OK, let's unpack this. Let's do it. Today we
are diving into, well, a pretty intense stack
of political sources. Yeah, high stakes stuff.
Absolutely. We're looking at the raw power plays
behind some major conflicts. Think a potential
government shutdown that's maybe about more than
just funding. And attempts to literally rewrite
recent history like Jan six. Exactly. And then
we'll pivot. and contrast all that domestic chaos
with how some other democracies seem to run things
maybe a bit smoother, especially elections. Right.
Our mission, really, is to understand the why
behind the immediate leverage plays here. And
gain some perspective. See what's structural
versus just, you know, the daily drama. Precisely.
Moving beyond the spectacle to look at systemic
health, or maybe the lack of it, compared to
places with different frameworks. Okay, so let's
start with that present danger. We are... right
on the brink potentially of another government
shutdown this week. Classic game of chicken,
Washington style. And pressure is already on.
Yeah. Right. The Democratic base is telling Senator
Schumer, don't cave this time. Yeah, the messaging
is loud. And look, the early polling seems pretty
clear on blame. Who's likely to get it? Republicans.
I mean, the Democrats have a simple line here.
The GOP controls the White House, the Senate,
the House. All three. All three. And yet... They,
quote, can't even fund the government. It's a
straightforward argument about basic governing
competence. OK, but here's where it gets, I think,
really interesting based on the sources. This
isn't just about budget numbers for everyone
involved. No, for some, it's seen as a moment,
an opportunity. Let's talk about Russell Vaught.
He's the main author of Project 2025, right?
That's him. And it's important we quickly explain
Project 2025 for listeners. It's this huge, comprehensive,
conservative plan aimed at radically reshaping
the federal government, the executive branch,
if there's a transition. So Vaught isn't just
thinking about political strategy here. The source
describes him more as a policy wonk. And he's
apparently quite open about seeing a shutdown
as, and this is a quote, a wonderful opportunity
to decimate the government. Decimate. That's
a strong word. What does that mean in practice?
It means permanent damage. He's pushing for permanent
reductions in force RIF. OK, so RIFs, that's
different from the usual furloughs, right? Furloughs
are temporary layoffs. Exactly. Furloughs mean
people eventually come back when the funding
is sorted. RIF means you're permanently firing
federal workers. The job itself is eliminated.
The job ceases to exist. The person is gone.
The position is gone. And critically, all that
institutional knowledge just evaporates. Wow.
So who or what? is being targeted. The sources
point directly at programs that help low and
middle income Americans. Like what specifically?
Think about the administration for children,
families, aid for low income heating and cooling
LIHEAP and those vital preschool development
grants. So basic support systems. Yeah, the source
uses pretty stark language. These would be chopped
to mincemeat. The goal seems to be shrinking
government. by crippling its ability to provide
that kind of aid. OK, so Team Schumer obviously
gets the stakes here. They've set up what's described
as a private war room. Right. Coordinating with
outside allies unions, progressive groups like
the PCCC, which focuses a lot on economic issues.
And their strategy is. Treat it like a campaign.
They're crafting talking points, the main one
being Democrats do not want to shut down and
actively looking for what they call storytellers.
People who can explain the real world impact.
Exactly. Put a human face on potential Medicaid
cuts, for instance. Make it concrete for people.
And there's a personal political angle for Schumer,
too, isn't there? Absolutely. If he's seen as
giving in again, you immediately hear louder
talk about a primary challenge in 2028, perhaps
from someone like AOC. The pressure is definitely
on him internally. OK, let's shift gears from
this immediate conflict to something maybe even
more fundamental. controlling the narrative of
the past. Ah, the Orwell quote comes to mind,
doesn't it? It really does. Who controls the
past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past. And that perfectly frames
what House Republicans are doing now with January
6th. They're setting up a new committee on Jan
6th. Yes. Explicitly to redo the investigation.
The stated aim is, well, to rewrite history.
Rewrite it how? What's the new story supposed
to be? Basically, shift the blame away from former
President Trump. point the finger anywhere else.
Democrats, the FBI, maybe Antifa, Speaker Emerita
Pelosi. Anyone but him. And Speaker Johnson is
on board with this. Reportedly pleased, yeah.
He's quoted saying the previous committee's work
was rigged. So key members are already signaling
they want to overturn the central finding of
the original committee. Absolutely. Folks like
Loudermilk, Higgins, they seem focused on hitting,
like you said, the UNDO button on the conclusion
that Trump's rhetoric was a cause of the riot.
Could this backfire? Does bringing it all up
again actually help them? Well, that's the potential
scray sand effect. mentions right yeah meaning
by trying to suppress or change the narrative
you actually draw more attention to the original
event it reminds people especially independence
in the middle who didn't like what they saw on
TV that day all right remind some of the actual
images yeah violence exactly it might not play
out the way they hope with the broader electorate
and it sets up some internal drama too doesn't
it with Representative Raskin? Yeah, Jamie Raskin.
He was on the original Jan 6 committee, and he's
going to be on this new one, too. So he gets
a front row seat. And he's already asking, basically,
OK, which conspiracy theory are you guys actually
going to land on? Is it NT for this week, the
FBI next week? They kind of need to pick one
story and stick to it, right? I think it'd be
fascinating to watch that unfold. OK, let's turn
now to a different kind of power play. Retribution
aimed at The corporate world. Ah, yes, the Microsoft
situation. Trump demanding Microsoft fire Lisa
Monaco. Yes, the former deputy AG who supervised
the prosecution in his classified documents case.
The source presents it as pretty straightforward
retribution. And the leverage being used is stark.
Extremely direct. It's basically hint -hint Microsoft.
You have many government contracts that could
be canceled on a whim if you do not obey me.
Using those contracts as a weapon. It really
does sound like corporate blackmail, plain and
simple. But the question is, how credible is
that threat, really? Could the government realistically
just switch off Microsoft? Well, that's where
it gets nuanced. It depends on the type of contract.
OK. Contracts for, say, new software projects,
maybe those could be shifted perhaps to a competitor
like Oracle. It would be disruptive, but doable.
But what about the core stuff, like Windows?
Uh, now that would be, as the source puts it,
an extreme disruption. Imagine the federal government
trying to migrate tens of thousands, maybe hundreds
of thousands of computers off Windows and Office
overnight. Yeah, switching to Linux or something
else across the board. Yeah. That's a massive
undertaking. months, maybe years of effort. Exactly.
So while maybe not impossible, it's disruptive
enough to be a very potent threat, especially
against a big publicly traded company like Microsoft
that cares about stability and, you know, public
perception, boycotts, shareholder reaction. It
just creates this incredible contradiction around
free speech, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. The
same person who expressed outrage over being
banned from Ake's Twitter for inciting violence
is now actively trying to pressure a private
company to fire someone, and even going after
critics like comedians. But how does the public
feel about this kind of pressure? Well, there's
a new poll, the Economist YouGov, that sheds
some light. It shows a really large majority.
68 % of Americans find it unacceptable for the
government to pressure broadcasters or publishers
to remove content or shows. So broad opposition
to government censorship. Very broad. Interestingly,
even among Republicans, a majority opposes it.
There may be a bit more ambivalent if it's their
guy doing the pressuring, but still the baseline
principle against government interference holds
strong for most people. the immediate focus,
the daily headlines, are driven by these threats,
personal fights, shut down deadlines. Yeah, immediate
conflicts, retribution, attempts to rewrite history.
But does focusing only on that obscure the bigger
picture, the underlying rules. And that's the
perfect pivot. Let's talk about those rules.
Our sources frame the U .S. election system as,
quote, American exceptionalism and not in a good
way. Ouch. but may be accurate when you look
globally. So we've got five potential reforms,
things actually used successfully in other democracies,
that would be completely revolutionary here.
Let's tick through them. First one. Ban all corporate
campaign donations. Just get big corporate money
out entirely. Is that common elsewhere? Very.
It's illegal in many established democracies.
Canada, France, Japan, just to name a few. In
Canada, zero corporate contributions allowed.
Zip. And individual limits are really low, too.
Around $7 ,750 Canadian. Wow. Okay, second point.
Limit the length of campaigns. Our perpetual
cycle is a huge driver of cost. How short are
we talking elsewhere? Well, get this. Japan,
the official campaign, is 12 days. France, 14
days for presidential runs. The UK, usually five
to six weeks. Weeks, not years. So the proposal
here is simple. Pretty much. Ban campaign spending
before, say, January 1st of the actual election
year. Drastically shortens the paid campaign
season. All right, third idea. Spending caps.
Put actual limits on how much can be spent. Again,
very common. Canada, France, the UK all have
caps. Canada's limit for national parties in
2021 was roughly 30 million U .S. dollars. Compare
that to U .S. presidential spending. It's orders
of magnitude different. But we have the Supreme
Court issue here, right? Citizens United and
all that. Spending money equals speech. That's
the huge barrier in the U .S. But the source
points out a potential... constitutional workaround.
Which is? Congress actually has the power under
Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution,
to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in
certain types of cases. Wait, Congress can tell
the Supreme Court you can't rule on this? In
specific areas, yes. It's called jurisdiction
stripping. So Congress could theoretically pass
campaign finance reform laws and include a provision
saying the Supreme Court can't review those specific
laws. Effectively making the law immune to being
overturned by SCOTUS on free speech grounds.
That's the theory. It's legally complex, politically
explosive, but constitutionally permissible,
according to this analysis. Fascinating. Okay,
fourth reform idea. Public funding of campaigns.
Taking the reliance off private donors. How does
that work in practice? Different models. Sweden
provides something like 80 -90 % of party funding
through public grants. Germany uses a matching
system for smaller individual donations. The
point is to reduce the influence of big money.
Makes sense. And the fifth one. This one feels
really different for the US. Mandatory voting.
Making it illegal not to vote. Essentially, yes.
Where? Requiring eligible citizens to participate.
Around 27 countries do this. Australia is probably
the best known example. How do they enforce it?
Usually with small fines for not voting without
a valid excuse. It's not about jail time. It's
about establishing a civic duty. Wow. That seems
so counter to the American idea of voting as
a right you can choose not to exercise. What's
the claimed benefit? It's a potential game changer
for who participates. It typically boosts turnout
for maybe 60 percent in voluntary systems like
ours up to 90 percent or more. 90 percent. Yeah.
And critically, that extra 30 percent or so often
represents less intensely partisan voters, people
who are busy, maybe less engaged daily, more
moderate. So it brings in the middle. Exactly.
It potentially increases the electorate by half
with people who aren't diehard partisans. Politicians
then arguably have to appeal. more to that center
ground rather than just playing to their base.
But there's a patch, right? You can't just mandate
voting if it's hard to vote. Absolutely crucial
condition. Mandatory voting has to be paired
with making voting incredibly easy. Think long
voting periods like 30 days, maybe vote by mail
standard, plenty of locations. Accessibility
is key. Is there proof this linkage matters?
Yeah, Venezuela provides a sort of reverse case
study. They used to have mandatory voting and
turnout was around 83 percent. They got rid of
it and participation dropped to 61 percent. Make
it optional and hard and people drop out. Okay,
let's quickly touch on a couple of other political
maneuvers mentioned. NYC Mayor Eric Adams dropping
out. Yes, quite abruptly. And the source suggests
Trump is now trying to maneuver things by getting
the official Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa,
to also drop out. Why would he do that? To try
and create a clear head -to -head race between
the progressive candidate Zoran Omdani and Andrew
Cuomo, perhaps seeing Cuomo as easier to beat
or work with down the line. Any suggestion of
what Sliwa might get in return? Speculation mentioned.
Head of the Voice of America has a potential
carrot. Pure speculation at this point, though.
And quickly. Maryland gerrymandering. Governor
Wes Moore. Yeah, the Democratic governor there
apparently has a chance to redraw the map and
potentially eliminate the state's only Republican
House seat held by Freedom Caucus chair Andy
Harris. But he's hesitating. Doddling, as the
source puts it, possibly concerned about the
state constitution's requirement for districts
to be compact and form, which could invite legal
challenges. And finally, Rudy Giuliani settling
with Dominion. Yes, settling that huge $1 .3
billion dollar defamation lawsuit. The terms
aren't clear. especially given his other massive
judgment, the $148 million to the Georgia election
workers and apparent financial issues. Right.
So speculation is either Dominion wanted to avoid
further legal costs or maybe a wealthy ally helped
bail him out. We don't know the details. OK,
so wrapping this all up. We've looked at these
immediate, intense conflicts, the shutdown fight,
the pressure on Microsoft. The Jan 6th rewrite.
Often driven by very personal motives, retribution
or specific ideological goals like Vought's desire
to decimate government functions. Then you contrast
that with the structural discussion. These fundamental
reforms used elsewhere campaign finance limits,
shorter campaigns, public funding, even mandatory
voting. Things that change the actual rules of
the political game aiming for broader participation
and less influence from concentrated money or
power. So here's the final provocative thought
maybe. for you listening, what does it really
say about the U .S. political system right now?
Yeah, that we're so caught up in the immediate
drama. Who gets blamed for the shutdown this
week? Who's attacking who? Well, these fundamental
structural rules of the game, how campaigns are
funded, who gets to vote easily, even how much
power the courts have over political questions
seem almost untouchable, almost off the table
for serious discussion. Is maybe the biggest
knowledge gap in American politics simply not
realizing what's actually possible? What other
successful democracies are already doing differently?
Food for thought.