Geoff Bennett:

The fragile cease-fire between the U.S. and Iran appears to be holding after threats from President Trump to wipe out Iran earlier this week. Meantime, two prominent Democrats said today they're considering running for president in 2028.

To discuss that and more, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's "The Atlantic"'s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

A good evening to you both. Good to see you, as always.

So, David, the president this week threatened to wipe out an entire civilization, and then he took a cease-fire deal 88 minutes before his own deadline. Is this maximum pressure or maximum chaos?

David Brooks:

Maximum malevolence.

We shouldn't let that comment about the wiping out of civilization go by without saying what an antithesis it is of American history, that we started -- the first war America ever fought was to keep sea lanes open. We have always prided ourselves, whether -- whatever stupid stuff we do, on not being a rapacious European-style imperial dominating power.

After World War II, we didn't try to take over Germany and Japan. We gave them money so they could recover. Even George W. Bush, whatever you think of the war, the intentions were OK.

But to threaten to wipe out a civilization is pure malevolence. It's an assertion of true evil. And it didn't work. And so, if you want to know how the war is going, look at who's moving. The U.S. used to have regime change. Now, today, Trump said just so we can stop the nuclear program. And the nuclear material have been unaffected by this war, by the way.

So we're pulling back our goals. The Iranians, when they put forth their negotiating position, they're sticking with the goals they had and then they're adding more. We want to control the Straits of Hormuz. We want reparations. We want you to release all our money.

So they're clearly on the offensive. And so if you ever -- if you think America's winning, why are we going backwards and why are we retreating?

The only final thing I will say is that someday the Iranian regime will fall. And I don't know when it'll be, but someday a failing regime will fall. And will that happen within a year with some benefit from this war? Possibly. But, right now, it doesn't look great.

Geoff Bennett:

And, Jonathan, what does it mean for American foreign policy when the distance between the president saying on social media a whole civilization will die tonight and a cease-fire announcement is roughly eight hours?

Jonathan Capehart:

It speaks to the chaos that is -- that characterizes the president himself, that characterizes how he is running his administration.

It was -- I was on air Sunday morning when his -- the tweet before that, where he was demanding explicitly to open the Strait of Hormuz, you crazy bastards, from a president of the United States on Easter Sunday. To your point, this is not the America that we know.

The American president is supposed to be a statesman, supposed to be someone who is a reflection of our better selves or who we hope to be, who we project our image to be. And, right now, our image is so bad that we not only have the French leader calling out the American president, but the British prime minister called out the American president, basically lumping him with Vladimir Putin of Russia in terms of malevolent force on the world stage.

I -- this gets to the bigger question for me about -- in terms of chaos, is the president all right? Because no American president ever has written the things, said the things, threatened the things that he did in the span of, what, 72 hours.

Geoff Bennett:

Let's talk more about that, because, last night, President Trump shared this graphic video of a woman being beaten to death. We're not going to show that video, but you can see the screenshot of the social media message there on the screen.

And he used this video to attack former President Biden, Democrats, federal judges. A sitting president posting footage of a murder as political content, is there no line left?

David Brooks:

Apparently not. Apparently not.

I think he is spiraling out of control. And I say that in part, and a little psychologically, narcissists tend to disinhibit as they age. And so they get -- they just get more of themselves, which is not a good thing.

But last January, as we watched this spiral psychologically, I did -- because I'm me, I read Roman histories. And so you get Tacitus and Sallust and those old guys, because they had a front-row seat to tyranny. And they watched authoritarians, one after another, Caligula, all these guys.

And the one thing they all said was that they deteriorate. They create a situation around them, when the sycophants have to get more sycophant. Anybody who's reasonable is either dead or gone. And then the urge to dominate, the lust for power becomes drunk. They become drunk on that. And they get more and more daring, more and more out of control, and then you get this spiral.

And our founding fathers, they understood this so well. They read Tacitus. They loved these guys. And John Adams said, if we get a leader like that, he will run through our Congress, our Constitution the way a whale goes through a net. And so they completely understood. And their worst nightmare is now happening.

Geoff Bennett:

And, Jonathan, 61 percent of Americans, including 30 percent of Republicans, now say that President Trump has become erratic with age. That's according to a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll.

The press corps -- I guess we should hold up a mirror to ourselves. The press corps spent two years making President Biden's mental fitness, his acuity the story. Why isn't that same scrutiny now being applied to President Trump broadly?

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes. Yes, exactly.

That has been my question since -- excuse me -- since January 20 of last year. We, the press, spent a lot of time talking about President Biden and his age because he looked old. He moved slowly. He wasn't as vigorous and agile, supposedly, as the guy he pushed out of office and then the guy who was running against him.

And even little slips of the tongue were used to show, see, aha, he's not all there. He's losing his mind.

How does that compare to what we're going through right now? I wish people who have written books -- people who have gone on air talking about President Biden nonstop, where are they now? Where are those books now that we have a president who has given ample evidence, ample evidence that something is not right?

Where are the people who are standing up and saying, you know what, something needs to be done? And that goes back to some -- you were talking about the founders. They were prepared for something like this. What they weren't prepared for was the Article I branch just ceding all authority.

What they weren't prepared for were people from the president's own party willing to either turn a blind eye or enable him to run roughshod over the Constitution. Even when you have got him out there threatening annihilation of a civilization, even when he's started a war for no reason and the enemy is in a stronger position now than it was before he started this war of his own choosing?

At some point, Republicans writ large and those on Capitol Hill have to start standing up for the Article I prerogatives, but also start standing up for the country. I don't know how much longer we as a nation can withstand this. And I know the world is beyond done with us, but I think they're also frightened of us.

David Brooks:

I wouldn't say that we in the mainstream media have been exactly pro-Trump Cheering section. I mean, our business model is bashing Trump. We know we can get clicks and ratings if we bash Trump enough. So we do it over and over and over and again, without having anything interesting to say half the time.

And, by the way, if we did do everything we could, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't make a difference. The people who need to be persuaded are not persuaded by us. We have been doing this since 2015. And so I'm not totally persuaded it would make a huge difference if we challenged his age and mental acuity, because we have been doing it morally for 10 years.

Jonathan Capehart:

We should do more of it.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

Well, in the time that remains, I want to focus on all of the news really coming out of the Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network Convention today.

You have Vice President -- former Vice President Kamala Harris and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg saying that they're considering a run for the Democratic nomination in 2028.

Here's V.P. Harris.

Rev. Al Sharpton, Civil Rights Activist:

Are you going to run again in 2028?

(Cheering)

Kamala Harris:

So, OK, OK, in all...

Rev. Al Sharpton:

I tried to be subtle, but I just figured I'd go right at it.

Kamala Harris:

Well, that's as subtle as Reverend Al Sharpton could ever be.

(Laughter)

Kamala Harris:

We love you for many things, but not being subtle.

(Laughter)

Kamala Harris:

Listen, I might. I might.

(Cheering)

Kamala Harris:

I'm thinking about it.

Geoff Bennett:

What do you think?

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes, she's thinking about it. And why shouldn't she? She was the former vice president of the United States. Secretary Pete Buttigieg, of course, he's thinking about it.

Anyone who's been mentioned as a potential '28 candidate, none of them is going to take that option off the table, least of all the former vice president. Whether she does it or not, that's up to her.

Geoff Bennett:

Is President Trump so polarizing that he could resurrect candidacies that voters already said no to?

David Brooks:

Possibly.

I think this is going to be one of the biggest change elections, speaking about 2028, in American history. There are certain moments where people not only decide to change candidates. They decide to change cultures.

And so John F. Kennedy was a change of culture from the 1950s, a more audacious culture. Jimmy Carter was a change of culture from the corruption of Watergate. Ronald Reagan was a change of culture. So it's not only a change of policy. I don't think it's that.

People are going to be tired of corruption, of negativity, of rage, of American carnage, and they're going to want somebody who practices idealism, somebody who can make you feel good about America again.

And so I don't know who that candidate is going to be, but I would bet on somebody who is as different from Donald Trump as it's humanly possible to be.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart. Thanks to you both, as always.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.