Mark Halperin

Yeah.

Uh, I would card you both just for the record.

If you, if I was trying to get into my tavern, I would card you both.

Before Donald Trump, it's easy to overstate the changes.

Before Donald Trump, the difference between the two parties on national security and foreign policy were kind of fudged up because you had Democrats who were less inclined to use force overseas.

You had Republicans less inclined, and you had people in both parties who were different, the neocons and the Republican Party.

But you had people like Bill Clinton as a president who was for using force overseas.

So it's all a big jumble.

uh and and we're seeing it now in sharp relief uh a lot of people in maga are for no use of force anytime any place a lot of people the democratic party seem to have that point of view so natalie how would you state the republican position and maybe and maybe with nuance because there is on the use of american force what the what the standard is for using american military force overseas now

Congressman, I can't imagine in any time soon a president of either party putting American forces on the ground.

or engaging in something that could be called nation building.

Am I right that there's a pretty broad national consensus now?

You don't hear anybody in the national town square really saying there should be American troops on the ground in Ukraine, or if we're gonna go after Iran, there should be American troops on the ground.

Is that a firm bipartisan consensus?

Yeah, I think so, Mark.

And as you're asking Natalie that question, I expected the same question.

of the Democratic Party and sitting here thinking, I don't think either party has a really good, strong footing on national, you know, on essentially where that red line is and why you would send troops.

But I think you're correct.

This hesitation, I think, doesn't belong to

exclusively to a political party.