---

This podcast transcript is generated by third-party AI.

It has not been reviewed prior to publication.

The Economist makes no representations or warranties in relation to the transcript, its accuracy or its completeness,

and we disclaim all liability regarding its receipt, content and use.

If you have any concerns about the transcript, please email us at podcasts@economist.com.

Read more about how we handle AI-generated content.

John Prideaux [00:00:09] It was supposed to be a fairly routine campaign stop. Former President Teddy Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee in October 1912. An assassin took aim. The bullet lodged in Roosevelt’s chest, but had been blocked by his glasses case and a 50 page speech tucked into his jacket pocket. It takes more than that to kill a bull moose, Roosevelt declared. He kept going. Delivering his speech as planned. The economist weighed up Roosevelt’s election prospects afterwards. We concluded he was unlikely to benefit from a large, sympathetic vote, and that the election would not descend into chaos. The prospect of a speedy recovery, the fact that the would be assassin was not identified with any particular political group, and the growing fear of third term ambition have combined to quiet these fears. We wrote. Roosevelt did not win that election and the campaign didn’t descend into further violence. With 108 days to go until the 2024 election.

I’m John Prideaux and this is Checks and Balance from The Economist.

Each week we take one big theme shaping American politics and explore it in depth. Today we’re at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Despite the awful assassination attempt at the weekend, the mood here is joyous and triumphant. Donald Trump’s takeover of the party is complete. The platform sounds like him. Former rivals of Kiss the Ring and his choice for vice president preaches to the converted. What does the Republican Party stand for now, and will voters buy it? I’m in the room with Charlotte Howard and Idrees Kahloon. Unusually, we’re all in the same room. We’re sitting here, the economists sort of frat house in Milwaukee. At the end of the convention. It’s Friday. The convention wrapped up last night with a speech from Donald Trump. How have you two found the week?

Idrees Kahloon [00:02:48] It’s been a long week, but it’s been a lot of fun. I remember thinking that the RNC would be completely boring, like a four day pageant for Donald Trump. And it was that. But it was that after he nearly was killed by a bullet the weekend before. And it’s one of those weird weeks where you might go from an assassination attempt on the one end to for the other party, you know, Democrats maybe knocking off their nominee by the end of the week. So pretty wild.

Charlotte Howard [00:03:18] Yeah, it has been a kind of surreal experience, I think, to be here with the assassination news, with all of the mounting pressure for President Biden to step aside, it’s Friday. Saturday’s assassination attempt seems like a long time ago already, but it’s worth just dwelling on the historic nature of that attempt and how lucky it is for the whole country that Donald Trump was not killed. And in that attempt, it’s been a really remarkable week. And I just can’t overstate the kind of intensity of Trump mania in Milwaukee. But it just has such a carnival atmosphere, both in the activities that are happening all throughout the day. There are movies to watch about President Trump. There are all kinds of gatherings throughout the day. There’s drinking after. I mean, it’s this real carnival of MAGA land, and it is vivid.

John Prideaux [00:04:16] Yeah. As you said, Charlotte, these conventions are strange events. They’re an essential part of the democratic process. Donald Trump is now officially the Republican nominee. Then networking events for party officials and for elected representatives. They’re entertainment for the TV audience at home. And also this one had the feeling of a revival. Meeting Charlotte and our editor, Steve Hertz, have been going around talking to people on the convention floor and on the fringes of the RNC to get a sense of the party’s mood.

Field recording [00:04:52] On purpose.

Field recording [00:04:54] So how would you say the mood is? Is it fabulous? Yeah. Very fabulous. We were, of course, very upset when what happened to Trump did. And it was a real damper. But the way that he handled it, and with such grace and humility as a people are very engaged, and they’re very excited that we are going to support Trump as a unified.

Field recording [00:05:18] He’s here tonight to show his courage. His defiance against somebody who tried to kill. You will not take this man down. He has the courage, the strength.

Field recording [00:05:31] And he will be the next president of the United States.

Field recording [00:05:45] I’m here at the Harley-Davidson Museum in Milwaukee because there’s a mix going on for the states on the northeast. Where are you guys from? Pennsylvania.

Field recording [00:05:57] I think the mood’s very exciting. It’s electric.

Field recording [00:06:00] I think people are truly grateful. They feel that, it was no accident that President Trump was saved from a bullet. And, it has really brought an element of faith.

Field recording [00:06:13] Into the convention.

Field recording [00:06:22] For the first time in a long time. Republicans are excited. And we’re a party of opportunity. And I think that breeds optimism. And I think Donald Trump has connected with the working class in a way that they have. Probably no other billionaire on the planet could. Cost of living has skyrocketed. That’s difficult for a lot of people. I think a lot of people are sweating. I think a lot of people are drowning in credit card debt. And when you attack energy, the price of everything else goes up.

Field recording [00:06:47] I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what this president has done to our economy in less than four years. He totally destroyed everything President Trump built in his administration. And, and we want it back, and most Americans want it back.

Field recording [00:07:05] You cannot deny. You were better off when Donald Trump was in office. Americans were finally able to start saving money. Home prices were affordable and gas hit a low of $1.87 a gallon. But you don’t have to imagine what it would be like. All you have to do is remember what it was like. Oh, yeah.

Charlotte Howard [00:07:57] Don junior is talking. We’re getting ready for Vance to come on.

Field recording [00:08:01] Another legend.

Charlotte Howard [00:08:02] The subject matter is dark. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and attempted assassination. But the mood is joyful. It’s like a huge cocktail party. People waving their cowboy hats. Everybody’s dressed up and having a good time.

Field recording [00:08:34] Yeah. Greetings, Milwaukee. My fellow Americans and my fellow Republicans. My name is JD Vance from the great state of Ohio. We’re done. Ladies and gentlemen, catering to Wall Street will commit to the working man. We’re done importing foreign labour. We’re going to fight for American citizens and their good jobs and their good wages.

Field recording [00:09:15] There’s a lot of discussion about the platform and the idea of tariffs. And, you know, the unions were up there last night. Does that give you any pause? This doesn’t seem reaganite free markets.

Field recording [00:09:26] That’s a very good point. You’re bringing up. Is tariffs the way to go. And as a libertarian oriented Republican, I can assure you I’m not a fan of tariffs. I think there are hidden tax on the consumer. So I’m not excited about that. I am excited about incentivising American companies to compete with foreign companies that are subsidised by their governments. But there’s other ways to do it besides tariffs.

Charlotte Howard [00:09:53] Which state are you representing?

Field recording [00:09:55] Illinois seventh congressional district.

Charlotte Howard [00:09:59] Do you think that the message of former President Trump and Senator Vance will resonate with the black community now, in a way that it didn’t resonate with prior Republican candidates?

Field recording [00:10:10] What Trump gets it tonight. Trump has always helped blacks, even when he was not running for political office. He gets it.

Field recording [00:10:21] Together, we will launch a new era of safety, prosperity and freedom for citizens of every race, religion, colour and create. The discord and division in our society must be healed. We must heal it quickly. So tonight, with faith and devotion, I proudly accept your nomination for president.

Field recording [00:10:48] It’s Donald Trump’s to lose. I think he’s definitely in the driver’s seat. I mean, Democrats can’t even decide if they want Joe Biden on the ticket. You have mega-donors holding millions, tens of millions of dollars hostage while they’re fighting a coup.

Field recording [00:10:59] And we’re fighting.

Field recording [00:11:00] Over the middle.

Field recording [00:11:09] Thank you very much.

John Prideaux [00:11:19] Idrees. We did something unusual in the cover letter this week, quoting Lenin, not something that you will often see in The Economist as that Lenin quote. There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen. And this week is very much felt like the latter. You had Joe Biden’s NATO press conference, the failed assassination attempt, the Florida classified documents case against Donald Trump being dropped, Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, JD Vance. President Biden getting Covid, the resurrection of the movement among Democrats, which is really gaining momentum to persuade Joe Biden to step aside. We’ve had Donald Trump’s speech. I mean, I’m not quite sure where to start, but I think we ought to start with Trump and the assassination attempt. It’s a week on, and he’s fine. So we can talk about it in these terms. What effect do you think that will have on the race, if any? And did you see a change to Trump when he gave his speech to the RNC?

Idrees Kahloon [00:12:14] You know, the first third of the speech was a change. Trump. It was riveting. He talked about what it was like to go through the assassination attempt, what it felt like, how he wanted to unite the country and not divide it. I thought it was incredibly moving and and powerful. And then the latter two thirds of the speech was a Trump rally that we’ve all heard. And maybe some of us love. Some of us don’t. But that was pretty standard Trumpian stuff. So on the one hand, he said, you know, I want to unite the country. I think he’s he had a nice line about wanting to be president for not just half the country, that sort of thing. And then we got into crazy Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and being worse than the ten worst presidents put together. Trump may have changed a little bit, but not all that much.

Charlotte Howard [00:13:00] I have to say that the whole week, to me had a feeling of real inevitability for a second Trump term, there was just this feeling that they were already there. And then Trump started talking. And he just as a very strange politician, I mean, the guy who mans his teleprompter could go eat a sandwich in between the time when he goes off script and then tell some random anecdote, and then when he returns. And I think it works for Trump’s base, but I’m not sure it works for the people at home. You have Trump talking about God and the teleprompter, but you get Ms. 13 when he’s off teleprompter, and I just don’t know how effective that is for some of the people. He’ll have to win in November.

John Prideaux [00:13:44] Yeah, I agree with both of you. As a feat of physical endurance, it was pretty extraordinary. 93 minutes, which is the longest acceptance speech in modern American history. And it was almost of Castro like in length. I imagine people watching it at home might have caught the beginning bit, which I like, Idrees thought was pretty effective and then switched off. So perhaps we have a, you know, we have a skewed impression of the whole thing by being in the room, but by an hour in, a lot of the delegates were were sitting down and quite a lot of the energy had had gone out of the room.

Charlotte Howard [00:14:14] The other thing.

Charlotte Howard [00:14:14] About Trump’s presentation, Trump on the night that I thought was so interesting was the fight, fight, fight chant. And really leaning into that. You had Hulk Hogan, professional theatrical fighter. You had Dana White, the head of UFC, and you had kid Rock with flames behind him singing a chorus of fight, fight, fight as people had their fists up. It’s kind of an interesting thing to lean into for a former president whose historic actions on January 6th that the main theme of his night really was fight, fight, fight, fight. That’s a interesting choice. I don’t know that a room full of people with their fists up saying, fight, fight, fight is what gets you the suburban mom, I don’t know.

Idrees Kahloon [00:15:05] John and I were talking to each other. About who, who could get the Democrats as riled up as Hulk Hogan did the Republicans. And my suggestion was IRA Glass.

Charlotte Howard [00:15:15] That’s very good.

John Prideaux [00:15:16] We’ll talk a bit more about policy later. But the other really important speech this week was that of JD Vance, Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick. He’d got a chance to introduce himself to the nation. For those who don’t know him already. Idrees, what did you make of that as a piece of, you know, political rhetoric and performance?

Idrees Kahloon [00:15:34] So it’s interesting, I think a couple of us had different opinions. Adam O’Neill and I watched it and both thought it was fine. And I think part of that might be that we were quite familiar with JD Vance. We had read Hillbilly Elegy. He extracted a lot of the most amusing anecdotes from there for his speech, which are great anecdotes, mama and the 19 handguns. And, I don’t know if he told the story about light lighting the couch on fire, but, you know, it’s it’s it’s all in there. So I think as a as a means of introduction, he’s a bright guy with an incredible story. So that part might have endeared him towards some people. And then I think Adam and I were also familiar with his unique economic and foreign policy. Ideas. And so that part was also somewhat less surprising, but I think that was more concerning. I mean, he hinted at at this rate, he didn’t talk about tax cuts. He said that foreign countries would not be able to get a free ride. But I think our impression was that it was perhaps intentionally not a kind of scintillating speech. You know, Vance has gone from very publicly criticising Trump in 2016 and 2017 to being his running mate, which means that he is very, very good at managing up. And I think part of managing up is making sure you don’t outshine the boss.

John Prideaux [00:16:54] Charlotte, what did you make of the speech?

Charlotte Howard [00:16:55] So I had a slightly different impression. I actually thought that it was more interesting and more important, I guess, than Idrees and Adam. And what I was particularly struck by was not him as his own individual persona, which, as Audrey says, is relatively well known. He a lot of people read Hillbilly Elegy. It was a number one bestseller, was made into a movie, right? But rather both in his speech and in the speech of a veteran from World War Two. Both of them rejected the notion of America as an idea which Joe Biden has repeatedly referred to. Back in October, Joe Biden tried to link the notion of the idea of America to the need to support Ukraine for freedom, independence, self-determination. J.D. Vance said that America may be an idea, but more importantly, it’s a home. It’s a homeland. It’s a homeland that needs to be protected. It’s a place that belongs to individual Americans. And I think that that switch is a really important, fundamental shift in the basic conception of what the country is.

John Prideaux [00:18:06] I think that’s really astute. There were parts of the speech where he talked about his family’s connection to the soil in Kentucky, the family burial plot, and how he hoped that future generations of Vances would be buried there. And it seemed much more like a part of a speech that you might hear at one of the national conservatism conferences. That address has been going to recently much more European blood and soil conception of the nation, and much less of America as an idea conception. I thought the speech was pretty effective as a piece of rhetoric policy wise. I thought there was some absolutely bananas stuff in there, which we’ll get to later. I thought Vance came across as positive and and cheerful, and I thought he did a better job of explaining Trumpism as an idea than than Donald Trump has ever done. And he also spent enough time praising Donald Trump. One of the weird bits of theatre at this convention has been that Donald Trump didn’t speak until the last night, but there was a sort of royal box slightly elevated above the convention floor, where he would sit almost like a Roman emperor, while people paid tribute to him on the stage. And so even when he wasn’t speaking, he sort of stole the show. Vance. Interesting for a bunch of reasons, but one of them is you can trace the evolution of the Republican Party since 2016 to now through Vance from as a GZ Trump opponent to Trump acolyte. We’ll go back in a moment to look at an earlier Republican National Convention to contrast it with this one. But before we get there, Charlotte, what have you particularly enjoyed from The Economist’s recent coverage?

Idrees Kahloon [00:19:40] We have a Rashomon style analysis of JD Vance from three different vantage points one political, one from the European perspective in our Charlemagne column and the other from the business perspective in, our Schumpeter column. All three of them, I think, add up to something that might not be coherent, but certainly a picture.

Charlotte Howard [00:20:02] I feel like, extended discussion of Rashomon at the Democratic convention might also be something that riles people up. I think the coverage has been great.

John Prideaux [00:20:13] Yeah, I’d agree with that. Lots of fantastic coverage from The Economist on American politics this week, including coverage of the Democratic rebellion against Joe Biden, which is a huge and potentially very consequential story. Just to do a quick surf plug, episode three of boom is out. It’s about 1987, a year where Joe Biden was running for president for the first time, a year when Donald Trump published after the deal and also teased a presidential run. So please go listen to that. In 2016, The Economist described the Republican convention as one of America’s strangest and most compelling political spectacles in decades.

Archive [00:21:03] We will make America strong again.

Archive [00:21:16] I’m at a safe. And we will make good.

John Prideaux [00:21:26] The primary was over and against all expectations, Donald Trump was the nominee he needed. We suggested three things from the convention to impose a measure of unity on his divided party, to appear more likeable, and to project a sense that he’s qualified to be president. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Republican Party elder, told journalists that proving Trump’s competence to voters was key.

Archive [00:21:49] I mean, they clearly know he’s a great salesman. His is remarkable and working crowds. They want to know that the 2:00 in the morning, to use the three in the morning to use the Hillary and that this is a stable, competent guy who you can trust with the future of the United States. If they know that, if they conclude that he will beat Hillary by a huge margin.

John Prideaux [00:22:11] Appearing likeable was more of a challenge. Trump’s children made a compelling pitch. Throughout my entire.

Archive [00:22:17] Life, I have witnessed his empathy and generosity towards others, especially those who are suffering. My father not only has the strength and ability necessary to be our next president, but also the kindness and compassion that will enable him to be the leader that this country needs.

John Prideaux [00:22:37] But Trump’s convention speech was apocalyptic in tone, relentlessly focussed on crime and immigration.

Archive [00:22:44] The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities, with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources.

John Prideaux [00:23:15] Alienating some. Appealing to others. Trump was selling something far more potent than likeability. Unity was even harder to find. Swathes of the Republican establishment either failed to show, were lukewarm in their endorsement, or challenged the nominee outright. Absentees included the Bush family, John McCain, Mitt Romney and other Republican royalty. Ted Cruz was booed for a speech which, after a cursory opening endorsement, failed to mention Donald Trump.

Archive [00:23:45] If you love our country and love your children as much as I know that you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience. Vote for candidates up and down the ticket.

Archive [00:23:57] Who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution. God bless each and every one of you. And God bless the United States of America.

John Prideaux [00:24:12] More than 700 of the nearly 2500 delegates voted against the nominee and delegates unbound. A group of Never Trumpers were vocal in their criticism.

Archive [00:24:21] We have enough division in this country. We need to find somebody who will unify. And Donald Trump is not a unifier. Donald Trump is a divider. And that’s why I just personally don’t support him.

John Prideaux [00:24:32] Eight years later, the party is transformed. The sceptics and naysayers have been banished. Or in the case of JD Vance, converted. Trump’s possible heirs may already be thinking of 2028, but any challenge to the 45th president, especially after his near assassination, is now unthinkable. Charlotte after this week, Donald Trump is the first major party candidate to have been nominated three successive times since FDR. Which is quite a thing. There was no convention in 2020 or no convention as we know them in 2020 because of Covid. So the previous one, 2016, is our comparison point. What can you tell from looking back at that convention and having experienced this one, about how the Republican Party has changed over time, how Donald Trump has changed or not changed over time?

Charlotte Howard [00:25:30] I guess a few things. One is the remarkable unity of the Republican Party. As you mentioned, you had all these chastened former rivals who were basically laying down at his feet. Ted Cruz, who gave really only a cursory endorsement in 2016, spoke at great length here. You had Nikki Haley, who was really holding out as a anti-Trump, her for a long time. She was there. So there was that. And then I was really struck by Sean O’Brien, the head of the Teamsters union, who spoke at the RNC and really criticised Big Business Business Roundtable, the interests of large companies, which until recently were the interests that were defended by the Republican Party and may even still be the interests that are defended by the Republican Party in the fight that will play out next year over taxes. So I think there’s a bit of a gap between the people, the populist rhetoric of JD Vance and probably what Trump will pursue on behalf of American companies in the tax bill next year. But nevertheless, I think that there’s a big shift there, away from, you know, the traditional rhetoric of the Republican Party. But then I have to say, I wasn’t at the 2016 convention. I do think it’s important to recognise that this is an event made for TV and to describe the really odd vibe in the convention hall, because it feels so much like a party. I was on the floor last night when President Trump was speaking in the run up to it, and there was this conga line of people wearing sequinned jackets and American flag headbands, and this mood of joy that is coursed through with anger. It’s just a really particular vibe, distinct to Donald Trump’s republicanism, and he’s been able to harness that joy and that anger in a way that I haven’t seen before in American politics.

John Prideaux [00:27:37] Yeah, I hadn’t thought of it like that. But you’re completely right, Charlotte. Trumpism has always been a strange mixture of policies, but as a political movement that appeals to different emotions, it’s very jumbled up also in a way that, you know, if it works here is pretty effective. I mean, I was at the convention in 2016, in Cleveland. I was struck by a few things. Number one, as we heard earlier in those clips of Donald Trump speaking, his greatest hit is still people are pouring across the border and they’re coming to kill and rape you and your family. And there was a lot of that in the speech last night. There was a lot of that in 2016. That’s really his darkest register. And when he was not being teleprompter Trump, that’s often where he goes. So that’s real consistency there. In terms of presentation. A couple of things struck me in 2016. It was really hard to get prominent Republicans to go on stage and give Donald Trump their full throated support. So at that convention in Cleveland, you heard a lot from the family and you heard a lot from Trump employees. There was a bit of that, but less. And one last thing. In 2016, it was very common for the speakers to invite the crowd to turn to the media and boo at them and jeer. And I think that happened once this time, but it was less of a thing than before, which I thought was interesting as well. On the.

Idrees Kahloon [00:28:56] Mood point. I think actually it’s a very effective blend. Trump’s always combined the two, right. It’s apocalyptic rhetoric, but also often extremely funny ad libs. I mean, even the middle of telling his assassination story, he goes on this tangent about how bloody the ears are and how blood filled they are and how well, I didn’t know that they bled that much. It was very funny, you see that I think, in a lot of his rallies. I mean, he often talks about how much he loves his supporters because they’re fighting Joe Biden, who wants to pour illegal immigrants across the border. I mean, it’s this kind of constant juxtaposition of the two. But if you look at a politician who cuts out the kind of hokey, lovey dovey stuff, you get, someone like Ron DeSantis who is totally dower, try to do Trumpism is smarter, I think, than Trump is more of a policy brain, certainly, but it doesn’t work. So when DeSantis says something like, I think during the campaign, he said, I’m going to slit the throats of federal bureaucrats. Everyone was like, oh my God. What are you? What are you talking about? Whereas Trump could say, not quite that graphic language, but he says fairly. Extreme things, but he delivers them in a tone that causes people to not take them as seriously. I think it’s just more effective demagoguery to add the levity.

Charlotte Howard [00:30:10] I was interested to Idrees that. He turned to Viktor Orban and spent a bunch of time talking about the strength and power of Viktor Orban. You were just in Hungary a few months ago. What did you make of that?

John Prideaux [00:30:21] Yeah.

Idrees Kahloon [00:30:21] Viktor Orban, I think, recently met with him. He’s probably the head of state who is most excited for Trump to come back. Trump is trying to get a kind of alliance across borders that supports him. And I think you saw a lot of diplomats here. I think there were ambassadors from maybe 20 countries who were here. They all think that Donald Trump is the presumptive president, and they are trying to make sure that they have open lines of communication. David Lammy, who’s the new British foreign minister, was in Washington last week, for the NATO summit. He was very keen on getting in touch with members of the former president’s team as well. But the leaders who were with Trump from the beginning, and Viktor Orban is one of them, will have a kind of special access to him. You know, Orban and the Hungarian government have organised this international movement of national conservatism. This idea that there is going to be an international alliance of nationalists in the mould of Trump, and actually JD Vance has been with that group from the start. He spoke to their conference in 2019. He spoke to them just recently, in 2020 for this kind of movement to Intellectualise. Trumpism has been going on for a while, and Orban and Vance are both incredibly important in that.

John Prideaux [00:31:35] Yeah. The fact that just the mention of Viktor Orban’s name at the RNC is a clap line now tells you quite how much conservatism in America has changed over the past few years. And I think we learnt a bit more this week about what that means in policy terms. So we’ll be back in a moment to talk about the Republican Party’s policy platform. But first, earlier today, we at The Economist had a subscriber event on the Republican convention hosted by me, where you two and Adam O’Neil fielded a range of questions on the key policies and themes that emerged from this convention and the implications of it for the upcoming November election. So if you’re a subscriber, you can now watch that on demand. Just head to economist E-commerce live event if you’d like to do that. These conventions are mostly made for TV. But getting 50,000 people in one place means there are also lots of conversations offscreen about policy and about governing. One of the big shifts this year was the growth in the strength of national conservatism. And Idrees, you spoke to one of the major architects of that.

Idrees Kahloon [00:32:46] Yes, I did. I sat down with Kevin Roberts, who is the president of the Heritage Foundation. That’s a right wing think tank in D.C., one of the most prominent. I sat down to talk with him about national conservatism, which he thinks of as the dominant form of conservatism now, and about project 2025, which is a massive effort to pick out the policies and personnel for the next conservative administration, which the Heritage Foundation has been coordinating.

Kevin Roberts [00:33:15] Organisationally. The Nat Kahn movement has become, I think, the most serious intellectual conversation on the political right about the pain points in terms of policy and ideas. The belief in the nation state, particularly for those of us in the United States, is an all encompassing belief. I would like to think, among more free market oriented, conservative friends that they believe that I, of course, believe that they do. My own evolution in this is just, I guess, a representation of the evolution of thinking of a lot of regular kind of common conservatives. And that is, as the globalist agenda has come to, whether intentionally or unintentionally, undermine the nation state. American conservatives have to stand up on behalf of the nation state.

Idrees Kahloon [00:33:58] Yeah, no project 2025 has more search traffic than Taylor Swift over the last few weeks. That’s real. Right? I think, which is remarkable, right? I mean, I’m getting emails from the Biden campaign every single day about what project 2025 is. So I wondered if you could lay out what it is and what it isn’t.

Kevin Roberts [00:34:16] Project 2025 is two things. It’s one category of policy prescriptions. And that’s something that heritage has done since 1980 every four years. And then the second thing it is, is a group of personnel, people who might potentially serve in the next administration. We were aiming for 10,000 people to be in this personnel database. We have 15,000 as we sit here, 3000 of whom have joined since all of the media coverage of this. So there seems to be a boomerang effect going on against what the Biden campaign wishes. What it isn’t is whatever they say it is. And I mean, it actually is that blunt. I think there’s something like 32 terrible lies that the Biden campaign has told about the project 2025, unfortunately repeated by some media outlets. They’ve gotten only one of those correct. Only one. And it is that, in fact, we do call for the U.S. Department of Elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. Yeah, Trump has said that explicitly as well. And so that’s the one thing they got right. The president, the vice president, would choose their priorities. It’s a roadmap if they decide that they want to pick one of those priorities.

Idrees Kahloon [00:35:18] Yeah, yeah. I mean, to your point, it’s a it’s a 900 page document. There are two rival sections on free trade. Right. If you had to say what the kind of key most striking policy prescriptions are in that document, what would be the ones that you would point to?

Kevin Roberts [00:35:32] The overriding motivation is to devolve power from Washington to the States and to the people. It is to dismantle the administrative state, which we believe stands in the way of freedom and sovereignty. And that’s a comment that probably 65 or 70% of Americans agree with. So pretty deep into the centre left. A couple of examples that are instructive. I mentioned the elimination of the Department of Education. That’s even less so about, you know, eliminating bureaucracy. It’s more so about restoring educational attainment. Since 1979, when the department was created, we spent well over $1 trillion. Let’s just posit that that was well intentioned, which I’m willing to do. As a social scientist, I have to look at the data and what’s happened with educational attainment since 1979. Among every demographic group is that it’s gone down. The United States spends more per capita on education than any country in the world. So we’ve spent enough money. We’ve tried to centralise the power. It’s not working. And I haven’t even yet mentioned that the Department of Education is the main vehicle for the indoctrination of Dei and wokeness, which we stand against. Other examples would be a dramatic reform of the Department of Justice and especially the FBI. Not that they shouldn’t exist, obviously, but the weaponization of government by the Biden administration, not just against President Trump, but against a lot of us on the right, including myself, has to end. It’s also equally wrong if it happens on the right. And the third thing I would say is that I think you’re going to see just broadly across the government, even if project 2025 didn’t exist, there is a real desire by President Trump to deregulate in energy and in many sectors of the economy. We know there is a direct correlation over many years, but we have evidence of that in the Trump term of that deregulation leading to economic growth. I think that’s going to be a really important objective, as I understand it, from Trump’s own comments and a really important legacy of his second term. Yeah.

Idrees Kahloon [00:37:21] Can I ask you, a few weeks ago, the president said that he knew nothing about project 2020. Five. Obviously, it’s a policy menu that you hope that he takes up, but how do you interpret that kind of comment and how do you react to it.

Kevin Roberts [00:37:34] With absolutely no hard feelings? Because it’s a political comment. And I mean that to be a celebration. He’s run a great campaign. His campaign team is terrific. They run a flawless campaign from the beginning to this day. And what he’s trying to remind us all, which we agree with, is the Trump campaign is independent of project 2025. That is just always true. We welcome that too, because we operate independently of every campaign. And so the point is, we understand it’s a political season right now. We also understand that soon we will move into a transition and maybe policymaking season. Project 2025 exists for that policymaking season. It is a representation of the entire conservative movement. Great ideas and great people rise to the top. We understand that right now. President Trump, as he should be, is zealously focusing on winning the election. Yeah.

Idrees Kahloon [00:38:21] Lastly, could I ask you what you made of the policy platform for this convention? Obviously, it’s a shorter document, but there are some differences between the vision that it lays out and the one that that you guys are right about to get some length.

Kevin Roberts [00:38:33] Sure. I mean, two things. As a lifelong conservative, I’ve thought the platforms needed to be a hell of a lot shorter. The second thing is the conservative movement is a very big tent. There are going to be differences of opinion, not just on the margins, but maybe to the core. I think right now, what the American people are telling us is that they kind of don’t care about labels conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, project 2025. They’re looking for common sense. And I think the as a political document, the RNC platform is very smart because it really meets the moment. But the other thing to keep in mind, too, is that all of these entities have to exist independently, but there’s also a lot of overlap. The Trump campaign is in one lane, the RNC in another project 2025 and yet another. There are going to be some differences of opinion as friends, but we also understand that between now and November 5th, we got a win. And I think that platform is going to deliver that.

John Prideaux [00:39:29] Some of the ideas that Kevin Roberts referenced, their education reform, the idea of getting rid of the Department of Education Decentralising American education. That’s been a theme of conservative policymaking for ever. But there’s a lot that’s new in this flavour of conservatism, and we heard quite a bit of it in J.D. Vance, his speech earlier this week. So in terms of policy, how do you see this kind of national conservatism as being distinct from previous flavours of Republican ideology?

Idrees Kahloon [00:39:58] It’s incredibly distinct. It’s almost like inverted reaganism in a lot of ways. So Reagan thought that America was the shining city on the hill, that it could project its values forcefully across the world. It had a kind of confidence in America, both at home and abroad. And national conservatism is, at least in America, fairly pessimistic about America’s ability to really succeed on either front. So it sees the country as a, kind of fortress under siege, at risk of being overrun. And it calls for a lot of extreme action to save the country. That’s kind of how the rhetoric works. What does that mean? That means, stepping away from a lot of foreign policy arenas. A lot of people like JD Vance say that Ukraine is too expensive. America should not be spending any more money on it, because America needs to focus on the threat from China. They see illegal immigration as an existential threat to the country. And they are fairly hard line in wanting, massive deportations. That’s something that, Donald Trump has called for, that contrast, again, with Reagan, who offered an amnesty in 1986, in exchange for comprehensive immigration reform, which ultimately failed on economics. It’s also very, very close to, the left in a lot of ways. There is this, at least rhetorical embrace of unions. There is an openness to higher taxes on corporations. There is more of an interest in redistributing money to families. But it is a very, very different kind of conservatism from the one that had dominated the West for almost 80 years. It’s a return to a lot of the America First rhetoric that we saw in the 1930s and 1940s, mixed in with this kind of abandonment of big business.

Charlotte Howard [00:41:48] Yeah, I think, put most simply for Vance, at least, if globalism through the free flow of workers and goods lowered wages, he wants to do all kinds of things to put upward pressure on wages, including restricting immigration. And as we’ve written about extensively, it was one thing to pursue those sorts of policies in a different economic environment of the first Trump term, and quite another to do so right now when the country’s still struggling to keep, inflation in check. And clearly, tariffs would, would push prices up. I mean, one thing that I was struck by listening to the speeches in the hall last night was the enormous reaction that any mention of oil had. Drill, baby. Drill. The idea of making America energy independent not only was received with great enthusiasm by the crowd, but in speeches was presented almost as the cure all for a range of American problems. And I would note that under President Biden, American oil production reached a record not just for the country, but for the world. No country has ever drilled more oil than America did last year. Ever. I thought both as, an overstatement of the president’s agency in directing oil and as an overstatement of what drilling could do more broadly for the American people. It was, distorted.

John Prideaux [00:43:22] Yeah, I agree with that. I was also really struck by how much applause drill, baby drill got, and any bashing of electric vehicles or greenery was. Also, that was very popular with the crowd. I mean, I think this program coheres rhetorically, but doesn’t cohere at all in terms of policy. And I think the role that drilling for oil and stopping illegal immigration play, if you listen to Vance and Trump and others, is that it’s a sort of free lunch for America. So America First, you know, macrocosm policy wise, is a world of free lunches and no trade offs, right? You’re going to have big tax cuts, but no spending cuts. Inflation is going to come down despite there being high tariffs. And the reason all that’s going to happen is that more oil will be drilled, even though, as Charlotte says, America hit records yesterday and immigration illegal immigration will be lower, even though I think anybody who’s looked at this would say the economic effects of illegal immigration, a pretty marginal increase. Do you think the project 2025 program? And some of the others that are being put forward. Do you think it’s more coherent than I’m describing? And as you said to Kevin Roberts, President Trump has said, I don’t know anything about this, and people should stop taking it as my policy platform. But is there actually a lot of overlap between project 2025 and the Republican platform?

Idrees Kahloon [00:44:44] There are some areas of overlap. So the Republican Party platform is a lot shorter. It’s only 16 pages. It was personally edited by Trump. You can tell that because the capitalisation is all in Trump caps. Like he would tweet rather than in normal capitalisation. But there’s a lot of overlap on the immigration points, for example, the calls for massive deportations. The other thing they agree on is that the Department of Justice should not be independent, that it should be under, the control of the president and eroding that norm. That’s something that you see in Trump’s speeches as well. But the project 2025 document is much more gung ho about abortion restrictions. For example, rolling back access to, medications that are used for abortion. And Trump recognises that this is a political liability. And that’s why you’ve seen him distance himself publicly from this. The Republican National Convention platform is very, very light on abortion, but it used to occupy a huge amount of Republican space, and Trump doesn’t want to talk about it. It also doesn’t really mention gay marriage. It just says that Republicans will defend the sanctity of marriage. And leave it up to the readers to interpret what that is. So this is, I think, a political decision to reduce the attack surface. And I think Kevin Roberts is right when it comes to transition time. If Trump wins, there will be a scramble to fill 4000 political appointee roles. There will be transition documents that are built up about what actually the government is supposed to do. And I don’t think project 2025 will be the de facto guide that is used, but I think having those ideas around will mean that there is a very high chance that they get put into practice.

John Prideaux [00:46:28] And Charlotte, while all this has been going on where we are in Milwaukee, the manoeuvring about President Biden’s candidacy has been taking place largely on signal groups and other private channels. It looks quite likely that he may stand aside. The Republican platform, as we discussed, is pretty much set now. But how would that change the race? Were Donald Trump to have a new opponent by the end of next week?

Charlotte Howard [00:46:57] I think it would fundamentally transform the race in some ways and not in others. I think that the problem for Democrats is if this campaign is about the record of Democrats on inflation, if this campaign is about the border and what Democrats need to do, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket, is try to turn it around and make the story back about President Trump. And on the Republican side, they portray Democrats, including Biden, but not just Biden, as being clueless, focussed on pronouns rather than on the real pain of the American people. And they are presenting themselves as the party that understands what real Americans are going through and has an answer for how to help them. And if the election is about that, rather than about Donald Trump himself, I think it will be hard for Democrats to pull anything off, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. So the task for whoever is on the Democratic ticket at the top of the ticket is to rally the party behind the campaign, which is no small feat, and then do this kind of jujitsu where they invert the Republican narrative and put the story of Donald Trump back, front and centre.

John Prideaux [00:48:17] It is. This story is moving pretty fast. But what do you think will happen over the next couple of days as regards the Biden campaign? And what are you hearing?

Idrees Kahloon [00:48:25] You know, I feel like I’ve been on every twist and turn of the roller coaster. So my bets off have been consistently wrong, but it looks like Biden is very close to facing the maximum possible pressure from members of his own party. More than 20. Democrats in Congress have publicly said that he needs to stand aside because he’s not able to beat Donald Trump in November. Many, many more think that privately. This week we found out through probably intentional leaking, that party leaders like Chuck Schumer, who is the Senate majority leader, or Nancy Pelosi, who was the very influential speaker of the House, don’t think that he can win and are urging him to stand aside. He seems to be thinking about it. He seems to be coming to terms with the fact that he has to go. So if I had to hazard a guess, and I will probably regret this, I would think that he would go probably within the next week or so. And that will be just an astounding thing. What would follow would be kind of bedlam in the Democratic Party. I think the favourite would be Kamala Harris to succeed him, especially given how little time there is to find someone else. But a lot of people in the party wouldn’t want it to be a coronation. They’d want it to be a contest. It would really be quite, quite the spectacle.

John Prideaux [00:49:46] Well, the next time we’ll all be in a room together will be at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. And that could be pretty interesting. Okay, let’s wrap this up. It’s quiz time. And this quiz is a convention special. Question one. Which city has hosted the most party conventions?

Idrees Kahloon [00:50:03] Is it Chicago?

John Prideaux [00:50:07] It is indeed Chicago. More than ten conventions for each party. Question two can you name all four cities that hosted the 2016 and the 2012 conventions?

Charlotte Howard [00:50:20] I think the Obama’s one was in Colorado, wasn’t it, in 2012?

Idrees Kahloon [00:50:24] Know 2016 RNC was in Cleveland, right? We might have said that.

John Prideaux [00:50:29] I remember that fondly.

Charlotte Howard [00:50:30] Wasn’t there one in North Carolina? I’m going with Denver, Cleveland.

Charlotte Howard [00:50:36] Charlotte and I don’t know, Miami.

Charlotte Howard [00:50:42] That’s a good call.

John Prideaux [00:50:44] So the Dems were in Philly and Charlotte was right. So they were in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2012. And Republicans were in Cleveland, as we said, already in 16 and in 2012, the Republicans were in Tampa, Florida. So not Miami, but Tampa. Who knows who won that one.

Charlotte Howard [00:51:05] But nobody.

John Prideaux [00:51:07] Yeah, exactly. I suspect the same people are playing at home. Probably one that. Well, that’s it for this week. Thank you Charlotte. Thank you Idrees.

Charlotte Howard [00:51:15] Thank you, thank you.

John Prideaux [00:51:16] Thanks also to Checks and Balance listener Robert Davis for his Milwaukee RECs. We’ve had a lovely time in the city, and personally, I feel like this week has been the American college experience I never had. So so thank you guys. This episode was produced by Julia Johnson and Steve Hertz. Who’s in the room with us. Thanks, Steve.

Stevie Hertz [00:51:34] Thank you.

John Prideaux [00:51:35] Carla Patella is our sound engineer with thanks to Kevin Roberts and Hannah Marino. If you like the podcast, then please do let people know and leave us a rating and a review. You can get in touch with us via email. The address is podcasts@economist.com. In the meantime, thanks very much for listening. We’ll have more checks and balance next week.