120 pages, but it's really, it's absolutely extraordinary. I mean, it's an indictment not only of American politics, but of the US as a whole, because this is a reflection of the state of mind of a lot of millions of people at this point in the United States. Well, Stephanie, let me offer you the theory that has been advanced, a concept. The Republicans, the GOP, the Trumpers learned from January 6th. They learned what mistakes they made. They learned what successes they had in terms of affecting public opinion and so forth, of activating the right wing. And they're not going to repeat those mistakes. They're going to mutate their insurrection. And nobody will say that the insurrection is over. And as Manfred said, there's still a lot of people in this country that are deniers. So some people think that what's happening now in the house is an extension of the insurrection. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with you. When I read these first 120 pages, I was always thinking, look, what you have there is, in a way, an investigation of the people who were represented and supported the insurrectionists. The very same people who were in the house now, they're still there. No, absolutely. Yes. So Stephanie, where does this take us? We have a house that we cannot be confident about. They will not do the right thing. In fact, they are there to bring the government down, the rule of law, the constitution. All those things that the insurrectionists were focused on in January 6th is the same people, the ones who voted against the electoral college votes. Right. And they're still there there. And they're sworn to deny the election. And they're in charge. The inmates are running the asylum. Well, what about, as I've heard others question, the other 200 people that are there? So this is what question I think may be rising is what are they doing sitting there listening to all of this and not having any way to stand by or intervene? Or how can the rest of them who are not of this ilk be involved to the extent of their voices being heard? We're not hearing any of their voices, except one on one. Does their their hand put pick to be on our programs? So I think we've got that question to answer. And then I think Manfred's point was so good about the the districts that these people represent. Why can't the Democrats support or do it themselves or fund or get get some attention brought to the districts where these people emerged and talk to the people there about what were they campaigning on and what is it that we have now? And do you like it? And will you vote again for this person? I think that that needs tremendous illumination, Manfred. I really do think that that needs to be a major act is to follow up in these districts about what they thought they were buying and what they got. Yeah, really good point. Yeah, but I think so Manfred, what what can the Democrats do? I thought it was didn't you didn't you have a queasy feeling when you saw the the Republicans would would clap and you know stand up for anything that happened was pro-Republican in that week long 15 vote experience. And then the Democrats would you know respond by clapping and standing up for them. And it was like you know plurial. The whole thing was junior high school. No, it was no it's a no it's a reflection of the vision of the country. Yeah, but what can the Democrats do to deal with the divided house? Well, they stand up in applaud or should they do something else? Well, look Jeffrey the new speaker, the minority speaker, the replacement for Pelosi, his talk, I mean the way he he spoke that was the declaration of war. It was an extraordinary speech that he gave. And you could really see the excitement on the Democratic side and the anger the growing anger. On the Republican side, you know, I thought it was a stunning performance by him. But he is not with the arguments he made he is not going to win in the districts that Stephanie was talking about. You know, because the division goes so deep that I do not think you can deal you can overcome that by making Democratic candidates become more appealing. We are in that regard mentally, not politically, but mentally and Weimar. And I think people underestimate, you know, the dysfunctionality of American politics at this point. What can be done? What kind of Democrats do? I mean, yes, it was a good speech. It was a declaration of war. But now we're in the war. And it's, you know, it's French warfare. It's every day. Yes, we're in that war. And it's sad, you know, that then suddenly these revelations come about documents being found in Biden's former offices. Well, that's the distraction and the confusion and the chaos. So that is it will be a continuing theme of our mental life. Okay, so you got to have as much of that going on as possible, which is what brings into question the whole finding at the at the Biden residences. I don't but my my question is, we've got the Boba, the Marj, Marjorie, we got this Gates guy, Biggs and Jim Jordan. These people are making decisions for this country. And Jim Jordan, who was a wrestling coach who was under suspicion, still under suspicion for malfeasance. And then by that besides that, he made us live in as a bug man. He was terminated or whatever. And so, I mean, what kind of a mind is this to bring to the task for which they are kicking out shift? I mean, I am sick and hard about that, that someone like Adam Schiff is denigrated and cast aside and replaced by, as I said, Boba, Marjorie, Gates, Biggs, Jim Jordan. How does the country manage this? I think Jay's question is really the crux of it. That is the country, that's the division. And you cannot, I think, talk that away. I mean, we have to be aware of that that this is. We got to do something, man. Fero, we're going to be, you know, in deep kimchi. So I like to pose another question. It's not something we plan to discuss. But some people feel that to shake this up and to get the show on the road is to have another more vital democratic candidate for president. So I put to you the question. Let me ask you first, Stephanie, should Biden step aside, introduce a younger candidate, a candidate with more vitality, who can do the rhetoric now, who can try to reach the red states, who can try to change the vote in 2024? Because it won't only be for president, it'll be for these guys in the house. That vote will affect them both. So we need a leader of the Democratic Party, don't we? And is Biden qualified? We certainly do. And I think that the closest to that, at this point, others can emerge on your main, suggest others. But of course, Gavin Newsom is on my pick at this point. But because he is so obviously a successful Democratic governor and leader, he is being denigrated and taken apart and already reduced their attacking him to make sure that he's not a shining star. Whereas he is a shining star. They will do that no matter what. They're going to do that. But he's out early. So he's going to be just picked to pieces by the time we get to seriousness. And that will take a toll on the people who are going to push for him. So who are the, what about some of the women governors? There's some people out there that are eligible for this. But Gavin Newsom coming out the gate this year is very attractive and would be a stopgap for the DeSantis push, which would take us back, talk about Hitler. I mean, he's going to be worse than Trump could ever be. I mean, we won't even be able to read a book on our own. But anyway, we think that or use language that we have been using for thousands of years, especially as, anyway, you know, Manfred, you agreed that we should have another Democratic candidate. And if so, when? You know, the big question is when there are various factors and considerations about when he would throw his or she would throw their hat in the ring and get an active campaign going. What do you think about both of those questions? Well, look, until recently, I thought Biden should run again. Because, you know, his successes were quite obvious. But then comes this, you know, stuff with the, with the documents that were found, you know, indicating there is something wrong in the management of, you know, in the institutional management around him. So I have become now less convinced that he should run again. But I don't a nuisance. We will have to wait and see how he managed all the water, the storm crisis. You know, this is a good opportunity for him to become a star. If he manages it in a way that looks really like a great success story. I mean, using this water in order to end the drought in California, you know, would be, I don't know whether he is able of doing anything about that. But some people have said, you know, how is it possible that with all of these floods, there's still a drought problem in California. That the drought is over. No, but some people say it's not it's the drought will continue. But it doesn't matter. I think this is a chance for him to show to the country as a whole. He is really in charge. You know, you had a similar case in West Germany in the 60s when there was a flood in Hamburg. And the mayor was out of town. And the interior secretary at that time, Henry Schmidt, took over the whole management. And that made him then really the successful candidate for for the chancellor that he became, you know, in in the 70s, following Billy Brandt. You know, he was the guy who managed this really organic, this hurricane like flood that all were learned in Hamburg. Is Biden capable of that kind of innovative vitality? Does he have control over the government such that he can achieve remarkable? I'm speaking about given. I'm speaking about given having to show at this point, you know, these management qualities that what it really being I think appreciated by everyone, not only I think he could be doing it. I have not seen it so far. You know, he doesn't use the catastrophe in order to be the platform for his candidacy. I mean, remember, Bush was, in a way, destroyed by Katharina, by Catherine or whatever the hurricane was called Catherine. Yes. And so he, Kevin could use this catastrophe to really show what leadership in a crisis situation looks like, which is not that you cannot deal with it ideologically, you have to really show your management qualities. Okay, well, let's let's talk about Trump for a minute, Stephanie. You know, Trump, Trump may be down, but is he out? You know, there's been a fair amount of press about how he's lost his mojo and and not so influential anymore and so forth. But he's still working. He said, you know, he had a lot to do with Bolsonaro. He was Bolsonaro's buddy. Bolsonaro came and talked to Trump's friends in Florida. God knows what kind of signals they got. And God knows what kind of signals Trump gave some of those Trumpers that deniers on the floor of the house last week. Who knows who was making that those telephone calls. Is Trump still in play here? Is he still controlling the freedom caucus? I think it's a metaphor of a surf surfing. Okay, the North Shore, we almost have the Eddie again, with the 50 foot waves. Well, we had the Trump 50 foot waves. And I think, you know, he's coming to, he's still sliding down the front of that, those waves that he raised up. And that's going to, you know, be a while that he's going to have that that ride going on. And people like McCarthy, you know, are still sending out chouts for him and thanking him. And that sort of thing. And as long as we have that it will keep him sliding down the wave and staying on his board. But I think his time on the board is, is coming to and, you know, that the impetus and the momentum is going to run out for him. But it's just a matter of time. I mean, because that was inevitable. You know, as as Liz Cheney said, to all of her, her, her comrades on the, in the, in the house that, you know, he's going away. You're, you're not, he's going to be gone. You're not. And what you have remaining from him may not be what you wish you had. And you see, I mean, the portrayal or Trump that you get from this January 6 report, all of the quotations, and especially these almost two hours when he was unwilling to move, where, when the chaos was really getting worse in Congress, that material, you know, when you read that, if Democrats are able, you know, of making people see this other failure of the president in that crisis moment, that he in a way you could say appreciated what he saw, that he was happy about what was happening there, that even his daughter Ivanka, you know, was shocked. I mean, when you, when you read these testimonies, it's quite stunning. You think you think he's lost it? Yeah, no, I think, well, I don't, I think he lost it now, I think. But when you're, when you're watching, when you're reading that, you know, I was absolutely amazed, you know, by the quotations that people may surround him, you know, describing his state of mind. It might have, I mean, it was the state of mind of a person who really hoped that everything would, I mean, that you almost get the feeling you hope that they would grab Pence and hang him. I mean, the comments that he made that he deserved it, you know, these, these, when he was confronted with the, with, you know, the, the statement that hang Pence, he responded, he deserved it, you know, not to be hanged. Remember that the Freedom Caucus people, Gates and Green and all the Jordan and all those guys, they are still deniers. They were actively involved in the denial. They still support what Trump is selling. They are running the house. So this is, we're getting to the end of our time. And I just want to post this, it seems to me that the house, you know, is an expression of the insurrection that the people who are running the house, the inmates, are looking to destroy the ability of government to function and will have their way until they are replaced. When they start, you know, they're so out of it that they are actually talking about bringing social security down, you know, talk about how the public will respond to that in the next election. Even the reddest of the red will not be able to tolerate bringing social security down. And that's a dollars and cents issue for every man, woman and child in the country. For them to do that, you know, bespeaks of a kind of insanity politically. And so there's a fair chance that the tenure of the Freedom Caucus is going to be limited to this cycle. But in this cycle, I suggest to you, they will be attacking government in every way they can. They will be trying to bring down every institution they can. And by the end of the two-year period, we may not have a government left. What do you think, Manfred? I'm going to ask you, Stephanie. Well, look, your characters, I agree completely with your characterization of the situation we find ourselves in. But on the other hand, you have to remember that some of the prominent people that you mentioned, Gets, Green, and Gowit and others, they became re-elected despite the fact that people knew that. And especially Gets. You know, in Gets' case, it didn't even matter, you know, that he was charged there with sexually exploiting a teenager in a way that helped him. But he is, I think, the guy, he is a guy we should watch. He has a future in the Republican Party. You know, people like this charismatic arrogance, I mean, that you could see when he was sitting there and looking at his cell phone when, you know, the votes were taking place. And when Kevin gave his speech, the arrogance of this guy is the arrogance of power. Remember that he is the one who nominated Trump for a speaker. Absolutely. So I think he is, I think, a very dangerous character. But he is liked. Not only in his district, but in other parts of the Republican constituency as well. So for that reason, I think the division of the country is represented by the division that we saw during these four days in the House. And I, for that reason, I'm now not any longer confident that Biden, you know, will be good that Biden should continue in the second term. Yeah, for that reason, I'm not confident the government will survive two years of what the House has done. And I'm not sure, by the way, I'm not sure that Kevin McCarthy will be there that long. And who knows what, who knows who the speaker will be after Kevin. Who, who, who. Okay, Stephanie, your thoughts about all of that. What are they going to do with their power? And how will it affect the country? Remember that there are many factors and certainly you are addressing the arrogance of power factor with those who are within it. And have a grab at it. And then there the the American people who are interested in the soap opera quality of what they see when they turn on, they don't want to hear Adam Schiff discussing, you know, the Constitution and the issues that are and serious issues that are involved in the breaking down of those, you know, so we've got this kind of thing happening that people want to look on and they want to see it at whatever level they have to bring to it, which is not always a very high level. And so among the American people, we have these varying levels. And this gets me back to which is education and that we need to do. It's a long term response and not an immediate intervention. But we've got to bring everybody up to being able to be to to enact their democratic citizenship in an unknowledgeable way. And we don't have that here in America yet. And things used to carry us forward by these norms and these big ideas and everything. But now we have people eroding the foundations, you know, of that sort of thing and transforming them and turning them into soap opera topics and doing those kinds of adolescent level things that we're deploring here. We need a higher level act all the way around in the people who are running that who run for Congress, as Mitch McConnell said, the quality of the candidates and then the kind of leadership they have within the bodies of our government. And we need a population that does that can enact democracy, a democratic republic. So the answer that's going to happen right now is I think the Attorney General is doing really well with the special counsel and that all that Biden, all that needs to be looked into. And I have faith that that will work, work well and go forward. But as to the antics in the house, we have to watch and listen and learn and figure out how we can be a better American. That's an irresistible subject though. Manfred, the indictments, the possible indictments, thanks to, you know, Jack Smith, what is the interaction between those indictments, the possibility of them and what's going on in the house? You know, for example, if if Jack Smith gets an indictment and prosecutes a trial or trials against Trump, what effect, if any, does that have on what the house does? And what action in the house could stop him? And both of these things are on the chessboard. How do they interact? Well, I think they may reinforce each other. You know, I do not think that the indictment of Trump, I think the indictment of Trump will have a negative impact, you know, in so far as it will reactivate, you know, the resistance within the Republican constituency. Lindsey Graham said it will lead to violence. Well, I wouldn't go that far. I don't think we are, we are back to the Civil War situation that we were, you know, a year or so ago. But I do not think it will, it will help, it would help the Democrats if it comes to that. I don't know whether it will come to it. We have to wait for the Georgia story and the New York story. You know, I am not, we are speaking about the political dimension, you know, of it all. And I think the United States finds itself at a point where one has, I do not think the division will be overcome by the indictment of Trump. The division is so deep that I think you have to get some kind of revisioning of American politics. And I, and it's a question to the Democrats, but to also the moderate Republicans. But it's a question to the people. And you have, you know, when you speak about education, we need an education, an educated population. We are living in a digital age and, you know, there are limits that traditional, what traditional education can do. So we have to, in a way, digitalize our democratic education. And people have not come to terms with that either. I mean, they're burning books from libraries. Okay, we're almost out of time. Stephanie, can you take one minute and close? Maybe you want to address these issues or any others? Well, of course, I'd like to talk to Manfred about the German education system because, of course, the United States, compared to all of the other Western countries, in the ditch, compared to them for math or English or reading and all of that sort of thing. So it doesn't matter whether we're in a modern digital age or the traditional approaches to education, which is of course what some people still are militant about. But it is getting us to the place where we need to go, which is to solve problems without a stick and killing each other. So I mean, it really is about the progress of man, okay, from the cave on along here. And that's what's so disappointing about January 6th is that the default is still to kill the other guy, is to beat up the other guy. When here, we've made all this progress in understanding how to operate and face our challenges in much more sophisticated and higher level ways. So, hey, we're out of time. Yeah, okay. So I mean, that's it. So that's where we need to go. Yeah, you make me think of that old movie Lord of the Flies, you know, chaos. But I think updated it would be Lord of the Lies. Lord of the Lies. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Stephanie Stulldolton, Manfred Henningson, great discussion. Appreciate it. We'll be back. We'll be back in a week and we'll address these and other issues going forward. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii.