I fear that part of what makes it hard for “new readers” to really follow politics is the infinite “backstory” or “lore” that’s accumulated, which is the same problem the comic industry has.
Something that alienates new comic readers is trying to “catch up” to 100 years of stories, knowing what they need to know to enjoy the books being published now. Marvel has tried to fix this with reboots and recap pages.
American politics has a similar problem—how do you backfill knowledge into a 16 year old something like the Mueller or Comey affairs, or the Trump-gold star feuds, or Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels? It feels sometimes like explaining Operation Galactic Storm.
Has the Bulwark ever looked at this specifically as a problem to be addressed, or how do you think it could be addressed?
This is an excellent question I think, but I think it might be missed by many because you posted it as a response. Why don't you copy and paste it as a new comment?
While Trump might be immune for his part in any potential criminality under federal U.S. law (e.g., accepting a bribe), those who are “on the other side” of Trump’s criminality (e.g., by offering/paying a bribe) are NOT immune, NOR are those who “aid and abet” Trump’s criminality (e.g., by transmitting a bribe offer/acceptance, processing the transfer of funds/Qatari airplane constituting a bribe, etc.) immune.
MY QUESTION(S): Is The Bulwark tracking, keeping a list of, monitoring, etc., this administration’s crimes and violations (whether alone or working with others) so that the next administration will have a road map to expeditiously pursue any and all appropriate charges against Trump’s criminal co-participants?
If not, are you aware anyone else doing so (e.g., another news publication, a watchdog group, a university, a non-profit, a political group, etc.)?
If not, do you think such an undertaking would be worthwhile? If so, is there anything else we should tracking? Which group(s) would be best suited (and inclined) for such an undertaking, and how do we get them to step up?
Can you speak on the quiet, old money donors of the GOP? Harlan Crow, the Uhliens, foster Freiss and the addlestons and the like. They couldn’t stop Trump. As far as you know, are they enjoying the current environment? I would think they like being in charge, and right now they are just riding the trump tiger. Are they okay with him so long as liberals are being hurt, or do they have policy goals?
Which Democratic candidate to think you think has the best chances of winning--presuming we have another free & fair election in this nation-- the presidency in 2025?
If Dems take the house, realistically how much oversight will they have? It seems Trump will just refuse to turn over documents and make Dems sue in court which will take time. Then he can play games with how he turns over docs etc. etc. and not really comply. Also, tell me if I am wrong but I think he can just declare executive privilege and again make Dems sue him in court which will take time. Am I catastrophizing? Are there things Dems in House can do that I am not aware of where they can force Trump Admin to turn over docs or make folks from the Trump Admin (or outside Admin) testify before the House? Won't they just do what Pam Bondi did? If they refuse, can't Trump just pardon them? I feel like we are anxious for Dems to win House (which agreed better them than not) but their ability to conduct oversight will be quite limited with a rogue Admin. Am I being too dark even for you, Jonathan?
Did they pull one over on Trump? Making him think he got something they can just stall like he always does? Wouldn't any new bases or mining need Greenland's approval?
What steps can be taken to impartially call out or label untruths--whether liberal or conservative--in the public media or social media spaces? More subtly, the major right-wing presences (growing due to consolidation) selectively tilt bias through editorial choice painting a totally different world. Click back-and-forth and you'd think different planets. For example, the Fox News audience never saw Trump speaking before the disgruntled general officer "enforced gathering" as Fox deemed it harmful to Trump's image. WTF?
What do you think will happen to Marco Rubio? Even though he is a grovelling lackey now, back in the before times, he was extremely critical of Trump. Although Trump cannot remember that Greenland is Greenland and not Iceland, he never forgets when someone speaks ill of him. Look at Bill Cassidy.
Dark JVL is interesting, necessary, and makes me feel like my feet are still on solid ground. Most days. But precisely because he sees straight through to how badly things could (& are) turning out, I think hearing what gives him hope could be really fascinating. Useful, too.
I like Dark JVL because I frequently start a mental argument with it/him/the ideas, and then perversely talk myself into a small bit of transient hope.
To be able to lose hope, you have to have it in some form, so I think this is a good thread/question for JVL. I also agree, OJVV, that these are not necessarily the same thing, but they can be, sometimes.
The fact that JVL or any of us keep going is proof we have hope. He looks into the gaping maw of our current situation five days a week, unflinchingly, and still finds the drive to come back and do it the next day. That's pretty remarkable when you think about it.
For me, it's history. You know the old "We beat them before - we can beat them again" line. That, and the fact that progress has always been cyclical, not linear. That doesn't make any of this easy or excuse any of the cruelty and pointless destruction we're bringing on. But it does give me hope and keeps motivating me to try to push through. I suspect most people have something like that, & I'd be interesting to hear what does it for JVL.
What do you mean by "hope"? "Hope" can be a loaded word. It often seems to end with empty wishful thinking instead of action filled intention to make a difference. Because of that, I have found myself seldom using that word any more.
I'd love to hear JVL's answer to that. In many ways it's *the* question. You're right, people can treat it like an excuse not to act. I'd say they're doing it wrong.
For me, hope's whatever keeps me from giving into despair. Sometimes it's factual, like what I said about history. My family in Germany survived the Holocaust, quite literally: we had both Jewish family and political dissidents sent to the camps, and I grew up on stories of how they survived. That's hope to me: the knowledge humans have beat back fascism before, and the *personal* knowledge that my aunts and uncles didn't have a plan either.
It's also part philosophical, rational, whatever. When I get worn out, I take a beat, then I usually ask myself what the alternative is? Like, *not* trying? That's the only way we can be sure nothing will get better. That usually gets me looking for another thing to try. Hope for other people might mean being inspired by people around them, love of their family or neighbors, even art and music. (I like Khyvari's answer above.) I'm a a big reader and a Tolkien geek, so I've been tapping into what he says about the futility of despair. Probably it varies a lot person to person. That's why I asked.
Bottom line? Hope is whatever keeps you trying to make things better and stops you from getting bogged down in despair, especially when it seems like we can't possibly fix this mess. For me at least.
When you are looking for thoughtful commentary or a different way to look at policy or current events, where do you go? I came to the bulwark because I was looking for clarified thinking. Where do you go?
A broader suggestion on this point - I'd love to have a Bulwark reading list for people wanting to understand conservatism better. Like, if we wanted to understand the worldview you and so many of the people at the Bulwark are coming from, where should we start? That's less an AMA question and more a "I would love to see this be a semi-regular feature for the site" wish, but RGH12's question definitely brought it to mind.
JVL, you talk a lot about your kids, so clearly they're very central to your life.
1) How do you talk to your kids about these times, if at all, and what are you telling them?
2) What, if anything, would be the "red line" that gets crossed where you think, "Yeah, this isn't going to work." and you do something "crazy" like move to California or Australia?
I love the Bulwark and I hope it continues to grow in size and especially in influence. But I'm concerned, what with Michael Steele having moved on to different projects, that there apparently is a shortage of black people who have both the motivation (or awareness of Bulwark's existence) and the chops to add their voices/persepectives/reporting to your incredibly dedicated and skilled public-facing staff. Not being facetious here: I wouldn't be a member if I didn't deep down take for granted that you hunt for quality and a sense of shared mission in your people. But, I mean, even right-wing neo-nazis and bigots can get black people amongst their numbers. What are the difficulties in bringing in black folk? Is there a way to make it easier to expand our amazing tent in this direction?
Who cares if the voices are black, blue, red, or orange? This is the crazy thinking that has gotten us to this moment. Stop caring about someone's skin color and care about what they stand. Before the haters come at me, I'm black, and I'm speaking for myself.
There has been very little discussion that I’ve heard on the Bulwark (granted, I don’t read and listen to everything, so there is a possibility that I have missed it) about the differences in political affiliation between the various Latino nationalities. Mexicans are very different from Cubans. Hondurans are very different from Venezuelans. And these groups are very different in size relative to other Latino groups.
Having voices on who can speak to the nuance and background of the various Latino backgrounds add richness to the political analysis and discourse.
Same with "Asians". Japanese are as different from Chinese as they are from White Americans. Maybe more so! America tries to be "fair" but, sadly, only manages to "flatten" most things.
You're not wrong. I'm a person who responds to ideas and thinking, not so much the other stuff. A good idea is a good idea regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.
The Bulwark has a good slice of folks: Women, men, young, old, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, agnostic, etc; however, they're mostly white (but I could be wrong). It just strikes me that there are maybe other perspectives that are missing form the conversation.
I keep thinking about this, and it's a blind spot in my own thinking: Sometimes, many times, people really need SEE and HEAR from people that are exactly like them. For me, that manifests at the intellectual level. For others, that happens at the aesthetic/cultural level. I just cannot help but think that we need to respect this need.
You're commenting to the wrong person if you think I'm asking for "identity content". Nope. Not requested or desired by me. I want a good sized sampling of folks sharing information. I'm pretty suspicious of of any sort of information when it's only a very narrow group delivering it. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
It's a matter of getting more members in the Bulwark community and expanding our influence. Trump won in 2024 partly by catering to a portion of the black community. "Blacks for Trump" etc. Yeah, he was/is cynically pandering, but he won. The Bulwark is about ideas, sure, and I think it's top notch. But it's about winning, without sacrificing quality. We're in a fight for our lives and our country. Whatever it takes.
"Black" voices should not be a reference to skin color, or 'race', but to a perspective informed by experiences only individuals marked by those identities have had. In this, we should recognize (though we too often don't) that most of the time when we say "black" we're not only referring to race, but class, and more importantly sub-culture.
This is reflected in the common epithet 'oreo' (in Minneapolis, we also had 'apples').
What percentage do you give for a free and fair midterm election. And if the election is contested, what percentage do you give for Speaker Johnson seating democrats in the House.
I liked this but I'd also like to hear JVL game out how a crisis involving a contested or suspended election in 2026 or 2028 unfolds (or at least point to a knowledgeable source that has). I'd like to know what to prepare for if it happens.
YES! My #1 question, too. Mechanically, how does the contested election scenario play out? It's going to happen. What's the scenario JVL believes will most likely happen?
I'm interested in looking at it from the reverse angle. How do we insist on and protect our elections? What are the states doing? What are the Democrat leaders doing? I feel like we need to go into this demanding and expecting that elections not be messed with--and having accountability checks to ensure this.
Yes, possible courses of action that lay people can take to prevent or reverse each step along an election crisis scenario would be much appreciated as well.
Speaker Johnson won't be Speaker anymore after the current 119th Congress expires, and the 120th Congress begins on January 3, 2027. The first order of business of the 120th Congress will be to elect a new Speaker, and this will be done before the members of the new Congress are sworn in. This means that Johnson will have no power to stop Democrats from being seated.
That being said, there is a chance that Trump will try to stop Democrats being seated. He could declare, for example, that California is "cheating" while it is doing vote counting, and then try to stop the California delegation from travelling to Washington DC to attend the session of the new Congress because he thinks they aren't the duly-elected members of the new Congress.
And if Dem majorities were seated, somehow, what are the chances the Executive would just ignore anything coming out of Congress, and any orders otherwise from the courts -- assuming there would be some sort of excuse supported and spread by the skilled propagandists of the far-right media machine.
If the democrats win back federal power in 2026 and 2028, should they consider it part of their mission to actively help our allied liberal democracies (Europe, Canada, etc.) decouple from us?
I haven't seen anyone call this out, but for the sake of preserving liberalism, I think the democrats have a duty to actually reduce U.S. power abroad in certain ways. To my mind, this has been made unavoidable due to the fact that the Republican party is explicit in its goal of not only breaking liberalism at home, but using the power of the US to destroy liberalism abroad.
Definitely agreed that none of this can be at the expense of defending liberalism at home, that has to be the #1 priority for sure. That is the best thing we can do to help liberalism internationally.
To be clear, I know the specifics matter a lot. There is surely a level of integration which is mutually beneficial, and whose benefits for liberalism far outweigh the risks. I mean, these countries are still going to have ties with China for god's sake, so a relatively deep relationship with the US is certainly still justified. That's what the Sarah on my shoulder is saying.
But what the JVL on my shoulder is saying is that at the same time, there are some dependencies on the US which actually represent extreme risks to liberalism. For example, there are certain defense capabilities that only we possess. Should democrats try and actively help our allies develop these capabilities? I think they should.
Additionally, I think the economic and especially the technological ties need to be drawn down to a significant degree. It is blindingly obvious that the entire tech and media ecosystem of the US can and will be twisted towards spying on these countries, spreading propaganda, and otherwise attempting to weaken them from within (just like China and Russia, the other hegemons, are doing). I think it is a moral responsibility of the democrats (as the sole liberal party in the US) to assist these countries in developing economic and technological independence, to defend liberalism abroad from the attacks the republican party will seek to launch against it. To a disturbing extent, these attacks are already in progress.
Unfortunately, I think where this is ultimately going is that like-minded liberal powers are going to have to wall off their internet from the rest of the world (including the US) entirely, a la China's great firewall. It's a bold prediction, so I'm probably wrong. But I do think it is going to be necessary, especially as AI and bot technology continues to advance, and as we gain a greater appreciation of just how bad the current social media algorithms are for liberal societies. It's a classic market failure--these algorithms were designed to profit the social media companies, and in the process they're destroying the social fabric necessary to sustain liberal democracy (which is, to put it mildly, not "priced in").
Interesting discussion here. I admit I’m a little leery of helping allies develop nuclear arsenals, because could as susceptible to usurpation or hard-right turns as we have been. However, M.A.D. among general allies maybe isn’t the worst in the event any one nation goes rogue. Gawd, I can’t believe I thinking this. But it’s a new world, so…
Yes, we're on the same page here. Nuclear proliferation looks good on paper and is, objectively good for everyone, but future Democratic administrations should assume that at any point in the future, we're likely to be usurped. I posited the other day that unless and until Canada has nuclear weapons, they were at risk. If Canada and/or Mexico doesn't have nukes, then it would be difficult, if not impossible, for say the entire West Coast to secede from the Union, because those states would be at risk from administration using said weapons on their ground.
All these doors you've opened are fertile ground for deep conversation.
One other addendum--the democrats assistance would first and foremost involve encouraging the decoupling (in a sober but benevolent way, as opposed to how Trump is "encouraging" it right now). I think that Europe is probably sufficiently self-motivated at this point. But there is going to be a contingent of their politics which, after Trump is gone, will want to return to the status quo or at least take a breather on the decoupling. I think the democrats actually have a responsibility to discourage this very human pollyannaish bias, which I would argue is not rationally justified in this case.
And of course, we should try to help weaken far right parties in these countries (e.g. the AfD) as much as we can. The Republicans are doing the opposite, so we need to counter them while we're able to.
Will Dems actually need to help this along? It is a different question than whether or not Dems should help this along. The U.S. is already seeing a downturn in the number of the 'best and brightest' from around the world coming to our universities. Seems like this will have the effect you seem to be advocating — but in the long term, less so in the short term.
It's my belief that the reckless immigration enforcement has a long term effect that is deeply corrosive to American technology leadership and overall prosperity. Without the 'best and brightest' wanting to come to America, our prospects as an nation are downgraded significantly.
I certainly hope it won't be needed, per se. But there might be ways that we could help allies significantly speed the process along, or at minimum, not resist it. I think it's something we should be conscious of, for sure.
Are you okay? You don't look healthy. I actually wrote Sarah a message on Substack yesterday asking the same question. We're all stressed by what's going on nationally and internationally, but it's important to take care of our mental and physical health. Hope you are okay.
Bless your heart! As sick as I was, I had a friend who didn't get his shot and he was in excruciating pain with nerve damage for months. You're so smart because the disease is much worse than the shot. Best of luck! 🫠
I was wondering this myself. He did mention he was getting the 2nd shot soon but I don’t remember exactly when. Hopefully that's the reason he hasn't looked well the last couple of days.
Yeah, it was very obvious/concerning during yesterday's live coverage of the "Debacle/Shitshow at Davos". JVL looked ashen or maybe it was the lighting?
I feel like I could cope with this so much better if I didn’t have kids. I would be out there on the front lines like, arrest me, bitches! But I have three little kids, and a level of anxiety a whole pharmacy couldn’t fix.
My daughter, a single parent, was out of town this week. I was taking care of my 3 year old granddaughter. I didn't go to the rally/action Tuesday while she was at preK because I was afraid if something happened to me, she'd be all alone
I have an adult child and two very young grandchildren, both special needs. Fortunately they live in a blue state near a big blue city so that thus far the services they need are still available. It would have been unimaginable once to think that way, and now, at age 75, I think that way ALL THE TIME. What will they need in future that will be gone??
I too think about getting out to demonstrate; I got out there for No Kings. But honestly, at my age & health, I’d crack like an egg if I got knocked over (it’s already happened once, in a carpeted room, ending in emergency surgery).
The big downtown church I attend considers itself a sanctuary and would keep out people without warrants. I also contribute to the ongoing support of two immigrant families with members who are afraid to go to work or leave the house.
Just leaving this comment to note small efforts which do not allay feelings of fear and anger and frustration. Thank you.
I feel for you, I really do. I don't have kids, but, if it's any consolation, I worry about yours, and family, friends. Everybody's children. What comforts me is that many, like yours, have good and loving parents who are preparing them to not only survive but thrive in a crazy world. Keep hanging in there. You're doing better than you realize. And this all feels normal to them because they don't know anything different.
Given that lawyers and doctors are barred from intentionally misstating material facts because of their authority, why isn’t there a comparable ethical requirement for elected officials speaking in an official capacity? What would it take for Congress to enact a bipartisan, independent process to hold public officials accountable for intentional false statements?
I like the idea, not sure what the process would be but it would have to have teeth. For a lawyer, it could bean disbarment, so for a politician, impeachment presumably, but what is that worth when the president should have been impeached a dozen times over yet remains in office?
This wouldn’t just apply to Trump. It could apply to cabinet-level officials like Noem, Bessent, Patel, RFK Jr., … but more importantly, it could apply to senators and members of the house like Mike Johnson.
I did just that early last year, along with trying to avoid unnecessary purchases. Aside from any effect that has on the administration, I also made a lot of money! You hear a lot more about how VOO is up 15% in a year than you do about how VEA is up 35%...
Not much to say other than I replaced my US assets with roughly equivalent foreign ones. In the case above VOO is large cap domestic and VEA is large cap foreign.
What is the end goal for republicans, why do they continue to support all of trumps craziness, at one time you could argue they were in it for money or power but now trump is doing things that could lead to the total collapse of the entire world order? What do republicans get out of say trump starting ww3 or the us economy collapsing. I’m assuming most normal Americans don’t want this to happen so why do republicans continue to go along with everything.
Would you mind addressing Sarah's take on Trump's agenda for the Board of Peace? I hadn't heard the details she was discussing, which seemed frightening (could also be done on secret pod)
Now that the current list of Board of Peace members has been made public and it seems mostly comprised of authoritarian countries, I'd love to get a take on how seriously to treat this new board. Is it just a grift, is it a new group of Axis powers, or something in between?
The Board of Peace (very Orwellian name) is an axis of banal evil. Really a confederation of mobsters who have 'sit-downs' to carve up territories and coordinate various protection rackets.
You are talking about the same Tony Blair that was all in for the war in Iraq, right? Perhaps we should reawaken his pet name, "Bush's Poodle" now, "Trump's Poodle".
What do you think will be done with the thousands of ICE hires after this all ends - assuming it ends. How can they not be too damaged to participate in normal civic life, after months of daily beating up people whom they have no legitimate reason to beat up? Reconciliation? Reprogramming? Rehab? These people were damaged to begin with or they wouldn’t have applied. Many of them will be dangerously psychotic.
They can’t be reprogrammed. Not our job and a waste of time. These troglodytes have always been among us. Trump & Co has given them license to emerge from the sewers and thrive on the open playing ground of social media. They used to operate in the margins and underbelly of society but Trump has elevated them. And media too.
How happy are you with the current size of The Bulwark in terms of staffing and reach of coverage? Do you worry about adding too many more cooks to the kitchen, or are there areas that you'd like to expand into more like having a dedicated tech or sports beat?
I have asked more than once about increasing the [il]legal news discussion. Since George left we have had Andrew Weissman and Asha Rangappa; both are very good. There are quite a few others who are active in the pro-democracy podcasting space. Could we get, to start, 2 "Illegal News" sessions per week, and maybe one with two lawyers, not just explaining to lay people, but brainstorming about what can be done?
George Conway was funny and he made it more entertaining to listen to legal news. I’m worried we’re all gonna get tired of bad news and we need some savage comedy.
Drop your questions here for JVL. See you all back here on Friday.
I fear that part of what makes it hard for “new readers” to really follow politics is the infinite “backstory” or “lore” that’s accumulated, which is the same problem the comic industry has.
Something that alienates new comic readers is trying to “catch up” to 100 years of stories, knowing what they need to know to enjoy the books being published now. Marvel has tried to fix this with reboots and recap pages.
American politics has a similar problem—how do you backfill knowledge into a 16 year old something like the Mueller or Comey affairs, or the Trump-gold star feuds, or Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels? It feels sometimes like explaining Operation Galactic Storm.
Has the Bulwark ever looked at this specifically as a problem to be addressed, or how do you think it could be addressed?
how do we get people to read books?
Give them a copy for their birthday or Christmas!
JVL: what was your best read in 2025? what are you looking forward to reading in 2026?
Just so long as the book has built in TikTok viewer, it shouldn't be an issue.
Iran contra too!
This is an excellent question I think, but I think it might be missed by many because you posted it as a response. Why don't you copy and paste it as a new comment?
While Trump might be immune for his part in any potential criminality under federal U.S. law (e.g., accepting a bribe), those who are “on the other side” of Trump’s criminality (e.g., by offering/paying a bribe) are NOT immune, NOR are those who “aid and abet” Trump’s criminality (e.g., by transmitting a bribe offer/acceptance, processing the transfer of funds/Qatari airplane constituting a bribe, etc.) immune.
MY QUESTION(S): Is The Bulwark tracking, keeping a list of, monitoring, etc., this administration’s crimes and violations (whether alone or working with others) so that the next administration will have a road map to expeditiously pursue any and all appropriate charges against Trump’s criminal co-participants?
If not, are you aware anyone else doing so (e.g., another news publication, a watchdog group, a university, a non-profit, a political group, etc.)?
If not, do you think such an undertaking would be worthwhile? If so, is there anything else we should tracking? Which group(s) would be best suited (and inclined) for such an undertaking, and how do we get them to step up?
I think Carney has it right … but do you think China will be a good
partner either in short term or long term.
Good for who/whom? That 25-50 year global vision of theirs has always been impressive.
Good for ..The liberal western order … with or without the US
China's got a big demographic problem looming in both the short & long term as outlined in Noah Smith's latest column. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/lets-save-the-human-species
Can you speak on the quiet, old money donors of the GOP? Harlan Crow, the Uhliens, foster Freiss and the addlestons and the like. They couldn’t stop Trump. As far as you know, are they enjoying the current environment? I would think they like being in charge, and right now they are just riding the trump tiger. Are they okay with him so long as liberals are being hurt, or do they have policy goals?
Which Democratic candidate to think you think has the best chances of winning--presuming we have another free & fair election in this nation-- the presidency in 2025?
2028, you mean?
If Dems take the house, realistically how much oversight will they have? It seems Trump will just refuse to turn over documents and make Dems sue in court which will take time. Then he can play games with how he turns over docs etc. etc. and not really comply. Also, tell me if I am wrong but I think he can just declare executive privilege and again make Dems sue him in court which will take time. Am I catastrophizing? Are there things Dems in House can do that I am not aware of where they can force Trump Admin to turn over docs or make folks from the Trump Admin (or outside Admin) testify before the House? Won't they just do what Pam Bondi did? If they refuse, can't Trump just pardon them? I feel like we are anxious for Dems to win House (which agreed better them than not) but their ability to conduct oversight will be quite limited with a rogue Admin. Am I being too dark even for you, Jonathan?
Do you have any new coping strategies you’re looking into?
Did they pull one over on Trump? Making him think he got something they can just stall like he always does? Wouldn't any new bases or mining need Greenland's approval?
Can you ask Sarah to pronounce Mayor Jacob Frey's name correctly? It is "fry", not "fray".
:-)
Thanks!
What is the best TV show you've seen in the past year and why is it Andor?
What steps can be taken to impartially call out or label untruths--whether liberal or conservative--in the public media or social media spaces? More subtly, the major right-wing presences (growing due to consolidation) selectively tilt bias through editorial choice painting a totally different world. Click back-and-forth and you'd think different planets. For example, the Fox News audience never saw Trump speaking before the disgruntled general officer "enforced gathering" as Fox deemed it harmful to Trump's image. WTF?
If you had dual citizenship in US and Canada, would you still be here?
Which writers/reporters/sages do you find yourself most drawn to for news reporting, sanity restoring, perspective giving?
What do you think will happen to Marco Rubio? Even though he is a grovelling lackey now, back in the before times, he was extremely critical of Trump. Although Trump cannot remember that Greenland is Greenland and not Iceland, he never forgets when someone speaks ill of him. Look at Bill Cassidy.
Why do you think listeners/readers don't care for posts about foreign affairs or policy?
What gives you hope? Feel free to answer that personally, politically, or whatever other way seems best to you.
This is what I came here to ask. I love Dark JVL, but it's a heavy cross to bear.
Dark JVL is interesting, necessary, and makes me feel like my feet are still on solid ground. Most days. But precisely because he sees straight through to how badly things could (& are) turning out, I think hearing what gives him hope could be really fascinating. Useful, too.
Agreed. I, personally, can go dark fairly easily, but it is a lonely place to be. It's good to hear how others manage.
I like Dark JVL because I frequently start a mental argument with it/him/the ideas, and then perversely talk myself into a small bit of transient hope.
I love this. I do that too.
You’re asking JVL about hope? The guy is losing it- along with many of us.
Acknowledging the truth of the situation is not the same as losing hope.
Or so I keep telling myself.
To be able to lose hope, you have to have it in some form, so I think this is a good thread/question for JVL. I also agree, OJVV, that these are not necessarily the same thing, but they can be, sometimes.
The fact that JVL or any of us keep going is proof we have hope. He looks into the gaping maw of our current situation five days a week, unflinchingly, and still finds the drive to come back and do it the next day. That's pretty remarkable when you think about it.
For me, it's history. You know the old "We beat them before - we can beat them again" line. That, and the fact that progress has always been cyclical, not linear. That doesn't make any of this easy or excuse any of the cruelty and pointless destruction we're bringing on. But it does give me hope and keeps motivating me to try to push through. I suspect most people have something like that, & I'd be interesting to hear what does it for JVL.
I have hope all of the time, I work in a school in MN. These bright young minds are our hope for the future. The only hope I can see clearly.
What do you mean by "hope"? "Hope" can be a loaded word. It often seems to end with empty wishful thinking instead of action filled intention to make a difference. Because of that, I have found myself seldom using that word any more.
I'd love to hear JVL's answer to that. In many ways it's *the* question. You're right, people can treat it like an excuse not to act. I'd say they're doing it wrong.
For me, hope's whatever keeps me from giving into despair. Sometimes it's factual, like what I said about history. My family in Germany survived the Holocaust, quite literally: we had both Jewish family and political dissidents sent to the camps, and I grew up on stories of how they survived. That's hope to me: the knowledge humans have beat back fascism before, and the *personal* knowledge that my aunts and uncles didn't have a plan either.
It's also part philosophical, rational, whatever. When I get worn out, I take a beat, then I usually ask myself what the alternative is? Like, *not* trying? That's the only way we can be sure nothing will get better. That usually gets me looking for another thing to try. Hope for other people might mean being inspired by people around them, love of their family or neighbors, even art and music. (I like Khyvari's answer above.) I'm a a big reader and a Tolkien geek, so I've been tapping into what he says about the futility of despair. Probably it varies a lot person to person. That's why I asked.
Bottom line? Hope is whatever keeps you trying to make things better and stops you from getting bogged down in despair, especially when it seems like we can't possibly fix this mess. For me at least.
When you are looking for thoughtful commentary or a different way to look at policy or current events, where do you go? I came to the bulwark because I was looking for clarified thinking. Where do you go?
A broader suggestion on this point - I'd love to have a Bulwark reading list for people wanting to understand conservatism better. Like, if we wanted to understand the worldview you and so many of the people at the Bulwark are coming from, where should we start? That's less an AMA question and more a "I would love to see this be a semi-regular feature for the site" wish, but RGH12's question definitely brought it to mind.
Narrowing down our sources of input is necessary for sanity.
And for clarity of truth
JVL, you talk a lot about your kids, so clearly they're very central to your life.
1) How do you talk to your kids about these times, if at all, and what are you telling them?
2) What, if anything, would be the "red line" that gets crossed where you think, "Yeah, this isn't going to work." and you do something "crazy" like move to California or Australia?
Exactly. How are you handling this as a parent?
I love the Bulwark and I hope it continues to grow in size and especially in influence. But I'm concerned, what with Michael Steele having moved on to different projects, that there apparently is a shortage of black people who have both the motivation (or awareness of Bulwark's existence) and the chops to add their voices/persepectives/reporting to your incredibly dedicated and skilled public-facing staff. Not being facetious here: I wouldn't be a member if I didn't deep down take for granted that you hunt for quality and a sense of shared mission in your people. But, I mean, even right-wing neo-nazis and bigots can get black people amongst their numbers. What are the difficulties in bringing in black folk? Is there a way to make it easier to expand our amazing tent in this direction?
Same. This seems a massive hole that needs to be filled. And not just with "old folks", but also young, fresh folks.
Real talk about amount of screen time for teenagers would be interesting. Shocking, I'm sure.
Not just teenagers. Shocking numbers for many cohorts, retired folks as well...
Who cares if the voices are black, blue, red, or orange? This is the crazy thinking that has gotten us to this moment. Stop caring about someone's skin color and care about what they stand. Before the haters come at me, I'm black, and I'm speaking for myself.
I’m Mexican American, and I have felt the lack of diversity in the Bulwark staff creates some pretty significant blind spots.
There is no amount of empathy that can give you the lived experiences that many people of color have in this country.
It’s not about purity tests.
There has been very little discussion that I’ve heard on the Bulwark (granted, I don’t read and listen to everything, so there is a possibility that I have missed it) about the differences in political affiliation between the various Latino nationalities. Mexicans are very different from Cubans. Hondurans are very different from Venezuelans. And these groups are very different in size relative to other Latino groups.
Having voices on who can speak to the nuance and background of the various Latino backgrounds add richness to the political analysis and discourse.
Same with "Asians". Japanese are as different from Chinese as they are from White Americans. Maybe more so! America tries to be "fair" but, sadly, only manages to "flatten" most things.
This is the purity test stuff that blinds you to the bigger issue of saving this Democracy. That's a fantasy.
You're not wrong. I'm a person who responds to ideas and thinking, not so much the other stuff. A good idea is a good idea regardless of gender, race, religion, etc.
The Bulwark has a good slice of folks: Women, men, young, old, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, agnostic, etc; however, they're mostly white (but I could be wrong). It just strikes me that there are maybe other perspectives that are missing form the conversation.
I keep thinking about this, and it's a blind spot in my own thinking: Sometimes, many times, people really need SEE and HEAR from people that are exactly like them. For me, that manifests at the intellectual level. For others, that happens at the aesthetic/cultural level. I just cannot help but think that we need to respect this need.
Please don't do identity content. Just get the best thinkers available that aligns with the Bulwark
You're commenting to the wrong person if you think I'm asking for "identity content". Nope. Not requested or desired by me. I want a good sized sampling of folks sharing information. I'm pretty suspicious of of any sort of information when it's only a very narrow group delivering it. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
It's a matter of getting more members in the Bulwark community and expanding our influence. Trump won in 2024 partly by catering to a portion of the black community. "Blacks for Trump" etc. Yeah, he was/is cynically pandering, but he won. The Bulwark is about ideas, sure, and I think it's top notch. But it's about winning, without sacrificing quality. We're in a fight for our lives and our country. Whatever it takes.
"Black" voices should not be a reference to skin color, or 'race', but to a perspective informed by experiences only individuals marked by those identities have had. In this, we should recognize (though we too often don't) that most of the time when we say "black" we're not only referring to race, but class, and more importantly sub-culture.
This is reflected in the common epithet 'oreo' (in Minneapolis, we also had 'apples').
100%
I also wondered this. There are some black voices out there that should be heard in this moment. Haven't seen many on the Bulwark as of yet.
Michael Harriot or Joy Reid or Symone Sanders ! Ive brought up the same to crickets….
Would love to see Barack Obama!
What percentage do you give for a free and fair midterm election. And if the election is contested, what percentage do you give for Speaker Johnson seating democrats in the House.
I liked this but I'd also like to hear JVL game out how a crisis involving a contested or suspended election in 2026 or 2028 unfolds (or at least point to a knowledgeable source that has). I'd like to know what to prepare for if it happens.
YES! My #1 question, too. Mechanically, how does the contested election scenario play out? It's going to happen. What's the scenario JVL believes will most likely happen?
I'm interested in looking at it from the reverse angle. How do we insist on and protect our elections? What are the states doing? What are the Democrat leaders doing? I feel like we need to go into this demanding and expecting that elections not be messed with--and having accountability checks to ensure this.
Yes, possible courses of action that lay people can take to prevent or reverse each step along an election crisis scenario would be much appreciated as well.
Speaker Johnson won't be Speaker anymore after the current 119th Congress expires, and the 120th Congress begins on January 3, 2027. The first order of business of the 120th Congress will be to elect a new Speaker, and this will be done before the members of the new Congress are sworn in. This means that Johnson will have no power to stop Democrats from being seated.
That being said, there is a chance that Trump will try to stop Democrats being seated. He could declare, for example, that California is "cheating" while it is doing vote counting, and then try to stop the California delegation from travelling to Washington DC to attend the session of the new Congress because he thinks they aren't the duly-elected members of the new Congress.
And if Dem majorities were seated, somehow, what are the chances the Executive would just ignore anything coming out of Congress, and any orders otherwise from the courts -- assuming there would be some sort of excuse supported and spread by the skilled propagandists of the far-right media machine.
If the democrats win back federal power in 2026 and 2028, should they consider it part of their mission to actively help our allied liberal democracies (Europe, Canada, etc.) decouple from us?
I haven't seen anyone call this out, but for the sake of preserving liberalism, I think the democrats have a duty to actually reduce U.S. power abroad in certain ways. To my mind, this has been made unavoidable due to the fact that the Republican party is explicit in its goal of not only breaking liberalism at home, but using the power of the US to destroy liberalism abroad.
That's interesting. I would want them to focus on defending liberalism at home and just recognize that the rupture happened.
Definitely agreed that none of this can be at the expense of defending liberalism at home, that has to be the #1 priority for sure. That is the best thing we can do to help liberalism internationally.
I've wondered much the same! They would willingly accept that we're not what we were and spread the power out.
Precisely!
To be clear, I know the specifics matter a lot. There is surely a level of integration which is mutually beneficial, and whose benefits for liberalism far outweigh the risks. I mean, these countries are still going to have ties with China for god's sake, so a relatively deep relationship with the US is certainly still justified. That's what the Sarah on my shoulder is saying.
But what the JVL on my shoulder is saying is that at the same time, there are some dependencies on the US which actually represent extreme risks to liberalism. For example, there are certain defense capabilities that only we possess. Should democrats try and actively help our allies develop these capabilities? I think they should.
Additionally, I think the economic and especially the technological ties need to be drawn down to a significant degree. It is blindingly obvious that the entire tech and media ecosystem of the US can and will be twisted towards spying on these countries, spreading propaganda, and otherwise attempting to weaken them from within (just like China and Russia, the other hegemons, are doing). I think it is a moral responsibility of the democrats (as the sole liberal party in the US) to assist these countries in developing economic and technological independence, to defend liberalism abroad from the attacks the republican party will seek to launch against it. To a disturbing extent, these attacks are already in progress.
Unfortunately, I think where this is ultimately going is that like-minded liberal powers are going to have to wall off their internet from the rest of the world (including the US) entirely, a la China's great firewall. It's a bold prediction, so I'm probably wrong. But I do think it is going to be necessary, especially as AI and bot technology continues to advance, and as we gain a greater appreciation of just how bad the current social media algorithms are for liberal societies. It's a classic market failure--these algorithms were designed to profit the social media companies, and in the process they're destroying the social fabric necessary to sustain liberal democracy (which is, to put it mildly, not "priced in").
Interesting discussion here. I admit I’m a little leery of helping allies develop nuclear arsenals, because could as susceptible to usurpation or hard-right turns as we have been. However, M.A.D. among general allies maybe isn’t the worst in the event any one nation goes rogue. Gawd, I can’t believe I thinking this. But it’s a new world, so…
Yes, we're on the same page here. Nuclear proliferation looks good on paper and is, objectively good for everyone, but future Democratic administrations should assume that at any point in the future, we're likely to be usurped. I posited the other day that unless and until Canada has nuclear weapons, they were at risk. If Canada and/or Mexico doesn't have nukes, then it would be difficult, if not impossible, for say the entire West Coast to secede from the Union, because those states would be at risk from administration using said weapons on their ground.
All these doors you've opened are fertile ground for deep conversation.
One other addendum--the democrats assistance would first and foremost involve encouraging the decoupling (in a sober but benevolent way, as opposed to how Trump is "encouraging" it right now). I think that Europe is probably sufficiently self-motivated at this point. But there is going to be a contingent of their politics which, after Trump is gone, will want to return to the status quo or at least take a breather on the decoupling. I think the democrats actually have a responsibility to discourage this very human pollyannaish bias, which I would argue is not rationally justified in this case.
And of course, we should try to help weaken far right parties in these countries (e.g. the AfD) as much as we can. The Republicans are doing the opposite, so we need to counter them while we're able to.
Will Dems actually need to help this along? It is a different question than whether or not Dems should help this along. The U.S. is already seeing a downturn in the number of the 'best and brightest' from around the world coming to our universities. Seems like this will have the effect you seem to be advocating — but in the long term, less so in the short term.
It's my belief that the reckless immigration enforcement has a long term effect that is deeply corrosive to American technology leadership and overall prosperity. Without the 'best and brightest' wanting to come to America, our prospects as an nation are downgraded significantly.
I certainly hope it won't be needed, per se. But there might be ways that we could help allies significantly speed the process along, or at minimum, not resist it. I think it's something we should be conscious of, for sure.
Your comment to "not resist it" sounds like an excellent idea! I do have the same concerns as other commenters about nuclear proliferation.
I was just thinking this, ai commented in the triad that we should sell off our aircraft carriers to them and invest in their defense industries
Do a japan after world war 2?
JVL, how does it make you feel when Heather Cox Richardson quotes you in ‘Letters from an American’?
She quotes many, many indie media sources but I, too, am interested in this question.
Are you okay? You don't look healthy. I actually wrote Sarah a message on Substack yesterday asking the same question. We're all stressed by what's going on nationally and internationally, but it's important to take care of our mental and physical health. Hope you are okay.
Maybe it was the second Shingles shot?
That'd do it!
You are so right. My second one wasn't as bad, but it kicked my butt.
I chalked this up to second shingles. I get my first on Friday
Bless your heart! As sick as I was, I had a friend who didn't get his shot and he was in excruciating pain with nerve damage for months. You're so smart because the disease is much worse than the shot. Best of luck! 🫠
I was wondering this myself. He did mention he was getting the 2nd shot soon but I don’t remember exactly when. Hopefully that's the reason he hasn't looked well the last couple of days.
I assumed he just didn't have time to put on make up.
The available makeup supply has all been appropriated by SecDef Hegseth's makeup studio.
Yeah, it was very obvious/concerning during yesterday's live coverage of the "Debacle/Shitshow at Davos". JVL looked ashen or maybe it was the lighting?
How is Dark JVL preparing his kids to live in what the future may be?
Yup. Asked the same thing at the same time, though you framed it better.
I feel like I could cope with this so much better if I didn’t have kids. I would be out there on the front lines like, arrest me, bitches! But I have three little kids, and a level of anxiety a whole pharmacy couldn’t fix.
My daughter, a single parent, was out of town this week. I was taking care of my 3 year old granddaughter. I didn't go to the rally/action Tuesday while she was at preK because I was afraid if something happened to me, she'd be all alone
I'm with you here Sarah. I worry not about me, but about the consequences for my kid if I am disappeared.
I have an adult child and two very young grandchildren, both special needs. Fortunately they live in a blue state near a big blue city so that thus far the services they need are still available. It would have been unimaginable once to think that way, and now, at age 75, I think that way ALL THE TIME. What will they need in future that will be gone??
I too think about getting out to demonstrate; I got out there for No Kings. But honestly, at my age & health, I’d crack like an egg if I got knocked over (it’s already happened once, in a carpeted room, ending in emergency surgery).
The big downtown church I attend considers itself a sanctuary and would keep out people without warrants. I also contribute to the ongoing support of two immigrant families with members who are afraid to go to work or leave the house.
Just leaving this comment to note small efforts which do not allay feelings of fear and anger and frustration. Thank you.
I feel for you, I really do. I don't have kids, but, if it's any consolation, I worry about yours, and family, friends. Everybody's children. What comforts me is that many, like yours, have good and loving parents who are preparing them to not only survive but thrive in a crazy world. Keep hanging in there. You're doing better than you realize. And this all feels normal to them because they don't know anything different.
Given that lawyers and doctors are barred from intentionally misstating material facts because of their authority, why isn’t there a comparable ethical requirement for elected officials speaking in an official capacity? What would it take for Congress to enact a bipartisan, independent process to hold public officials accountable for intentional false statements?
The current administration cares nothing for law, let alone "process." They appear to be not accountable for anything.
I like the idea, not sure what the process would be but it would have to have teeth. For a lawyer, it could bean disbarment, so for a politician, impeachment presumably, but what is that worth when the president should have been impeached a dozen times over yet remains in office?
This wouldn’t just apply to Trump. It could apply to cabinet-level officials like Noem, Bessent, Patel, RFK Jr., … but more importantly, it could apply to senators and members of the house like Mike Johnson.
100% this!
Since the markets are the only thing Trump seems to respond to, is there any way the opposition could use this (boycotts, general strike)?
Would divestment from US stocks and bonds throw sand in the gears of these monsters?
I did just that early last year, along with trying to avoid unnecessary purchases. Aside from any effect that has on the administration, I also made a lot of money! You hear a lot more about how VOO is up 15% in a year than you do about how VEA is up 35%...
Could you link to some resources/explanations for what you did and why and how?
Not much to say other than I replaced my US assets with roughly equivalent foreign ones. In the case above VOO is large cap domestic and VEA is large cap foreign.
What is the end goal for republicans, why do they continue to support all of trumps craziness, at one time you could argue they were in it for money or power but now trump is doing things that could lead to the total collapse of the entire world order? What do republicans get out of say trump starting ww3 or the us economy collapsing. I’m assuming most normal Americans don’t want this to happen so why do republicans continue to go along with everything.
Would you mind addressing Sarah's take on Trump's agenda for the Board of Peace? I hadn't heard the details she was discussing, which seemed frightening (could also be done on secret pod)
Now that the current list of Board of Peace members has been made public and it seems mostly comprised of authoritarian countries, I'd love to get a take on how seriously to treat this new board. Is it just a grift, is it a new group of Axis powers, or something in between?
The Board of Peace (very Orwellian name) is an axis of banal evil. Really a confederation of mobsters who have 'sit-downs' to carve up territories and coordinate various protection rackets.
I heard this described as "Bored of Peace" and that seems to sum up Trump....stability and peace is simply not enough to keep him entertained.
Yet Tony Blair, ex labour PM of UK is on it (or maybe he was just for Gaza)
You are talking about the same Tony Blair that was all in for the war in Iraq, right? Perhaps we should reawaken his pet name, "Bush's Poodle" now, "Trump's Poodle".
What do you think will be done with the thousands of ICE hires after this all ends - assuming it ends. How can they not be too damaged to participate in normal civic life, after months of daily beating up people whom they have no legitimate reason to beat up? Reconciliation? Reprogramming? Rehab? These people were damaged to begin with or they wouldn’t have applied. Many of them will be dangerously psychotic.
Jonathan Ross was there for 10 years, he didn't cause a problem until he knew he would get away with it.
What about learning from other countries? Truth and Reconciliation comission in South Africas post apartheid days.
They can’t be reprogrammed. Not our job and a waste of time. These troglodytes have always been among us. Trump & Co has given them license to emerge from the sewers and thrive on the open playing ground of social media. They used to operate in the margins and underbelly of society but Trump has elevated them. And media too.
How happy are you with the current size of The Bulwark in terms of staffing and reach of coverage? Do you worry about adding too many more cooks to the kitchen, or are there areas that you'd like to expand into more like having a dedicated tech or sports beat?
I'd like to see a dedicated tech policy person, exploring the effectiveness of current & potential legislation / regulatory policies
I have asked more than once about increasing the [il]legal news discussion. Since George left we have had Andrew Weissman and Asha Rangappa; both are very good. There are quite a few others who are active in the pro-democracy podcasting space. Could we get, to start, 2 "Illegal News" sessions per week, and maybe one with two lawyers, not just explaining to lay people, but brainstorming about what can be done?
George Conway was funny and he made it more entertaining to listen to legal news. I’m worried we’re all gonna get tired of bad news and we need some savage comedy.
I'd like to see a show that was exclusively schadenfreude.