Jamelle Bouie Says Your Fear of Trump Isn't Helping. Plus, Humphrey Bogart’s Betrayal.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds.

This week, the president mused about using U.S.

forces against the enemy within.

New York Times columnist Jamal Bowie suggests it was ever thus.

If you go all the way back to a younger Donald Trump, just after the Tiananmen Square massacre, you'll hear Trump praise the Chinese government for its handling of those protests.

Also on this week's show, what Bowie wishes the political press covered more.

Trump is not nearly as sharp as he was.

If any other political figure gave a speech like his speech in Quantico, we would recognize it for what it was, which is someone who is in decline.

Plus, the administration's deportations and funding cuts share a common purpose.

Cruelty is not the point.

The goal is to silence anybody who has a different thought.

That's the point.

It's all coming up after this.

On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash?

Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states.

WNYC Studios is supported by ATT, offering a guarantee covering both wireless and fiber internet service that is all about having your back.

Staying connected matters.

That's why ATT has connectivity you can depend on, or they'll proactively make it right.

That's the ATT guarantee.

Visit ATT.com slash guarantee to learn more.

Terms and conditions apply.

Visit ATT.com slash guarantee for details.

AT ⁇ T, connecting changes everything.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Lewinger.

This week we're going to do something a little bit different.

You're about to hear my extended conversation with Jamel Bowie, a writer I've long admired.

Jamel's work in the New York Times, where he's a columnist, often takes the long view, drawing on his deep knowledge of the highs and lows of American history, the Constitution, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Era, to explain and contextualize what we're living through right now.

In 2019, the Columbia Journalism Review called him one of the defining commentators on politics and race in the Trump era.

This all makes him sound like a very serious person, which he is, but he's also managed to shake off the stiff stereotype of the gray ladies' opinion section.

Most days you can find him casually opining on TikTok.

He also co-hosts a podcast about 90s action thrillers and Cold War politics called Unclear and Present Danger.

I began by asking Jamel to untangle the fraught and frankly frightening speeches delivered on Monday Monday by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who flew in some 800 generals, many from across the world, for an unprecedented rally in Quantico, Virginia.

My initial reaction to all of this, both to Defense Secretary Hegseth's comments and to President Trump's, was that they wanted fundamentally transform the American military from a force that principally deals with external threats to the United States to basically some kind of internal security force.

Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia while America is under invasion from within.

We're under invasion from within.

The constant references from the president to an enemy within, identifying democratic-led cities.

We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.

That to me is a sign that what he wants is to use the military against American citizens.

And this is in keeping with statements Trump has made in the past.

During his first term, General Mark Milley commented in his memoir about his time in the administration that the president asked if soldiers could shoot at protesters during the 2020 protests.

And if you go all the way back to a younger Donald Trump just after the Tiananmen Square massacre, you'll hear that younger Donald Trump praise the Chinese government for its handling of those protests.

So I understood this to be a reflection of the president's preoccupation, perhaps,

with

using the military as a domestic political force, which is a understatement to say that this isn't in keeping with the American military tradition and the American tradition of military and civilian relations, to say nothing of the fact that it would, in my view, be a profound violation of the president's duties as president of the United States.

Of course, this is all being led by the self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who during his speech spoke about the culture of the military and the quote-unquote standards that all personnel must meet.

Hegseth said, For too long, we've promoted too many uniform leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, race based on gender quotas based on historic so-called firsts we've pretended that combat arms and non-combat arms are the same thing we've weeded out so-called toxic leaders under the guise of double-blind psychology assessments promoting risk-averse go-along to get along conformists instead we became the woke department but not anymore My parents were in the military.

They both were career military.

My father was an officer.

My sibling, my younger brother, served some time in the military and I was in the reserves at the moment.

Many people in my family serve in the military.

And if you were to zoom out and look at middle-class black American families in this country, you would find a disproportionate number of people who have served in the armed forces.

And there's a good reason for that.

The U.S.

military has been, for all of its many faults as an institution, one of the

premier places for integration and meritocratic promotion of people, regardless of their racial or ethnic background, and in more recent decades, regardless of their gender background.

The military has done a lot of work

to build an American armed forces that is reflective of the nation at large.

And I think the way to understand Hagseth is that he doesn't like that.

He has an image in his head.

He's constantly using the term warfighters, referring to lethality.

At some point in that speech, he says, you kill people and break things for a living.

You know, most of these people work in logistics, right?

Like that, that's what the U.S.

military is.

Yes, it exists to defend the United States, to project power, and this occasionally involves.

killing people.

Maintaining the readiness of the military has much more to do with how and where the U.S.

military military is going to procure tens of millions of shells for its artillery and less to do with making sure everyone can deadlift 250 pounds.

Hagseff has this idea in his mind that the military is all this Hollywood picture of special forces operators.

It all starts with physical fitness and appearance.

Frankly, It's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops.

Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.

It's a bad look.

It is bad, and it's not who we are.

He sees, he says so as much in the speech, he sees the promotion of women and non-whites and the recognition and promotion of transgender people and other queer Americans in the military as taking away from this.

Promotions across the joint force will be based on one thing, merit.

Colorblind, gender neutral, merit-based.

He demands a certain set of aesthetics that he thinks is equivalent with an effective armed forces.

He mentions in basic training, drill sergeants can use physical force against trainees.

We're empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future warfighters are forged.

He wants to get rid of anonymous reporting.

No more frivolous complaints, no more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaintants, no more smearing reputations, no more endless waiting, no more legal limbo, no more sidetracking careers, no more walking on eggshells.

So that, let's say, you are a soldier who has experienced bigotry from someone in your command, or you are a woman who has experienced sexual assault, a real problem or issue the military has had, you may have a harder time getting that addressed.

You mentioned your family.

If the military has benefited from a broad and diverse membership, why

strategically would Hegseth be antagonizing his ranks?

I think it is darker than simply an aesthetic obsession.

I think they probably correctly perceive that a diverse military with a diverse officer corps is going to be far less willing to turn itself against the American people.

That is dark.

Wanted to go for the silly part first.

No, I appreciate that.

Start light.

You've written that the dismantling of DEI programs is, quote, the reintroduction of something like segregation.

What do you see as being undone even outside the military?

I think first and foremost, what is being pushed is this notion that diversity itself is evidence of a lack of qualifications and a lack lack of competence and a lack of merit.

You'll have someone like Pete Hagseth, who by the qualifications we expect of the typical Secretary of Defense, is not particularly qualified to be Secretary of Defense, but he goes on and on about merit.

He's a Fox News host.

I'm trying to be polite.

Yes, he's a television personality.

He has no experience in the kind of work that the Secretary of Defense does.

And he's going on about merit.

So does merit have anything to do with qualifications?

Apparently not.

Hagstaff has removed high-ranking officers from positions of leadership who had 20, 30 years of experience, nothing but strong and clean records under the guise that they had not been promoted according to merit.

Merit in this usage seems to be a certain image of who belongs in elite institutions, who belongs in leadership.

And it isn't everyone.

We're speaking on Wednesday and your latest column is about this idea that the president has a mandate.

This is the term, the framing that we hear from the administration.

America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.

It's also something you believe that like too much of the rest of us, the press, civil society, is kind of just bought into.

That he won an election and therefore he can do what he wants because he represents the will of the people.

Why isn't that right?

The aim of a presidential election isn't to elect a living avatar of the American people.

It's to elect what the framers described as a chief magistrate, someone to lead the government and to ensure its compliance with Congress and the Constitution and also set an agenda for the government.

Let's say the president wins comfortably, four, five, six points, but then the other party wins the legislature.

Who has the mandate?

No one does, because there is no mandate.

What there is is a charge from the public to work together.

And even when the public gives one party control of the federal government, that doesn't erase the fact that the public is still big and fractitious and diverse and that Congress represents that and that in a system based off collaboration and consensus, there's still an obligation to work together because

even in our polarized and divided time, Not every Republican represents the same exact kind of constituency or that goes for Democrats as well.

And the way this is supposed to work is that the president is recognizing that in crafting his proposals, his policies, and working with Congress to get something done.

What Trump is claiming instead is that he's basically elected sort of like America's king, and he doesn't have to do any of that because his will represents what the people want.

And I just think that's very silly.

It has no basis in reality.

I've heard you invoke the idea of what the framers wanted or intended.

And I know that that's kind of like the express goal of your column, which is to use history to kind of help contextualize current events.

How do you square this feeling that history should help guide our country and how we understand it at a time when we live under a presidential administration that's trying to erase and distort history, that's kind of happy to cherry-pick or ignore what the framers intended?

Yeah, I mean, it's not just what the framers intended, although I do make quite a bit of reference to the founding era.

It's the whole sweep of American history, and really it's trying to suppress or erase those parts of American history that provide a challenge to the kind of vision of the country that I think the administration has, which is the United States as this white European Christian country for whom others are interlopers

or marginal figures at best, and for whom events, institutions like slavery are side stories to the main event.

And for someone like myself, who views history not so much as a guide, but as a way of exploring questions that are recurring in the American experience, I'll put it that way, right?

Like there are things that just keep coming up.

for Americans in trying to live together in this big society, trying to govern ourselves.

And the utility of history is that you have all these case studies.

You can see how other groups of Americans at different times, in different conditions, approach the same or similar questions.

Like what?

What's come up time and time again that you think can clarify what we're living through right now?

So a perfect example, who is included in the category of American?

A very simple question that comes up again and again and again.

When the Declaration of Independence is like fresh on the paper and you have enslaved enslaved Africans throughout the colonies saying, Aren't we included in this too?

Doesn't this include us?

Aren't we all men as well?

This obviously comes up again in the battles over slavery before the Civil War.

And then after the Civil War, when we have emancipated 4 million enslaved people, you're left with this question, where do they go?

How do they belong?

Can they be included in this society?

And this question of who gets to be an American extends beyond black Americans, at one point included, right?

Like Irish Americans and German Americans in the 1840s.

It includes Asian Americans, specifically Chinese Americans in the 1880s.

It includes, when you look at a recurring question like Koop Belongs, at each point, participants are looking back either at their own experiences or at previous times in history.

So Abraham Lincoln in his response to Dred Scott is looking back at the framing era and seeing examples of black Americans being included.

Frederick Douglass, in his advocacy for the inclusion of Chinese Americans into American society, is looking back at his experience as an enslaved person.

The civil rights movement is looking back at Reconstruction.

So that's all to say that, like, that's an example of what I mean.

This is a persistent question.

Who gets to be an American?

Who is included?

And

a knowledge of history helps us, I think, tackle that question.

We can see how other Americans answered it and what we can take from their answers.

Coming up, in the second part of my conversation with New York Times columnist Jamel Bowie, we get into his habit of name-calling.

This is on the media.

I'm Brian Reed.

When I created S-Town, I looked at how secrets, lies, and the stories we tell shape a small, rural town.

Now on my podcast, Question Everything, I'm going bigger.

Hi, this message is for Senator Lindsey Graham.

I'm hoping.

I head to Washington to take on a law that gives tech companies sweeping immunity.

Is how these companies have gotten rich.

Senator German Ponte.

Join me as I go after big tech on Question Everything from Placement Theory and KCRW out Thursdays, wherever you get your podcasts.

This is on the media.

I'm Michael Loinger.

Now for more of my conversation with New York Times columnist Jamel Bowie.

In 2022, Jamel made the jump to TikTok, where he dishes out a more casual brand of political analysis for over 270,000 followers, sometimes while walking his dog around Charlottesville, Virginia.

The algorithm is really not happy about my politics videos,

but it is happy about my history videos.

So we're going to talk a little more about Reconstruction.

And I've been thinking more about it since last night.

I asked Jamel how he came to embrace new media.

Part of it is just my own interest in the social internet.

I'm 38.

I was in college, I believe, when Twitter got started.

When I was younger in high school, I was on like internet forums.

Like it's just part of my life.

I'm not, unlike someone maybe 10 years younger than me or 15 years younger than me.

I'm not what you call digital native.

I have firm memories of the analog world.

I like analog things, but I've always been interested in the social internet and like engaging on the internet in social ways.

And so part of it's just that.

These are newer platforms.

Short form video is like a newer kind of thing to do.

Let me give it a shot.

Let me give it a try and see if I can't do a version of what I do on the page via this.

Part of it is very intentional, which is that I don't just want to be communicating with New York Times readers.

That's a big audience.

It's in many ways an an influential audience.

It is an audience that I think extends further than maybe people might realize.

Like, for example, every year I get emails from high school students who are doing a project on newspaper columnists or whatever.

And they're like, yo, we're reading your columns.

Could you answer some questions?

But the fact that they're assigned to read your work also communicates something.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I want to encounter a broader set of people.

And that necessarily means going where the people are.

And the people are on short form video and long form video too.

That's YouTube.

Yeah, and you post a lot, which you kind of have to do.

You even posted a video on Christmas this past year.

And what I see you doing is something pretty unique on social media where it feels like you have to sacrifice depth for an audience often.

You talk about history and politics without dumbing things down, and yet you've still been able to build a pretty good audience.

How would you say the craft differs from, say, making videos on TikTok versus writing the column for the Times?

That's interesting.

Obviously, it differs in very practical ways, right?

Like, it takes longer to write a column.

You're communicating in a different way.

It's a more formal form of communication.

You have more time to consider what you're saying.

But then there are ways in which it's actually not that much different.

Like, for me, the writing is like the last stage in a process that involves a lot of reading and reporting.

And in the same way, making a short form video, at least making the kind of short form video that I'm trying to make, it rests on a foundation of research and knowledge.

I'll also say that for me, I didn't get into writing by way of journalism.

I got into writing by way of public speaking and like school.

And so much of my process now as a writer is pegged towards public speaking.

I'm almost reading my stuff out loud to see if it just like sounds well to an audience.

You read your New York Times columns out loud.

Yeah, in the editing process, I read them out loud.

I do that with an ear towards if I were giving this to an audience, how it would sound.

One video of yours that's really stuck with me, and I think may have been one of the reasons I subscribed to you on TikTok was seeing a video you made shortly after the election about the fear that many of your followers were experiencing.

You responded to messages and comments you were getting about how this was the last presidential election.

You disagreed with that sentiment and you explained why.

So earlier in our conversation, we talked a little bit about the notion of the public, right?

And that the public isn't like a singular thing and that it's fluid and constructs itself and reconstructs itself.

That TikTok both came out of responses to people who follow me.

but also that underlying sense of what I think a public is, which itself owes itself to years of study and reading and research and all that kind of thing.

In that video, I'm kind of trying to condense all of that stuff into something that is relevant.

And the ultimate message is that, like, just because this is a very serious result and will have very serious implications doesn't mean that I think the phrase I use was that politics are over.

And critically doesn't mean that you have lost your capacity for agency and that your agency still matters, that political life still matters, and that we'll see it mattering pretty soon, which I think has clearly been the case.

You mean that this election was not a sign of absolute authority from the Trump administration and that there would still be many, many opportunities to express ourselves democratically, to protest, to stand up, et cetera?

Right.

And to just contest claims being made about the world and claims being made about presidential power.

I mean, I don't think I said this, but that in turn becomes like a bases bases for maybe new ways of doing politics and new ways of building alliances and coalitions, maybe constructing new kinds of majorities.

I see so much of this as being fluid and not static.

For me, that's just a conclusion to draw from my relatively short life doing this.

My first job in journalism was under Barack Obama, and now here I am in Donald Trump's second term.

Very obviously, things change rapidly.

One thing I think that your fans appreciate about you is that you don't mince words, particularly on social media.

On Blue Sky, you've called RFK Jr.

a eugenicist freak.

Just gonna read him.

While reading a biography about Antonin Scalia, you made a post referring to him as, quote, a run-of-the-mill gutter bigot.

You're loving it, I can tell.

This feels like a negative ad.

I'm just reading the quote.

And on TikTok, you call J.D.

Vance a miserable little pigman who no one respects, who almost certainly does not respect himself.

And a fan of yours ended up making a song out of that clip on TikTok.

He's a little pigman, pig man, pig man.

He's a little pig man.

J.D.

Vance, he's a little, he's a little, he's a little pig man.

He's a little pig man, big man, big man.

Clearly, you think it's funny.

I think it's funny.

It also catches my eye because the language is so much more visceral than what I'm used to hearing from New York Times columnists who are often, you know, let's be honest, like pretty self-serious and very, very cautious.

Why the name-calling?

So it is name-calling, but it's not substanceless name-calling.

Part of it just reflects how I viscerally feel.

That's language that comes out of my actual reaction to some of this stuff.

I think the Scalia thing was in relation to his comments about the Voting Rights Act during the oral arguments over Shelby County v.

Holder, where he refers to it as a racial entitlement.

It makes me angry.

You're telling me that a law that basically enfranchised 15% of the country, that brought meaningful democracy to millions of Americans, including my like grandparents, is some kind of racial entitlement that the only reason it exists is because people are afraid of being called racist.

Like, come on, give me a break.

My name-calling is both a way to express my disrespect.

Like, I do not respect this opinion.

I do not respect this this person for giving it.

But in the case of JD Vance, here's a guy who barely a decade ago was telling his friends that Donald Trump was Hitler

and is now the most MAGA of MAGA boosters you can imagine and who clearly is calibrating according to what he thinks will be the most politically advantageous for him, who has been willing to demagogue innocent people.

I'm thinking here about the Haitian residents of Springfield, Ohio, for whom he spread, I'll call it a libel that they were stealing and eating their neighbor's pets, a kind of claim that has roots in long-standing forms of racist dehumanization against Haitians specifically.

And then he defends it.

If I need to tell a story to get the media to pay attention to the problems facing the American people, then I'll do it.

This is a rough paraphrase of what he said in response.

And that to me is not just an ugly thing to say about people who were his constituents in ohio but just an ugly thing to say about anyone period but it to my mind demonstrates just a profound lack of principle the kind of lack of principle that might lead you to describe the person as a little pig

i feel like i'm just calling a spade a spade here rfk jr

I think that comment was after the initial measles outbreak in Texas, and he's asked about the children who are getting sick and dying of measles.

And he says something to the effect of, only a sick child is going to die of measles, which is either the most tautological thing you'll ever hear.

or an expression of some other set of ideas, which he has also expressed about purity, about his skepticism of modern medical treatment being based in the sense that they're kind of adulterating the human body.

That the weak deserve to die.

Or that we are doing something harmful when we don't let the weak die of natural causes, die of diseases that they catch.

That what you want is a world in which people get sick and then they get better.

And then if they're better, they're stronger.

And if they don't survive, well, they were just sick anyway.

We have a word for that, and that's eugenics.

Now, the freak part, yeah, that's mean.

The eugenics part is accurate observation about RFK's ideology.

Speaking of calling a spade a spade, you have been critical of news organizations for not writing more about Donald Trump and his mental and physical acuity.

You wrote, quote, he hasn't just deteriorated.

He's clearly cognitively impaired.

And it is bizarre to me that this isn't just a major story.

Yeah.

I mean, I wrote this in my column last year.

There is clear evidence that Donald Trump is not nearly as sharp and capable as he was in 2016 and 17, and he wasn't particularly sharp and capable then either.

His speech in Quantico, where he seems to be barely able to keep himself up, is constantly making bizarre digressions, is kind of just droning on and on.

I think if any other political figure gave a speech like that, we would clearly recognize it for what it was, which is someone who is in decline.

And what I do find strange is that we had not long ago a little media self-flagellation over not being forthright enough about Biden being impaired.

And now here we are with a president who just a couple of days ago shared a bizarre AI video about a conspiracy theory about some sort of magical beds that heal all issues.

That is not the behavior of someone who is

fully in control of their entire capacities.

This is like a fascination among QAnon adherents that the government has access to a cure-all medical bed, but for some reason is withholding it.

Right.

I just think that we should be consistent in the political press, and maybe the fact that the currently serving President of the United States may not have the capacity to handle his job in full is something we should be talking about, especially, I'll say, given the evidence that he has outsourced important parts of his job to other people in the administration without any real public discussion of this.

Like what?

There is some reporting that the strikes on boats in the Caribbean is very much a project of Stephen Miller, and it may be even possible that Stephen Miller is directing those strikes, which seems like something the public should know.

Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, essentially being a one-man demolition derby for the federal bureaucracy, feels like something that should be an area of concern for the public.

I would literally like to know who is doing the work of president right now.

Is it Donald Trump who seems to be golfing all the time, or is it someone else?

I just want to return to TikTok.

A lot of what you're doing there, I see, is a kind of modern style of journalism where you're fielding comments and concerns from your followers, responding to their anxieties.

What are you hearing most from your viewers there?

I think the overwhelming thing is just a sense that there's nothing that can be done to hold Donald Trump accountable or to stop Donald Trump.

And I think my response often is depends on what the things are, what's happening, what the circumstance is.

To use an example, if Trump is pushing his Republican allies in the states to try to gerrymander a Republican majority next year, that is maybe a sign that Donald Trump does not think he is on the firmest political standing.

And And that's maybe a sign that the kind of lurid fantasies I think that some people can fall into about canceling elections and so on and so forth

are far from reality.

What you're really talking about here is fear, a pervasive fear.

Right.

You've said that fear is the mind killer.

It's the little death.

Be not afraid.

I don't know what you're quoting there.

Really?

Yeah.

It's Dune.

Oh, it's Dune.

Okay.

It's Dune.

Okay, okay.

On one hand, Trump may want a third term.

He may be signaling pretty strongly that he's going to be screwing with elections.

He is already threatening to screw with the Postal Service.

On the other hand, it's not so simple because the federal government doesn't control elections.

How do you balance a rational response to what this administration is doing, which should frighten us, with a sense that it can go too far quite easily?

Aaron Powell,

it's important to recognize what the executive branch with the president has direct control over under any administration and where there is no particular mechanism in the most literal sense.

So, an example, last month, two months ago, the president issued this executive order, you know, mandating voter ID and all these things.

And a lot of people very understandably freaked out.

He's going to try to subvert the elections.

And the thing that I argued is that there is no mechanism here.

What can the president do to force the Virginia State Board of Elections to change the way they do things?

Well, the president can engage in political coercion, right?

Can use the bully pulpit to try to pressure these other institutions, individuals, and groups into doing what he likes.

There's no button he can press to make it happen.

Pay attention to this.

This actually really matters.

Because if there's no button he can press, then that area becomes a site of resistance.

You're seeing this with his attempts to deploy the National Guard.

To deploy the National Guard to Chicago in the absence of any kind of actual real emergency, he needs the permission of the governor.

He needs to ask.

And if the governor is going to say no, then that's it.

And so what you noticed with his threats to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, governor of Illinois, J.B.

Pritzker, said, no, we don't want them here.

And if you send them here, we're going to do everything we can to hold them accountable for any laws they break here.

And the president more or less backed down.

He still makes the threat, but he's backed down.

And now he says, oh, well, you know, Priscilla wants us to bring them in.

We will.

Recognizing when he's counting on you to believe he has power that he does not actually have, I think is really important.

You use the word status quo ante, this old normal that we can never return to again.

But you believe that we will find a new normal again one day.

Do you mind just explaining how you think about that?

So I do think that Trump winning last year marks a definitive break.

We're like in a new place.

The kind of damage he's done to, I think, the American constitutional system, it's been done.

Any kind of repair is going to require steps that are maybe more radical than people are accustomed to thinking are necessary.

We're in this era, and I think the president's unpopularity, the unpopularity of his agenda is evidence of this, where no one has really won the game here.

Both sides are still kind of in this like war position and trying to figure out who can establish some kind of new political order.

So, I think there will be a new political order.

I think there will be a new normal.

And I think my argument is that it's all very, very contestable right now.

It's all extremely contestable, that no one has actually won.

The country is still quite closely divided.

There's still much that can be done if you have, as I do, a more egalitarian and inclusive vision of the country to try to build out the kind of support for that vision.

Aaron Ross Powell, you talked about how fear is the mind killer, quoting Dune.

That was like nine months ago.

And in that time,

we've seen Donald Trump and his administration rapidly attempt to consolidate power.

This speech at Quantico, the enemies within, you said it yourself, that is is a pretty extreme escalation of using the military against citizens for unknown thought crimes.

Yet, when you talk about this stuff, you seem like really calm and collected.

Is there anything that you're afraid of?

Like when you pull up the New York Times in the morning, do you not feel that knot in your stomach?

I

obviously there are things I fear.

There are outcomes that I fear.

I fear an outcome where, yeah, Trump does manage to create a consolidated authoritarian regime.

I fear an outcome where basic rights that Americans take for granted are sharply restricted.

I fear an outcome where there is violence done to people.

There's violence being done to people now, where there's even more violence being done to people.

These are real objects of fear.

I think for me, in my day-to-day life, I'm not going to be the decisive figure here, right?

So fear is a healthy emotion.

It's a rational emotion in many cases.

It's something that helps us calibrate ourselves and our response to the world around us.

But fully giving in to fear, fully embracing fear, being afraid as just a state of being renders one unable to act.

It makes it hard to think clearly about the situation you're in.

And I'm constantly telling my kids and my oldest, especially, it's okay to feel fear.

It's okay to be afraid, but that cannot cannot be the way you go through life because you'll never experience anything.

You'll never do anything if what you're afraid of is being embarrassed or what you're afraid of is making a mistake or failing.

I try to have that perspective in my own life, and I try to have that perspective about political life.

The other thing I'll say, I grew up in Virginia.

I was born in the South.

My family is from the American South.

My family has been in the American South since at least the early 19th century were descendants of enslaved people.

And it's just simply the case that, like,

people who look like me have faced much worse in this country.

This is like a bad era, I'd say, for the United States.

It's not the worst.

If

not just people that I may be related to, but people in my rough position, the kind of writers that I look up to, like W.E.B.

Du Bois or Anna Julia Cooper or Ida B.

Wells, if they can do their work, Ida B.

Wells chased out of her home by a lynch mob.

Walter White, the head of the NAACP, not character in Breaking Bad.

Walter White can investigate lynchings as a light-skinned black man, but a black man nonetheless.

This is serious, but not...

it's not that bad.

Jamel, thanks so much for giving us so much of your time.

Thank you.

Jamal Bowie is an opinion columnist at the New York Times.

Coming up, the politics of fear have deep roots in this country.

This is on the media.

I'm Brian Reed.

When I created S-Town, I looked at how secrets, lies, and the stories we tell shape a small, rural town.

Now on my podcast, Question Everything.

I'm going bigger.

Hi, this message is for Senator Lindsey graham i'm hoping i head to washington to take on a law that gives tech companies sweeping immunity is how these companies have gotten rich being a german professor join me as i go after big tech on question everything from placement theory and kcrw out thursdays wherever you get your podcasts this is on the media i'm michaelinger We just heard from Jamel Bowie about how fear can get in the way of action when it comes to political resistance.

It's a subject that Brooklyn College professor Corey Robin, author of Fear, The History of a Political Idea, spoke to Brooke about at length earlier this year.

Robin explained how by threatening deportations and funding cuts, the Trump administration forces institutions and individuals to make a calculation.

The leaders of these institutions, the people who work at these institutions, they have to make that calculation.

Do we speak up and incur the further wrath of the government?

Or do we quietly cooperate, keep our heads down, and hopefully we'll come out okay?

The problem, and this is what happened during the McCarthy era, is you start doing that day in, day out.

And before you know it, the very reason you were making the sacrifice, namely to protect the institution, you've already betrayed that goal.

When we read about people who lived under communist regimes in the 1970s and 1980s, that's what they were talking about.

The daily cooperation with lies, not lies that, you know, Fox News is trumpeting, not lies that are easy to identify, but a lie of the life.

A lie of the life.

What do you mean?

If you're at a university, the reason that you work there is not to make a lot of money.

It's because you believe in research, in teaching, you believe in knowledge.

all of these things.

If then you yourself are part of an enterprise where you are firing people

and you don't fight it vigorously, you start living a life of lies, of betrayal.

And that is, I think, a lie of life.

During Trump's first term, Adam Serwer coined the phrase, the cruelty is the point to describe his policies.

But you offer an alternative read.

You say, silence is the point.

Yeah, it wasn't just Adam Serwer.

This really became a very influential slogan among liberals.

The idea is that the people who are doing these terrible things enjoy humiliating, enjoy degrading other people.

Now, I would certainly not deny that that to some degree describes what Donald Trump is doing.

Well, just look at Marco Rubio alone.

Yes, but that's not why the funding is being pulled from all of these universities, why funding is being pulled from every state, why employees all across the federal government are being fired.

So let's take the case of support for Israel.

The Trump administration has no interest in being cruel about that issue.

They are trying to produce a certain kind of belief system by silencing those who would disagree with them.

This was very true during the McCarthy era.

McCarthy did seem like a cruel individual, but that's not why the federal government, the state's governments, the whole society sought to eliminate all of these different beliefs about civil rights, democracy, and so forth.

They wanted to produce a country that was much, much more conservative and didn't subscribe to those beliefs.

Cruelty is not the point.

The goal is to silence anybody who has a different thought.

That's the point.

And back in the 40s and the 50s, what was being suppressed was anti-fascist ideas, anti-Nazi, pro-civil rights, pro-democracy, pro-workers' rights, pro-free speech.

And then there was the film Casablanca.

Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this?

I mean, what you're fighting for.

We might as well question why we breathe.

If we stop breathing, we'll die.

If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.

What of it?

It'll be out of its misery.

You know how you sound, Mr.

Blaine?

Like a man who's trying to to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart.

It's an iconic film, but it comes out of an effort to make left-wing ideas seem like common-sense American ideas.

There was a film called Tender Comrade that was written by Dalton Trumbo, who is a member of the Communist Party.

And in it, Ginger Rogers says, share and share alike.

That's democracy.

We could run the joint like a democracy.

And if anything comes up, we'll just call a meeting.

That'd be wonderful.

Oh, we could just do lots of things.

And Casablanca really comes out of that firmament.

It was really an effort to make the cause of fighting fascism not just a political cause, but in the form of Humphrey Bogart, a human cause.

You know, what is Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca?

What is his struggle?

It's a guy who was betrayed by a girl, who, because of that, has become cynical about everything.

And then in the course of finding her again and falling in love with her again, he discovers that he's going to fight fascism.

And it was a great film.

And the reason why it's so important is

in the late 1940s, when the House Committee on American Activities went after Hollywood, they hauled up a group of screenwriters, directors, and so forth who were called the Hollywood 10.

And all of liberal Hollywood rallied behind the Hollywood 10.

They formed something called the Committee on the First Amendment, and it included all your favorite stars, Gene Kelly, Catherine Hepburn, Frank Sinatra, Groucho Marx.

It also included Humphrey Bogart.

And Lauren McCall.

Yes, and there's a great photograph of the two of them marching in Washington.

I think it was October 26, 1947, for the First Amendment.

A group of actors even launched a radio show called Hollywood Fights Back.

This is Humphrey Bogart.

We said to ourselves it can happen here.

We saw American citizens denied the right to speak by elected representatives of the people.

We saw police take citizens from the stand like criminals after they'd been refused the right to defend themselves.

The Hollywood studios get very, very nervous, and Bogart makes a turn.

And in March of the following year, he writes an article.

called I'm No Communist.

It was in Photoplay magazine.

He says, I went to Washington.

It was an ill-advised, foolish trip, I'm ready to admit.

I was a dope, and maybe somebody like FDR, he says, could handle those babies in Washington, but they're too smart for guys like me.

On the one hand, it's sort of funny the way he talks about this, but there's a real sadness to me.

Humphrey Bogart made this iconic film as somebody who found himself by fighting not just against fascism, but regimes of fear.

My daughter knows who Humphrey Bogart is at the age of 16 today because of that film.

And then in real life, to engage in a complete reversal.

This is what I meant before when I said this is the lie of life.

It's such an utter betrayal of all the reasons why we love Humphrey Bogart.

And with regard to the long-term consequences of this red scare, it was a profoundly effective silencing campaign, but McCarthy did get his comeuppance in the Army McCarthy hearings when a lawyer said, You've done enough.

Have you no sense of decency, sir?

At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

It certainly brought down Joseph McCarthy.

It didn't bring down McCarthy-ism or the Red Scare.

He was brought down not just because he went after the Republican Party in the military, but that he had already performed his service to the Republican Party.

He was so helpful to winning elections in 1950, 1952, and 1954.

And having completed that service, he could be dispensed with.

But the ism persisted.

Immigration deportations continued.

Suppression of heterodoxy in labor unions, in universities continued.

And one of the long-term repercussions could even be felt in American foreign policy.

One of the targets of the Second Red Scare were left-leaning people in the State Department, oftentimes called the China hands, people who really knew China and East Asia, and they were purged from the State Department.

And many people, including David Halberstam in The Best and the Brightest, claim that in losing those people who were experts on China and on Asia, the country set itself up for what became the Vietnam War that destroyed so many millions of lives in Vietnam and so many lives in the United States as well.

That's a particularly dramatic consequence of political repression, of political fear.

But in the long term, that's the kind of thing we have to be thinking about, particularly in an age of climate change where we are facing large conflagrations, when all those scientists and researchers are purged and silent where will we be with the fire next time or the flood next time

during the first Trump administration you came on the show and argued against those who were invoking the word fascism you know douse your hair doesn't need to be on fire

I was afraid you were gonna you were gonna ask me about this I was skeptical in the first Trump administration that they had the kind of power and the kind of authority that many of their critics feared that they had.

Which they didn't have in the first administration.

Right.

And I was skeptical coming into this second administration that they would be able to wield the kind of power that people feared they would wield.

And I have since turned out to be wrong.

They have set off multiple conflagrations, and I have been shaken out of my skepticism.

You don't think the courts will save us?

I never thought the courts would save us.

In fact, the McCarthy era, I think, is a good example of this.

When the courts finally started intervening and striking down a lot of the instruments of the second Red Scare, it was after the Red Scare had succeeded.

I always feel like the courts come late.

We have to save ourselves.

Corey, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Corey Robin is a distinguished professor of political science at Brooklyn College, and he's also the author of Fear, the History of a Political Idea.

Brooke spoke to Corey Robin earlier this year.

That's it for this week's show.

On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, and Candice Wong.

Our technical director is Jennifer Munson with engineering from Jared Paul.

Eloise Blondio is our senior producer and our executive producer is Katia Rogers.

On the Media is produced by WNYC.

Brooke Gladstone, we'll be back next week.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

NYC Now delivers breaking news, top headlines, and in-depth coverage from WNYC and Gothamist every morning, midday, and evening.

By sponsoring our programming, you'll reach a community of passionate listeners in an uncluttered audio experience.

Visit sponsorship.wnyc.org to learn more.