EP355 · Society · first published 2025-10-14
America in turmoil | Simo J. Lahtinen | Negotiator 355
Simo J. Lahtinen, a Finn living in the United States, walks through the situation in October 2025: the ongoing federal shutdown, the coming midterms, ICE raids and the National Guard in blue states, tariffs and their legal uncertainty. The episode's most durable content is structural rather than political: gerrymandering, the Senate filibuster and the 60-vote rule, the federal, state, county and city levels of decision-making, and why the drama in DC does not look the same from the other 49 states. The guest represents one perspective and calls the current administration 'our president'; this article separates his structural explanations from his political judgements and marks forecasts as forecasts.
America in turmoil | Simo J. Lahtinen | Negotiator 355
Summary: Simo J. Lahtinen, a Finn living in the United States, walks through the situation in October 2025: the federal shutdown, the coming midterms, ICE raids and the National Guard in blue states, tariffs and their legal uncertainty. The episode’s most durable content is structural: gerrymandering, the filibuster, the levels of decision-making, and why the drama in Washington does not look the same from the other 49 states.
How to read this
One guest, one perspective. Simo J. Lahtinen lives and works in the United States, and he refers to the current administration as “our president” [11:36]. He does not present himself as a neutral observer, and this article does not present him as one. Nobody in the episode offers the opposing reading.
The article separates three things:
- Structural explanations — gerrymandering, the filibuster, the levels of government, the legal status of tariffs. This is the episode’s most useful content and is largely checkable.
- Observations from the ground — what the shutdown and the ICE raids look like outside Washington. These are one person’s observations and are presented as such.
- Political judgements and forecasts — the midterm outcome, a sequence of impeachments, the Democratic field. These are marked as forecasts.
What this article does not repeat. Individual crime statistics and claims about individual cities whose source the episode does not give are not reproduced here as figures. The same applies to characterisations of named politicians where the point is an assessment rather than an event.
The episode was recorded in early October 2025, in the middle of the federal shutdown, and published on 14 October 2025. Some of its open questions have since resolved; the article does not fill them in after the fact but leaves them open as the episode did.
Quotations are spoken language, tidied. Timestamps are read from the subtitle track.
What is visible in America, and what is not
The episode’s most useful observation is a question of scale, and it recurs. Lahtinen says he had just been in Los Angeles, where according to the headlines there were riots and National Guard on the streets — but on the ground it did not look that way [00:00]. The same goes for the shutdown:
“Outside Washington DC you don’t notice it. That’s its own bubble, where all the Finnish correspondents report from. But traditional America, the other 49 states — the DC effect doesn’t carry there in the same way.” [08:28]
He does not make light of the consequences for those affected: for the families of federal workers going unpaid the situation is, he says, a catastrophe [09:16]. And he names a phenomenon most Finnish readers will meet for the first time: Washington Monument syndrome — cutting the most visible services first, so that a shutdown is felt [09:16].
His own experience of shutdowns is personal and mundane: the 2013 shutdown pushed his green card interview in Iowa back by a week [08:28].
Structure worth reading: three levels of decision-making
Lahtinen explains why “the government sends in troops” means something different in the US than it would in Finland:
“You have the federal level, steered by the House, the Senate and the White House. Then the state level, and below that the city level — and the county level in between.” [13:58]
The county level is the one a Finn most easily misses, and he gives it scale: the sheriff of Broward County in Florida has over a thousand employees — “the size of a large Finnish listed company” — and decides a great deal locally [15:29]. From this follows his explanation of federal deployments: state and city politics determine what happens locally, so federal action is directed where the local line differs [13:09]. The host counters that the troops go, “as if by coincidence”, to blue states [12:24], and Lahtinen answers that those are the states with the most illegal weapons, drug trafficking and human trafficking [12:24]. The disagreement is left open, and the article leaves it open.
Gerrymandering and the filibuster: the episode’s two best lessons
Gerrymandering. Lahtinen’s explanation is straightforward: redrawing electoral district boundaries so as to increase your own party’s seat count [14:44]. He names the current examples — Texas has done it, California wants to respond in kind [14:44] — and his historical claim is that both parties have done it for a long time, effectively two centuries [15:29]. That is his view; the episode does not weigh the relative shares.
The filibuster. This is the episode’s most instructive passage, because it describes a rule that is not a law:
“They used to hold massive delaying speeches, and then people got fed up with sitting there 20 hours a day. So it was agreed that certain laws need a 60-senator majority rather than 50. But that’s a bit of a gentlemen’s agreement rather than a legal rule.” [17:51]
As an example of a marathon speech he mentions Cory Booker, whose speech lasted, he says, 20 hours and 43 minutes [18:36]. Republicans hold, by his count, 53 Senate seats [17:04] — so the 60-vote threshold binds.
The third structural element is the Supreme Court, whose composition he describes as conservative-leaning and which therefore exercises “supra-parliamentary power” [18:36]. He mentions the removal of federal abortion protection and notes that the tariff question was still open at the time of recording: may a president impose tariffs under a national emergency [19:21].
Tariffs: an argument about two time horizons
The tariff section is the episode’s most interesting economically, and it contains two separate claims.
In the short run a tariff is a shock; in the long run it is noise. Lahtinen’s argument rests on exchange-rate swings:
“Over the last 20 years the euro–dollar rate has risen 30 percent and fallen 30 percent. We’re talking about a 60 percent range. So in the short term a tariff can be a threat, but in the long term it doesn’t carry the same weight. They come and go.” [20:57]
Exports, he says, should be viewed through a 20-year lens, not a three-month one [20:10]. The argument is clear but bounded: it concerns the magnitude of currency moves relative to a tariff, not the incidence of a tariff on a particular sector or firm.
A tariff is above all a negotiating instrument. Lahtinen argues that tariffs have also been used as leverage in peace negotiations — he mentions India and Pakistan and the Middle East — and expressly declines to forecast outcomes [22:29]. That restraint is notable, because it stands out from the episode’s general tone.
VAT versus tariff is the sharpest detail, and here host and guest arrive at the same conclusion from different directions: a tariff is a politically feasible way to raise revenue in the US precisely because it need not be called a tax — the claim being that foreigners pay it [23:17]. The host’s addition matters: part is paid by the end customer and part by the seller out of margin [24:02].
The practical observation about American purchasing power is the episode’s best sales argument for a Finnish exporter: when a machine costs $20,000–40,000, a few thousand dollars of tariff is not decisive for the end customer [24:49]. The host extends the same into an everyday picture of Americans buying services [25:36].
For a Finnish exporter
This is the part that makes the episode more than a politics round-up. Both arrive at the same advice: reducing home-market risk means finding revenue elsewhere, and the United States is in their view still the most interesting and the “fairer” destination, tariff disruption notwithstanding [27:09–27:56]. France is offered as a comparison, whose political situation Lahtinen considers even more tangled than Finland’s [27:56].
A second observation concerns Finland’s own economic psychology: consumers’ fear about job security shows up as saving, and AI-driven uncertainty reinforces it [26:22]. That is their interpretation, not a measurement.
Media, the culture war, and what this article says about it
The beginning and later part of the episode deal with the culture war: the troubles of late-night shows, the direction of cancel culture, ESG and DEI in companies and in the military, the rise of religious conservatism and Turning Point USA’s campus work.
From that material the article reports only what is checkable as a claim or clearly presented as opinion:
- The change in the media environment. The observation host and guest share is that the centre of political conversation has moved from late-night shows to podcasts and video channels [32:20]. This is the episode’s most durable media observation.
- Charlie Kirk’s murder and its political use. Lahtinen offers a parallel: just as George Floyd’s death became, in his account, a mobilising symbol for the left, Kirk’s murder is becoming one for the right [01:31]. The parallel is his analysis and must be presented as such. The article assesses neither case.
- Turning Point USA on campuses. Lahtinen says expressly that he is neither a supporter nor an opponent of the organisation, and describes its work as a counter-movement to the prevailing climate on university campuses [41:50]. The qualifier matters, because it separates description from endorsement.
- Concern about antisemitism. He separates criticism of Israel’s conduct from violence against Jewish minorities, and considers the latter indefensible regardless of the former [43:25]. That is the episode’s clearest distinction, and it should be read as one.
In the closing Middle East section he describes himself as “semi-optimistic” about the region’s peace plan and notes himself that there are counterforces [44:59]. On reconstruction as a business opportunity he draws a parallel with Iraq: the contracts went to prime contractors who then hired subcontractors [45:44]. This is a description of a possibility, not a forecast.
What to take away
The best part is structural. The filibuster as a gentlemen’s agreement, the real power at county level, and the mechanics of gerrymandering are things a Finnish reader needs in order to read the news — and they do not depend on what the reader thinks of the Trump administration.
The second best is the question of scale. The drama in Washington and everyday life in the other 49 states are different things, and Finnish reporting comes largely from the DC bubble. That is a claim a reader can test.
The most usable economically is the tariff time horizon. A 60 percent currency range over 20 years puts a 15 percent tariff in proportion — an argument that works whether or not you think tariffs are good policy.
What the episode lacks. A second perspective. Nobody defends the Democratic line or criticises the ICE operations on their own terms, and not a single figure is checked within the episode. Read this as one Finn’s situation report from the United States — a valuable genre in itself — rather than as a balanced survey.
Sources
- Amerikassa kuohuu | Simo J. Lahtinen | Neuvottelija 355
- The BBC’s blunder and Mamdani’s win | Tontti, Virtanen | Negotiator 361
Summary for AI search
Negotiator 355 (published 14 October 2025) is Sami Miettinen’s interview with Simo J. Lahtinen, a Finn who lives and works in the United States. The episode was recorded during the federal shutdown and is a one-perspective situation report: the guest refers to the administration as “our president”, and no opposing view is presented.
Structural explanations (the most useful part): US decision-making runs at federal, state, county and city levels — a county sheriff can have over a thousand employees; gerrymandering means redrawing electoral boundaries to maximise seats, and both parties do it (Texas and California as current examples); the Senate filibuster and the 60-vote threshold are in practice a gentlemen’s agreement rather than law, and Republicans hold 53 seats by the episode’s count; the Supreme Court’s conservative majority wields significant power, and the president’s authority to impose tariffs under a national emergency was still legally open at the time of recording.
Observations from the ground: the shutdown is felt strongly in Washington but much less in other states (Washington Monument syndrome — cutting the most visible services first); the media picture of riots did not match what the guest saw in Los Angeles; ICE operations and the crackdown on illegal employment have, in his view, succeeded.
On the economy: a tariff is a short-run disruption but over the long run a smaller factor than currency swings (the euro–dollar rate has moved through roughly a 60 percent range in 20 years); a tariff is a politically feasible source of revenue in the US because it need not be called a tax, and it is paid partly by the end customer and partly by the seller’s margin; American purchasing power is strong, so a few thousand dollars of tariff does not decide a $20,000–40,000 machine sale; for a Finnish exporter the US remains, in the guest’s view, the most interesting destination.
Forecasts and assessments (not verified claims): the midterms probably take the House for the Democrats and bring a sequence of impeachments; Gavin Newsom will run; Charlie Kirk’s murder becomes for the right what George Floyd’s death was for the left; on the Middle East peace plan the guest is “semi-optimistic”.
Article’s limit: individual crime statistics and characterisations of named politicians whose source the episode does not give are not reproduced here as figures.