Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
In this week's episode, One Decision's Christina Ruffini and guest co-host, Times Radio Political Editor Kate McCann, discuss the reactions in Washington and Europe following former President Donald Trump's historic election to another term in the White House. Also, resident spymaster and co-host, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta joins the conversation to discuss what we can expect during this transition period, the implications for foreign relations under President-elect Donald Trump's second administration, and the recent rise of anti-incumbent sentiment across the globe.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
COLD OPEN
Panetta: The question comes down to Trump and whether he decides he really is gonna be a total isolationist, and basically it's all about America first, and America is gonna totally withdraw from the rest of the world. And that frankly is just was my has been my fear for a long time because that's the way he behaved in his first term.
INTRODUCTION
Kosinski: The results are in. After a momentous and highly anticipated election, former president Donald Trump will be president yet again. Now as the dust settles from a divisive electoral cycle, we consider what our geopolitical future might look like in the face of ongoing global crises abroad. In today's episode, we speak with our co-host, former secretary of defense and former CIA director Leon Panetta, to talk about what we can expect during this transition period, who could be in the new White House, and what's at stake for foreign relations under president Trump's second administration. But first, we're gonna catch up with our colleague from across the pond, Kate McCann. Kate is a broadcaster and political editor, and she's going to give us the view of what things look like in her part of the world. All right, Kate. So people in DC started realizing this was going to go a different way than expected around like 9:10 p.m. I'm curious, what has the reaction been on your side of the world and how invested in this election were people?
Mccann: Yeah, it's been really strange. So the time difference obviously makes a difference here. But I was on the train on the way into work this morning and so many people were watching Trump's speech on their phones. That's really really unusual. Yeah, really unusual. I mean, it early in the morning. So a lot of people are professionals going into work. Maybe some of them work in the city. They're kind of invested in what's going to happen in the markets. But yeah, lots of people. It's one of those days in London where you know that everybody is consuming the same news story. And obviously we're very British. We don't do elections like you guys do. No one ever cheers when anybody wins. You just don't get that kind of reaction. But to see people all watching the same thing at the same time is quite unusual. And I think that there was a sense of surprise too. I was at an election party, watching party last night. I left around one in the morning. And I think at that point it was looking like Trump might do it, but a lot of the news programs were still saying, yeah, well, it might just be early results. We're not sure. Probably leaning towards Kamala still, even though the writing was pretty much on the wall. So to wake up this morning, head into work and the result and it beat Trump, I mean, yeah, it was quite a moment, I think.
Kosinski: What is the vibe over there to use the youth culture? I mean, are people nervous? Are people feeling it? Are people just kind of like we are just processing it and figuring out where to go?
Mccann: So I think in Westminster, there's a lot of surprise, a lot of people who don't really know where to put themselves. So we've got a new Labour government, relatively new Labour government. First time Labour's been. Well, no, no. I was going to say, I think what you were going to point out, is first time we've had a Labour government for fourteen years. So we are used to a conservative administration. And so I think for Labour, they are having to tread really carefully because if I'm honest, their natural instincts and the things that they will say to you in the lunch queue and the things they are saying to you in the lunch queue is, oh my good God, what the hell is America doing? What are these guys doing? What they have to say in public is, yep, we want to work with Trump. We think we can have a constructive relationship. And here are all these ways that we can do that. What was really important to our new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who is on the left, was that when we came over for the UN General Assembly recently, he had dinner with Trump. And I don't know if you guys know, but our Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has said some pretty choice things about the new president. Some of them I would not want to repeat on a family podcast. And so they've had to do a bit of making up. I think they have done that. There's quite a good relationship between JD Vance and David Lammy. And Trump and Keir Starmer seem to have found a way to get on. So we'll see how it progresses. But I think behind the scenes, they're all a bit shocked and pretty surprised.
Kosinski: I mean, maybe one of the good things for foreign leaders about Trump's mercurial nature is he does seem to be a bit forgiving. I mean, the Macron relationship comes to mind. They got off to a rocky start and then they had that kind of summit and then he said he liked his wife and he was very charming and he was handsome and they seemed to have a good working relationship. And Zelensky met with Trump officials while he was here most recently as well, and that was a bit controversial. But it seems like the UK government, even the Ukrainian government, like everybody wanted to hedge their bets a little bit. What I'm hearing from foreign ministers I've spoken to so far seems to be a little bit similar to what you're talking about with the UK government is that everybody behind the scenes is pretty nervous and trying to brace for the chaotic nature that could be a second Trump administration. But they know they have to work with the United States because they've got to work with the United States. And so they're going to try to figure out a way to do that.
Mccann: And I think as well, there's a sense here and you tell me, I mean, you know much better than I do, but there's a sense from our side that Trump is a pragmatist. And if there is a way for a government like the UK to present themselves as helpful or useful or in some way advantageous, if an advantageous deal to be done, then that's the way to ingratiate yourself with the Trump regime. And I think that's the way that the UK government looks at this now. How do we present ourselves as an advantage? And President Zelensky has done the same thing using language which echoes Trump's own language, uses kind of phrases that suggest that the two of them could make this work together. And I think that is the way that global leaders are going to look at this. You know, how do we give Trump a win here? That's the reality. I mean, I don't know. You tell me whether that's the right perception, but that ultimately he is pragmatic even when people have insulted him. He's willing to work with them. I'll tell you something really interesting that stands out to me in hindsight, but at the time we all kind of wrote off, which is probably a problem with journalism, maybe we can get into that another time, that when we went to the UN General Assembly, the UK government, Keir Starmer and David Lammy, didn't meet with Kamala Harris. And at the time, the suggestion was, oh, we just couldn't make our schedules work and we hope to be able to see her at some point in the future. But it didn't feel like there was an urgent need to do that, whereas there was a very definite urgent need to meet Donald Trump. And actually, David Lammy and his team had put in a lot of groundwork before they were in government to get on side with JD Vance. And there is a suggestion that Labour's teams had seen this coming because actually they've seen this kind of thing replicated in the UK. These people who feel very disaffected, these communities who feel left behind, you can vocalize that, you can win those votes. And maybe they sensed that Kamala Harris was never going to be able to turn that tide. Would have been nice if they told some democratic operatives in the US, but you know, can't tell people what they don't want to hear.
Kosinski: Is the good point, my British friend.
Mccann: We're here for you. We're here for you.
INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY LEON PANETTA
Kosinski: Kate, let's bring in our other co-host for today, former secretary of defense and former CIA director Leon Panetta. So first of all, because, you know, you are still very involved in the Democratic party and you are an insider, what went wrong? What happened from a Democratic perspective? Because they seem to think, you know, everybody learned their lesson during the Hillary race. Nobody I talked to was overconfident. But most people I was speaking to even early evening yesterday thought Harris was gonna pull this out. Where did their calculations go off the trail?
Panetta: I think the reality is the Democrats were always behind, starting with Joe Biden who was not running very well and then collapsed at the debate, which I think gave Trump an even bigger edge at that point. And although Kamala came into it, she just had a lot of territory to cover because, you know, when you're running for president, the ability to relate to Americans across this country and let them know what you're about and touch them and feel them and let them do the same with you and understand who you are, that takes a lot of time. And for Trump, he's a known quantity. He's been around whether people like him or hate him. They, you know, they know who he is. And that was not the case with Kamala. So there were still a lot of questions. And I think that part of the problem was that she never really could distinguish herself from Biden. Biden was a drag and what she had to do was to take on more positions that would have been clearly not Biden's positions so that she could establish a real identity as herself. I think the problem was that in many ways, Biden remained a drag on that election and that continued until election day.
Mccann: Secretary Panetta, do you think there was anything that Kamala Harris could ever have done to change the result here? Because, I mean, in elections around the world, the incumbents have not done well. I mean, you look across pretty much every election that's happened in the last year, that incumbency factor has been impossible to get over. Is there anything that you think she could have done?
Panetta: I think if she had taken a position counter to Biden, particularly, for example, in the Middle East, and made clear that she had a very different approach to dealing with the Middle East, and made clear that in terms of the economy, even though Joe Biden had made some progress on the economy, that there was much more that needed to be done. I mean, she did put forward an economic platform, frankly, but that's something she had to stress a lot more. I think the bottom line here is that the economy still remained the primary issue, no matter what you did. It really was the economy that I think people were angry about, did not feel good about. Somehow she had to present a much clearer presentation of just what were the steps to try to deal with inflation, to deal with the other problems that were there. I think she was trying to walk a fine line. You know, she was dealing with some of the Biden accomplishments. She didn't wanna step on his legacy either. And so she was being careful and trying to tiptoe around it. And I think the result was that people just did not sense that she had the toughness to basically take some hard positions. You gotta be tough in this game. And to some extent, Trump does that to the extreme with the way he talks and the things he says. But it does convey underneath a sense of toughness that, you know, he's gonna be there. He's gonna be fighting. And Kamala had to basically break out of that shell and do the same thing. Particularly as a woman, the task is even tougher, but you can do it. If you really are out there, you know, saying this is what I'm about. This is what I'm gonna fight for. These are the problems I see. And this is what the agenda of the country is gonna be all about. You gotta be tough about that. She was trying to kind of appeal to that America that, you know, says, let's try to get along. Let's try to unify. Let's try to work together. Let's try to get back to business as usual. And while there is underneath a lot of sense that we've got to get back to making democracy work, I think people still felt that their needs were the most important thing. And they wanted somebody who would make clear that they would address those needs.
Kosinski: Ideology for better or worse seems to be a harder sell. You know, the attributes of democracy are not as big a motivator as the price of milk or the price of rent or whether or not you feel the economy is doing well. That's another thing that, you know, today, obviously, Monday morning quarterbacking, it seems like the messaging from the Democrats on the economy with Biden saying over and over again, it's strong. Look at the numbers. The economy is strong, was not reflective of what voters were really feeling, and they were a little bit dismissive of that, whereas Vance and Trump really leaned into that.
Panetta: Yeah. No. I think that's right. And I think Joe Biden was operating from a playbook that might go back to FDR's time, which is if you pass important legislation, you get credit for it. Today, very frankly, it doesn't work that way. You can pass a lot of legislation. You can pass a lot of good legislation, and he did to his credit. But very frankly, the American people are not about to say, oh, thank you. Thank you. And gosh, you've done wonderful things. American people still say, look, I still feel like life is not treating me well. I'm not feeling good about this economy. Whatever the hell you say you've been able to do. But most people want to understand what the hell is this going to mean for me in terms of changing my life. And I don't think they got that message.
Mccann: There's some really interesting research about the happiness index of states in America, and those states that are the least happy are the most likely to vote for Trump. And it just blows my mind, this sense that actually what Trump is appealing to is a sense of unfairness. It's not even about policy in the end. It's about an emotion, a feeling. And I remember watching one of Kamala Harris's speeches where she said, I'm going to fight for compromise. And I thought, well, who fights for compromise? It's just not a winner, is it? I mean, thinking about a Trump administration now, how does he sort of harness that and direct it and use it to his advantage now as, you know, as president?
Panetta: I mean, you know, that's the big question. It's not as if, as I said, Trump is a new quantity. We know who Trump is. And Trump in his first four years, he did get some things done, but on the other hand, he also operated by a great deal of chaos as a way of dealing with things. And so the real question for me is whether or not he returns to using chaos and uncertainty as a way to deal with issues to kind of throw people out of balance and try to somehow gain traction over people by basically saying to them, you don't know what the hell I'm gonna do. And I'm gonna prove you don't know what I'm gonna do. And he likes this image of other people thinking that he's crazy because he thinks that gives him leverage. And so that's kind of the way he operates. Now, the question is for a second term, does he in any way think about the legacy he leaves as president of the United States on this country? Or does he simply go back to basically abiding by his guts and trying to do some of the things that are high profile that could create a lot of consternation, create a lot of chaos, but basically operate in a way that is very unpredictable. That's gonna be the thing to look for.
Kosinski: One of the other things I found really fascinating is how quickly all these world leaders who were backing Joe Biden with all they had at the NATO meeting here in DC and trying with all their might to make him look as verdant and leadership-y as they could up on that stage right up until he introduced Zelensky as Putin and all hell broke loose, almost immediately were tweeting their congratulations and tweeting photos of them with Trump and saying, we look forward to working with you. But I reached out to some foreign ministers and I said, you know, what's the word? What is the feeling in the foreign minister group chat? And they said, look, it's for now, move forward. Like, what are we going to do? We have to work with this administration. You have to work with the United States. So they're going to tiptoe forward until, to your point, they see who's in the government, what the objectives are and what the policies start to be. But where do you see the first flashpoints of the new administration, as far as international issues? I know I spoke to a Middle Eastern diplomat, who said they were very nervous about what was gonna happen with Israel and Gaza, and we're already hearing some things that were quite upsetting.
Panetta: There's a number of flashpoints. Trump basically said during the campaign, don't worry about it. I can basically cut a deal in every one of these problems. Things are gonna be fine. Well, yeah, he could by simply capitulating to tyrants and to adversaries and to autocrats and letting them have their way. But I'm not so sure he's, you know, even his own party, Republicans are gonna be willing to let him simply let tyrants do whatever the hell they wanna do. So I have a feeling he's gonna have to take these on one at a time, and that makes some sense to me. Look, with regards to the Middle East, I think he's basically gonna give Netanyahu a blank check. Whatever you do, whatever you wanna do, whoever you wanna go after, you have my blessing. I mean, he basically said that. And so the real question there is whether Netanyahu decides to continue to try to expand that war, go after Iran, or do things that basically create an even greater concern about whether or not the Middle East is ever gonna resolve itself or be in constant conflict. I mean, my recommendation to a new president would be, you know, if you think you can work something out whereby Ukraine is able to maintain a good portion of their territory and give Russia some areas to maintain as well and be able to resolve that, I think that would be a real plus. But that's gonna take some negotiation. And I would not put mister Trump in charge of that because he sat down with Kim Jong Un for three meetings and wasn't able to cut a deal. So what I would do is if he selects somebody with experience, either as secretary of state, secretary of defense, and puts him to work to try to really develop what would be a fair deal for Ukraine and allow Russia to sign off on the thing as well, I think that would be the way to go. But that's gonna take time. That's the one issue I think if I were Trump, I would focus on how to resolve the Ukrainian war.
Mccann: I think this is where it gets so complicated for other governments, particularly European and in the UK. I mean, today, the new Starmer government was picking such a careful line on this issue. You know, we were asking them, we had prime minister's questions today and we were briefed by their advisers afterwards. And we were saying, you know, look, how are you going to deal with the question of Ukraine? Because the UK government has been so incredibly robust and so determined not to step back from that conflict. But without America, it's not feasible to carry on basically carrying the can. We don't have the capacity to do that.
Kosinski: I mean, I thought President Zelensky's statement was fascinating. He's the master of fluffing up Trump. Yeah, you're right. Speaking of leaders who immediately tweeted a congratulations.
Mccann: Good point, Kate. Yes, yes. It was so brilliant. I just couldn't get over it. Congratulations on your impressive victory! Know that you're a big fan of the peace through strength approach. Basically trying to tie Trump into this strategy. It was so clever. I thought it was a fantastic statement. But it does just show you how terrified the Ukrainians are. And I know that obviously the ideal is a deal between the two sides. But Russia has been very clear. No negotiations while Ukraine is in what they see as their territory. And Ukraine says, it's in our constitution that we can't give up land. Is there a pathway there? Do you think there is a pathway there diplomatically? And is Trump really the man to negotiate it?
Panetta: If I had my way and as to what should be done, I would say we should give Ukraine whatever weapons and support they need, allow them to strike at targets in Russia, allow them to go after whatever they need to go after to defend themselves, and try to regain the initiative, try to start pushing the Russians back. Because I think if they start pushing the Russians back, it gives them greater leverage with regards to any discussions that ultimately will follow and gives them a lot more ability to try to retain more of their territory. I think if I were NATO, I would say, let's keep giving Ukraine what they need, give them the ability to be able to be more aggressive and establish an initiative, and hope that Trump will allow us the room to do that so that he can then step in at some point and be able to negotiate a resolution.
Kosinski: The other player in this negotiation that'll be interesting to see is French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been kind of bucking to lead these negotiations. And it will be interesting to see if he kind of scoots in there in the next couple months and can get Zelensky and Putin to the table. Because if you were Zelensky, would you rather have this negotiation moderated by Macron or by president Trump?
Panetta: I think that's a good question. I think Macron has to be a little bit careful that he doesn't stretch himself way out there and then have his legs cut out from under him. And so he's gotta be careful as well to make sure he's on solid territory. I mean, if I was Macron, I would have an honest discussion with Trump and say, look, this is where I think we need to go, and try to see if they can work out some kind of common strategy to be able to move this towards some kind of negotiation. But if people start totally operating on their own and not communicating with one another, then I think we're in for a chaotic period with regards to Ukraine. They're gonna be fighting on their own. Look, Zelensky is not gonna give up Ukraine. He's gonna keep fighting. God bless him for doing that. Ukrainians are gonna keep fighting. You know, my sense is Ukraine is gonna continue to fight for their democracy. Other NATO countries beside the US are gonna be there. They're gonna be supportive. NATO itself is gonna be supportive of what Ukraine is doing and try to give them support. And I think in the interim, Trump to some extent, depending on who he selects for these key positions, whether it's secretary of state, secretary of defense, as well as other key positions on foreign policy and national security policy. Once he's able to get a team in place and kind of determine where they wanna go and how they wanna get to some kind of resolution, that may take three or four months to be able to get there. So this is gonna take some time to basically work out. There is not gonna be a deal in twenty-four hours.
Kosinski: Well, and speaking of the people he'll have around him, he has a vice president, JD Vance, who last year at the Munich Security Conference, he made these comments about NATO. He said
Vance: I think there's a fundamental issue here that Europe really has to wake up to. And I offer this in the spirit of friendship, not in the spirit of criticism because no, I don't think that we should pull out of NATO. And no, I don't think that we should abandon Europe. But yes, I think that we should pivot. The United States has to focus more on East Asia. That is going to be the future of American foreign policy for the next forty years, and Europe has to wake up to that fact.
Kosinski: I mean, he has been very critical of the spending in Ukraine, and I think that's interesting coming from him to say there are other places we should focus, but no, we shouldn't pull out of NATO. I'm not sure that's going to be on the table in the second administration. I don't know. What do you think, Mr. Secretary? Do you think it's going to be a debate we're going to have all over again? Or do you think Trump's ideology has moved to a point where he can say, look, I made all these European nations pony up more money. They're mostly paying their dues. It's okay to stay in it for now.
Panetta: My sense is that you're not gonna suddenly have Trump go to the podium and say we're totally pulling out of NATO. I just don't see that happening. I think he'll continue to operate to his own drummer. I think he'll continue to operate based on what his guts tell him as opposed to what a secretary of state may tell him. But I also think that, you know, in many ways, because he's really not an internationalist and somebody who has a long experience in dealing with people abroad the way Joe Biden did. I think it makes him unpredictable. I think if he thinks that it's bad politics to basically look like you're a coward and pulling back from the rest of the world, he hates that word, but that'll be the kind of word that might just be used if it looks like he's trying to run away from all these responsibilities. So I'm not so sure that he's just gonna suddenly raise the white flag. I think he knows that he has basically said he's a tough guy. He's basically told us that he can cut deals to solve all these problems. He's basically told us that there isn't a conflict that he can't deal with. He's basically told us we don't want any kind of World War three. Well, let me tell you something. You can't just put your head in the sand and hope that all those things happen. You gotta work at it. So one way or the other, he's gonna have to deal with these challenges, and it'll be interesting to see just exactly how he dances around these issues in his second term.
Mccann: Secretary Panetta, you've talked quite a lot about the idea that the people around the new president are going to be really important in reining him in and maybe even selling a different message. But there is a suggestion that there could be some kind of kitchen cabinet, an unofficial group of people like Elon Musk, who, you know, will be given a lot of power. These people who will have a huge amount of influence, they will have the president's ear. They are also, some of them, linked to places like China, places like Russia. They have huge interest in AI, in technology, in space. How do you control for that? Because what you're saying makes a lot of sense. But if you add these people into the mix, it becomes even more unpredictable. And especially when you come to talking about China, you know, I know that the chips issue is a very niche one, but it's a very live one. And there are some people around Trump who were already saying, you know, that the CHIPS Act is a bad idea. We should scrap it. You know, you're not even in the White House yet. You're already creating this real tension and worry.
Panetta: Well, you know, I gotta tell you, it wouldn't be the worst thing if he surrounded himself with some big business leaders. Because my experience is most of these business leaders understand that we live in a global world. Most of these business leaders understand that we have to deal with other countries in a global world, that we've gotta be able to have some kind of trade even though Trump will talk about tariffs on China. The fact is we have to have trade in a global world. And these business leaders understand that. And these business leaders also understand that the United States has to basically be a world leader in terms of dealing with these issues. That they want the United States. They wanna have some ability to influence what happens abroad because it does affect their pocketbook and it does affect their business. So that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, if some of those people were advisers to the president. I would hope that you'd still in addition to that, you want people that know the military, know our national security, know what it means to basically deploy our military and have a strong military. Trump says he's for a big defense budget. That may be important, but the bigger question is, how are you gonna use your military? And how are you gonna respect those who are in the military? Because I think one of the questions that came up over the last four years and during the campaign is whether or not he understands the role of the military, which is to confront foreign enemies. It isn't to threaten Americans, and it's not to round up immigrants. Hopefully, having somebody that knows the military, knows where they're coming from, knows that they swear an oath to the constitution, not just to the president. I think that's gonna be important as well.
Kosinski: And speaking of China a little bit, where do you see round two of the Trump-Xi relationship? Because Trump has said that Xi respects him very much because, quote, he knows I'm crazy. And look, I mean, we've been talking a little bit about the unpredictability, but having covered the Trump State Department under Pompeo, I will tell you there is a little bit of power in that unpredictability because you just never know what they're going to do. I remember during Venezuela, they refused to say whether or not they would send troops to Venezuela. We would say, are you going to send boots on the ground to, you know, go against Maduro and protect Juan Guaidó? And they would say all options are on the table. And, you know, I think people believed that. So when it comes to China, when it comes to Xi, when it comes to what Trump will or will not do, where do you see these relationships going? Is it going to be just an extended cult of personality? Or is he going to have to figure out a way to expand that policy a little bit better and come up with something a little bit more strategic, for the second go round?
Panetta: Well, you know, Trump isn't all wrong when he says that, you know, unpredictability and basically giving the world the impression that you're crazy enough to do anything, does give you some leverage. It does give you leverage. I mean, that's a reality. And not that I'm saying that, you know, the United States ought to do this all the time, but a selective use of that is not bad when you're dealing with certain members of our enemy. I think on China, you know, he's made clear that one way or another, he is gonna increase tariffs and that that's gonna be his primary leverage. And I think in some ways, he wants to do that, hopefully, so it'll show strength, but it'll also perhaps open the door to dialogue. Because bottom line is when we talk about these business leaders, these business leaders don't wanna see going to war with China when we have such a large economic relationship. Don't forget, China's buying a lot of our debt. And that's the one thing, frankly, that neither candidate said they were gonna deal with is this huge national debt that is undermining our financial credibility and our fiscal responsibility in the world. And so if president Trump can basically do something that he thinks is tough, that makes clear to China that he's not gonna back off and that China has a lot to be worried about in terms of how the United States could impact their economic role in the world, that that might possibly open up a dialogue on some of these other issues, AI, on cyber, on a lot of other areas where frankly we could make some progress if we were able to have that dialogue. So, you know, I may be being a little too hopeful there, but I think you could play this in a way that could give you some leverage just as if you have leverage in dealing with Ukraine, you might be able to get the right result. If you can get leverage in dealing with China, that too could give you the right result.
Mccann: It sounds like you think that Donald Trump could actually be a good thing.
Panetta: I'm enough of a pragmatist and, you know, have been involved in public life long enough that I think there are opportunities here. And, frankly, I was hoping in his first term, here's a business guy becoming president, that if he can learn what the presidency is all about, if he can learn the issues and really get involved, I think he could have made some real changes that could have been for the better. He certainly could have broadened his base, his political base in the country by doing that. I don't know whether he's learned that lesson. If he's willing to do some of the things I talked about, I think it would be to the benefit of the United States and I think it would be to the benefit of the world. But I think maybe the one thing in the aftermath of this election that maybe everybody can take some reward from is the fact that this election was very clear as to who the winner was. This isn't even a question where the popular vote was different than the electoral college vote. President won pretty strongly. There isn't gonna be a lot of contests. There isn't gonna be a lot of court decision. There isn't gonna be a lot of disruption here. This is gonna be probably something that will go back to what we all hope would be the case last time, which is a smooth transition. And I think that'll take place. And I think President Biden will probably cooperate in a smooth transition. So I think we can all take some hope that one of the things that could result from this election is that we will not have the turmoil and the disruption and the kind of violence that took place in the last election. Having said that, I hope that Trump recognizes he has an opportunity to be able to establish a good legacy for himself, not one that just brands him as somebody who's mean and ugly and is somebody who has basically divided this country, but as somebody who really did try to bring this country together. That's my hope and my prayer. Whether it's answered, we'll all have to wait and see.
Mccann: I was gonna say that you guys could take a leaf out of our books when we end up with a different prime minister and, you know, get some of the long robes and the swords and the velvet pouches and the walking wards and, you know, but maybe you guys do it right.
Kosinski: I disagree, Kate. I think that's a brilliant point. I think our pomp and circumstance is desperately in need of more swords.
Mccann: I feel like President Trump would like a bit more velvet. Probably. I feel like he's a man who would go in for a velvet slipper. He'd love that stuff, I'm sure.
Kosinski: He does love gold. Anybody who's seen his apartment in Trump Tower, he loves some gold. These are excellent points. All right. Kate McCann, Secretary Panetta, thank you so much. As someone has been tweeting that meme from the old movie All About Eve where Bette Davis says, strap in. It's going to be a bumpy night. I guess we'll just have to see where it goes. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thanks for listening to One Decision. If you liked this conversation, check out a previous chat with secretary Panetta and the former head of the British Secret Service, sir Richard Dearlove, on global crises, including the Mideast and Ukraine. But look, you and I, I think, can claim to an extent to have become over the course of our careers foreign policy gurus.
Dearlove: And if you're looking at the United States from the UK, you worry about foreign policy issues, probably, and the attitude of the president.
Kosinski: That's one of the worries that I think we have about Trump if he came back. To unlock more exclusive content, get timely updates on crucial global events, and listen in on meaningful conversations, be sure to check out onedecision.com. From all of us here, thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.
