Speaker 1: From CurtCo Media.
Speaker 7: ( singing)
Bill Curtis: This is Politics: Meet Me In The Middle. I'm Bill
Bill Curtis: Curtis. Our job here is to provide a neutral zone
Bill Curtis: where we can express alternative viewpoints without fear of being
Bill Curtis: called out or canceled. We support the view of our
Bill Curtis: past guest, Berkeley Law Professor, Erwin Chemerinsky, when he said, "
Bill Curtis: There is no such thing as a false opinion. The
Bill Curtis: remedy for speech that we don't like is more speech."
Bill Curtis: Our last show was focused on the most difficult job
Bill Curtis: here in the middle, listening. Appreciating that alternative viewpoint may
Bill Curtis: even hold some water, even if, at first, the point
Bill Curtis: causes a gag reflex. After that passes, we consistently find
Bill Curtis: ourselves surprised and even learn something in the process. Let's
Bill Curtis: introduce our panel. Firstly, our co- host, a Pulitzer prize-
Bill Curtis: winning historian, bestselling author, worldwide lecturer, and the widely quoted
Bill Curtis: socially distance and zoomed in authority of everything historical and
Bill Curtis: constitutional, Professor Ed Larson. How are you, Ed?
Ed Larson: Doing just fine. Nice to see you again.
Bill Curtis: Also zooming in, co- host Jane Albrecht. She's an international
Bill Curtis: trade attorney, who's represented U. S. interests to high- level
Bill Curtis: government officials all over the world. And she's been involved
Bill Curtis: with several U. S. presidential campaigns. In full disclosure, she's
Bill Curtis: also the President of the Malibu Democratic Club. Hi, Jane.
Bill Curtis: Nice to remotely see you, too.
Jane Albrecht: Nice to see you all, too. And you, too, Don.
Bill Curtis: And our special guest joining us today, Don Schmitz. He
Bill Curtis: refers to himself as a constitutional conservative. He brings a
Bill Curtis: somewhat contrasting perspective to the political issues that face us
Bill Curtis: these days. He is President of Schmidts and Associates, a
Bill Curtis: land use consulting firm, specializing in land development entitlements, strategic planning,
Bill Curtis: project management, and government affairs and advocacy. Long committed to
Bill Curtis: public service, Mr. Schmitz is the founder and President of
Bill Curtis: the Coalition for Fire Safe Communities and the Fifth Amendment
Bill Curtis: Rights Alliance. Don is also a fellow wine lover. He
Bill Curtis: owns the Malibu Solstice Vineyard. The grapes have a view
Bill Curtis: of Malibu and the Pacific ocean, by the way. Don
Bill Curtis: produces award- winning private reserve Cabernet. So at the time
Bill Curtis: we recorded this, our Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, just said, "
Bill Curtis: As we head into the election season, I want to
Bill Curtis: assure this committee and the American public that the postal
Bill Curtis: service is fully capable and committed to delivering the nation's
Bill Curtis: election mail securely and on time." So, Don, how do
Bill Curtis: you feel about our President injecting doubt into our most
Bill Curtis: valued institution?
Don Schmitz: Well, the post office, very often much maligned federal agency,
Don Schmitz: which is reflected in our constitution, actually. However, the reason
Don Schmitz: that the founders considered having a federal postal service to
Don Schmitz: be critical to our free Republic, was that so no one
Don Schmitz: entity could control the free communication between citizens. And it's
Don Schmitz: interesting to me that we find ourselves here in 2020
Don Schmitz: encountering this issue whereupon the postal service and its ability
Don Schmitz: to deliver the mail is once again, given the age
Don Schmitz: of the internet and social media platforms and Zoom meetings,
Don Schmitz: is such a critical thing that we are dealing with.
Don Schmitz: And the reason why it's critical goes to the fundamental
Don Schmitz: issue of is it appropriate, is it safe for us
Don Schmitz: to have, on a mass scale, voting by mail? As
Don Schmitz: opposed to absentee ballots, which has been much more focused
Don Schmitz: and limited historically.
Bill Curtis: Something tells me you have an opinion on the subject.
Don Schmitz: It seems to me that what we have, that we're
Don Schmitz: grappling with here at America right now, is on the left
Don Schmitz: and the right a tremendous amount of distrust. And this
Don Schmitz: is what is so very dangerous. Not just distrust of
Don Schmitz: each other, but distrust in regards to the integrity of
Don Schmitz: the system. We hear this to varying degrees in every
Don Schmitz: electoral cycle, right? Accusations of fraud and there'll be more registered
Don Schmitz: voters in a particular district than actually live there. We
Don Schmitz: all have anecdotal experiences. I'm still receiving ballots at my
Don Schmitz: house in Malibu for family members that moved out five,
Don Schmitz: six years ago. And so the concern is, is that
Don Schmitz: as opposed to an absentee ballot, where a citizen would
Don Schmitz: write the government with their signature and say, " Send me
Don Schmitz: an absentee ballot." What they're talking about doing on a
Don Schmitz: mass scale is just sending ballots to everybody that's on
Don Schmitz: the voter rolls.
Bill Curtis: Ed, can you talk to us a little about the
Bill Curtis: absentee ballots? What's the history of that and was that
Bill Curtis: met with a lot of objections from one side or
Bill Curtis: the other when we first tried an absentee ballot through
Bill Curtis: the mail?
Ed Larson: No, a lot of states use mail- in voting for
Ed Larson: everything, and they have proved just as successful as voting in-
Ed Larson: person. During wars, we've had to use that process. So mail-
Ed Larson: in voting has a long and successful history. Think of
Ed Larson: states like Utah, that just use them regularly.
Bill Curtis: When you say during wars we had to use that
Bill Curtis: process, you mean for the military or in general?
Ed Larson: Well, we've used them for the military during wars, but
Ed Larson: many states rely on mail- in voting and it seems
Ed Larson: to work fine. You have the same problem with live voting.
Bill Curtis: Is this a situation where some states are getting it
Bill Curtis: right and some just can't seem to get it in
Bill Curtis: a row?
Ed Larson: We have plenty of stories about dead people voting in
Ed Larson: Illinois at voting booths. It's just the way it is.
Ed Larson: It depends on the checking process. And you have states
Ed Larson: with a history of voter fraud and it's bipartisan.
Bill Curtis: But the reason why this is an issue is really
Bill Curtis: more of our President's bluster and tweet than it is
Bill Curtis: what DeJoy is trying to do to make the post
Bill Curtis: office a reasonable institution.
Don Schmitz: The problem isn't necessarily voting by mail or mail in
Don Schmitz: ballots, the problem is, is do the American people trust
Don Schmitz: the process and the system that we have? There's a
Don Schmitz: lot of precedent for it, it can be shown to
Don Schmitz: work, but what we're talking about doing is a very
Don Schmitz: global approach, entire states, and if there is questions as it
Don Schmitz: pertains to the integrity of voter rolls, then that's going
Don Schmitz: to cause a lot of angst for the voters.
Bill Curtis: How do you think it's going to turn out in the event
Bill Curtis: that it's a close election?
Don Schmitz: One of the things that's been the beauty of our Republic
Don Schmitz: for so long is that, at the end of the day,
Don Schmitz: when the people speak, that's it, we have a peaceful
Don Schmitz: transition of power. We got a little rocky with Bush
Don Schmitz: and Gore, but there weren't tanks around the White House.
Don Schmitz: And after it all went through the process, there was
Don Schmitz: a smooth transition of power. We are at a almost
Don Schmitz: unseen level of vitriol going on in our country right
Don Schmitz: now between different political opposing sides, and a tremendous amount
Don Schmitz: of distrust on both sides. And I think it's absolutely
Don Schmitz: imperative that the institutions here that we're entrusting to do this
Don Schmitz: can assure the American people that, at the end of
Don Schmitz: the day, the tallied votes are correct.
Bill Curtis: When was another time where the winner of the election
Bill Curtis: was not called on election day?
Ed Larson: Oh, all the early ones because the communications took so
Ed Larson: long. So none of the early ones. I mean, even
Ed Larson: George Washington didn't know he'd won for months. But of
Ed Larson: course we weren't sure about Bush versus Gore because of
Ed Larson: the problems counting votes in several states. But in the
Ed Larson: end it was Florida and that speaks to the point
Ed Larson: Don's raising. Under the American Federal System, the federal government
Ed Larson: doesn't control the election. The election for President is entirely,
Ed Larson: entirely controlled by the states. So if there's a problem
Ed Larson: this year, it won't be a national problem, it will
Ed Larson: be a state by state problems. Most states are going
Ed Larson: to handle this election beautifully. My prediction is 45 states
Ed Larson: or more there won't be a one iota of problem
Ed Larson: because states are really good, some states are really good
Ed Larson: with mail- in votes, other states are really good with
Ed Larson: absentee ballots, and other states are really good with drop-
Ed Larson: in ballots. And I don't think we're going to have
Ed Larson: any problem here in California. The question is, will there
Ed Larson: be states that there's a problem?
Bill Curtis: So how can it be that there's no federal oversight
Bill Curtis: in any fashion? How can it be up to each
Bill Curtis: state? And there's still five of them it sounds like that
Bill Curtis: are basically crashing and burning in the process.
Jane Albrecht: Because it is the province of the states. What surprises
Jane Albrecht: me and concerns me is that there have been bills
Jane Albrecht: in recent years to provide funding to the states, to
Jane Albrecht: update their machinery, increase security, and it's been held up
Jane Albrecht: largely by the Republicans, and I don't say that partisan
Jane Albrecht: way, but that is in fact what's happened. So one
Jane Albrecht: thing the federal government can do is provide funds, but
Jane Albrecht: as that explained, it's the province of the states and
Jane Albrecht: if we remember, all powers of a federal government are
Jane Albrecht: delegated to them by the states and that which is
Jane Albrecht: not delegated is kept to the states.
Don Schmitz: Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried if the federal
Don Schmitz: government was running our elections. I trust the states to
Don Schmitz: do this a lot better. It doesn't mean every state's
Don Schmitz: perfect. And there's probably reasons that state operates the way
Don Schmitz: it does. So overall, we're a federal Republic and I
Don Schmitz: trust the states with this issue and I don't want the
Don Schmitz: federal government giving us a one- answer- fits- all sort
Don Schmitz: of imposition on us.
Bill Curtis: Ed, take us to Constitutional 101 for a minute and
Bill Curtis: explain how in many of the states, if there were
Bill Curtis: no election, the states could actually appoint their own electors.
Bill Curtis: Isn't that how that works?
Ed Larson: Yes. The constitution does not require the states to choose
Ed Larson: their electors in any particular manner. A President is not
Ed Larson: elected by popular vote, the President is elected under the
Ed Larson: constitution by electors and electors are chosen by each state.
Ed Larson: And originally, if you go back to the founding period,
Ed Larson: some states chose their electors by a popular vote. In
Ed Larson: those cases, mostly get it as Maine and Nebraska still
Ed Larson: do by congressional district rather than winner- take- all, up
Ed Larson: until the civil war the states would pick their electors
Ed Larson: by a vote of the legislature. Remember that's how all
Ed Larson: the states picked their senators up until 1920. So there
Ed Larson: are lots of ways to do it, it's just the
Ed Larson: most popular way is the states choose to have the
Ed Larson: people vote and winner take all in that state and
Ed Larson: therefore all of California's huge number of electoral votes go
Ed Larson: to whoever wins 50.1% of the vote. And it's when you
Ed Larson: get that close of vote that you get questions about
Ed Larson: the validity of electoral process. Because frankly, the electoral system
Ed Larson: in America isn't that perfect.
Jane Albrecht: The battles after the election are likely to be in
Jane Albrecht: states where it's close. It may or may not involve vote by
Jane Albrecht: mail ballots.
Bill Curtis: Don, do you think there's any reason for us to delay the election?
Don Schmitz: Absolutely not.
Bill Curtis: How do you feel about the idea that that was brought up?
Don Schmitz: Everybody needs to calm down. There's no doubt that we've
Don Schmitz: got a lot on our minds, but we're supposed to
Don Schmitz: be adults, we're supposed to be taking the God given
Don Schmitz: right to vote and choose our leadership seriously. I don't
Don Schmitz: see any reason why we cannot move forward with the
Don Schmitz: election. We've done them during horrible wars. Let's keep things moving forward.
Ed Larson: We've also done them during pandemics far worse than this pandemic.
Don Schmitz: Far worse.
Ed Larson: And the simple issue is the constitution says the President's
Ed Larson: term ends on January 20th. There's no way around it,
Ed Larson: it's right in the constitution.
Don Schmitz: Right.
Ed Larson: Donald Trump's first term will end January 20th so they've
Ed Larson: got to choose a President before then or there is
Ed Larson: no President or Vice President, which means Nancy Pelosi's President.
Bill Curtis: We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
Speaker 7: ( singing)
Speaker 8: On medicine, we're still practicing. Join Dr. Steven Taback and
Speaker 8: Bill Curtis for real conversations with the medical professionals who
Speaker 8: have their finger on the pulse of healthcare in the
Speaker 8: modern world. Available on all your favorite podcasting platforms. Produced
Speaker 8: by CurtCo Media.
Speaker 7: ( singing)
Bill Curtis: We're back with Jane Albrecht, Ed Larson and our special
Bill Curtis: guest, Don Schmidt. Does anybody feel that the country in
Bill Curtis: its current configuration is best off if one party or
Bill Curtis: the other is controlling all of the Houses?
Don Schmitz: I would say that Americans typically have been very fond of divided government and it's
Don Schmitz: atypical to where you have one party that has the White House,
Don Schmitz: the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and when that
Don Schmitz: happens it typically doesn't last for more than two years
Don Schmitz: before we switch it around. I think Americans typically like
Don Schmitz: there to be checks and balances politically within our system
Don Schmitz: and so I think that's probably a good thing for us.
Bill Curtis: Ed, give us a history lesson. When was the longest
Bill Curtis: term where one party controlled the whole shebang?
Ed Larson: To answer that question, you've got to consider what the
Ed Larson: whole shebang is. And I think the Supreme Court is
Ed Larson: an equal check and balance. In 1800 after the election
Ed Larson: came in. And it was clear that the Jeffersonian Party was
Ed Larson: going to control the House, Senate, and presidency, which they
Ed Larson: ended up doing for the longest period ever in American
Ed Larson: history, 24 years, they controlled all branches. What the Federalists,
Ed Larson: the outgoing Federalists who controlled the Senate and the presidency
Ed Larson: did is they got all the judges, their Federalist judges,
Ed Larson: to step down and put young people in, people like
Ed Larson: John Marshall, and they voted him through. And as one
Ed Larson: of the great Federalist leaders, Senator Governor Morris of New
Ed Larson: York said, "Well you can't blame us, we're throwing out anchors
Ed Larson: to stop the drift toward Jeffersonian Rule." And so I
Ed Larson: think that you have to include that. Even when Johnson
Ed Larson: and the Democrats controlled Congress in the 60s you had
Ed Larson: basically, for a while of that period, you had a
Ed Larson: Republican Supreme Court. So even if the Democrats took over
Ed Larson: everything this time, you'd have a Republican Supreme Court and that's going to
Ed Larson: offer is a check and balance because we got three branches.
Jane Albrecht: I was going to say my answer to that is it
Jane Albrecht: depends upon how long a time they're in power. We've
Jane Albrecht: had periods where both houses of legislature and the presidency
Jane Albrecht: are controlled by the Republicans. We've had periods where they've
Jane Albrecht: been controlled by the Democrats. But not for that long,
Jane Albrecht: not in recent history, at least in my recollection.
Bill Curtis: So when that was the case, how healthy was that for us?
Jane Albrecht: Sometimes it's okay. Sometimes it's not okay.
Don Schmitz: I think both parties like it. They want to hold
Don Schmitz: all the reigns of power so they can get something
Don Schmitz: done. One of the things that is a changing dynamic,
Don Schmitz: however, is the increasing drift towards doing away with things
Don Schmitz: such as the filibuster, when they did away with the
Don Schmitz: requirements for the higher- levels of majorities, for the appointing
Don Schmitz: of federal judges and things of that nature. When a
Don Schmitz: party gets in power and they do things like that,
Don Schmitz: they should heed the cautionary notes from folks on the
Don Schmitz: other side of the aisle, " Be careful because we will be
Don Schmitz: in power again someday and we're going to do the
Don Schmitz: same thing." But increasingly, folks seem tone deaf in Washington
Don Schmitz: DC about that.
Ed Larson: I agree with Don that people in America really don't
Ed Larson: like all power to be in the hands of one
Ed Larson: party. The norm for midterm elections is whoever was elected
Ed Larson: President loses seats in the midterm. You saw that with
Ed Larson: Donald Trump, losing the House of Representatives. People wanted a
Ed Larson: check. You saw that with Obama. You saw that with
Ed Larson: Bill Clinton. You tend to very rarely have a party
Ed Larson: control the White House more than two terms. It's usually
Ed Larson: two terms flipped to the other or or if you
Ed Larson: have an exceptionally popular President like Ronald Reagan or Andrew
Ed Larson: Jackson, one more term for their Vice President, but not
Ed Larson: two. In both of those cases, Jackson got his Vice
Ed Larson: President elected once, but that was it. He was out
Ed Larson: after one term, same way with Reagan getting George Herbert
Ed Larson: Walker Bush one term and out. So it's very rare
Ed Larson: to go more than two terms before you flip to
Ed Larson: the other party.
Bill Curtis: We do have a Supreme Court that is another check
Bill Curtis: and balance. I haven't seen a lot of check and
Bill Curtis: balance. I haven't seen the ability to have the Congress
Bill Curtis: keep the President to the President's appropriate level of presidential power.
Ed Larson: I think what bothers me about Trump is not just
Ed Larson: about Trump, I think it was true with Obama and George W.
Ed Larson: Bush, is they both used executive powers way beyond what
Ed Larson: I think the constitution intended. I think this has been
Ed Larson: a trend that has tied to the presidency, not to
Ed Larson: a political party. And I think Donald Trump has simply
Ed Larson: built on what Obama who then built on what George
Ed Larson: W. Bush did.
Jane Albrecht: But Trump has taken the Executive Order to a whole
Jane Albrecht: new level. One thing that's a little different right now
Jane Albrecht: is that the current Senate has been uncharacteristically not protective
Jane Albrecht: of its own power. And that's not something that's Democrat
Jane Albrecht: or Republican, both sides would agree with that, generally.
Bill Curtis: So Don, what are conservatives most concerned could be the
Bill Curtis: ramifications of a democratic sweep in November?
Don Schmitz: I think that there's a perception, especially amongst conservatives, that
Don Schmitz: with what's been going on in our streets, and some
Don Schmitz: of the folks that seem to have taken over the
Don Schmitz: traditional liberals within the Democrat Party, the lurch hard to
Don Schmitz: the left, I think that concerns them very much. You
Don Schmitz: have folks who are talking about things, which candidly were
Don Schmitz: just a third rail of politics in the United States
Don Schmitz: before, openly espousing socialism, openly espousing things of doing away
Don Schmitz: with electoral college, doing away with the Senate, putting all
Don Schmitz: kinds of draconian things that my traditional liberal Democrat friends
Don Schmitz: would never in a million years have supported. And I
Don Schmitz: think it frightens the hell out of a lot of people.
Bill Curtis: How do you feel about how Trump has been handling
Bill Curtis: the presidency as a Republican and do you have an
Bill Curtis: opinion about some of the unique angles that he's taken?
Don Schmitz: Well when it comes to Trump as the man, as
Don Schmitz: the individual, versus Trump as the President and his policies,
Don Schmitz: in my mind, I see those as two very different
Don Schmitz: things. The fact of the matter is, is that the
Don Schmitz: American people elected a tough New York gutter fighter and
Don Schmitz: the guy that was perceived as being completely outside of
Don Schmitz: the political structure, left wing or right wing Republican or
Don Schmitz: Democrat. I think that they did that with a forethought.
Don Schmitz: I think that the American people had become disenchanted with the
Don Schmitz: Democrats and Republicans and they felt like there really wasn't that
Don Schmitz: much of a change between the two parties and they
Don Schmitz: wanted something different. Personally, I do not appreciate Mr. Trump's
Don Schmitz: style, the way he says things about individuals, it's not
Don Schmitz: my cup of tea to put it mildly, but I
Don Schmitz: do have to tell you at the same time that
Don Schmitz: I think that the policies that he has implemented in
Don Schmitz: regards to reducing taxes and regulations, to protecting our border,
Don Schmitz: to having a rational immigration policies, to rebuilding our military,
Don Schmitz: to demanding more of our allies such as NATO, to
Don Schmitz: meet their obligations for our common defense, things of that
Don Schmitz: nature, for following through which neither Republicans or Democrats ever
Don Schmitz: had as presidents had the moral courage to do to
Don Schmitz: move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, love him
Don Schmitz: or hate him as an individual, but the man tends
Don Schmitz: to do what he says he's going to do and
Don Schmitz: he doesn't seem to care much about the political consequences.
Don Schmitz: So in regards to running the country on those important
Don Schmitz: action items, I have to be supportive of that.
Bill Curtis: So it sounds, Don, that you are reasonably middle of
Bill Curtis: the road in how you feel about Trump the person,
Bill Curtis: as opposed to the Republican platform. Let's talk about Trump
Bill Curtis: the person for just a minute. I can't help but
Bill Curtis: bring up the recent condemnation of Goodyear, for example, because
Bill Curtis: I'm not familiar with a past history where presidents have said, "
Bill Curtis: Let's boycott a company for saying that they don't want
Bill Curtis: my hats worn by their employees." Does that kind of
Bill Curtis: thing bother you at all?
Don Schmitz: It's not my style. It's like my Democrat friends, like
Don Schmitz: to say, " It's not presidential." But we've witnessed a number
Don Schmitz: of things over the Trump presidency, both domestically and overseas
Don Schmitz: where he's done and said things, which personally I found cringe-
Don Schmitz: worthy, but surprise, surprise it worked. He's a very tough,
Don Schmitz: unafraid to step on toes, jump up and down on
Don Schmitz: toes to get his way, to make things happen. And
Don Schmitz: I suppose if you agree with him and if you
Don Schmitz: think that he's got America's best interests at heart and
Don Schmitz: he's accomplishing stuff, you swallow hard and you say, " Okay,
Don Schmitz: he's getting it done where others have failed." The quintessential
Don Schmitz: example I would give you would be the negotiations with
Don Schmitz: NATO. President Obama crashed and burned. President Bush got nowhere
Don Schmitz: with them. President Clinton never got them to open up
Don Schmitz: their checkbook. Trump went over there and absolutely flipped people
Don Schmitz: out and said, " You know, I'm not sure that we
Don Schmitz: need to be part of NATO anymore," and somewhat rudely
Don Schmitz: got up in people's faces at the collective dinners and
Don Schmitz: guess what? Our NATO allied partners are spending more towards
Don Schmitz: their 2% commitment. Look, I didn't win the presidency. None
Don Schmitz: of us here did. He certainly has a completely different
Don Schmitz: type of style. It's not my style, but he certainly
Don Schmitz: has an effective way of bare knuckle negotiations that does
Don Schmitz: seem to get things done.
Bill Curtis: So is some of this stuff actually working, even though
Bill Curtis: it seems somewhat repulsive in the form of how it's
Bill Curtis: coming out and how it's being stated and whenever yesterday's
Bill Curtis: tweet was?
Jane Albrecht: Through the great extent, not at all. And I don't
Jane Albrecht: say that as a Democrat, I say that as a
Jane Albrecht: former international trade attorney who spent my life representing U.
Jane Albrecht: S. industry. Very few trade attorneys represented only U. S.
Jane Albrecht: industry and defending U. S. interests abroad. And I don't
Jane Albrecht: know anyone who knows international trade and runs businesses, big
Jane Albrecht: businesses, and looks at this and thinks that Trump has
Jane Albrecht: been good for business other than the tax cuts and
Jane Albrecht: the regulations, not good for business, not good for international
Jane Albrecht: trade, certainly not good for our economy. And the criticism
Jane Albrecht: of Goodyear most recently, to me, was absolutely outrageous. Goodyear
Jane Albrecht: didn't say you can't wear MAGA hats, they said no
Jane Albrecht: political statements when you come to work and that's not
Jane Albrecht: unusual. And what are we doing with a President who
Jane Albrecht: is aggressively going after U. S. businesses that keep U.
Jane Albrecht: S. employees employed? I think the way he managed the
Jane Albrecht: pandemic has been miserable and we're all living with the
Jane Albrecht: results of it. The impact didn't have to be this
Jane Albrecht: bad, not at all. If he intervened earlier than the
Jane Albrecht: economic impact would not have been as bad. And so
Jane Albrecht: I don't know how anyone can look at the record
Jane Albrecht: of this President and say he's been great for U.
Jane Albrecht: S. industry and business. Yeah, they got a tax break, but
Jane Albrecht: there's a lot more going on in terms of what
Jane Albrecht: makes a profitable business than a tax break.
Ed Larson: Trump came to office saying that he was going to
Ed Larson: do certain things and has actually shown up in his
Ed Larson: odd methods, have in some cases allowed him to fulfill
Ed Larson: his promises to his base. We may not be happy
Ed Larson: with those promises, but he certainly has had an effect.
Jane Albrecht: Actually not so much when you really look at the
Jane Albrecht: facts. Where's the wall? And where are all the jobs
Jane Albrecht: that he was going to keep in the U.S.? He
Jane Albrecht: hasn't kept his promises. The one thing he kept the promise
Jane Albrecht: on is to pass tax cuts, which he did, mostly
Jane Albrecht: for the very wealthy, but I don't see our country
Jane Albrecht: better off than it was four years ago. Not at
Jane Albrecht: all. Not even close.
Bill Curtis: You see a change in how we're handling China?
Jane Albrecht: You know, I actually was open- minded and interested to
Jane Albrecht: see how he was going to handle China. We did
Jane Albrecht: have issues, we had to take them to task. And
Jane Albrecht: I was curious and interested and would have respected him
Jane Albrecht: a lot if he had really known what he was doing with
Jane Albrecht: China. And I am serious about that. I talked to
Jane Albrecht: people who knew China trade relations before he got in
Jane Albrecht: about the violation with intellectual property rights and other things.
Jane Albrecht: When he first came in and he made the first
Jane Albrecht: call, or they arranged that the Taiwanese president was one
Jane Albrecht: of the first leaders to call him, I thought, " Oh,
Jane Albrecht: that could be interesting." You know, this is like saying, "
Jane Albrecht: Okay, you're not playing with us in the South China
Jane Albrecht: sea, we don't have to play with you. We don't
Jane Albrecht: have to play by your rules either." Well, President Xi Jinping
Jane Albrecht: put the word out that there will be no diplomatic
Jane Albrecht: contact from the high- level to lowest- level of ministry
Jane Albrecht: of foreign affairs until Trump retracts that and within two
Jane Albrecht: weeks he had retracted it. But that was just the
Jane Albrecht: beginning. With this pandemic, I don't know that many people
Jane Albrecht: know, but we had CDC groups that really coordinated well
Jane Albrecht: with China and one of the reasons we were able
Jane Albrecht: to stop the SARS epidemic from going worldwide and the
Jane Albrecht: MERS epidemic from going real wide, and Ebola, is countries trusted us
Jane Albrecht: to send in our medical experts. China doesn't trust us
Jane Albrecht: to do that right now. Do we still have to
Jane Albrecht: hold China to task? Yes. Has this President really advanced
Jane Albrecht: that cause? No. Could we possibly take advantage of some
Jane Albrecht: of what he's done and have someone else bring home the
Jane Albrecht: bacon? Possibly. But mostly they've blown things up without a
Jane Albrecht: plan for putting them back together.
Bill Curtis: This country hired Trump as the demolition man. And you
Bill Curtis: have to admit this president really has succeeded in completely
Bill Curtis: dismantling the government as we knew it four years ago.
Jane Albrecht: I don't know that they've dismantled it. They've done a
Jane Albrecht: lot of damage. We are now entering a phase where
Jane Albrecht: we're no longer going to be the economic 800 pound
Jane Albrecht: gorilla, China's just too big and they work too hard.
Jane Albrecht: So at a time when China is becoming the economic
Jane Albrecht: 800 pound gorilla, we need that international trading system, a
Jane Albrecht: system based on the rule of law so that our
Jane Albrecht: companies and investors can go in and invest in another
Jane Albrecht: company without fear of losing that. Our challenge was to
Jane Albrecht: bring China in and get them to live by those
Jane Albrecht: rules so that when we are no longer the 800
Jane Albrecht: pound gorilla, and it will continue to be that way
Jane Albrecht: sheerly because of demographics, numbers, our interests are protected.
Don Schmitz: Jane, there's a lot of very important and good things
Don Schmitz: that you said there, but there's a couple of observations
Don Schmitz: that I really need to make. First of all, me
Don Schmitz: personally, and most of the people in the Republican Party,
Don Schmitz: for a very long period of time, were free traders.
Don Schmitz: And one of the things that's very different about President
Don Schmitz: Trump is a completely different brand where upon he said, "
Don Schmitz: Look, we've been selling out our country and the American workers
Don Schmitz: by shipping these jobs overseas." Now as a guy with strong
Don Schmitz: libertarian tendencies, and it sounds like you've been representing American companies
Don Schmitz: and their interests overseas, and good on you, and there's
Don Schmitz: no doubt that there's been a tremendous amount of prosperity
Don Schmitz: globally, which has been generated by us shipping our manufacturing
Don Schmitz: over to places like China and Mexico, before that India,
Don Schmitz: and that's the free market system and I'm a free
Don Schmitz: market guy, but you know what? You and I didn't
Don Schmitz: run for the election. And to be the President and
Don Schmitz: the guy that's in the oval office right now said, " New sheriff
Don Schmitz: in town, I'm not doing this anymore." He wasn't necessarily
Don Schmitz: concerned about what's going to be best for the bottom
Don Schmitz: line for American multinational corporations, he wanted those jobs back
Don Schmitz: here. He started weighing in on the China issue. Now
Don Schmitz: it's entirely your prerogative to take him to task in
Don Schmitz: regards to the efficacy or lack thereof for his negotiations
Don Schmitz: with China. I might disagree with you on that a
Don Schmitz: little bit, but I think there's something that we can agree upon,
Don Schmitz: which was whether or not it was President Obama, President
Don Schmitz: Bush, Clinton, Democrats, Republicans, none of us, none of us
Don Schmitz: took it seriously. And although most of the Democrats in
Don Schmitz: Washington DC would eat a bug before they would say
Don Schmitz: something complimentary of President Trump, the reality is, is behind
Don Schmitz: the scenes I think all of us realize that we
Don Schmitz: did not take it seriously enough. And here's why, we
Don Schmitz: thought that if we had a free market society in
Don Schmitz: China when they decided to embrace capitalism, that it would
Don Schmitz: naturally involve that they would become a country that respected
Don Schmitz: the individual civil rights of their citizens, that they would
Don Schmitz: join the community of nations, that they would abide by
Don Schmitz: international law, and I think both Republicans and Democrats, the
Don Schmitz: power structure in Washington DC, the sophisticated people that you
Don Schmitz: referred to before that have negotiated all these trade deals
Don Schmitz: and everything else, i it didn't work out that way.
Don Schmitz: But whether or not you agree with how good of
Don Schmitz: a job he did, you got to give credit where
Don Schmitz: credit's due. He's the first President and the first politician
Don Schmitz: in our country of any sort of standing, which has
Don Schmitz: stood up and said, " No, we have a big problem
Don Schmitz: with China." Took it seriously and is starting to negotiate
Don Schmitz: aggressively on that front.
Jane Albrecht: Don, I would agree with you on that, that he
Jane Albrecht: basically said, " We've got a problem with China, we're going
Jane Albrecht: to have to do some stuff and maybe some tough
Jane Albrecht: stuff that might be a little bit hard to absorb
Jane Albrecht: at home." I think Trump had opportunities. I really do.
Jane Albrecht: I think if he had really stuck by some of
Jane Albrecht: what he said he was going to do, he had
Jane Albrecht: the opportunity to be a President, believe it or not,
Jane Albrecht: that would have been very much loved by the people.
Jane Albrecht: He said he was going to protect their healthcare. He said
Jane Albrecht: he was going to do all this, but he actually
Jane Albrecht: hasn't. And so, yeah, first of all, yes, I support
Jane Albrecht: that. And one of the things we have to do
Jane Albrecht: in our trade agreements, and it's not as painful as
Jane Albrecht: it would sound, is we need some labor protections. And
Jane Albrecht: by that, I'm not talking about, " Oh my God, everybody's
Jane Albrecht: going to be paid a hundred dollars an hour," but
Jane Albrecht: we have provisions in our trade agreements that say, " We
Jane Albrecht: won't trade in goods made with slave labor. We won't
Jane Albrecht: trade in goods made with prison labor. We won't trade
Jane Albrecht: in goods paid with children's labor." We should have a
Jane Albrecht: provision saying we won't trade in goods where the laborers
Jane Albrecht: are getting paid less than a living wage. The other
Jane Albrecht: complex thing with China is it's a multi- dimensional chess
Jane Albrecht: game. You've got the trade interests, you've got the financial
Jane Albrecht: world and you've got the geopolitical with the South China Sea.
Don Schmitz: There's been a lot that's been going on. Believe you
Don Schmitz: me, not everybody is happy about us upsetting the status
Don Schmitz: quo and that the President did that as it pertains to China.
Bill Curtis: We certainly have covered a lot of issues today. The
Bill Curtis: one major issue that I've got is I would love
Bill Curtis: to see Don, you come back and have a whole
Bill Curtis: lot more conversations with us because this was a wonderful,
Bill Curtis: sometimes knock down, drag out fight, and I really appreciate
Bill Curtis: you joining us.
Don Schmitz: Well, I really appreciate what you're doing here, guys. It's
Don Schmitz: been a pleasure.
Bill Curtis: Don Schmitz, Jane Albrecht, and Ed Larson. Thank you very
Bill Curtis: much. This is Politics: Meet Me In The Middle. Come
Bill Curtis: back next week and join us again.
Speaker 6: If you like, what you hear, please tell your friends
Speaker 6: and please leave a comment. And yes, we'd of course
Speaker 6: appreciate it if you gave us a five- star rating.
Speaker 6: You can also subscribe to the show on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 6: Stitcher, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.
Speaker 6: This episode was produced and edited by Mike Thomas, and
Speaker 6: it was audio mastered by Michael Kennedy. The theme music
Speaker 6: for Politics: Meet Me In The Middle was composed and
Speaker 6: performed by Celeste and Eric Glick. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 7: ( singing)