The You Shit My Pants Defense

David (00:00) morning of the Super Bowl, so we're doing the responsible thing and starting with coffee and psychological damage. This past week gave us a perfect little case study and how chaos becomes a communication strategy. A truth social video gets posted with some conspiracy framing and racist imagery. and then a response that rolls out in stages. first it's, what's the problem? You're overreacting. And then my favorite, an anonymous staffer did it. the conversation slides from why is the president's account putting that into the world to who actually clicked the button plausibility of the cover-up story becomes the story. underneath is something even more basic. If you can't tolerate 60 seconds of attention before you amplify something, not a cute quirk in this job. It's a liability. So today we're looking at ambiguity, scapegoats, and ego management as governance. How it rewards the base, protects the drags everyone else into arguing about the wrong question. Welcome back to Strengthen the Nation. Let's go. David (01:35) Hey, I'm David. I got my 20 plus here in the military. I am a board certified psychiatrist. And today am enjoying a nice iced coffee because Robbie because it's early, but also it's the Superbowl. And I plan to use my alcohol credits a little bit later today when I need them as my Rob (01:45) It's early. Ha ha! David (01:56) beloved lose the Super I went to see my physician other day and his assistant as she was checking me in said, Do you still drink three to five times a week? And was quite shocked by that number because in my entire life, I have never drank three to five times a week. So I'm not sure where they got that number, but maybe they listened to us and maybe they just kind of assumed or something. I don't know. Rob (02:23) Well. least publicly you not drink three to five times a week. David (02:31) I certainly did not drink three to five times a week. think I typically once a week and it is usually it is for this. Rob (02:36) Yeah. The show, yeah. David (02:38) caught me by surprise. Rob (02:39) Yeah. Hey, it's, it's Rob, 26 years in psychiatry board certified, 30 years in the military. I too, do not drink three to five times a week. it's pretty much limited to this show. and excited to be here with David this morning. it is too early to be drinking those. So, I'm drinking coffee. let's do this. David (02:58) Okay. Well, since it is the weekend and that means we were exposed to a full week of just interesting things, we should start with a video that was posted think it was a Truth Social Okay, the Truth Social video. At the end of which there's of the Obamas, Barack and Michelle as and the chaos that ensued from that. Rob (03:15) Yes. striking, actually. In fact, the first notification that I received to that, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was made up. thought nobody be this Nobody post something like this. out it was real. actually, in all honesty, though, I've not seen the video. I've not searched it out. I've read descriptions of it. And, you know, ultimately the initial defense came out of the White House, I did find very on brand. Initially, it very much aggressive and no apologies. I do feel deeply White House press secretary that she's got to run around cleaning up these kinds of messes, being face for these kinds of things. And then ultimately where they came to was some unnamed anonymous staffer did this, which is so thin, David (04:18) was a video posted late at night on the truth social account the next morning when it was pointed out that there were some pretty shocking racist images in that video Difficult to call it anything but that. But then it was pointed out to the press secretary. The response was, yeah, so what? It wasn't racist. It was just a meme video. depicting the Lion King, which I guess if you do it in the theme of the Lion King, it makes it less racist or something. ⁓ Rob (04:47) If Elton John is singing in the background, it can't be racist. David (04:53) It But then it's everyone's fake outrage because if you are outraged by this, you're not the adult in the room. You're the child. the performative outrage. no denial that it was posted by the president at that point. Now, do see attempt to control the narrative. And if you can control the narrative and there's not a lot pushback on it, you've won the battle, the brand is around. pointed at you and say, you're the problem, not dies down and people accept that, then you've won. The problem on this didn't calm the outrage. People were still pretty outraged and they still wanted answers. which point, several hours later, the White House it wasn't him. that posted this thing. It was an anonymous staffer who will, and it doesn't sound like that person was going to be fired, reprimanded, having a finger shaken at them vigorously with the look on somebody's face. But it was an anonymous staffer who did this and then they took it down. Rob (05:45) Yeah. Bye. Ha conceptually, I love the fact that apparently someone has control of the truth social account who is an anonymous staffer. So, you know, in my mind, it was like a 19 year old kid intern who like, you know, here's the keys to the car and and it's also just doesn't feel real that that this idea that our president is going to give ⁓ two, 3 a.m. posting over to anonymous staffers. a guy named Todd or whatever. it just, it, it certainly does not feel real. and it's kind of like, you know, if the defense is, I didn't watch the racist video I post David (06:31) Yeah. Well Rob (06:42) not really a defense. David (06:42) came later. Rob (06:43) it's a review of your conscience is what it is. I don't really think through what I do. David (06:47) Well so what was it? after that, I believe the next day, then the president himself came out and said, well, I didn't make a mistake. I did like the video. I didn't watch the whole video, but I didn't post it. Then somebody else posted the video after I liked it. And so now. Rob (07:01) Right. David (07:06) What this does, I mean, there's so pieces to this that are really, gosh, really fascinating. But there's this ambiguousness now at this point. I mean, I'd say most presidents up to this point, well, this would never have happened because they're not posting on social media all time, but we'll, let's ignore that piece. Rob (07:23) They're not, no. Well, there's a deep thoughtfulness about, know, when you're in the role of the president of the United States, least prior administrations have had a deep thoughtfulness of anything that they say publicly because it carries a ton of weight. It carries a lot of meaning. you know, it's, It's on target. It is consistent with what their policies are, et cetera. Nobody has been this free. Yeah, you know, it's like taking your dog to, I don't know, PTA meeting and letting it off the leash. It's like whoever it ends up humping, humps. And so what? David (07:53) L'As-Sai-Faire. you bring up an interesting point is redefining, at least for this president, what it means for the president to say anything. it gives us weird free pass to say whatever and have than in dominating the news cycle for a couple of days, it goes There's no blowback, real blowback. There's not going to be any definitive action taken because of this, but in part because in the past you had presidents who were so measured and so calculated in what they would say, because it would have to be policy anything that they said. could really impact the stock markets. It really could impact our relationship with allies. It would impact so much. this particular president, people take the perspective of, he says so much. he says is truly reliable, what's reasonable. Now they're building this Rob (08:45) Yeah. Hahaha David (08:58) narrative of, if it's something that you did like, it's definitely him. But if it's something that you don't it's probably not him unless some people maybe like it, at which point, well, it could have been him. the people who don't like it, well, maybe probably wasn't him. And so there's ambiguous nature to what they're creating because the plausible deniability here Rob (09:07) If. David (09:18) intentional. It's to protect from negative comments from people who don't like it and it's to not alienate the people who do. nebulous sphere, and especially when you have an ego that is so fragile and actually I feel pretty comfortable saying that now because he said the same thing So I think we're safe to say that he has a very fragile ego. And in order to have everybody like two things or three things or nine things to be true all at once, even though they are in conflict with one another. And this administration, Rob (09:39) He did. He did. Yes. David (09:58) attempting to master it. Now there are holes in it if you are even capable of higher level thought in looking at this, but if you just want to be appeased, then he's doing a pretty damn good job of just appeasing one little piece your perspective. Rob (10:14) Well, and I've said this, I guess in the past, but in the run up and process of achieving power, he was remarkably good in pretending that he could be a leader, that he was a leader. can affect the qualities that a leader has, but He's really remarkably bad at being in the role and being in that position. know, leadership isn't a group chat. Leadership isn't social media engagement. Leadership, the job is actually pretty fucking boring when it comes down to it. It's about reducing the temperature, creating constancy. That's what we expect of our leaders. And this was not that. And this idea now that, you know, he can throw anything against the wall on truth social. And I also do not believe for a second that there's anyone else that has control of his truth social account. Not for a second. I don't think there's any unnamed staffers. that actually have, but you're absolutely right. They've now set up a structure in which, know, yeah, exactly. And it's an unnamed staffer. you know, in prior administrations, if they would have made this claim that an unnamed staffer did something, they also would have actually, know, marched that unnamed staffer out, set his or her name. David (11:24) scapegoat. Rob (11:43) and fired is the offending agent we are doing away with this. That would have been the norm. And now just leaving it as an unnamed staffer with really no consequences is a significant deviation from the norms of being It is a significant difference. The job is to reduce the temperature, things that spike engagement. That's not the job. And here we are. from a group signaling standpoint, psychologically, this is one of those examples dog whistle to a certain subset of the mac and movement. engagement from a certain subset of our population are And this says, I'm with you with plausible deniability. David (12:30) a few holes, I in the staffer piece. like a Freedom of Information Act request would probably be, well, who is posting to Donald Trump's true social accounts? Who is that? And when? Like, who are the people and is that something that can be done? I don't know, honest, I have no idea what the federal law on that would be. But my guess would be that because the president is posting something Rob (12:48) Well, ⁓ well. that's the frame in which so much of policy and official line of the office of the president of the United States has become is how we communicate to the world. Then yeah, absolutely. voting member of the United States, I deserve to know some unnamed staffer now can get on there and say, you know, we're attacking David (13:18) That would be concerning, Rob (13:19) if we set aside the fact that it's clearly bullshit and it was clearly posted by the president, if we set aside that, the downstream consequences that some unnamed staffer who does not apparently have the time or the inclination to watch a 60 second video from second one to second 60, can get in there, then it also says that an unnamed staffer who is that impulsive has access to the media with which this president communicates to the world. And it doesn't make sense. David (13:55) what's interesting to me on this is that conversation, and this is likely intentional, but I would assume, I don't know, but it seems intentional that the conversation goes from why is the president posting racist things to more of, to. Well, who posted racist this gets back to what I keep saying. There's this superpower that is present to distract from probably the more egregious thing by presenting something little bit crazier at the back end of the sentence. So rather than us wondering, the motive behind posting something so racist, we're now talking about, who posted then we also had these other offshoots what kind anonymous to post something so impulsively? a great question, but not... The big question because the big question is still why are there racist tropes on the president's social media yet we're still going to argue about the obvious. of hand that was happening after it was posted to say, it's not, not racist. Well, he didn't do it. Well, he did maybe like it, but he didn't do it, but he didn't watch it we have this president now who apparently doesn't have the attention span to watch an entire video, a full 60 seconds before he goes at a green light to be to his social. Rob (15:19) Right. David (15:21) you know, I watch my kids all day, watch these videos on whatever platform, YouTube, something, and they'll watch it for all of 30 seconds and then move on to the next thing. That's great. But they're not the president. so, again, is really the big part of the conversation. The question is and maybe should be stuck to, Rob (15:25) Yeah. They're not. David (15:40) what message is being sent by posting a video the racist images in the video were not the key point of the video. In fact, the rest of the video was a conspiracy theory video about how their election was stolen in 2020. Maybe that's what we should focus on is 2026 Rob (15:57) Yes. David (16:07) An election that took place six years ago, at which point he sent a mob to attack the Capitol building, somehow escaped any kind of prosecution for that when a mob was planning to murder his vice president, who narrowly escaped. And then four years later, he was reelected, but he's still worried about, maybe we should be talking about that. Why is he so stuck on this? Rob (16:31) before I move on to that, what this whole thing reminds me of is when, several years ago when my were smaller, my nephews who are younger than my oldest when they did something wrong, they're at their house. we're not there at that moment. But when they did something wrong and they were called out on it, they would blame it on my son. there's a funny little story about how, my younger nephew had like written all over the walls with crayons or something. And my sister went to him and was like, why did you do this? And he's like, I didn't do it. Bibi did it. feels a lot like that. And then David (17:09) It feels like, when one of my kids was potty training, They were something and They were put in some big kid undies for the first time with their favorite character on it. And we thought, okay, this will help. Rob (17:19) Don't mess these up. David (17:21) have an accident. And so, you know, they, they kept their pants. my, wife says, poop your pants? And my kid looks up at her and goes, I didn't do it. She goes, are you sure? My kid goes, no, no, you did Rob (17:21) Yeah. You sure, buddy? David (17:41) Well, I was like, wait, how? Well, and the logic was pretty sound. The logic was, well, I love this character. You don't like this character. So why would I poop on this character? You did it. And attempted to convince my wife that maybe she had pooped the pants instead. That's what it reminds me of Rob (17:51) Right, right, You did it. Well, it's it's child It is. It always does. And it changes the the focus. like, maybe maybe David (18:02) Yeah, it's working, but it works. I mean, maybe my wife did poop my kid's pants. You don't know. mean, she didn't like that. She didn't like the character. It was just, you know, my kiddo did, but. Rob (18:15) Well, I wouldn't put it past your spouse, your beloved spouse. Maybe she did that just to cause trouble, I think, maybe. Well, and I guess that was my point. It was that what ended up happening from a very childlike stance when my nephews would do this, it changed the conversation. The conversation shifted. David (18:25) Yeah. Rob (18:39) And it was no longer about the act. was that that it the audacity of why. Yeah. David (18:43) The audacity of the the audacity, the plausibility of the story becomes the story. wonderful distraction. Rob (18:50) Yes. Yep. We forget that he posted a racist video and now we're focused on some unnamed staffer. David (18:59) Well, we also for, and we have to ignore the fact that if he posted the racist video and he came back and said, well, I liked it, but I didn't watch the whole thing. a dog whistle in and of itself. It's not saying I didn't like the racist part. Well, I just didn't see the racist part. I'm not going to condemn something I didn't see. but we're, we're ignoring. I think maybe one of the more concerning things complete disinhibition, yeah, the inability to finish a video. And, you know, as I would imagine, there's probably not a lot of PR people out there. I'm not one, I don't know, but I would assume that they wouldn't, they would probably say, hey, don't post anything to your social media you don't know do not. start posting shit unless you know the entirety of it. If it's a minute long video, stick around for the last 30 seconds there, Hoss, and make sure that before you put it up, that it's something that you're willing to defend. Rob (19:43) you would think. you But it's, there's a responsibility issue when you're president of the United States, when you seek this job and you take this job, there's a responsibility issue in which, everything you say is being scrutinized. everything you say, is utilized, by our allies and our enemies, as information about the leanings of the United States. And if you can't invest the 60 seconds that's required to watch an entire video, it. You just don't. So there is a certain disinhibition, a certain impulsivity let's even believe that, that it did not watch through the whole thing. But we see is that that first section, that first few seconds that could hold his attention was ego, sin tonic. It made him feel good. And that was enough to like post or share or whatever happens on true social. not on true social, so I don't know. what's concerning to me that there's a impulsivity. in a disinhibition that is being demonstrated by this in an individual who is in a job where impulsivity in this inhibition is not Safe it's not it's It's a liability in that role that when you're in a leadership role, I mean even if you're just leading ten people David (21:09) It's not an asset, it's a liability. Rob (21:17) disinhibition and impulsivity makes for a bad leader. When you're in a role of leading lots of people, it becomes a liability to the extreme, ends up bringing me to the Goldwater we in psychiatry back in the Nixon days, was running against Barry Goldwater. And there was a general consensus among psychiatrists that you cannot diagnose someone from afar. kind one thing to be said is that at particular juncture, there was consensus diagnosis. So there were a lot terminology, there was a lot of diagnoses, you know, like egomaniac and things like that, that that are our tens of listeners absolutely know the terms. They're not diagnostic, they're not a disorder. the problem there at that time was that there was no general consistent terminology for psychiatric diagnosis. And The fear was, under the Goldwater rule, was that anybody who says, hey, I'm a psychiatrist and I believe this person an egomaniac with edible complex, anyone could say that. the fear was that it would demean the field, that as a psychiatrist, that kind of off the cuff statements that were not backed by anything by by an actual clinical interview demean all of psychiatry. so there's been a general rule that you don't make diagnoses from afar. So we are not we're not even attempting to make diagnoses from afar. But there is a difference now that there is a DSM, diagnostic and statistical manual that sets the criteria for certain things that we follow near religiously. It's often referenced as the Bible of psychiatry. But there are criteria and the difference now versus then is that we do have this DSM, we all accept it. This is how we make our diagnoses. This is how we identify criteria for diagnoses. And, know, in psychiatry, we don't really have imaging studies. We don't have labs. We have observation and we don't really diagnose illness. We diagnose syndrome. And syndrome is a collection of symptoms, not a specific you if you have pneumonia, well, you go in, there's an imaging study, you look the chest x-ray, there's a way to confirm it, boom, here we have a pneumonia. But in psychiatry, it's just a collection of symptoms. And when people come to us, they report these symptoms, we observe them as we're talking with them. if they hit enough of the criteria, then we make those diagnoses. So in dancing around the narcissism that we are seeing, are still living by the Goldwater rule and you and I are not making a diagnosis, but we are certainly have access to plenty of observable evidence to point out these criteria. David (24:26) Yeah, absolutely. think though what would be what's interesting on that is that and would be true in the past is that It can be through the eye of the observer. You and I might see different perspectives of anybody come to different conclusions based off of what we're observing. Now we might come to really similar conclusions, but they would probably still be different. And that's where, trying to diagnose from a distance without having a intimate knowledge of that person's, at least the function in which you see them. But the truth is, gosh, I can't tell you how many diagnoses I probably see on the daily made by psychiatrists who are only able to observe the behaviors of somebody who's in front of them. Now they're in front of them, potentially for hours and hours and hours for a few days on an inpatient psych unit or something like that, but without having real communication with the person because they just won't talk to it's not that it's always necessary, but somebody who has maybe a better rapport with that person might get more information that would lead to a slightly different. Rob (25:13) Yeah. Yeah. David (25:26) syndrome or diagnosis than the person who doesn't. Rob (25:28) In my line, I work, that's actually more the norm than the exception that many of the folks that come to us are so ill that they will not engage on any level. So it's left to observation. And when you have someone on an inpatient psychiatric unit, you can observe their behaviors like paranoia. Paranoia is something that that is more observable than just, hey, you, are you feeling paranoid? That doesn't yield, it doesn't yield much in the way of a result. David (25:56) I find the more symptoms that somebody is willing to offer up to you generally changes the diagnosis to something else. coming to you and saying, am psychotic and I am paranoid, you probably are neither of those. But and the truth is, I think when somebody has such a public persona, Rob (26:10) Yeah. Yeah. David (26:15) They have that they have a public persona and so it is difficult. It'd be purely off of those things now president's case. He often in with the late social posts like the 140 posts over like four hours. you do probably get a deeper dive. Is that to the point where I'd be comfortable making any kind of diagnosis now? Rob (26:29) Absolutely. David (26:38) But my observations of his and his own admission of his ego me to say, yes, he has ego because he admits it. Rob (26:43) Yes, talk about that. Yes. our tens of listeners, David's referencing a speech that was given this past week at the National Prayer Breakfast in which the president in very surprisingly open terms referenced his own fragile ego. which is not something that you would have expected, but basically, the crux of it was that our president admitted out loud at the National Prayer Breakfast why this topic came up. I don't know, other than that it's often feels like a stream of consciousness when these speeches are given, but actually said. my ego cannot tolerate the idea that I lost 2020. In those exact terms, by the way, I'm not paraphrasing to the point of taking away the words. David (27:36) Yeah. really get to this point where I wonder, especially as the more and more we talk about it, is we're trying to define this presidency in the same terms as past When clearly it's, this is redefining what at the very least what his presidency is. Like the expectations of this president, the expectations the role customs and norms. There are things that we look at other presidents have done over the last 250 years and we say, well, they did it that way. Therefore he should too, but he isn't. And so we outraged at the changing of the norms. guess the question is, do we expect more of this in the future from other presidents or do we expect that the American people will continue to elect people in the future who will abide by norms of the past? Like, is this going to put a sour taste the mouth of the American voter the White House. Rob (28:39) my hope is that we will return to normalcy. That would be my hope. That if this sets a precedence moving forward, the level of chaos that is created by style is too much for a nation of our size with our power and with our connections around the world. an interesting little thing that I read this talking about how China, who, you know, is a near peer, really very close near peer, they have economic power. They have a increasing military power. But, really not to our level, their military power. In fact, China is Trying to fully mechanize their military by 2050 that their goal our tens of listeners. We're already fully there's not an equity between our military power and theirs at this time In a nation such as ours that does wield the kind of influence and power that we it is a requirement that our leader, in chief of this nation is consistent and quiet. I mean, that's what's required, a certain stillness. because we wield so much power and every word that comes out of the White House has resonance to our allies. And the difference between us and China at this point is also that we have allies and China has zero, you know, North Korea, maybe, I suppose. David (30:08) Russia to some extent, but they only have one treaty to ally, right? And that's North Korea. Rob (30:11) They have one treaty allies, which is North Korea, and that's a protective thing. We will come to your defense. I guess to a lesser extent, maybe Pakistan too, because China and India have fraught a relationship. Yeah, they have beef. David (30:24) Beef. Rob (30:26) Yeah. David (30:25) China is like the suave coworker with your allies at work when they're coming into work and they're like, my husband's been really terrible these last few and the suave coworkers like, let me listen to it. China's gonna be fucking our allies pretty soon is what's going to happen. we're just pushing, allies away. We're just pushing them towards them saying. Rob (30:41) Yeah, yeah, no doubt. No doubt. Yeah, we are entirely. world we're David (30:50) And what's upsetting is that China is probably going to get a version of our allies that we never got. Our allies are going to be doing stuff just to get back at us. They're going to be like, going to. Rob (30:55) Yeah. until ⁓ when the rules come off for France. Just wait. ⁓ David (31:03) my gosh, yeah. There's gonna be no tariffs back and forth. They're gonna be just flowing, doing whatever they want. It's gonna be ugly. It's gonna be awful, China's loving it. They're loving it. They're getting our allies every way that we never had them. Rob (31:09) ⁓ it's it's menage-a-toi. It's it's it's gonna be nuts. And you Exactly. Yeah. That we, you know, we had 80 years of missionary and they're. David (31:31) 80 years with the lights off. under the covers only on Saturday. our allies however they want. Rob (31:35) Exactly. Only on Saturday. they're, anal. anal. it's, everything we never got China's getting David (31:43) everything. Yep. David (31:46) China's gonna have, France, they're gonna have England, they're gonna have Italy, they're gonna be doing all sorts of shit, and then we are gonna be the lonely, in cell, United States, sitting in our mom's basement, angry that none of our allies wanna fuck us anymore. Rob (31:52) You. In cell. Rob (32:02) we are, we are definitely being, definitely being bad to our allies. And, you know, from a military perspective, it is, David (32:02) we're being bad to our allies. Yeah, we're pushing our allies away. Rob (32:12) We have spent 80 years developing these relationships deepening these relationships. From a military standpoint, in many, many ways, the military is so much more moderate than our political structure because the military does not think in terms of who likes me. They think in terms of what do we need to do in order to protect the nation and protect the world. Because protecting the world means protecting the nation. And it's a heartbreaker. mean, it really, it feels almost like a breakup to me after this many years of developing these intense relationships in which These individuals went to war with us. know, Trump and Greenland the Dutch. The Dutch lost more soldiers per capita than we did in Afghanistan. They were there. They fought with us. They were next to us. They died. It feels like, And I'm telling you to those of us who've spent a lifetime in the military. Dishonor. There's nothing worse. I'd rather die than be dishonorable. this feels like dishonor. that's the thing that I guess I have such a hard time articulating as to what is so morally. Offensive to me about this and it's it's that it's the dishonor that The policies that we currently are are pursuing It forces our military to be dishonorable and you know, here's the problem once you You drop a couple of drops of dishonor into an honorable system It taints the entire system and the military has always existed. I shouldn't say always but certainly in the last 80 years it has existed. It's an honor system. It's a system built on honor when dishonor enters the system, I don't think we're going to be happy with the result. I don't think we're going to feel good about it. There's a lot of power that lives in the United States military. And we need it to be honorable. And when give it that crack to be dishonorable, dangerous. David (34:23) Yeah. Rob (34:23) So the leader of the United States entails is a level of restraint, consistency, planned communication that we have always seen from every prior president. And we don't see that now. even getting in front of the National Prayer Breakfast audience and admitting that your ego is driving you is dangerous to the nation. mean, our allies, our enemies do understand that ego has to be considered in their engagements with us. And prior to now, a fort to now, It just was not that way, that that wasn't a thing they had to consider, that they approached us in a different way. And ego for lots of reasons. And it's not to say that prior presidents didn't have ego issues. They did. I mean, the idea of becoming the president of the United States, you have to be driven in a certain way. And there are certain liabilities that come with that. But norm was to create a structure insulates your ego from the governance of the United States. And that has completely the ego and the are no safety nets any longer. And it's David (35:42) I want to caveat because everything that you're saying true I gotta throw the if in there, if the United going to the center economical world, then everything you're saying is absolutely And for the last 80 years, That has been true and that was true by design that the United States would be consistent. It would be benevolent controlling piece that kept the world stable. So everything you're saying is true if you're trying to live in that particular worldview. But. Rob (36:05) Yes. David (36:22) what we're seeing now and what we've seen over the last year and two weeks, three weeks, is that this particular administration does not believe in that worldview. and everything that you're saying is not necessary if you are not trying to maintain that worldview. Rob (36:34) Yes. David (36:41) the Project 2025, their perspective was to norms. It was to piece because perspective was that the plus years of these United States function in the in this particular president believe that we were the suckers of Europe that we were being taken advantage of. Now, I think if you sit on either side, you could I guess you can make your arguments. what they saw as us doling out money to maintain that stability, they felt like that was an abuse from Europe. were suckers. We were just handing them stuff. So this world that we live in today, where Europe and our allies are seeing that we are no longer stable, and that it does take but one person consolidate enough power to be able to change those rules completely, it's redefining what the world sees in this role. And and to take a 10,000 foot view of it is that there is consistency. It's consistently inconsistent. so what we see over Rob (37:41) Yes. David (37:52) and over and over again. And what we saw the first presidency was the same thing. The difference was that there were people in position to rein in that inconsistency and to create a false consistency to allow these things to occur still. But now seeing that that was holding back Donald Trump, in his first term, instead came with a way to make sure that he could just be him, which is consistently inconsistent. will odd things on true social. He will go on hundred plus post-rants in the middle of the night when most of us are sleeping. He will... come up with tariffs and then take them away and then put them back and then take them away and then put them it is very consistent. It's very consistent with him. It's just inconsistent in the process, but it will, always comes back to the same thing. So you're right. In order to be stable, in order to be what we were, we need the stability. Rob (38:47) preferred. David (38:53) but in order to be what they want, what he wants is for people to ignore. of being consistently inconsistent is that people stop listening to the pieces that they don't like and they only listen to the pieces that they do. can do from a cognitive dissonance perspective is hold on to the pieces that they like. and then say, it's all right. He always says stuff like that when it's stuff you don't like. And what that does is it creates a leader for multiple groups who don't share most common moral, ethical standards, but it allows each one of them to feel like Rob (39:19) Yes. David (39:34) It is a leader for them. And from a international perspective, it's terrifying. But from a national perspective, it's consolidating. Rob (39:36) Yes. Yeah, so, you know, to our tens of listeners, I think that there's a point that, you know, David's making good points. Don't tell him. Don't send us in emails saying David was smart there. That would really destroy my relationship with David. significant body, populace that feels like we were taken advantage of in the last 80 years. Now the reality is we are the most powerful nation in the world. We are the most successful nation in the world. We're the most economically stable nation in the world because we were free with our the He created an environment that was good for business. allowed achieve a certain stability. a book, surprise, surprise, surprise, there's a book, because there's a book about everything. a book called, I believe it's called The Quiet Peace, that talks about the period prior to the 1940s, the post-World War II world order. And, know, at that time, every nation was basically struggling in its own struggling in your own interests resulting lots and lots of conflict. And It was not a good time. There was not a period of time that didn't go by in which there was major engagement of the great powers of the world fighting one another. then post-World War II, we consolidated. And in that consolidation, there was complete prohibition. on the great powers of the world fighting one another, that no longer was an option in order to stay in that world order. And what we're seeing right now is this disintegration of that world order back to what it was. And this idea that we're going to save money, that America first, which You know, in the last 80 years, a reasonable individual can look at it and say it was always America first because every dime we spent came back to us times 10. But this America first, we're going to invest in our country as if. Prior to we weren't investing in our country, that America first perspective. is similar, I suppose, to, you know, psychologically, it's similar to an individual who makes all their decisions based on what their immediate needs are, wants are. And find me a happy person that is self-interested. Find me a single happy person that's Other than find me one single self-interested person who's actually happy because it turns out happiness often comes from our relationships, our engagement in the world, our engagement with the people around us, spending our emotional capital to develop relationships and to deepen them. There is a great deal of cost to that, but it comes back. And this America First policy is, is self-interested. It's self-interested to the point that it puts allies at risk. They don't trust us any longer. They can't rely on us. we had a good thing going. I mean, we had a great family. a family systems, we had a great family. And now that family is disintegrating, everyone for themselves. You can't trust us. And we have stated out loud that you can't trust us. We're not responsible for you. on one level, there's a false sense of healthiness to that. not going to take responsibility for others. And again, if I'm in psychotherapy with someone who's overly responsible for those around them, I'm going to talk to them about that. know, you can't be the emotional regulator for everyone. costs you something. But there is a healthy balance. There is a balance. And we have maintained that balance for a very long time. And here we are destroying the balance. And my argument would be the balance has been destroyed because we now have a leader whose ego is so fragile. Who requires so much attention so much adoration that It can't be balanced everything has to be about him and that's That's scary. David (44:13) What are we? So... Yes, it is fucking scary. But the motivation, so this is, think, where it maybe gets, there's a needs to be spoken about. The motivation behind the change is, I think, originates from desire to change the 80 years to be something closer to Rob (44:28) you David (44:36) what it was before that, where there is a more nationalist self-interest being. attended But a thinking and not from I disagree with national whatever So neither here nor there. The flaw was that in order to change what had been set as the norm for 80 years requires somebody who is willing to change it. Rob (44:59) Mm-hmm. David (44:59) somebody who is willing to come in and blow up 80 years of towards a more international friendly corroborating world. And in order to do that, power needed to be placed upon one person. And they found that. the one person in politics who could get away with saying and doing anything, because we've never seen that before in the United States. could even say, I could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and you would still vote for me. That would have been political suicide for anybody else, Rob (45:17) Ha ha ha ha. No. Yes. David (45:35) For one person, that seems to a drawing able to say anything and have it not turn off the populace. the one flaw the plan, because I don't think this is Donald Trump's plan to blow years of norm. I don't think that's his plan. plan appeared to come from the Heritage Foundation Project 2025 was to change all of these things. Now, the truth is they've been doing this every year forever. They've wanted this change. This Christian nationalism perspective. But what they found was somebody who was able to do Congress is terrified of Donald Trump. Teflon Dong. can say, do, act, whatever he wants, and people will still come back for more. And I think or January 6th, 2021 on the resume that said could do anything. The flaw here, is to that you want. He's a wonderful But as he has said, his ego is what drives in own perceived enemies Rob (46:47) Yes. David (46:54) China, so when you have other authoritarian leaders who are propping up his ego, He likes it. when you have non-authoritarian leaders who are not propping up his ego, he does not like it. And so he's going to do what he does. And it's not going to be to your plan. It might help your plan, sort of, but it's also going to blow up spectacularly in your face. Rob (47:02) loves it. David (47:23) If you believe that you will control him better a KGB trade operative, if you think you can control him better somebody who is willing to shamelessly, shamelessly stroke his ego, you're kidding yourself. And that, I think, is the big flaw, was that you found high-powered pawn, possibly the most powerful pawn. Rob (47:37) Yes. David (47:48) you've ever experienced, but you forgot the one thing, that he still was gonna do his own thing. especially if he figures out that you're trying to control him, you will do the opposite thing, just to piss you off. Rob (48:02) feeding one's own ego is never going to be for the greater good. you just, you nailed it. I mean, there's a reason why he identifies with other authoritarian regimes because they feed his ego. And he said this, he said it so many times he's actually made reference to 1930s Germany that he wished the generals would do what he said. Democracy is not ego-driven. the crux of it is that in order to be the leader of a democracy, you have to have a ego that can tolerate dissension and argument, disagreement. You've got to have that. And we are currently in an environment that this president does not have that. He doesn't have the ego integrity to deal with dissension. a thing about democracy. David (48:58) there's not just a lack of ego integrity it is still a desire to be independent in one's own thinking there probably are but there's not a lot of monster movies written where the monster was created then the monster didn't turn on the creator Rob (49:07) Mm-hmm. David (49:16) Because once you've created power, power starts to drive the ship more. And so you've built up the ego and then person says, I like this. to be in control. And when somebody says, hey, stop it and tries to rein them in, they go, no. And they crush them too. But they crush everything in their path. as well. It just reminds me of any monster movie in that monster. Rob (49:41) Well, we're living a horror movie, everyone. We're living a or, well, I hope it doesn't turn into tragedy. It's getting close. It's getting close to a Greek tragedy. David (49:54) Well, it's only tragedy if you don't like the United States being the economic superior country on the Rob (50:00) not going to hold. We were the economic superior country because we created David (50:05) Right. it's only becomes tragedy if that's the worldview that you take of well that was a good thing. If you don't think that was a good thing then this is great. This is a great way to go because that's the direction it's blowing in. Rob (50:19) You know, ironically, China is going to, at least on the trajectory we're currently on, they're going to supplant us largely because whether you agree with the Chinese political perspective and their approach, they are They are stable. And we are at this moment and for the next two and a half, three years. three, I guess, years. We're unpredictable. And the necessary thing for business is required. And at least China is predictable. You may not agree with them, but they're predictable as fuck. They're rock solid that this is their stance. And ours, You know, and I think our tens of listeners can identify with that 2 a.m. wake is very human for us to wake up in the middle of the weight of the problems, the anxieties, the fears so much more our tens of listeners or you and I? we don't have is, a way, the truth social to basically communicate our fears to the world. And we're not in a position in which as this is the, the crux of it that as president, you are no longer a person. You're an institution. You're, you're something different. And what we're seeing is that all the bulwarks, all the walls have always guided or contained the personality of the president have dissolved. So we get the middle of the night angst that Donald Trump experiences. And then it becomes policy. that the, you know, the next day, like I cannot even imagine being the press secretary Donald Trump. Can't even imagine it. David (52:15) think you could, I think you could. I mean, just imagine being the guy drives the honey wagon around a base in Afghanistan. Your only job is to yeah, that's it. Just remove the shit and move on, make everyone's happy. Rob (52:22) Hahaha! Suckin' up the shit. Suckin' up the shit. Well, you know, every morning I imagine that that poor press secretary who I whose name I can't recall. But, you know, I'm sure she wakes up in a panic every fucking morning looking at. David (52:45) No, no, I don't. Here's why. Because when I was a young sailor, we had this commander who was just an egomaniac and he was one of these guys who would top anything that anybody else said. at first, it was and it started to affect morale. But what I noticed that people started to do was they turned it into a game had fun with it. And maybe that's where she's at now. Maybe she just has fun with it. Like what can I get away with? Because what you would do then is see what you could get him to top. And the answer was anything. So you would come in and you'd say, my gosh, I think I got crabs or something last night from some girl out. And he'd be like, that's nothing. This one time. Rob (53:23) ⁓ It's... I got super crabs. David (53:34) This one time I got syphilis He would Rob (53:39) I get syphilis, crabs, and gonorrhea same night all at once. Yeah. Yeah. David (53:43) Same night, yeah. He would top the most ridiculous things and then you could sit back and, so maybe that's what she's doing. I'm guessing that's what she's doing. I got a... Rob (53:52) I speculate no. speculate that I speculate no. think David (53:55) No, she's got to have fun. be doing the, you you poop my pants defense, which I think is I think she's probably having to get like, what can I get away with today? mean, she seems to enjoy sparring with the press. Now they did bring in a lot of friendly people so that it's not like completely disheartening, but I think she's got to have some fun with that. Right? Like imagine if your whole job was to spin Rob (54:12) Yeah. David (54:20) the craziest shit you've ever heard into fault. Like it's not a problem. I don't know why you think that's an issue. that could be enjoyable for a while. If know there's no repercussion for it, because there isn't, right? Because it would be one thing if she was held accountable for anything, but she's not. And so I think she's probably having a good time. Honestly, she's probably like, I love my job. Rob (54:31) I'm going to assume Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, And she's think I disagree because I think most people are bound by a certain morality, they want to be internally consistent. David (54:53) Yeah, I agree most people, but I don't think that applies to person who has done a lovely job at the opposite of what you just said. Rob (55:02) Well, but, but, but, but, am hesitant to assume that about her because I know nothing about her. You know, we can talk about the president because the president... David (55:14) I don't want to blame her. I'm just saying she's really good at I'm saying maybe she's having a great time Maybe she's having a lovely time doing it having a blast Rob (55:21) I think she goes to bed in terror. I think she wakes up and checks the news and is like, shit, what do I have to do today? What do I have yeah, exactly. What kind of shit do I have to suck up today? yeah, I actually have a great deal of empathy for her, even though David (55:30) Fire up the honey wagon. Rob (55:40) She's a professional and she comes out and she appears like she's confident in the bullshit. And there's something to be said about somebody who can stand covered in shit and tell you they're clean. There's something to be said about that. It's impressive. You shit my pants. David (55:54) True. You shit my pants. You did. You did. Rob (55:59) Bibi did it. Bibi did it. Yeah. David (56:01) I mean, I was just as shocked as you how distraught I was when you shit my pants. Rob (56:07) When you shit my pants! Well, and that's what we've come to. I mean, that's what we've come to. Imagine my distress when you shit my pants. David (56:17) Yeah, exactly. And I think that's, there's gotta be some, maybe it will be. Imagine, there you go. That'll be it. All right. Rob (56:20) This should be the title of this episode, by the way. Imagine my distress when you shit my pants. David (56:28) Well, I think it's prescription time. Let's, let's talk prescriptions. So, I think what we should do is start a staffer did it jar. So, and I think you can do this at home. I think it'd good retirement plan. whenever you hear that an anonymous staffer did something, after outrage has been Rob (56:30) ⁓ shit. hahahaha ⁓ David (56:48) reached a peak at which something needs to be walked back, go ahead and stick a dollar in that jar. And I think by the end of this, through your term, you're gonna be pretty happy with the results. Rob (56:58) We'd have a lot of dollars. Yeah, so the White House must stop using ambiguity as intimidation. If you can't guarantee you're governing by threat, and that's not leadership. That's a haunted house operated by the federal letterhead. I say no more. David (57:15) well, thank you so much to everybody who has stuck around. Go ahead and smash that subscribe. Rob (57:20) Probably not many, not ranged far afield this time. David (57:24) We do what we want. It's our show. So if you don't like it, then write us a message and tell us what we need to fix and we'll do our best. So. Rob (57:31) Absolutely, we will. these early morning recordings, Sons, up being a little more intellectual than the alternative. David (57:41) I know we need to really dumb down prefrontal cortices, but yeah, whatever. We got a football game later today that I'm going to watch and probably be disappointed in the result. Wow. I will expect the result to be the Seahawks win it, the Patriots lose. I love the Patriots. They're a great team. The Seahawks are an amazing team. Rob (57:43) Yeah. Yes. Hey, help me understand why you're a Big fan of the fluffer nutter, aren't David (58:00) man, I love a fluffernutter. They're so good. Rob (58:01) All right, all right, David (58:03) they're good team. People don't like them, but I love having Mike Vrabel back. Josh McDaniels. Rob (58:08) they're all they're douchebags. I want I want I want want them to lose. David (58:10) Yeah, well, mean, the entire league is douchebags. They will lose. They're going to lose this game. but they will because Seattle is a much better team. Now, if they win it, I'll be but I don't think they're going to win. Rob (58:16) I think they will. Yeah. Here's the weirdness of Seattle being a better football team. a cognitive dissonance that exists in imagining Seattle as being a good team. To me. David (58:34) watch a lot of football. I listened to a lot of football talk. and, I don't like to listen to people who talk about multiple sports, I give a fuck what they think. Cause they, they, don't, they don't pay attention. I listened to, people who only talk about football. Rob (58:43) Yeah. His neighbors. His neighbors. David (58:49) Yeah, my neighbors talking about don't do that much anymore because somebody ruined it for me some asshole talk some asshole but Rob (58:52) Yeah. Yeah, I did that. I did that folks. As it turns out, if you spend a year in a combat zone, it changes your perspective on the relevance It's just relevant is when you go out and you get shot at and you get blown up, that's relevant. David (59:08) And find. Rob (59:15) And then every time a football team references going to war, combat, it just pisses you off. David (59:23) I don't hear that too often but to me it's it's actually the chess match that is football and that's what I like about it is that that I I like that a really good defensive team will win the Super Bowl this year for sure Rob (59:25) annoying. Yeah, those guys. I served, I served with a bunch of kids that were getting paid pretty much the minimum wage and they were in harm's way. They were getting shot at. They were getting blown up. Fuck those guys. Anyone who wants to make it seem grandiose to play a fucking game. Fuck those guys. David (59:54) Nah, It's purely entertainment. It's 100%. NFL is a way to Viagra commercials in front of your eyes. The game is to the vast majority of people. I like the chess match. That's where I'm at. And the truth is if the Patriots win or lose, I give a shit. Like I'm happy. I would love that they win. Rob (1:00:03) no doubt the Viagra commercials are killing me lately, by the way. Alright. David (1:00:17) but they probably won't because the Seahawks are just that But if they win, I would love it. Rob (1:00:20) Yep, put your nonsense in a fucking dress. slap some makeup on your, stuff. Fine. You know, if you put lipstick on a pig, fine, fine. It, you know, I still wouldn't fuck the pig. David (1:00:28) Fair enough. Still a pig. turned the lights out, you might. Rob (1:00:36) Well, that's what we've done for the last 80 years. You're going to turn the lights off, do it missionary style. David (1:00:39) That's right. Yep. All right. Well, again, thank you Rob (1:00:43) All right, buddy, it's always a pleasure. Hey, tens of listeners, really do appreciate the fact that somebody listens to us. It's pretty goddamn amazing. Do the likes, send it to your friends. David (1:00:56) All right, we're going to cue up that music and we are out.