4/7: The Takeout with Major Garrett

And, Ed, I know we talked about this on the program with Weijia last night. But is there any sense, when we think of the Iranian response, we know who the responding parties are? That the Pakistanis are either dealing with or the United States and the Trump administration, through Steve Witkoff or others, are dealing with because the president hasn't really specified, to my knowledge? He has not. Yeah, he has not, nor has Steve Witkoff, nor has Jared Kushner, nor has any other American official that we know of so far. There are reports from the region through Al Jazeera, which is, in that part of the world, reputable and well-sourced organization, that the Iranians are also reviewing this because, remember, it's one thing for the president to call off the warning of armed conflict tonight. It's another for the Iranians to open the Strait. And if that's what the president's waiting to see happen to ward off military conflict, well, that's, in essence, what we were waiting for before this all began. So why would they suddenly do so? And who exactly is calling those shots? Again, a good question, it has not yet been answered. And so whoever it is, is apparently reviewing this offer. And we'll see how it is the two sides communicate with each other, that they're either rejecting or accepting it. Earlier in the day, there had been reports that the Iranians were no longer interested in negotiating. And so it led many to believe that we were on the verge of a broader military conflict. But now comes this Pakistani message, and we wait to see what the two sides think. Ed O'Keefe, you and I have been to comedy clubs, not together, but we know what they're like. And they have an open mic night policy at some of them. I want you to know, for the better part of this program, well, for the duration of this program, you have an open mic. Something happens, you come to the mic. You let us know. Wave your arms, and we'll come right to you. Sounds good. We'll be here. Thank you. Ed O'Keefe at the White House. CBS News National Security contributor Joe Zacks joins me now at the Family Table. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Director for Counterterrorism for the CIA. So, Joe, we're all just waiting. How does this moment strike you? A tense moment, without a doubt. I think a lot can happen between now and 8:00 PM.

People keep asking me, should we believe the president? Do you think he's serious? And I say, yes, you should take this seriously. 100%, I've said that from day one. The president is very serious. I think he's also communicating very seriously and in the language that he's using, that he's not going to tolerate or stand for endless negotiations and procrastination. I think that's one of the hallmarks and trademarks of the Iranians is their ability to not only be tough negotiators but drag out negotiations for a lengthy period of time. And I think that that's what some of this rhetoric is meant to do, both to inform the Iranians that his patience is not limitless, and also to inform others who are involved in this behind the scenes that we really need to get moving. There's a sense of urgency to all of this. And I will note that from everything I understand and some of my own experiences with the Pakistanis previously, they are playing a very constructive role in this. And it's good to see that. When any president-- but since it's only been one, this one-- talks about an entire civilization dying, does that imply a contemplation of tactical nuclear weapons? I don't see that as being the case. I don't see that at all.

People online keep saying, is that what this means? Is that what this means? People are talking about this online, frantically, like, are we talking about nukes? I don't see that as being the case. I think that there's--

That would be a misreading from your vantage point. From my vantage point, I think that's a misreading. I think there's some flourish to this rhetoric. And I think that what the president is really trying to communicate, although he hasn't told this to me, I'm only speculating that what he's trying to communicate is that there needs to be, by all parties, those directly involved and those who are trying to help on the margins, that this is a serious matter. And it needs to be resolved with a sense of purpose and a sense of haste.

You've been around conversations at the highest levels of the US government. Is there any danger of invoking rhetoric like this? Because at some point, you either have to prove you're serious about it or walk away from it because it doesn't give the president a lot of room for maneuver. Well, I don't see the great Iranian civilization, and this is a battle with a despotic regime, not with a civilization. I don't see the great Iranian civilization, the decent people of Iran, of which many, many of that 93 million population are great Iranian citizens, who have suffered tremendously these past 47 years.

He doesn't mean that. You read that, and you don't think he means that. I don't see the great Iranian Persian civilization melting away. I think that what the president-- this is, again, just my personal read of this. He hasn't communicated this to me, nor has anyone else at the White House. But my personal read of this is that he's simply not going to put up with delay after delay after delay. And I think he just used some very colorful rhetoric, to say the least, in trying to make that point. Joe, you said it, "to say the least." I appreciate you coming in. Thanks so much, as always. Thanks. Good to see you.

The Artemis II crew is heading back to Earth after their historic-- it was historic-- lunar mission. They shared these spectacular images from their loop around the far side of the moon. During that time-- it was about 40 minutes-- they were unable to communicate with Earth because the moon, well, reality was, physically, it was blocking the radio signals. It's OK. Everyone was calm about it. Those signals were regained with mission control. And then they received a congratulatory call from none other than President Trump. DONALD TRUMP (ON RECORDING): America is a frontier nation, and the four brave astronauts of Artemis II are a modern-day-- you really are-- modern-day pioneers. CBS News Senior National Correspondent Mark Strassmann joins me now from Johnson Space Center in Houston. Mark, another big day. Please tell us about it. Yeah, I sort of feel as though there were a number of people who have not been following this all that closely. But there have been various moments all along that have grabbed their attention and then kept their attention. There was the spectacular launch. There was the lunar flyby last night, and then there were these remarkable pictures from space. Look at these images. We're looking now at the far side of the moon. When have you seen that before? The answer? Not this close, ever. And just the images of the lunar eclipse, as seen from the far side of the moon. I mean, look at that. What a spectacular perspective that you just don't get to see every day. And we feel as though, in many cases, what we're seeing is a derivative of what we've already seen. But in some cases, this case, you're seeing images that you just haven't had the chance really to look at before. And the play of light and shadow from a very different vantage point has really created some memorable moments. And, remember, Major, this is just the first small batch of photos. The crew was supposed to take maybe 10,000 photos in the lunar flyby. And it's going to be amazing to see what surprises the other photos have in store for us in the days and weeks ahead.

Now, Mark, I am a straight-up layperson. But when I saw some of the pictures last night, there was a small video I saw on, I believe, X, and it looked like there were color variations, to my untrained eye, on the surface of the moon. Did I missee because I was just expecting it to be sort of grayish gray? But, no, there looked like there were actual color variations. Did I missee that, or is that something pretty cool? No, I think you saw it right, and that is something pretty cool. And one of the things that the scientists here will tell you is that that's why they want the astronauts to also make visual observations because the eye can become a scientific instrument and, in some cases, detect those same sorts of variations that you're talking about in ways that photographs can't. And that is why they spent three hours not just taking pictures, but narrating what they saw for the record, just before they came back to Earth and, like all of us, might have forgotten a detail or two. In this case, it's all there for NASA scientists now to consider, to mull over, and figure out what it all means.

Those recordings, those images, gifts for all humanity, for all time. Mark Strassmann, fantastic stuff, as always. Thank you. Retired NASA astronaut Terry Virts joins me now. He spent more than seven months in space. Well, Terry, you just heard me say it. I was sort of blown away by these color variations on the surface of the moon. I don't know anything about this, so I'm easily amazed. But were you surprised by that? I was surprised about it. And when I was in space, I took a lot of pictures of everything. And when you see the earth's atmosphere, there are these lines in the atmosphere between the stratosphere and tropopause, et cetera. And I noticed that my eye was seeing it differently than the camera chip. I'd look at the atmosphere. I'd take the picture and look at the camera, and it was not the same thing. So even looking at Earth, the colors and the shades that my eye would see, were very different than what the camera was seeing. So the science experiment to have the astronauts look and describe what they were seeing, I think is a very valid science experiment. And it'll be interesting to see what they say. I'm friends with several of the Apollo astronauts, and they said the same thing. When you look at the moon, you think it's just this black and white and gray thing. But when you get up close, there's some brown. There's some green. There's different elements, different types of material there on the surface. So it was pretty cool to see that. There's also a really, really thin atmosphere. I'm not sure if they got pictures of that. It's almost nonexistent, but there's a little bit of gas trapped around the moon so what amazing pictures those were, though. What was your emotional reaction seeing some of these pictures? I was so excited. I felt like a kid. When I was a little kid, the first book I read was about Apollo, one of those cardboard books, and it's what made me want to grow up to be an astronaut. Yesterday was an emotional-- or maybe two days ago, it was an emotional day. They had a recording from Jim Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13, who had passed away. But that was really emotional. And then when they dedicated the crater to Carroll Wiseman, I knew Carroll. I know all four of these American and Canadian astronauts. And I was Reid's backup for his first spaceflight on a Russian Soyuz. And so the families get to know each other, and I got to know Carroll. And it was a tragedy when she passed away, so to name that crater was so cool. It was so cool to hear Jeremy read that out. So it's been an emotional time. What was really emotional for me, when they were going into the blackout, you could see the earth going behind the moon. What you were actually watching was the moon moving. The moon is moving really fast. The moon was going a lot faster than the capsule was. So you were seeing the moon kind of slide over and block Earth. That was just really profound. And the colors and the definition of these hi-def cameras that we have today are different than what they had in Apollo. I kind of like the colors better in the Apollo time, but it was different. It was something that we have never seen before. The cameras of today capture a different image than what they did back in 1968, when Apollo 8 first flew around the moon. So it was just so emotional. It's such a great time.

And the human eye adds to that, adds to that perspective, adds to that gathering, that collection, that emotional reaction, adds to the entire experience. It did to me. It did to you. Terry Virts, thank you so much for sharing that. I really appreciate you being with us today. Thanks, Major. We see so much of the worst of humanity. And what we're seeing in Artemis is the best of humanity so thanks for covering this.

That's why we love this story so very much. Again, thanks so very much. Voters in Georgia's 14th district are deciding who will replace former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Trump-backed Republican Clay Fuller is the favorite over Democrat Shawn Harris. With the war in Iran, well, that's emerged as a pretty prominent issue in this campaign, Fuller backing the president's actions, Harris condemning it. Both, interestingly, are military veterans. Our Skyler Henry joins me now from Rome, Georgia, for how this is all playing out. Skyler, great to see you. Hey, Major, good to see you as always. This is one of those races that seems to have a different bit of momentum pushing it forward at every juncture of this race. Last month, because there were so many candidates enthusiastic about taking over for the now former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, it was very interesting to see what sort of rhetoric and messaging that they would have going forward. But, now, as you pointed out, we have heard from both the Republican in this race, Clay Fuller, and the Democrat, Shawn Harris. Fuller saying that he is moving forward with the president's America First agenda. Harris condemning what we have seen both abroad and certainly concerned about how a lot of those things happening abroad are impacting people here in Northwest Georgia, namely things like gas prices, grocery prices, and, for a heavy agricultural community, diesel prices as well that go into a lot of those tractors and trucks here in this area as well. We spoke with a lot of those voters. Affordability is one of the common threads that seem to come up with many of the voters that we have spoken to. They all sort of had a mixed bag, if you will, in terms of what sort of things they were prioritizing as it relates to who they wanted to see ultimately win here. Take a listen. I think affordability is huge. I also think we've lost the ability to have civil discussion around things like education, women's body rights. Gas prices, grocery prices, everything seems to be on the rise. I think the immigration is an issue. And I think people coming here and cheating the taxpayer, and it is the taxpayer that's being cheated out by these groups of people that come in here and are fraudulently setting up businesses, I think that needs to be addressed. And so while polls close here in the next couple of hours, I think one thing is abundantly clear here, Major. And that is whoever wins here tonight knows that they will serve out the rest of the former congresswoman's term but then will have to, essentially, get back into campaign mode beginning tomorrow for the traditional primaries next month. Excellent. Skyler Henry, appreciate it very much. Still to come on The Takeout, gas prices are rising and could reach-- brace yourself-- $5 a gallon, possibly as soon as the end of this month. Also, crowded race for governor in California, will Democratic candidates come together, meaning, will some of them drop out to blunt a potential Republican upset? I'll speak with one of the Democrats in the race. Plus, the first woman in US history appointed archivist of the United States joins the program, Colleen Shogan's project, looking at the history of the American presidency. The Takeout returns in 90 seconds. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to the program. Welcome to the Conversation Corner. New analysis came out this week from JP Morgan. It said, gas prices could hit $5 per gallon as soon as this month if-- this is important if-- the Strait of Hormuz stays closed. Now, according to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gas has risen to $4.14, and that, at the moment, shows no signs of slowing down. Economist and former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore here with me to discuss. Steve, always great to see you. Thanks for coming in. I just paid $4.50 a gallon, so I don't know what you're talking about, $4.19. Average, that's the average, so we're taking other lower price per gallon gasoline prices and put that in there. But you know the White House is on this, knows this is a potential political problem. Every House Republican I talk to says it's a huge political problem. Even some nervous Senate Republicans know it's a political problem. Sure. What can be done about it, other than ending the war? Well, ask me that question tomorrow morning.

Yeah, we're going to know. We'll find out tonight what's going to happen with the Iran situation. Listen, we had the lowest gas prices adjusted for inflation in a long, long time just three or four months ago. And, now, the prices keep heading up. I agree with Goldman Sachs that if this continues and the Strait is not open, then you could very easily see $5. By the way, in California, they're already paying $5.00 a gallon.

They're already, yeah. So it is really an imperative that we get the Strait open as soon as possible. And, by the way, it's not just the United States. It's all over the world. The UK and the Europeans are even more dependent on that oil than we are.

We are not dependent on it, but it is a globally-traded commodity, and that global trading--

Major, I get asked this question 10 times a day from everybody. Actually, people don't realize we're actually a net exporter. If we're an exporter, why are we affected by this? Exactly. Break it down. It's because there's this global demand and global supply. And it's a globally-traded commodity. That's exactly right. OK. By the way-- You were a big advocate-- One other quick thing. Yeah. A lot of people don't realize, you know what else, a major commodity, goes through the Strait of Hormuz?

Liquefied natural gas and fertilizer. Fertilizer, exactly. So this is going to hurt farmers as well because fertilizer prices have risen a lot. And so we've got to get the Strait open. I think it is going to happen. And by the way, when it does happen, I think just as fast as that price came up, you could see it come down pretty quickly. But when it opens is a big key.

Right. Now you and I have known each other a long time.

Yes. Long-time advocate, you have been, of lower marginal tax rates. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill did that. There are big refunds coming. How much of this gas price situation is going to eat into or devour those refunds? That's a good question. And, again, it depends on how long these prices stay high. Really, it's only been four or five weeks so far. So if we go into the summer, and we still have prices that high, then it will eat into that because we estimate the average middle income family this year, because of that Big Beautiful Bill, saved about $2,000 on their taxes. But they may be paying $1,500 more for gas, so it could erase some of the economic advantages.

And those were being counted on by the White House and advocates of that policy to prove their utility by stimulating economic growth and creating jobs.

Yeah, well, look, Trump is making the case that this is short-term pain for a longer-term gain of having a peaceful and more prosperous world. And that is the question, by the way, in terms of politics. Will Americans accept that proposition that, OK, I'm willing to pay a little bit more for gas, $1 a gallon more, to rid the world of a menace? What's your hunch on that? It depends on how long this takes and what the fallout is.

What would you say is, from an economic and also political perspective because you have these dual conversations all the time in this town, two or three weeks, four weeks max? If I were a military expert, I could probably answer that question better than I am an economist. But I will say, though, I do think, by early summer, which is still a couple months away, we will see some resolution to this, and the resolution will be the Strait will be reopened. I want to make sure people understand there's no shortage of oil in the world. Right. Remember when we were growing up, oh, we're running out of oil. The world is not running out of oil.

Just because they cut off supply. So we have just a problem of-- it's called a supply chain problem. And, by the way, what we need to do, I think one lesson of this is let's make America so energy independent that we don't have to-- for your and my whole careers, the Middle East has been this huge problem, dating back to the '70s and the Iranian hostage situation. So we want to be able to decouple ourselves from the Middle East. Well, this is going to be one of those moments of either coupling closer or decoupling entirely. Stephen Moore, always great to see you. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming in. Coming up, it's a very crowded field, Democratic candidates running for governor of California. One of them, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, joins me next right here on The Takeout. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Thanks for hanging out with us. California's primary is June 2nd. Early voting starts May 5th. There are still eight Democratic candidates vying to be California's next governor. Now, that big field right now is splitting the Democratic vote, so much so that there are two well-known Republican candidates, and they're regularly at the top of the polls. Now, this is important because California's system doesn't nominate someone to represent each party. It's just the top two finishers by raw vote total. So if they're both Republicans, that means, in a very blue state, Democrats could be shut out. I want to bring in one of those Democratic candidates, Antonio Villaraigosa, former mayor of Los Angeles, two-term mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'm glad you're with us. I want to ask you this, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, but there is a perception in California that when you left the mayoralty in Los Angeles, that was 2013, you haven't been in the game since, that you were relevant and successful then, but you're less relevant and a long shot now. Why is that not true? Well, it's not true because about 25% of the electorate is undecided. They're all Democrats, one. Two, the difference between where I'm at and the top Democrat is only 7 points. I lost an election in 2001, when I was 7 points up in four polls. And 10 days later, I was 7 points down. I beat him four years later. But the fact of the matter is, this is a very fluid race, and it's been a topsy-turvy race because everybody-- there's only the number you just said in this race, but a lot more people have talked about it-- about coming in. So it's still very fluid. Are there any circumstances, Mr. Mayor, in which, for the good of the Democratic Party, you would drop out of this race? No, because, today, just as I said, about a year and a half ago when this talk first started, I said, look, Trump is going to endorse a candidate. When he does-- and he's just endorsed Hilton-- that candidate's going to shoot up. That happened in 2018 with Cox with no money, and it's going to happen again. This will be a Democrat and Republican, with probably the Republican leading because there are so many Democrats. But in the end, it's a blue state. And I expect that a Democrat will be the next governor of this state.

So for Californians who don't know very much about you because you haven't been in the game, as I said, for 13 years, what do they need to know? And why should they rally to your cause and why haven't they yet? Well, first of all, let me just say this. When I go up and down the state, people don't talk about that. What they talk about is the high cost of living. I just heard the person on your show a few minutes ago, you guys are complaining about $5 a gallon of gas. Ours is over $6 a gallon. And, yes, it's gone up by $1 because of this war, but it happened under our watch. And you're right. I haven't been in office. So what I'm saying is we need a course correction. We need competence and common sense again because people can't afford this state. The high cost of gas, the high cost of utilities, home prices, and rent, and that's why I'm running. One thing nobody says in the course of this campaign is that when I was mayor, that crime went down nearly 50%. Graduation rates went up 60%, built more infrastructure than anybody in America. And so what we need is a proven problem-solver, somebody who's done it before, somebody who's willing to roll up his sleeves. I'm not screaming at people all day long. I want to get the job done. And I think that's what people are looking for, Major.

Mr. Mayor, when I hear you, I think I hear you saying there is something wrong, possibly seriously wrong, with one-party Democratic rule in California. I'll tell you what's wrong. What's wrong is that we continue to enact policies that are just making it impossible for working and middle class families to afford this state and making it impossible for small businesses to operate in this state. I'm challenging my own party orthodoxy. And what I'm saying is, this is a pro-worker state, and we should be. People that work hard every single day ought to be able to buy a home and have a pension. But you can't be pro-worker if you're not pro-business. And, actually, in a state that over-regulates more than any other state, including blue states, we have got it wrong. And I'm going to fix it.

I've got about 30 seconds left, Mr. Mayor. You, when you talk about your bio, you talk about the farm worker movement. Early as a child, that was something that attracted your passion and interest. How have you processed the news about Cesar Chavez in the last month or so? Major, it was a hit to the gut. I met him when I was 15 years old, him and Dolores Huerta. I was involved in the farm worker boycott. I believed in that struggle and continue to believe in the farm workers and their union, the United Farm Workers Union. But I'll tell you something. There's no excuse for what he's accused of and many people claim he did. And we had to call it out, and I did, and I'll continue to do that. You can't just do that to one side of the parties, if you will, and not the other side. He was an idol for me. But what he did was absolutely abhorrent, and my heart and prayers are with the victims.

Sometimes, idols fall. Antonio Villaraigosa, former mayor of Los Angeles, current candidate for governor, appreciate the time, sir. Thank you very much. Major, I do, too. Thank you.

The vice president is on the campaign trail, not in America, in Hungary. Up next, I'll speak with our political panel about why JD Vance is getting involved in that particular race in Hungary. You're watching The Takeout. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back. We have an update. Sources tell CBS News, Pakistan's prime minister is mediating ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran, with Vice President JD Vance serving as what has been described to CBS News as an interlocutor role, meaning a go-between. Sounds important, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Political panel time, Democratic strategist Mo Elleithee and Republican strategist Mark Bednar. OK, there is a thing on Wall Street, TACO, "Trump Always Chickens Out." Today's Tuesday, Taco Tuesday, it's kind of alliterative. It's not a joke. But could there be an off-ramp here, Mo, based on what you just heard me say and the contours of this day as it's passed by. What do you think?

I hope there's an off-ramp here because today was pretty nuts. I mean, having the President of the United States come out and say--

Apocalyptic terminology. Wipe out an entire genocidal terminology, to say the least. Look, if there is an off-ramp, we should take it. Iran has proven that they are willing to wait us out. They have proven time and time again that, look, this has been said before. We tend to think-- Americans in the West tend to think in terms of years or maybe decades. That part of the world, they tend to think in terms of centuries, entire civilizations.

And it's a theocracy that believes there is not just a governing structure, but a religious mandate to carry out that governing structure. That's right. So, hopefully, the president sees this opportunity to take the off-ramp because there isn't a lot of good here for us right now.

Mark, there are those close to the president who say he speaks in this terminology because he believes that's what gets through a theocracy and what remains of that regime. Yeah, I wouldn't characterize it as a chickening out. To find an off-ramp, that's part of President Trump's negotiating style. Use leverage, use pressure to see what your options are. Explore the metaphorical battlefield so that we can decide what to do on the actual battlefield. So, hopefully, Vice President Vance's role as the interlocutor-- new terminology for me, but that sounds like a good spot to be. It might be a new role for JD Vance. And it's interesting about the vice president because the president has acknowledged this publicly very early on in this conflict, JD Vance initially wasn't all on board. He may be the one who wants to end it more rapidly than the president or play that role. Well, the president and the entire Republican Party, the American people, we're all looking for a quick wrap-up to this, too. With Steve Moore on earlier talking about the economic impact, the sooner that the president can declare a win here, the better off the party will be electorally and the better off our country will be economically. So if we see a swift resolution here tonight, that's a good thing for America and for the world.

And, Mo, JD Vance is also topical because he was at a rally today in Hungary for the sitting Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Not even pretending it's an official visit, it was a political visit by the sitting government of the United States, involving itself in Hungarian politics. Yeah, I guess he's an interlocutor there as well. [LAUGHS] I mean, look--

Mo Elleithee for the win. Look, if you want to spend your Tuesday hanging out with one of Vladimir Putin's biggest allies, who's trailing in the polls in his own election--

Viktor Orban is. Orban.

Because his rival broke from his government, believing it to be too extreme for Hungary's best interests.

That's right. And, look, the vice president, I remember a year ago at the start of this administration, the vice president going to the Munich Security Conference, looking at all of our allies, the UK, France, Germany, and chastising them for a lack of free speech in their countries. Yet, here he is today, campaigning for Viktor Orban, a guy who notoriously cracks down on critics, who cracks down on freedom of speech.

And academics. Cracks down on academics and journalists and follows the Putin playbook.

Mark, why is this a good look for Republicans?

Well, I think as a Republican supporter, somebody who supports the Trump-Vance administration, I think it's very interesting to see JD Vance going out and doing this because he hasn't really emerged on the world stage all that much. So this is probably his 10th or 11th country that he's visited. And, of course, having a pretty harsh criticism of the EU, as of right now, the EU still wants us to foot most of the bill for Ukraine. Yet, simultaneously, they're importing record amounts of natural gas from Russia. So they're physically paying Putin right now. But isn't-- But for Vice President Vance to have criticism of them with a country that is also pretty skeptical of the way that the EU works, that all kind of makes sense.

Isn't it possible to be skeptical and criticize the EU without buddying up to Viktor Orban? Well, that's a whole part of this. This shows where the administration is vis a vis the EU. They're very concerned about the direction that they've taken. And so if this is a priority of the president and vice president, then this makes sense for him to go there.

Mark, you get the last word. Mo Elleithee, you got the win. You get the last word. That's how we play it out here. Still to come, I sat down with a former US archivist about her work honoring the past 250 years of American presidents and first ladies. Some of that conversation is next, right here on The Takeout. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back. Colleen Shogan is a former archivist of the United States. You might remember President Trump fired her early in his second term for no apparent reason. She is now leading the "In Pursuit" essay series, which honors presidents and first ladies ahead of America's 250th anniversary. Here's my conversation with Colleen about the latest works from that project and a whole lot more. The newest essay in the "In Pursuit" series, Martin Van Buren, now there's also one I saw, Andrew Jackson. A lot of people sit up and Andrew Jackson, let's hear more. Martin Van Buren, not so much, but he still deserves an essay, right, Colleen?

Well, absolutely, I think all our presidents deserve an essay. Yes, absolutely.

That's kind of the point, Major. You want to catch up with us? But Martin Van Buren comes at a pivotal time in American history.

Why? Because--

What's so pivotal about his time? And how was he able to measure up or not quite measure up to that testing time? Well, he's the successor to Andrew Jackson. So, actually, Jackson leaves him a number of challenges. Jackson kills the bank, as you might remember, the second bank of the United States.

Not from living memory, but I've read about it. Yes, yeah, right.

Some might confuse, looking how old I am. And then Van Buren has an economic crisis that he inherits from Jackson. And that really complicates the Van Buren presidency. And, of course, he has the slavery crisis as well to deal with. Not to mention a fair amount of the Jacksonian policy of Indian removal has to be carried out under Martin Van Buren's presidency, another massive complicating factor. Sometimes, we see this with presidents like Jackson, who are particularly forceful. We see them change politics, reconstruct politics. But it's then their successors who are often left with the ramifications of their policies.

And there's a kind of painful irony about Martin Van Buren in that he was this coalition builder. Coalition builders always try to not only bring people together, that's self-evident. But in this time and place, Martin Van Buren wanted to minimize or at least soften sectional divisions. Well, they were only getting more sectionally divided over the issue of slavery. This is what we'll see from this period forward--

Until Lincoln. With our project, yes, with "In Pursuit," is attempts by presidents, and we often view them as not successful presidents or weak presidents. But another way to look at it is that these conflicts and these crises were so powerful that they overwhelmed the institutions that they were leading. And it would, in fact, take a Civil War in order to solve them.

A series of one-term presidents, not entirely undone by slavery but dramatically having their presidencies sort of stalked and haunted by the sectional divisions that only kept getting more intense over the question of slavery.

Absolutely. And the limits of compromise in a democracy is one of the big lessons that we're going to be learning from "In Pursuit." We think, in a democracy, which is correct, in a large democracy, that we need to have compromise in order to move forward. But, sometimes, when you compromise moral principles, that actually only puts the problem off or, in some cases, makes the problem worse. And that's what many of those presidents after Van Buren tried to do, find ways to compromise a way around slavery. In the end, we couldn't do that, in part because it was handed off by the Founders. And the sense was, look, the Founders set this in motion. They must have been more right than wrong. There was that predilection to believe the Founders had a chance on this one, kept it so that held a lot of presidents and the political conversation back for many, many decades. Well, recall that when Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he did the primary draft of the Declaration that there was a lot on slavery and the condemnation of slavery. And, basically, even though Jefferson himself was a slave owner, but blaming England, blaming George III, for the propagation of the slave trade. And all of that came out of the Declaration because, quite frankly, they couldn't get the signers for the Declaration if that stayed in. But that's the first example in which there was an attempt to deal with it or attempt to reckon with it, but it's put off. And it also flows to the Constitutional Convention. It was a much more lively debate than it was, like, 60 years later, when it had become baked into the economic reality of America and the colonies and those that came after that. There was a chance. It was missed at the formation of our country. And then it sort of became embedded in the economic realities, principally of the South but also of the North. They knew about it. And then it became much more harder to deal with politically. And, ultimately, politics didn't solve it. That's correct. The Civil War had to solve it. Yeah, there wasn't going to be a compromise that was going to solve it. And, of course, we know in American history there was a number of attempts, the Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, the switch to popular sovereignty. But none of these attempts were actually going to be able to solve, which was ultimately a moral crisis. You can listen to my full interview with Colleen Shogan on your favorite podcast platform. Happy Tuesday, everyone, and I do mean that in a strictly civilizational sense. We do keep our sense of humor around here. This is The Takeout, relentlessly curious, reliably civil-- I just proved it-- occasionally clever. Daily Report coming up next.