Mike Johnson, Indirect Rule, and Steel Magnolias

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Mike Johnson and Polarization in Congress

  • A Potential Ceasefire in Gaza

  • Indirect Rule with David Lake

  • Outside of Politics: Steel Magnolias

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do it without you. To support the show, please subscribe to our Premium content on our Patreon page or Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, or share the word about our work in your circles. Sign up for our newsletter or follow us on Instagram to keep up with everything happening in the world of Pantsuit Politics. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website.

EPISODE RESOURCES

Our newsletter is moving! Follow Us On Substack

If you subscribe to our Premium Content via Apple Podcasts Subscriptions, be sure to enter your email address here to get your member updates from Sarah and Beth

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

TRANSCRIPT

Sarah [00:00:07] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:00:09] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:00:10] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:00:12] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

[00:00:14] Music Interlude.  

Sarah [00:00:29] Thank you for joining us today. On today's show, we are going to share a conversation about indirect rule with David Lake, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. Beth, you had this conversation with David Lake. Do you want to tell the people first what indirect rules and why you were excited to have this conversation.  

Beth [00:00:47] I did something that I have not done before with this book. I got a few pages into the introduction and I said to Alise, "I would like to talk to this author." Because I am constantly looking for a framework around big picture foreign policy. Just help me understand what we're trying to accomplish. What are trends that we have learned over time from different situations? An indirect rule is a theory about how it is that countries, and particularly thinking about the United States, get in relationships with factions in other countries to support our interests in a way that ends up exerting not total authority, but real pressure.  

Sarah [00:01:29] Indirect rule?  

Beth [00:01:30] Indirect rule. And so that pressure exists on a spectrum. So in the book, Professor Lake takes that framework and helps us understand the past. In our conversation today, I ask him to take it and help us understand the present as it relates to some big pressing conflicts throughout the world.  

Sarah [00:01:48] I love that. So before we share that conversation, we're going to be discussing the potential ouster of speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and make sure you stick around to the end because, you guys, it's the 35th anniversary of my favorite movie of all time, Steel Magnolias.  

Beth [00:02:01] It's a bold statement. Your favorite movie of all time..  

Sarah [00:02:03] Yeah, it is. I've thought about it. I spent a lot of time in deep consideration about this, and it just is my favorite movie.  

Beth [00:02:11] Okay.  

Sarah [00:02:12] Okay. That's just that's where we're at. All. Right. Before we do that, today is an exciting day for us, Beth, because we have moved. We have moved our weekly newsletter to Substack.  

Beth [00:02:21] I hope that this feels like such a refreshing remodel to everyone. I want you to picture-- you remember when they would be like, "Move that bus," or something, and the bus would drive away and you would see the beautiful house. That's how I hope the newsletter feels today. Because Substack allows us to take our newsletter from this one dimensional thing that comes to your email and make it multi-dimensional through all of your feedback. You will have an opportunity to easily comment. You'll be able to share the newsletter more easily. You'll be able to find past issues more easily, and I hope that the newsletter is really valuable to all of you. It's valuable to us. You just think differently when you're writing than when you're speaking. So I feel like you get a different chamber of our brains coming to the page in these newsletters. We send them on Fridays and Fridays only. We are not going to spam you. They are not promotional in nature. They really are thought exercises from us. And then we include really interesting, thoughtful, knowledgeable messages from listeners that come in throughout the week as well. We're going to start sharing one thing that we can't stop thinking about every week, as well as one thing we want you to know. And we would just love for you to become part of our newsletter community that will feel more like a community with this move if you aren't there already. So all the information on how to do that will be in the show notes.  

Sarah [00:03:37] Yeah, my favorite sensation in our work is when we're reading listener email and we both go, oh, can we put this in the newsletter? Like when you read something from a listener that that they've emailed to us and we think, oh no, no, everybody needs to hear this. And obviously we always ask for permission, but those are the best and they're always so enlightening and so smart and thoughtful because that's how you guys are. And also this offers another way to support our work. You guys advertising has just bottomed out. It is disappearing in front of our eyes. It's very hard. That was one of the three legs of our stool here at Pantsuit Politics. And both speaking and advertising is way down this year. And so we're looking for ways that you guys can support the show that maybe aren't Patreon or Apple Podcasts subscription. If you're not looking for more audio content, Substack is a great way to support the work we do here at Pantsuit Politics- the two shows a week in the free feed. Because the newsletter will go to everybody. It'll go to all subscribers. But it's just an easy way to offer some financial support. If you've been looking for a way to do that that does not involve additional audio content. So check that out. All the links are in the show notes. And up next, we're going to talk about some news this week.  

[00:04:44] Music Interlude.  

[00:04:53] Beth, if I were to ask you who was the ruling party in the House of Representatives, what would you say?  

Beth [00:05:03] That I'm not sure that we have one. I think we are more in coalition territory.  

Sarah [00:05:09] You know what, it's true. We almost are like parliamentary right now. I hadn't even thought about it that way. But you are right. If you are mad about the two party system, maybe take a gander at the House of Representatives because it feels like maybe that's not what we have right now.  

Beth [00:05:25] I think that's right. I have wanted us to move in more of a coalition direction. This isn't how I envisioned it. You cannot always get what you want the way that you want it. I am surprised by how this Congress is shaping up. But I also appreciate the pragmatism that a lot of people are showing right now and the reality check that's happening. And if this is the way we get out of some of the craziness, I'll take it.  

Sarah [00:05:55] It does feel like maybe we hit rock bottom. I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure if we'd gotten all the way there, but I think we did. 

Beth [00:06:01] Makes me nervous to say that, but yes.  

Sarah [00:06:02] True. And but I do think there's something about Mike Johnson being in a part of the coalition that was gumming up the works and then having to actually steer the ship, gaining some additional information. Because he's a true believer. They know that. They're not doubting his bona fides. They don't think he's a member of the swamp. And when he's like, no, guys, we have to do this. And there's no one else who wants to do the job. That changes things. And I thought, Beth, I don't know if you read this, but when it was like Mike Johnson's going on the attack against Marjorie Taylor Greene on these evangelical radio shows, I was like, get me the popcorn. And I don't mean, like, I just want to celebrate their downfall. I think it's both wildly rewarding, entertaining, and productive, and moving us in a positive direction. I am fine, super, super fine with the Christian Nationalists going after Marjorie Taylor Greene and being like, that's enough. I'm just saying it. I'm just going to be honest, because that's what coalitions are. Sometimes you're like, I don't like anything about that person except for what they're doing right now.  

Beth [00:07:03] I think Mike Johnson has had to come to terms with a clarity of perspective that he hasn't had to before. I hope that at least this will break the fever, that Democrats are just evil and against everything good. If nothing else is accomplished here, if Mike Johnson continues to believe every single thing he has ever believed, other then Democrats are always evil and against everything good for all time, that to me is a win. And I think Minority Leader Jeffries is in such a smart and thoughtful way, exhibiting to the country, exhibiting to people for whom the Democratic brand is really tarnished, look, we are not evil and against everything good. We are not against working with Republicans when we can agree on what's on the table and when there is a deadline, and when a lot of factors have come together to make that action urgent and important. So if nothing else, I hope that we are coming out of that sense that you can never vote with the other party; that automatically, if they support it, we have to be against it.  

Sarah [00:08:10] Yeah, because the potential ouster looks like it's dead. It's not going to happen because the Democrats got into a caucus meeting, which I would have given anything to be at. Where they were like, but what about all the bad things? And they're like, yeah, but we got to save him because we can't do this again. And we're actually controlling things pretty much. And so let's just go with it. I'm sure Jeffrey said it much, much smarter than that. I'm just giving you a too long did not read because I just think that they're seeing this dysfunction. The other thing I couldn't click fast enough this week was the New York Times did exit interviews with all these representatives of both the Democratic and Republican parties who were leaving, and it was like, what's the one word you'd use to describe Congress? Do you think you need a raise? It was so good. And you can just see this sense of enough from the people leaving, they're informing this, from the people still there, from Mike Johnson himself. Like, that's enough, guys. Like, we have to function. And it's very encouraging. It's very, very encouraging. I don't know how much they're going to get done in these next few weeks, but as long as we're not wrapped up in another speaker election, I think that's a win.  

Beth [00:09:22] The wish that I have is that this potential fever breaking could break some of the potential fever around Donald Trump, because the tricky part of dealing with Donald Trump is how he will play ball with reasonable people enough. Marjorie Taylor Greene won't. That's what she's shown, right? She tried it with Kevin McCarthy. She decided it didn't work. She went back to her original playbook. And now she is really being pushed to the side and losing a lot of capital and a lot of credibility. And Donald Trump is observing all of that. And so he's going to play ball enough with the reasonable people to hang on to everybody. But I just think, man, this is your moment. If you're trying to say we are a serious governing party, why not be a serious governing party in all respects? The country needs it. Would be very helpful right now.  

Sarah [00:10:16] What I really hope-- and I know this is a big ask, because I think the reality is so many of these representatives, if you listen to the exit interviews, they're busy. Running every two years is hard. They're raising money all the time. They don't make a lot of money. One of the best, most fascinating questions they asked is, do you think you deserve a raise? And they all start with, look, I make three times the average salary in my district. And also Washington, D.C. is massively expensive and I have to live in two places. And unless you just want rich people to be in Congress, we need to have a talk about this. But I think it's totally fair. Give them a raise, please. I'm happy to do that. More staff, more raises, more money. You want something to work well, sometimes you got to fund it. Anyway, and I thought, man, I hope what you guys snap out of this. Maybe some of the people retiring could do this. You have got to stop ceding the territory and the state parties to Donald Trump. And the MAGA acolytes, I would like to see a lot of these representatives exhibiting some leadership in their state parties. The Republican Party in Michigan, they're getting fistfights. They need some adults in the room. And I know they're busy, and I know that's hard. And I think that's often why the Mitch McConnell is and has been for decades the default leader of the Republican Party in the state of Kentucky, even when we had a Republican governor. So I think that is really important, and I hope they see that. And I think that that would be a really positive direction politically, not just with regards to governing, but the health of the party itself.  

Beth [00:11:45] I read a piece this morning about Ted Cruz pushing for more bipartisan action in the Senate, especially around the FAA re-authorization, which tells you he's getting pressure in his district. This is a reelection campaign, and I'm thrilled that the pressure is in that direction instead of the other direction. Like, these all feel like really good indicators to me, that you have more people feeling freer to vote with Democrats, to try to get some things done. That pressure coming from their districts this year is the opposite of what we've seen in the past few election cycles. And I'll tell you, I had a door knocker here yesterday from a Republican running for state Senate. And the first question he asked me is what is my top concern about the country right now? And I said that I would like to see less polarization. I would like to see Republicans and Democrats voting together more often. And I just hope that more people are seeing that. And I think they must be for this to be happening.  

Sarah [00:12:40] Well, I was so struck by the one representative (I think he was a Republican) who said, what's your most frustrating experience in Congress? And he was like, when you have 300 co-sponsors and still can't get the bill through. And I was like, oh, I bet that is very frustrating. But that's why. It doesn't matter how good of a bill it is. It doesn't matter how many sponsors. We can't give a win to the other side that fever has got to break. And it seems like it is, and that is very encouraging. And speaking of encouraging movement and perhaps some breakthrough moments, it does seem like there is more momentum around a cease fire negotiation in Gaza. Based on the reporting, the Israeli government is putting an end to the conflict on the table for the first time in exchange for the remaining hostages. I don't know if you read this, Beth, the reporting from the New York Times that the Hamas military leader, Sinwar, who was the mastermind of the October 7th attack, is using some of the remaining hostages as a human shield, and he seems to be the holdup. They're waiting for Hamas now. Previously, Israel has been the hold up to any negotiations or any movement forward, but right now they're waiting for Hamas to say, yes, this will work. We will agree to this.  

Beth [00:13:51] I also read reporting that Hamas doesn't feel as much incentive to come to an end right now, because they believe that the world turning against Israel furthers their cause. And, again, it's like Hamas is not there for Palestinian freedom. Hamas is there for its own interest and some proxy interest with Iran. And that just makes all of this incredibly complicated.  

Sarah [00:14:19] And they're not wrong. I mean, this reporting about both Hamas and Israel perhaps facing warrants from the International Criminal Court is a big deal. And, look, I read this reporting in The Economist about when they're choosing military targets, they set a level of acceptable civilian loss. And it can be, depending on the target, different numbers of let's say 10 civilians to one target. And the highest it got on the United States side in the war in Iraq was 30 to 1. We would accept 30 civilian deaths for a high value target inside the Iraqi government. Which you just read this stuff and you're, like, I guess they need some kind of guidance. You have to have some level of objective standard, but it's just so hard. And especially hard when I'm talking to Griffin about the rules of war and these calculations they're under all this stuff. But they were saying that the IDF had set a 100 to 1 standard during the beginning stages of the war in Gaza. And I thought, 100 to 1? No wonder you have gotten to this place where you are facing condemnation from the International Criminal Court and the international community. And also it's like you want to just scream. And I want to scream as just a person who's reading this reporting. Can you imagine being at the diplomatic table where you're trying to get somewhere and these forces are making it harder and it is so heartbreaking and infuriating and dumbfounding the more you learn about the particulars of this conflict and how all this international input plays into the cease fire negotiation.  

Beth [00:16:12] Well, I'm encouraged that Israel is coming to the table with an interest on its end and winding this down, and I hope that Hamas will help stop the suffering here. And I hope that aid can quickly get into Gaza and the rebuilding process can begin. I pray for the diplomats. I don't know what else to do.  

Sarah [00:16:37] I pray for the diplomats. Yes, I pray for the diplomats. We received a lot of feedback about our conversation about the protests on college campuses that have escalated even further since Tuesday. We had a pretty extensive follow up conversation on the spicy More to Say yesterday on our premium channels. But that's not the only conversation we're having. And we meant to say that on Tuesday we are going to be interviewing Eitan Hersh from Tufts University next week. So we wanted to bring someone who's actually on a college campus and having some of these conversations way before these protests started, to further bring some complexity and nuance that was supposed to be just a very beginning volley as we address the situation unfurling across the United States. So thank you for hanging with us as we continue to learn and think and talk about these protests. Up next, Beth, you're going to talk to David? Like, you want to introduce him before we share that conversation.  

Beth [00:17:31] David Lake is the Jerry Ann and Garry E Jacobs professor of political science and the distinguished professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. His new book is Indirect Rule, The Making of US International Hierarchy. And I felt like I went to school in the very best way, sitting down with Professor Lake, who was very gracious with his time and his thought and helping me figure out where this framework is and is not operating in our approach to Haiti and Taiwan and Israel and Ukraine.  

[00:18:02] Music Interlude.  

[00:18:13] Doctor Lake, thank you for spending time with me today. I would love to spend a few minutes setting up some definitions, and I realize we could spend hours on the definitions of these concepts. But before we get into applying the theory of your book, can you talk with us a little bit about your sense of hierarchy and international relations?  

Speaker 4 [00:18:34] Sure. We normally think of international politics as a system of Antarctic relations, right? That there's no authority or power higher than the state, but it doesn't follow from that, that there's not authority between states. Some states set rules and other states follow. That's what I mean by hierarchy. In the United States, we use the euphemism of leadership. United States is the leader of the free world, so on and so forth. But in actuality, the United States is exercising a degree of authority on the foreign policies of other countries. And that's what I'm trying to capture here in my work, and particularly here in this book, looking at the mechanism by which that authority is exercised and how it manifests in policies adopted by other countries that are consistent with American interests.  

Beth [00:19:22] So help me with the distinctions between and among indirect rule, colonialism, imperialism.  

David Lake [00:19:32] Okay. Indirect rule is a particular form of hierarchy colonialism, imperialism, or other forms of hierarchy. It gets a bit confusing because when we look historically, the Roman Empire, if you want to use that as a sort of a classic empire, some areas of the empire were ruled directly from Rome. Other or the outlying provinces were ruled indirectly. That Rome would appoint a local governor or a magistrate of some form or another who served at the pleasure of Rome and was in their interest to carry out policies that were consistent with what Rome wanted them to do. The latter is indirect rule. So Rome is not governing it directly. It's not expropriating taxes directly, but rather it's appointing a local leader/ruler who governs on its behalf.  

Beth [00:20:27] And you talk in the book about how the legitimacy of these indirect rule arrangements exists on a spectrum. It's not that the concept is either legitimate or illegitimate.  

David Lake [00:20:38] Right.  

Beth [00:20:39] It's that within different contexts, the legitimacy can be higher or lower. Can you unspool that a little bit for us?  

David Lake [00:20:46] Sure. Legitimacy is a recognition by the subordinate people, those who are governed. That the authority exercised by the dominant country is rightful, appropriate. It's a moral, normative concept. Do we recognize the rules made by the United States as appropriate for citizens of Germany after World War Two? Just as an example. So then the question becomes when do citizens in a society recognize a foreign power as a legitimate ruler? And that has a lot to do with whether or not the rules are consistent with the self-interests of the people who are being governed. And in turn, that has a lot to do with the size of the allied group, as I call it, that is doing the indirect rule. So in case of indirect rule, the dominant country will find a group who shares its policy preferences or who has policy preferences that are closely aligned with its own, and it helps bring that group to power. Sometimes by writing beneficial policies, sometimes by military and economic aid, sometimes by regime guarantees- that we promise that the ruling regime will not fall from power. So we find this allied group whose policies are relatively aligned with ours and we help them come to power. Well, the size of that group is going to be important for the legitimacy of indirect rule, the legitimacy of the rule set by the hierarchical power. So in Western Europe after 1945, the United States is setting the rules and will bring to power conservative parties. We help them come to power after the war, and they're almost a majority. And with American support, we sort of consolidate a center right governments across the continent by 1948, 1951, in that period.  

[00:22:51] Well, as a majority, they're voting for a government that is also acting in ways that are consistent with our interests, and adopting policies that are consistent with U.S. interests. It comes to be recognized as legitimate, appropriate. United States then becomes the leader. But in other cases, if you think in Central America, in the early 20th century, the Middle East in the contemporary period, the groups whose interests are most closely aligned with their own were often very small minority parties. Landowners in the Caribbean in the early 20th century, maybe 10% of the population. Military regimes or the monarchies in the Middle East today, relatively small percentage of the population. When we assist a group like that to come to power, that group must necessarily govern autocratically and repressively. We're allowing that group to adopt policies that both they and we want them to adopt, but that harms the interest of the rest of the society, pulls that policy further away from what the majority would want. In that case, the majority of the population is going to both think that the government is illegitimate because it's not doing what they want it to do, and inferring they're going to recognize the outside power as being illegitimate as well. If you think about it, when we back a military regime and that regime stays in power only because of our backing, the resentment of the population turns not only against the military regime, but against the United States as well. And that's the illegitimate part of hierarchy.  

Beth [00:24:24] I am forever chasing a relatable metaphor for things that feel overwhelming to me. So this may be a terrible metaphor (you can tell me) but what I kept thinking of as I was reading the book in terms of indirect rule, is like parents paying for a wedding. That here is a relationship that I have some investment in. And so I make a fairly direct investment and then depending on so many factors, I expect some degree of control. And everyone has different incentives at different times about what that control looks like and how it plays out and when to reject it. What do you think of that metaphor?  

David Lake [00:25:06] I wish I had thought of it. It's actually, very, very apt. A lot of how this is going to work out is how well aligned or how shared the vision of the wedding is going to be between the parents who are paying for it and the couple who's getting married.  

Beth [00:25:23] Yes. And this can play out in incredibly specific ways. Something that stuck with me from your book was the example of sugar in Puerto Rico. Would you talk about that for just a second? To kind of give people an example of how nitty gritty this can become.  

David Lake [00:25:40] Okay. So the United States seizes Puerto Rico as part of the Spanish-American War in 1898, but it's sort of an offshoot. Cuba's the main object of the war, but when Puerto Rico is Spanish colony, part of the Spanish Empire in the Caribbean, and it's captured during the war and becomes a United States possession. American involvement completely transforms the economy of Puerto Rico. Prior to American involvement, it exported primarily tobacco and coffee to Europe, to Spain in particular, under mercantilist trade restrictions that you can only trade with Spain. The United States comes in and we're moving those favorable trade arrangements with Spain. It turns out coffee's not all that profitable for Puerto Rico. And Puerto Ricans and the United States began investing in sugar and creating sugar plantations where there were previously very few in Puerto Rico. By the 1920, the Puerto Rican economy is completely based on sugar. Especially during World War one when the price of sugar dramatically increases. So the entire economy gets converted over into sugar. And the sugar interest, again, lobbying for a continuing relationship with the United States, which is its primary market for sugar exports. So that ties Puerto Rico into the American economy in a deep way that's then in the self-interest of both the United States, but especially the large landholders in Puerto Rico to continue its dependency upon the United States over the long haul.  

Beth [00:27:18] And it's beneficial until it isn't.  

David Lake [00:27:21] Until the nature of the economy changes and so on and so forth. But it's still today why the relationship with the United States and Puerto Rico is actually quite a difficult issue. There are large segments of the Puerto Rican economy which are still dependent upon trade with the United States, which enters without tariffs, without any kind of impediments to trade because it's a U.S. possession. And there's other groups within this society who resent American rule and would like to see Puerto Rico become independent. But 125 years later, we're still grappling with these same issues of whether Puerto Rico or other possessions should be independent, whether they should be retaining this possessions or possibly even become a 51st state in the case of Puerto Rico.  

Beth [00:28:10] Well, so with that general framework, I would love for us to apply indirect rule to some kind of headline news stories and just see what it helps us understand about what's unfolding around us. I loved how you in the book said, "I'm seeking to describe here. I'm not endorsing indirect rule. I'm not defending indirect rule. I'm not critiquing it necessarily. I'm just trying to describe." So with that in mind, I wonder if you could take us through how we might understand the absolute crisis unfolding in Haiti, if indirect rule has anything to inform us as we watch that rolling crisis unfolding.  

David Lake [00:28:52] One of the things to be clear on is that not every relationship that the United States has is one of the indirect rule. Now, in the early 20th century, we did govern Haiti indirectly and then later directly. We invaded Haiti and governed it under martial law between 1916 and 1934. So for almost two decades, very direct involvement, direct rule (as I call it in the book) of the United States in Haiti. Haiti has long been unstable. There's elite factions who compete for power and govern the country poorly. And this existed even back in the early 20th century. In the years before the United States intervened between 1911 and 1915, Haiti had seven presidents, six of whom were assassinated. So the four year period, quite dramatic turnover in the country. Combine that with a fiscal crisis, led the United States to invade and take over Haiti for that period. You get stability in Haiti only under the Duvalier regime, Papa Doc and Baby Doc who governed for almost 50 years. Once that regime falls, Haiti falls back into instability. Isn't anything about a Haitian character or anything like that. It's a society in which the institutions of government are not recognized and accepted and are always contested. That said, the United States today has walked away from Haiti. We're not governing indirectly, we're not trying to ensure that one government stays in power versus another government. So it's not a case of indirect rule. It's sort of a case of washing our hands off a problem and deciding that we're not going to spend the effort, resources and money to try and stabilize a country that we've long been involved with and have some responsibility for that instability. But we're not going to engage with it now.  

Beth [00:30:58] I think that's so interesting because as I read the book, the question that it invites for me is, is there a way for the United States to get involved in Haiti for some stabilization effort or even humanitarian reasons, without creating a new relationship of indirect role?  

David Lake [00:31:17] It's very difficult Because Haiti, if we were to become involved, would be a classic case of state building, which is a form of indirect rule. I've argued in other contexts in state building, you have to go in and you have to create a regime. You have to create a government and an ineffective government where one doesn't exist. And so we would be naturally tempted to put in office a set of leaders who would be relatively sympathetic to American interests, allowing investment, stabilizing the financial system, and so on and so forth. And in fact, adopting foreign policies that are consistent with our interests in the region. One of the great tragedies, I think, in Haiti was that there was a relatively popular leader about a decade ago, Aristide, who the United States was opposed to or at least ambivalent about and didn't back because he was sort of a left reformer within Haiti. That was the last great chance we had to stabilize the country. But we didn't approve the policies that he was advocating and so, as a result, we didn't support him. And, in fact, undermined him around the margins. And the regime didn't take it. It fell. So this is the problem with indirect rule, is that if you want to go in-- and particularly a fragile country like Haiti, if you want to go in and create a legitimate government, you have to make sure it was responsive to the people. But whenever we try and do that, Iraq, elsewhere, Afghanistan and other more dramatic cases, we go in and we put in a regime that will be consistent with our interests in the region, and who will support the United States. But that often has the effect it would in Haiti, as it did elsewhere. Meaning that the regime is lacking popular support amongst the population more broadly.  

Beth [00:33:13] All right, let's go to a very different situation and talk about Israel. How might we better understand the United States relationship with Israel through the prism of indirect role?  

David Lake [00:33:25] This is another case where it's probably not being governed indirectly, right? There's always been a tough case. We want to believe that the United States has influence over Israel. We give a tremendous amount of foreign aid, we back it as foreign policies, and we'd like to think that we can shape its policies, but in fact, we don't really engage in manipulating its domestic politics. For a long time we thought our interests were relatively well aligned. And what Israel did would support the United States, what United States did would support Israel. So we didn't really care who was in office. That's now starting to change. So whether this will move into a situation that's more clearly in direct rule in the future, I think, is an open question. But in the last eight years or so, we have begun to take sides within Israeli politics. Trump clearly favored the conservative government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Republican Party more generally inviting Netanyahu to speak to Congress without getting the support and confirmation of the Obama administration. But then Trump adopted policies that were very much consistent with the interests and policies of the Netanyahu government. Such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem and so on. Since October 7th, we've seen Biden moving somewhat in the opposite direction. But immediately after the attack on Israel on October 7th, Biden fully embraced Israel. But as the war in Gaza continues, the administration is withdrawing its support and in fact indicating that we're supportive of new elections. And those are elections which Netanyahu will almost certainly lose if they were held today. So we're now moving into really a new period, I think, of relations with Israel, where the United States is putting its thumb on the scale for and against various administrations within Israel. Reflecting our own polarization, Trump put his thumb on one side of the scale, Biden's likely pushing his thumb on the other side of the scale. And how that will play out in the future is unclear, but it's been a long time since we were, in fact, trying to anticipate and manipulate possible elections within Israel.  

Beth [00:35:56] I think this is an interesting application of the concept because going into your book, I would have thought of indirect rule as maybe always taking place in a very covert way. The Israel policy is just out in the open. President Trump made no secret whatsoever of how he viewed Israel and Netanyahu specifically. The Biden administration has become more vocal. The most obvious example I can think of is Vice President Harris meeting with Yair Lapid. And so having it be so overt is just a different way of thinking about this to me.  

David Lake [00:36:36] Yeah, no, that's right. But sometimes US rule indirectly and quite subtly, right? In Europe after 1945, some of the cooperation was quite overt. Marshall plan aid, American security policy, support for the government. But there was also a lot of propaganda and covert operations, both in France and Italy to ensure that the communists didn't come to power. William Casey, a former CIA director, his first job for the newly constituted CIA in 1946 was to deliver bags of cash to the Christian Democrats in the Italian election. So that's covert. Sometimes we do it behind the scenes and other times we're quite out in the open saying that we support conservative parties because they're consistent with our interests in foreign countries.  

Beth [00:37:33] Let me ask you about Russia and Ukraine. Are there any dynamics of indirect role at play in that conflict that could help us better understand what's happening?  

David Lake [00:37:42] Oh, gosh, it's right at the heart of the conflict. So immediately after the end of the Cold War, Ukraine becomes independent. And for the first year, up to about 2005, Ukraine is governed by former Communist Party officials who are tightly aligned with and supported by Russia. Makarovych Kravchuk and Kuchma, the first presidents who form party apparatchiks who were dependent upon support from Russia. There's disputed elections in 2005 that bring a pro-Western leader, Yushchenko, to power who opened relations with the European Union, but looking to sort of begin the process of reaching out to the West. When Yushchenko's first term is up in 2010, there's a three way election which brings us to a new Russian-backed candidate to office as president. This is Yanukovych. He immediately reverses direction, refuses to sign the pending agreement with the European Union, and seeks to return Ukraine to the Russian orbit. This is resisted by the population. We get a series of protests, the so-called Maidan protests that break out in December 2013, and eventually force Yanukovych from office and he flees to Russia. So he's Ukrainian and goes back to Russia. Now, in 2014, we have new elections and we have a new round of pro-Western leaders come into power, notably President Zelensky now. Russia responds to this turn to the West, under Zelensky and others after 2014, by doing two things. One is seizing the Crimea, and holding the sham election to annex it to Russia. And they began the insurrection within the eastern provinces of Ukraine in the Donbas.  

[00:39:43] So up to this point, Russia had early on succeeded in ruling in Ukraine indirectly through the pro-Russian leaders. One step broke down, Russia embarks on a strategy of more direct rule from the Donbas. And, of course, in 2022, it invades directly. Now, when Russia first invaded, my prognosis, my guess of what was going to happen is that they would seize the capital and put in place a new Russian puppet, and we'd have another period of indirect rule. That failed. And so, we now have a competition over indirect rule. We are supporting Zelensky, his government. The war couldn't continue without support from the United States and Europe. So Zelensky is our guy in Ukraine, and we're supporting him because his interests building up a pro-Western Ukraine are largely consistent with our interests within the country. Russia, on the other hand, wants to rule Ukraine, either indirectly with a new Russian puppet, or directly if that's the only alternative that they have at this point. So we're having now a contest between two external powers over who's going to be able to put their guy in power and keep him in power within Ukraine.  

Beth [00:41:10] Where is the line between supporting Ukraine as an ally versus attempting to indirectly rule Ukraine?  

David Lake [00:41:20] That's always a fine line and it's going to vary a little bit by case. And it will vary by observer. The point about indirect rule, is that we are concerned with who is in power, who's in office as the president or in parliament of the foreign country. We're not relying solely on carrots and sticks for the country as a whole. But we're engaged in shaping the domestic politics of the foreign country in a way that's going to be conducive to our interest over the long term.  

Beth [00:41:51] Okay. I want to ask you about the China Belt and Road Initiative, because I think a lot about this notion that I've heard growing up more in conservative politics. I'm from rural western Kentucky. I heard a lot of, like, hawkish discourse about vacuums. Well, if the United States doesn't, then someone else will. And I think about that in connection with the Belt and Road Initiative. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that as a vehicle for indirect rule and how the United States should be thinking about if we don't someone else will.  

David Lake [00:42:33] Right. China's in the early stages of building out a strategy of indirect rule. Belt and Road Initiative is an important departure to signal initiative of President Xi. And sort of portrays it as a strategy of building friends and opening trade and improving relations with countries in the old Silk Road all the way into Europe. Through the Belt Road Initiative, it's made massive investments, often in countries and in industries that Western firms avoid because they're unstable. So, extending loans, building mineral extraction, oil extraction, industries are very vulnerable to the internal politics of the host state. So China is developing these relationships, but often in countries that are extremely fragile and likely to be problematic in the future. In the course of doing so, it's being brought into a strategy, the indirect rule. Significant fraction of the loans made under the Belt and Road Initiative are now classified as non-performing. In other words, they're not paying interest and principal. To ensure repayment, China is going to have to make sure that the governments in power are putting China's loans at the forefront of their fiscal policy and ensuring that they don't get repaid. That means China will be drawn into situations where it's going to have to pay attention about which rulers are in office in some of these Belt and Road countries.  

[00:44:22] We've already seen this a little bit with the case of Sri Lanka, where they were backing a family dynasty, built a second underutilized port in Sri Lanka that happened to be in the political power base of the family. And those loans are now going bad. But it was sort of domestic power play, on the part of this political dynasty and China itself. We see a very similar thing unfolding in the Solomon Islands, where China has begun investing heavily, supporting a pro Chinese president who has, with the support of China, suspended elections because of the popular resentment against the role of China in the economy. So we're already seeing China being drawn into situations where it's concerned about the domestic politics of its target countries, and becoming engaged in the power struggles within those countries. I sometimes liken China today to the United States and the Caribbean in the early 20th century. As it reaches out into its periphery, making these sometimes problematic investments, it gets drawn into the internal politics of the host governments in ways that I don't think it particularly wants to, but finds inevitably that becomes involved.  

Beth [00:45:47] Is China poised to upend some of what we know about those kinds of investments through technology? So I'm thinking about how in the book you write about how infrastructure investments, the dominant country that's making those investments has more leverage on the front end than on the back end. Once the bridge is built or once the loan is made, then, as you said, repayment may not happen or that the subordinate country that received the bridge maybe tries to start taking the toll itself instead of returning it to the dominant country. I'm wondering if China's capacity for surveillance and its investment in the provision of internet services, for example, evolves that concept in some way?  

David Lake [00:46:29] Yes. Although, the majority of its investments so far have been in resource extraction. China's hungry for oil, minerals, and others. And that's particularly where it's been investing in these fragile countries that the Western investors steer away from, as I said earlier. So that's the majority of the investment that's going out now from China in these areas which do have this-- economists would call it-- asset specificity characteristic. It's there. You can't pick up the copper mine and move it someplace else. And so the bargaining leverage is on the investor before the investment is made, as you said, and then shift to the host country once that investment is made. Which is precisely why the foreign investor becomes concerned about the domestic politics of the host country, because whether they repay the loans or default on the agreement, tax it more heavily, is a function of the group that's in power within the host society. China's technology sales, particularly surveillance, my understanding is that these have been sort of commercial sales. It creates a long, perhaps, supply chain problem and aftermarket involvement. Just as you put in the surveillance technology, you still need to update it and interpret the information is collecting and so on and so forth. So China may stay involved there. That gives it some continued involvement. But it doesn't have quite that same sticking power as highly specific asset like a mine or oil extraction.  

Beth [00:48:13] That's very helpful. This whole conversation has been very helpful. I really appreciate your time and perspective. My last question is if you were giving a workshop at the white House right now and you were you a trying to say, here's something that I think you, President Biden, and your team should take from my theory of indirect role. What would you say?  

David Lake [00:48:32] I'd say to think long and hard about whether or not the allied groups that we have worked with in the past really do share our interest. We get tarred and feathered-- if that's the right expression-- for becoming associated with sometimes pretty odious regimes. We think that they're going to be loyal, compliant allies who will work with us. And we do get some policy concessions out of them, but do they really share our fundamental interests in a region or our fundamental values as Americans? Take a deep breath and really ponder whether or not that allied group is somebody we want to be associated with over the long run.  

Beth [00:49:18] Well, Professor Lake, I really enjoyed the book. I learned so much from it and I learned so much from this conversation. Thank you very much.  

David Lake [00:49:25] Thank you.  

[00:49:26] Music Interlude.  

Sarah [00:49:36] Thank you to David Lake for joining us. Right now we're going to take our exhale and talk about what's on our mind Outside of Politics. It's the 35th anniversary. First of all, rude. The 35th anniversary of Steel Magnolias. Now, I'm not going to ask you if you've seen Steel Magnolias because that's a stupid question.  

Beth [00:49:52] Of course, I have. Multiple times.  

Sarah [00:49:55] Of course. I think if you gave me enough time and I thought about it carefully enough, I probably could quote the entire film to you.  

Beth [00:50:00] I do not have that level of affection for Steel Magnolias, but I do really like it. It's one of those movies that is just part of my cultural lexicon, right? Like, I can't imagine not having Steel Magnolias in my list just because of the age I am and where I grew up.  

Sarah [00:50:16] So if by some accident of history, you do not know about Steel Magnolias. It's an amazing film about a group of women, primarily a mother and daughter, played by Sally Field and Julia Roberts. The daughter has type one diabetes. Now, I will say I have not seen Steel Magnolias since Felix's diagnosis, which I probably need to do. I'll need to emotionally prep myself for that. And their community of women who surround them. Dolly Parton plays a beautician, Olympia Dukakis plays a socialite, Shirley MacLaine plays Ouiser, who defies categorization, and Daryl Hannah plays Annelle. We just had a conversation about gender and the man versus bear question also on our spicy More to Say. And one of my favorite things about Steel Magnolias now, as I've sort of kind of come to later in life-- because the first time you see it, it's just such a celebration of female friendship and female community and mothers and daughters. And it gets it,. It gets all of it. It gets all the pieces and the humor and the heartbreak and the healing that can take place inside these relationships when the chaos lottery pulls your ticket. But what I thought a lot about recently with regards to this film is that it was written by a man. It's a true story. The story of a mother and the daughter and the daughter's death. I don't think I need to give you a spoiler alert, guys, because it's 35 years old. But it was written by the brother [inaudible] of this mother and daughter. And I think about that a lot. I think about this story that we all hold up as such a celebration of women and female friendship was written by a man.  

Beth [00:52:00] I think that's really beautiful. The takeaway for me from this movie was always that women friends show up for each other and get in each other's business no matter what, and that the getting in each other's business is the showing up for each other. And I think for the brother in this family to have witnessed that and been able to write it so beautifully is just a testament to how powerful that community of women around them was. I mean, it is such a sensitive, complex group of women.  

Sarah [00:52:33] Yes.  

Beth [00:52:33] What a celebratory portrayal of them.  

Sarah [00:52:36] And the actresses who brought these women to life, I mean, some of the best acting you're ever going to see on film. My opinion, but I think I'm right. Because this is just a powerhouse. Sally field, Olympia Dukakis, Shirley MacLaine, they are bringing their entire A-game and you just feel like, oh my God, they're real. This is, I think, the best you get of Dolly Parton in her film performances. I think she is exceptional in this movie.  

Beth [00:53:08] Her marriage is so interesting in this movie. Just the relationship she has with her husband. It is also really fun to watch now because of the costumes. Like it is a visual festival. This film is.  

Sarah [00:53:19] Well, it's all coming back around all that 90s, the matching sets and everything. It's all coming back around. So I have to tell you my two favorite Steel Magnolia stories. The first one is-- and this was in the DVD commentary, I think is where I learned this. The first one is the scene where Julia Roberts is in the hospital, and they're unplugging her oxygen and taking her off the equipment. The real mother of the writer, and the woman whose story is portrayed, was there. And had formed quite a close friendship with Julia Roberts over the making of the film. And her son says, "Are you sure you want to stay for this?" And she said, "Yes, I want to watch her get up and walk away." Oh, God. I shouldn't have told that one first because now I'm gone. I just think that is the most beautiful, heartbreaking thing I've ever heard. I want to watch her walk away. Okay. That's my first one. I shouldn't have told that one first. How stupid. All right. My second one is about Dolly Parton.  

Beth [00:54:22] I think I know this one. It's so delightful.  

Sarah [00:54:24] It's so good, guys. Okay, so Julia Roberts tells a story that they are filming in Louisiana in the summer, but they're filming a Christmas scene, so they're in sweaters and everyone is hot and miserable and complaining. And Dolly Parton is on this swing in a tree in the front yard. She's just swinging back and forth like she's having the best time of her life. And Julia Roberts is like, "Dolly, we are all miserable. How can you be so happy and not complaining?" And Dolly Parton says, "When I was a little girl, all I wanted to be was rich and famous. And now I am. And I'm not going to complain." Oh, Dolly!  

Beth [00:55:05] She's a real one.  

Sarah [00:55:07] It's just all there, Beth, it's just all right there. Everything we assume about Dolly Parton, you guys, it's true. It is true.  

Beth [00:55:16] And also, I've always loved Julia Roberts. And I feel like it's a beautiful thing that she told that story.  

Sarah [00:55:21] Yes. I love Julia Roberts. I love her and I think she's so good in this. I think the movie is not completely unproblematic. It was made about the South in the 90s. There are basically no black people in this movie. It is not a diverse portrayal, but they've done an all black cast, which is also fantastic and I highly recommend it. I think they made that in the early 2000, and it's so good because the story I think is universal because it started as a play. And so this is my favorite. This is my genre. The southern ladies. It's why I like Designing Women,, it's like my favorite TV show. There's a direct line between Designing Women and Steel Magnolias. It's your favorite TV show and your favorite film.  

Beth [00:56:02] That's absolutely true. Yes.  

Sarah [00:56:06] Yeah. So if you have not seen Steel Magnolias, I would like to invite you to revisit this cinematic masterpiece, first 35th anniversary. It's not playing on my theater here, and I'm so mad, Beth, or I definitely would go see it in a theater. It's so fun. Have you ever done that? Have you ever gone seen a favorite replay in a theater?  

Beth [00:56:21] Yes, it is really fun, but I think this just gives you the opportunity to host a Steel Magnolias viewing party.  

Sarah [00:56:27] I've thought about it.  

Beth [00:56:27] Which I think could have an excellent menu and sort of themed vibe.  

Sarah [00:56:32] Yes. I mean, you don't even have to think it up. There's plenty of food in the movie.  

Beth [00:56:37] Yes.  

Sarah [00:56:38]  I had an armadillo groom's cake at my wedding.  

Beth [00:56:41] Did you really?  

Sarah [00:56:42] I did.  

Beth [00:56:43] I did not know that. That's funny.  

Sarah [00:56:45] I will post a picture on Instagram. I had an armadillo groom's cake because I was like, "I don't care what the groom's cake is." And I was like, "Oh goody, then I have an idea."  

Beth [00:56:57] Well, you should have an armadillo cake for sure. And I feel like it would be pretty easy to come in costume, especially because all of that fashion is so fun. And I've decided here in 2024 that the 90s Julia Roberts should just be forever my hair inspiration. I'm working right now toward growing my best friend's wedding hairstyle that she had. Because she just had the big curly hair and she let it be and it always looked so good. And so that's where I'm headed. Julia Roberts 1990.  

Sarah [00:57:25] Well, I'm so glad you said that because today I'm dressed as 90s pretty woman Julia Roberts for summer. So I have on very tailored shorts, a shirt and a blazer. And guys, this is where I'm going to stick. Like I'm wearing a belt [crosstalk].  

Beth [00:57:41] You've found your place.  

Sarah [00:57:41] I'm here, so I don't care what happens next. If we go back to peasant's tops and low rider jeans, I'm not going with you. I'mma stay here. This is how I dress in the summer from now on. I bought, like, four pairs of these shorts in different colors. So just know whatever happens next fashion-wise, I am 90s Julia Roberts. This is how I am now. This is who I am and how I am, henceforth.  

Beth [00:58:08] Good announcement. That's going to be your clothing and my hair. It's fine.  

Sarah [00:58:10] Okay. We did it. We solved it. All right. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We hope you'll join us over on our new Substack page and subscribe to our weekly newsletter. If you have not already, you can find the link in our show notes. And we'll be back in your ears on Tuesday. And until then, have the best weekend available to you.  

[00:58:28] Music Interlude.  

Sarah: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production. 

Beth: Alise Napp is our managing director. Maggie Penton is our director of Community Engagement. 

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima. 

Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Katina Zuganelis Kasling. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Emily Helen Olson. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. Crystal Kemp. Megan Hart. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family.  Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Alise Napp2 Comments