Tim Talks Politics

This past semester, I had the opportunity to explore the Arab-Israeli conflict, its history and politics, with a class of undergraduate students. During that class, I brought in my good friend, and former TTP podcast guest, Judith Rood to discuss her personal background and its connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict and to explore some of the more complex elements that animate Israeli-Palestinian relations.

This is Part 2 of that guest lecture. In it, we discuss the contentious issues surrounding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the oft overlooked issue of sovereignty in determining national claims in this contested corner of the world.

October 7, 2023 marked a fresh round of warfare between Israel and Hamas, the terrorist organization governing the Gaza Strip. I had the opportunity to explore the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, its history and politics, with a class of undergraduate students this last semester. During that class, I brought in my good friend, and former TTP podcast guest, Judith Rood to discuss her personal background and its connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict and to explore some of the more complex elements that animate Israeli-Palestinian relations. This is a recording of that guest lecture and it's been divided into two parts, the second of which will air next week.

One of the major demographic trends pollsters and politicos have been watching for the past few decades is the growing electoral clout of Hispanic voters in America. Traditionally, this trend line has been read as translating into an almost one for one electoral advantage for Democrats. Then Donald Trump happened... and a pandemic... and a President-Biden induced inflationary period... and an increasingly unstable southern border. Over the course of the last three election cycles, a steady stream of Hispanic voters started leaving the Democratic Party. As we approach the 2022 midterms, that stream has turned into a recognizable river with potential long term consequences for Democrats. But will it automatically translate into gains for Republicans? 

My guest today is a freelance writer and one of those Hispanic voters. Joe Laughon lives, reads, and writes on the topic of Hispanic voters in America, and he joins the podcast today to explore where this trend line is headed. It is a wide ranging discussion full of the kind of nuance, historical perspective, and personal insight that guests routinely bring to this podcast. I hope you find it an enjoyable and insightful listen.

In this episode, I’m going evaluate several questions related to the Dobbs ruling and abortion more broadly. There is a LOT of misinformation/misinterpretation on this ruling out in the media ecosystem, so I think a little Q&A clarification may be in order.

We’re almost a month past America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it is shocking to see how quickly the conflict and the debacle of the withdrawal has faded already in the public square. Today on the podcast, I unpack the history of the Afghanistan war, the withdrawal and its effects with two veterans of the Afghanistan conflict, Joseph Lake and Matt Said. Besides being personal friends and all around great guys, I asked Joseph and Matt to be on the podcast at the same time so that listeners can get an idea of the complexity of war. They were in the country at different points in time, in different regions, doing different things, which informs their thinking on the subject. 

We conclude our read through of the UN Charter by evaluating the International Trusteeship System (yeah, I hadn’t heard of it either), the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat.

In Part 2 or our read-through of the UN Charter, we cover Chapters VII-XII, which explore the roles envisioned for the Security Council and other UN organs in facilitating conflict resolution, economic development and social exchange. How best to interpret these articles? Are they goals? A strategy? Or, a strategy made up of more goals?

Historically, the UN has not been popular in the United States with a more vocal segment of the population critiquing its checkered history of peace missions gone wrong, institutional corruption, and the undermining of its stated democratic and liberal ideals. However, before one can grasp what the UN is and is not capable of, and whether America should or should not leverage the UN in its diplomacy, one should first start with a basic understanding of its purposes and organization. In this and the next two episodes, we’re going to read through and comment the UN’s foundational document, the UN charter.

In this episode, I walk you through the NATO charter and the background of America's oldest standing political alliance. In his inaugural address, Biden argued that his administration would bring diplomacy, alliance commitments and democracy back and send them to new heights. His European trip earlier this summer was a key element of that recommitment to multilateral diplomacy. The trip also finished with a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. European allies and Russia.  No two entities symbolize America’s core geopolitical interests than this, and the embodiment of America’s alliance with Western Europe and security check against Russia is found in the NATO charter. 

You've probably heard the saying "all politics is local," but what does that actually say about local politics? In the negative sense, it may refer to some cynical calculus about what issues ought to be discussed to win an election. However, in the positive sense, the saying can help us ground our understanding of politics and government in the more immediate concerns of our local communities, which can often have an uncanny way of building consensus, neighborliness, and all the positive attributes that can overcome the divisive politics of our time.

To help me unpack the virtues of local government and discuss the practical ways average citizens can get involved, I'm joined on the podcast by my friend and colleague Eric Alegria. Besides being a doctoral student, working professional, and family man, Eric also serves as the mayor of his city. In this conversation, we discuss what got him involved in local government, the challenges of civic leadership in the COVID era, the avenues open to citizen involvement in local government, and the practical step one can take to get involved. This is fun, practical, and encouraging conversation about what's possible in a democratic society where citizens care about their neighbors and community.

There are few conflicts more contentious and polarizing in the American public square than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That conflict flamed anew in recent weeks over property disputes in East Jerusalem neighborhoods. What started as demonstrations quickly morphed into rioting, then military conflict as Islamist militants led by Hamas in the Gaza Strip volleyed thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns. As this podcast airs, there’s a ceasefire, so we may as well make use of the time to get our bearings on this conflict.

In today’s episode of the Tim Talks Politics podcast, I interview Dr. Judith Mendelsohn Rood, Professor Emeritus from Biola University on the deep and complex roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Strap in because while this conversation is longer than my usual interviews, it’s an information firehose!

Harvard's Dr. Tom Patterson returns to the TTP podcast to talk about the future of the Republican Party in the "post-Trump" political landscape. I put "post-Trump" in quotations because, as we discuss in this episode, the influence of Trump on the Republican Party is very much a present force in the current GOP. Dr. Patterson and I revisit some of the major themes we discussed in our last conversation on challenges facing the Republican Party, then broaden the discussion to include challenges faced by the Democrats when it comes to governance, and the broader implications of a non-functioning Congress to the American political system. It's a stimulating conversation which locates current events in a much broader historical context than you'll find in the 24-hour news cycle. 

April 15 is Tax Day in America! Not exactly a national holiday, but a day of civic significance as the IRS starts raking in the revenue that will be used to fund your government and its multitude of functions. But how exactly are we taxed? Where does all the money go? Who even decided that taxing Americans for working was such a good idea that it should be written into the Constitution? Americans rebelled against England, in part, over taxes, but taxes remain a necessary evil, so in this episode, I explore some the foundational questions related to the how your taxes are calculated, collected and used.

This podcast has kind of fallen into series on evaluating some of the initial components of the Biden administration, using them as a jumping off point to discuss larger themes in American government with respect to the Presidency. In this episode, I’m going to provide an overview of the Interim National Security Strategy Guidance document as being the first major articulation of the Biden foreign policy.

Joe Biden is barely a month in office and he’s already setting a fairly blistering pace of signing executive orders. Why so much activity so early? Is it just about undoing the Trump legacy? Is it about signaling a “energetic executive”? Is it signaling a larger legislative effort? Well, it’s a little of “all of the above”. Compared to his immediate predecessors, Joe Biden moved quickly to sign a bunch of executive orders in the opening weeks of his administration that left many critics crying “imperial presidency,” and “executive overreach!” But is it?

In today’s show, I’m going to provide you with a brief overview of executive orders, their purposes, how they fit in our Constitution system, and why they so often become a lightning rod for partisan controversy.

Typically, I'd be posting a new episode this week, but I'm in the midst of preparing for my qualifying exams in my doctoral program, so there won't be the usual podcast episode this week. 

BUT, I look forward to talking with you again in a couple weeks when I'm (hopefully) safely on the other side of qualifying exams. Until next time, then!

I recorded this episode on Inauguration Day and took the opportunity to do a rhetorical analysis of President Biden's inaugural address. It was a solid speech that hit all the right notes of pathos in keeping with the best traditions of inaugural addresses, and it also made a couple of surprising innovations. That's the rhetorical analysis. From a political standpoint, though, it's a speech that will likely leave the half of America that did not vote for Biden uneasy with veiled references to a national campaign against "political extremism, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism," and no mention of the strategic challenges America faces from countries like China. Lots to dig into in this episode, I hope you enjoy it!

As we start the new year with a runoff Senate election in Georgia and ongoing drama surrounding the presidential election of 2020, I've noticed a deepening divide or polarization in the information space. So, I thought to start this next round of podcasts, I'd rebroadcast one of my earliest podcasts on the "information cycle." 

Information is critical to understanding our political system, which is why an independent and diverse media is so crucial to the health of democratic system. However, the Internet has broken down a lot of barriers and filters, and now we’re all members of the media.  So we need to discuss how we, as citizens, engage in information and how that informs our politics.

So today, I want to talk about how to find good information and how to use it in your political discussions, then I’ll supply you with a few resources.

In this last episode of 2020, I hit pause to consider lessons learned over the course of a tumultuous year, and share a few things that I'm concerned about and excited about in 2021.

2020 was a tumultuous year to say the least, but we made it through! We're here and it's as good a time as any to consider what was learned. I'm a big proponent of life long learning and some of the best learning come through experience coupled with reflection. For me, for example, this year was an incredible opportunity to learn and write about presidential decision-making while watching it unfold in real time as America grappled with a pandemic, social upheaval, a raucous election and more.

This episode is by no means an exhaustive exploration of all I thought and read, so if you're interested in hearing my thoughts on other topics please drop me a line and ask away!

In the meantime, I hope the rest of your 2020 is restful and restorative. Merry Christmas and I'll see you in 2021!

December 14 is the date that the Electoral College will cast its ballots for the United States President and it will likely be a victory for Joe Biden. President Trump continues with his slate of lawsuits alleging election fraud in numerous states, but said last week that he will concede only after he is officially defeated in the Electoral College. Is Trump’s refusal to concede sour grapes, or a very strict reading of the Constitution? It may be a little of both, but the winner of a Presidential election is not official until the Electoral College has cast its ballots and had them verified in Congress. It makes the process of electing the President longer and a little more complicated. Additionally, several past elections have seen candidates become presidents after losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote. What gives? Is this undemocratic? Why does the US Constitution mandate such an odd intermediary step after a national vote? I’m going to address each of these questions in today’s podcast.

We are two weeks past Election Day 2020, but the final result, while projected, is still being finalized. Joe Biden is the projected president-elect, but the Trump administration is challenging the final results in several states in court. Both sides are adamant they won and that the other side is "stealing" the election from them. This is incredibly damaging rhetoric, but going through the courts to affirm in the integrity of the vote is an excellent antidote. The critical question, in my mind, is the degree to which American citizens will affirm the ruling of the courts? 

In this episode of the Tim Talks Politics podcast, I explore the potential consequences of this rhetoric of "stealing", while also unpacking some of the emerging trends we're seeing taking shape in the post election landscape. I consider the significance of America's party realignment, the character and makeup of the Democratic and Republican Parties going forward, and challenge listeners to break out of their information echo chambers as they seek information on understanding our political context. 

It's election time! Or, rather, it was election time. I recorded this episode the day after Election Day, and you're getting this the next day after that, so there may still be some changes coming. However, I take the time in this episode to offer some quick thoughts on what I see as a largely positive outcome to this election. Close elections are always tense, but I think there's a lot that Americans can be proud about and encouraged by in this election. 

Additionally, I discuss some of the emerging stories and trend lines that the drama of the presidential election may be obscuring, and make for more mentions of my newsletter than I typically do. :)

Continuing my fall series of interviews on different aspects of the 2020 Election, and in this interview I talk with Steve Miller on the Democratic Party's platform and pitch to voters, is it more than "Trump bad"? Well, "Trump bad" is a big part of the pitch and appeal, according to my guest today, Steve Miller.

In addition to being my brother-in-law and all around awesome guy, Steve is a market researcher who makes his living studying consumer behavior and decision making, and he brings that insight into this analysis of the Democratic Party's platform and messaging in the 2020 election. This is a fascinating discussion, which I enjoyed immensely. I hope you enjoy it as well!

Continuing my fall series of interviews on different aspects of the 2020 Election, and in this interview I talk with Matthew Anderson on the platform (or lack thereof) of the Republican Party. It's an enjoyable conversation on whether or not people read platforms anymore; why the Republicans chose to retain their 2016 platform while President Trump laid out his own "platform" in the form of a second term agenda; and how things are stacking up for the Republicans heading into the final weeks of the election. NOTE: This was recorded before upheaval of presidential debates and President Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis, so if you're wondering why we're not talking about that, now you know. Enjoy!

The "Evangelical Vote" is one of the most talked about, mythologized, and misunderstood voting segments in the American populace. Often portrayed in popular media as a monolithic bloc, Evangelicals are surprisingly diverse and that diversity extends to their voting habits. To help us understand how some segments of Evangelical voters are approaching the 2020 election, I interview twin brothers and pastors, Josh and Jeremy Matlock. They bring a unique perspective to this topic as pastors serving in very different parts of the country and ministering to different congregations that my be grouped under the shared heading of "Evangelical," but have different approaches to political thinking and behavior.

This is a discussion on the future of the Democratic Party. It mirrors the interview I did with Harvard’s Tom Patterson on the future of the Republican Party. I follow up on that topic by switching focus to consider the Democratic Party. I talk with Dr. Tom Holihan from the University of Southern California to consider what "traps," if any, do Democrats face in the near to medium term (5-10 years) future.

Part 5 in our summer read through of the US Constitution. In this episode, we wrap our summer series by looking at Amendments 11-27. Most are short, but Amendments 12, 14, 20 and 25 are fairly long by comparison. We’ll consider why that is and also make some commentary on the historical context of several of these amendments as well as length of time it takes to add these amendments to the Constitution. Lots of interesting stuff here that was even new for me to consider.

Part IV in our summer read through of the US Constitution. In this episode and the next, we’ll cover the Constitution’s 27 amendments. Today, I cover the first 10 Amendments that were ratified in the 1790s as a packaged deal and became known as the Bill of Rights. Whose rights do you ask? Yours, mine, our individual state.

Just a reminder, listeners of the podcast can get a discount to my weekly newsletter the Weekly Brief. By subscribing to the Weekly Brief, you'll also get access to a new feature for premium subscribers: An online discussion thread for each podcast episode/topic. Looking forward to talking with you!

Part III in our summer read through of the US Constitution. Articles 3-7 outline the judiciary, the process of amending the Constitution, and lays some of the basic legal and economic groundwork outlining how states were to function in relation to one another in the new republic.

Got some good resources to share in this episode too, and a discount to my weekly newsletter the Weekly Brief for podcast listeners. By subscribing to the Weekly Brief, you'll also get access to a new feature for premium subscribers: An online discussion thread for each podcast episode/topic. Looking forward to talking with you!

Part II in our summer read through of the US Constitution. Article II deals with the Executive branch, the Electoral College, and the Office of the President. Relevant reading/listening as we approach a presidential election this year. Might be useful to think about the Constitutional duties of the President when considering your vote. Upholding, protecting and defending the Constitution is part of the oath of office after all, the core part of the job description. 

Got some good resources to share in this episode too, and a discount to my weekly newsletter the Weekly Brief for podcast listeners. By subscribing to the Weekly Brief, you'll also get access to a new feature for premium subscribers: An online discussion thread for each podcast episode/topic. Looking forward to talking with you!

We’re going to review the Constitution like we did the Declaration of Independence last summer: I’ll read a little, talk a little, read a little more. The objective is to do something that many of us probably haven’t done since 8th Grade, which is read through the entire US Constitution. My hope is that in reading through this extraordinary document we can:

• Understand the major forms and functions of the federal government
• Better evaluate what is working and what isn’t working in our current political moment
• Discover that despite all the many flaws, there’s still a solid theory of government and human behavior behind this document
• As always, my hope is that in a polarized time, we’ll find embedded in the words and ideas here that there is more that unites us than divides us.

It's summer in 2020, which means two things:

1. We're heading into full bore campaign season for the 2020 election.
2. Because of 1, this podcast is shifting its attention away from foreign policy and towards a discussion on the American political system, its institutions, elections, and parties.

We kick this transition off with a banger of an interview: Dr. Thomas Patterson from Harvard discusses his new book with me, Is the Republican Party Destroying Itself?

Strap in.

US-Russia relations have historically been murky, and that may be because Russia itself is difficult to decipher. Shortly after the outbreak of World War II, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said of the Soviet Union/Russia:

Through the Cold War and the first part of the twenty-first century, America has struggled to understand this enigma, but has largely failed to account for Russian interests in the midst of that struggle. In this episode, Tim discusses the major themes and historical events that have been a part of US-Russia relations for decades.

In this episode, I sketch a rough outline of America's complicated relations with Iran prior to 1979, then provide an overview of the confrontational period of US-Iran relations in the revolutionary period post-1979. Unlike China, Iran is a smaller country that is very careful about how it chooses to confront a world superpower. The nagging presence of Iran in the Middle East forces America to confront, but never to the point of an all out war. What's a superpower to do? 

I go away for a couple months and wow! A global pandemic and looming economic depression. Well, I was planning on discussing US-China relations when I went on my unscheduled break, so I guess there's no time like the present to talk about the history, context, and flash points in the relationship between the world's two superpowers.

Just what should America be doing with all its economic, political, military, and cultural influence? How should the country behave in world politics? Those questions engage a topic that is hotly debate, especially around election season: the national interest. Broadly speaking, the national interest is a phrase used to describe a country's core concerns and priorities - kind of the absolute essentials for it to do its thing (whatever that is) at home and abroad. So what is America's national interest? What are the factors that influence it? In this episode, I seek to define the national interest and the debate surrounding it by looking at President Trump's 2020 State of the Union speech, and essays on American foreign policy by Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. Needless to say, there are some important differences between how America's major parties and their leaders think about this question.

Last season, I explored some basic principles on how American foreign policy gets made and applied those principles to interpreting America's relations with Iran. Since that episode aired, relations with Iran escalated sharply after a drone strike killed General Qasem Soleimani one of the highest ranking military leaders in Iran. In many respects it was a precedent setting move by the Trump administration, but it was a precedent built on a series of precedents stretching back at least as far as the 1940s. How did we reach a decision to authorize a drone strike like this one? In this episode, I break some of the key elements that went into making such a decision possible.

Happy 2020! It's going to be a busy and full year in American politics, which should provide plenty to talk about. However, this podcast is not beholden to the news cycle with its daily dramas of political personalities. Rather, this year I plan to take this podcast on a deep dive into American foreign policy, the Constitution, and American presidential elections. Yes, I'll refer to the news and current goings on, but the goal of this podcast is to help you become a more thoughtful and critical observer of such happenings not just a passive consumer of news. So, let the conversations begin!

One of the things TTP works to do is to promote a deeper, richer conversation about politics and citizenship, and I think a big part of that is taking the political conversation out of the recognized grooves of political news and discourse to hear how everyday people engage in the American experiment in self-government.  So, I'm excited to introduce you to Anastasia Halcomb who has launched an independent bid for the presidency. In this first interview on the Tim Talks Politics podcast, Anastasia shares her story about what brought to the point of running for president, the challenges of running as an independent, and her vision for a more hopeful America.

I introduce this week's topic of America in the Middle East by hewing a little more closely to the news cycle than usual in the podcast, and that's because the last couple of weeks have seen some pretty incredible developments in the Trump administrations approach to the MENA region. Of greatest focus in the US, is Turkey's invasion of northern Syria and the withdrawal of American forces in the contested space, opening up Kurdish fighters to Turkish aggression and causing a general realignment not only in the Syrian conflict, but in how Americans talk about the Middle East. If you had told me 10 years ago that Republicans would (largely) be arguing to get troops out of the Middle East and Democrats would be arguing to keep them, I would've laughed. No longer. In the general upheaval, the really big question is, "Just why does America get so invested in the Middle East and its conflicts?" Critics of US foreign policy will say it's because of the oil, "No blood for oil," being a common slogan heard when the deployment of US troops to the region is in question. But is America in the Middle East just for the oil? And if so, why is that even the case? This is a short, introductory primer to America's interest in the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region.

The last couple of episodes have focused on some of the big theories that shape our view of international politics. In addition to providing you with summaries of no less that 5 theoretical frames useful to interpreting foreign relations, specifically American foreign relations, I left off last time with applying rational actor theory to President Trump and his approach to foreign policy. In this episode, I’m going to continue on that line of thought but will be expanding the cast of characters to include the other elements of the American foreign policy infrastructure, and then apply some of the theories we’ve learned to a brief discussion on the Trump administration's approach to relationships with Iran.

I’m going to spend the next two episodes broadening the discussion on IR theories I introduced last episode – realism, liberalism, constructivism – by first introducing an additional theory this week: Rational Actor Theory. Next week, we’ll look at a particular story in the news and consider how these different theories inform our understanding of it. For both of these episodes, I’ll use President Trump and his foreign policy forays as a case study, which brings me to today’s main question: Is President Trump a rational actor?

Today, I’m shifting the discussion to the world beyond America’s shores. That’s right, we’re talking about international relations and foreign policy. In my intro, I say that this podcast is about “government, citizenship, and America’s place in the world.” The first six episodes have largely focused on that “government citizenship” part and since we’re still in the early going/introductory phase of this podcast, I wanted to be sure to introduce this particular topic and provide you with some broad conceptual ideas about thinking about “America’s place in the world.”

For all its stirring words affirming the powerful potential of the individual, the DOI recognizes that building a nation requires a unified, collective effort of free and equal individuals. But how do we hold free and equal individuals together? With the ancient practice of swearing an oath on something the individuals value, in this case, "their lives, fortunes and sacred honor."

It’s more than soaring rhetoric at work here. It’s a concrete step of faith. Jefferson has framed an oath around the core truth claims of the DOI. By affixing their signatures to the document, the Founders committed themselves, and those future generations who would come after them, to continue to affirm, those truths.  

Not going to lie, this is a very hard segment to research without  pretty much paraphrasing or copying what others have said.  So before we get started, let me read off a great resource to understand the list of abuses/facts that Jefferson is submitting to a “candid world” to justify America’s DOI.