The Dishcast with Andrew Sullivan

Sally Satel, the author of many books, is a psychiatrist and journalist who just came back after spending a year with opioid addicts in Ironton, Ohio. She writes about that experience, and her views on addiction — that it’s not as simple as a “brain disease” — for the journal, Liberties. We also discuss depression, mental illness, and modernity. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with Sally — on the compelling story of how Nixon got Vietnam vets off heroin; and on the tragic impact that meth has had on too many gay men — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back to last week, a reader loved our episode with Glenn Greenwald:Do you have any idea how refreshing that was?! One and a half hours of b******t-free thinking out loud! As much of his stuff I’ve read, I had never heard Greenwald interviewed in depth or even heard his voice.  I was just so impressed with this man’s courage. He exemplifies intellectual honesty and integrity, to the point that he puts his body on the line. The dude has big brass balls and I admire the hell out of him even more having heard you two chat.  Another reader digs up a YouTube recording from 2013:I finished your podcast with Glenn this morning and went to find and watch the marriage debate in Idaho that you mentioned in the episode:I’m just sending this note to let you know how moving you were in the debate. I don’t cry, but I do let my eyes swell, and over the course of those two hours you made so many statements that moved me to the point of my eyes swelling. Really appreciate your work and everything else.Another reader criticizes my work:Greetings from Afghanistan. I’ve read your work on and off since your days at The New Republic. I credit you for changing my mind on gay marriage, so thank you for that alone. Although we have different views — I’m a Never Trumper, somewhere between Kevin Williamson and George Will — I respect your willingness to debate people who hold different views.I must admit, however, that I vociferously disagree with your thoughts on Iraq/Afghanistan/and the wider war on terrorism. I’m currently on my sixth deployment and I’ve spent nearly five years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully admit that I’m probably biased on this subject. I’ve shed a lot of blood here. I’ve lost so many friends — both Afghan/Iraqi and American — so when I hear you and Mr. Greenwald roll your eyes at the thought of staying put in either country, it certainly boils my blood. I’m aware we’ve made egregious errors. I’ve railed against the machine myself, tilting at the proverbial windmills. Nevertheless, I’m quite reluctant to quit (lose) and see hundreds of my Afghan friends get slaughtered, like our South Vietnamese allies did in re-education camps. These wars are just talking points for so many — another cudgel to hit the neo-cons with or put that war-monger W in his place. But for thousands of my brothers and sister-in-arms, it has been our lives’ work. I didn’t intend to be in any respect glib about that. I’m in awe of the way so many service-members have given their lives to this endless war, and it’s impossible to express my respect and admiration for those not in armchairs debating policy. The question is whether to keep this kind of sacrifice going indefinitely, or to end it, however grueling an admission of defeat might be. Another reader sizes up the rapidly shifting mediascape from his vantage point in Boston:Thank you for the wonderful conversation with Glenn Greenwald. I was struck by your mentioning the recent media obsession with violence toward Asian Americans. You are correct — in none of the stories have I seen a word said about the perpetrators. We are supposed to assume that this is collateral damage from Trump’s xenophobic reign, but it appears to me that many of those committing these heinous acts are young black men. For the media to acknowledge that would sort of make the simplistic narrative surrounding BLM that we’ve been spoon fed these past several months a bit more complicated, so therefore we are left with just the storyline that’s there’s been “escalating violence” against Asians.Your attitude towards the New York Times mirrors mine toward the Boston Globe. The Globe was a staple on my morning doorstep throughout my life — I guess I’m a true classic Liberal deep down as well — but I no longer have faith in the paper. Conversely, The Manchester Union Leader has always been my local paper — but growing up gay and reading anti-gay bigotry on its editorial pages throughout my life did little for my self acceptance.A funny thing happened during the Trump era. The Globe ran story after front-page story as part of “the resistance”, and the op-eds all had the same punchline: Trump is evil. (I did not vote for him either time.) The Union Leader did not support Trump; he’s really not a “ conservative, they said, nor a Republican at heart.Long story short, I no longer subscribe to the Globe — way too woke and only dishing out what hyper-elite progressives want to read. I find the once intolerant far-right Union Leader actually publishes more moderate and Liberal op-eds these days than the Globe does with moderates and conservatives. So much for “diversity”.Another reader looks back to our episode with Mara Keisling:I’ve followed your thoughts on the trans debate a great deal, and I very much appreciate your perspective. But it seems to me that your writing, and your episode, miss one particular point a bit (one which I believe J.K. Rowling was making): Allowing people who declare themselves to be trans into women-only spaces merely on the basis of that declaration introduces a risk to women from abusive cis men, not from trans people.An example. In one company I worked for, with around 5K employees, the bathrooms were set to automatically lock overnight. People who worked late could still get into them by using the employee ID cards, which were key-coded to only let you into the bathroom of your gender. This was meant as a safety mechanism for women who worked late in the office to have a place to retreat to if a man started acting in a threatening way and no one else was around.The risk with some of the proposed legal changes, as Rowling seemed to be pushing back on, is that a straight male predator could declare himself a woman legally, mandate the company honor this by changing the coding of his ID card, and use this as a way to attack a woman in exactly the place our society set aside for her to retreat to.The knee-jerk reaction of some people is to say no cis man would do this, but I’d suggest that those people are not considering seriously the lengths to which teenage boys will go for a laugh, and the lengths to which male predators regularly can and do go to against women.There must, of course, be a balancing act in this. There are clearly ways our society should change to be more welcoming and supportive of trans people. But it seems reasonable to ensure that those changes don’t inadvertently dismantle safety mechanisms for women designed to protect them from cis men — or at least have an honest debate about where that balance might be, and how to minimize the cost.Another wrinkle in the trans debate from a reader:In our corner of northwest London, we have a large population of Muslim families who we struggled to engage in girls’ sports. Many of them are already nervous about allowing their girls to participate in mixed classes for swimming and after-school sports. Any whiff of shared changing rooms or physical contact (judo/soccer, etc) with a biological boy and they would be out for sure.  Emails keep coming in over that episode with Mara, which is probably our most popular yet, in terms of downloads. Here’s another:Reading your column celebrating gender non-conformity, and listening to your conversation with Ms. Keisling, it occurred to me that some on the left are simply flatly denying the validity of any kind of statistical analysis.I work as a scientist at a biotech startup, and I’m used to thinking of things in statistical terms. Nature manifests many phenomena, particularly biological phenomena, as probability distributions. This is true of organismal properties like body size, genome content, immunological responses, and more socially relevant phenomena in human beings like expression of sex/gender and ancestry/race. Leftist political thinkers, immersed in postmodernist theory, take these probability distributions and use them to justify statements like “race simply doesn’t exist” or “sex-based binaries are meaningless”, which is, it seems to me, fairly absurd. Statistical analysis is about clusters of data, correlation, grouping things together based on shared characteristics, and these analyses (like the bimodal probability distribution of “male” and “female” characteristics you spoke to Ms. Keisling about) often don’t perfectly fit the entirety of an individual. But they are still often incredibly useful in making predictions about many individuals, and policy making, by nature of its broad strokes approach, must necessarily concern itself with the statistic.To recognize an individual as just that — an individual, with their own private life and idiosyncrasies and beliefs — is appropriate and just and moral and compassionate. In most day-to-day interactions, it’s not necessary to collect data to understand someone; we simply need to have a dialogue with them to come to appreciate their personality and traits. We can observe patterns without being prejudicial. We can be rational and kind at the same time. Indeed, we need to be.But it’s ridiculous to deny that probabilities and correlations aren’t useful in policy analysis. Biological males are more often physically stronger and faster than biological females. The fact that Sara Sigmundsdóttir exists doesn’t negate that. Ms. Keisling seemed to deny, for instance, that one can say on average a trans woman should be presumed to have a biologically based advantage over a cis woman in an athletic competition, despite that fact that one of the primary reasons androgen levels spike in males is to increase muscle and bone mass. To be frank, that was an astonishing rejection of simple reality.The more leftists rely on non sequiturs and sophistry to attempt to secure what they believe is the moral high ground, the more the foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary right will point to these irrationalisms and denounce the entire progressive framework.As an aside, as a lover of Impressionism, I thought your father’s painting was gorgeous, and it’s a shame he couldn’t devote more of his life to what seems to have been a remarkable talent.Lastly, from a reader who just listened to the episode with Michael Anton:Everybody loves a non-falsifiable argument these days. “Given all the irregularities, there could obviously be fraud and you don’t know how much and so why wouldn’t you commit fraud?” Or “if the same situation happened after the 2016 election, Hillary would behaved in much the same way!” Or “if the Capitol riot was actually a BLM protest, the cops would have massacred the protestors and that proves racism exists!” These are all b******t arguments and they are everywhere, and it's distracting and utterly exhausting.I believe that it is quite obvious that the elections were free and fair because I have some basic understanding about how democracy is supposed to function!  But, of course, I can’t directly PROVE that the elections were free and fair, because the systems are manifold and complex.  In the same way I believe peer-reviewed science to produce conclusions that are provably correct, I believe that a functional democracy will produce elections that are provably fair. And when the majority of a political party is insistent on casting doubt on a systemic process that is so utterly fundamental ... we have serious problems!One thing I would love to see produced by news media is a legitimate, detailed case-study / audit of election process. Examine every aspect of election process in various states (not just contested ones, because obviously the focus there is because of the results, not because of the imagined fraud). I want to know every step of how elections work — from registration to the hiring of poll volunteers to the selection of polling sites to the operation of voting machines to the tabulation of ballots.  And then also an honest, categorical interrogation of the fraud allegations. Can “dead people” actually vote? If that's possible, why is it possible, and what is State X doing to ensure it doesn’t happen? If it is happening, what’s the frequency, and what’s the impact? How is identity verified at the polls? How is it verified for mail-in voting? How are votes actually tabulated, and how do we know that they count?  How do we know that the software on voting machines is secure and accurate in its reporting? Can individuals know that their vote was tabulated correctly, and if so, how?Is each flavor of theoretical fraud actually possible? What prevents it? How likely is it that the scale of such fraud could be done in a way that is impactful and undetectable?  For all I know, this has been done by mainstream press. Sounds like something the New York Times would produce. But then you have an entire half of the political spectrum that is prepared to dismiss such reporting out of hand.It’s just f*****g easier to say “The system works and it’s obvious” or “The election was rigged and it’s obvious” than to break anything down and actually examine things and it's so troubling, and this is why I enjoy your podcast, which I found through Sam Harris’s podcast, which I also very much enjoy, even when — or maybe especially when — I disagree with the arguments.Spoken like a true Dish reader. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

The indefatigable Greenwald needs no introduction for Dishheads. He was once a demon for the pro-war right; and now for the woke left. You can pre-order his book on Brazil under Bolsonaro, Securing Democracy, and you can donate to the animal shelter he started.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Glenn — on the dangers of living as a gay public figure in Bolsonaro’s Brazil; on Trump’s success when it came to foreign policy; and on the ways in which elite journalists punch down with wokeness — head over to our YouTube page. Looking back to last week, many readers enjoyed our episode with trans activist Mara Keisling:Thanks for having the conversation with Mara and kudos to her for having a civil conversation with you. While I agreed with much of what you said, I think “trans women are women” is a much more defensible statement than you seem to believe.  You appear to push back against it because you interpret it as a factual statement about how trans women aren’t in any way different from cis women, which would indeed be false. A different way of looking at it: we should define the term “women” to encompass both cis women and trans women. Scott Alexander made this point beautifully in a post on his old blog called “The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories.”As I’ve said repeatedly, I believe that trans women should be treated as women under the law and by decent human beings. But I can’t in good conscience say they are in every way indistinguishable from women, that “biological sex” is a bigoted term, and that where nudity or safety are concerned, we cannot make some small compromises. Another reader:Excellent podcast. I found it telling that Ms. Keisling struggled in three parts of the interview: women’s sports, religious tolerance under the proposed Equality Act, and where do we draw the line with regards to children and transgender therapy/medical procedures. These three topics are where the majority of people supportive of transgender identity often raise legitimate questions of concern, and where they’re often met with the fiercest hostility by activists. Notice how difficult it was to get a straightforward response from Ms. Keisling on these three issues, as if she were walking a tightrope above a sea of egg shells. Could it be that these areas are where much of the current transgender rights argument falls apart? I don’t think it falls apart as a whole. But I do think treating these legitimate, small worries as a form of “hate” is wrong, and counter-productive. In their defense, I don’t think many trans activists have ever engaged these arguments without dismissing them as bigotry, and beneath a response. They mainly chant, deploy maximal emotional blackmail, and intimidate the press, which is already on their side. When you regard debate itself as a form of white supremacy, you tend not to be very good at it.This next reader focuses on the sports issue and illustrates why Dish readers are the absolute best:I have been reading and listening to you since your early New Republic days but have never written to you because I felt I didn’t have enough specific knowledge to jump in. Having listened to your conversation with Mara Keisling, it is odd to me that the topic I do have specific knowledge about is women versus men in billiards, which Mara speculated about.From 2001 to 2005, I was President of the United Poolplayers of America (UPA), the governing body of men’s professional pool in the US. During that time, I promoted the World Summit of Pool that was televised on ESPN from Grand Central Terminal in NYC. In an effort to sell more tickets, I suggested that we let the women compete as well. Well, the guys couldn’t have cared less. It was the women who were adamantly opposed. I had several conversations with Jeanette Lee, aka the Black Widow, the greatest American woman billiards player. She was the one who made the case that the guys have an overwhelming physical advantage. The advantage has nothing to do with the guys being taller, as Mara suggested. (Efren Reyes, the best poolplayer in the world, is 5’7”.) While the women are equal shot-makers and just as cool under pressure, the guys have a big advantage on the break. Because they are stronger and can generate more power, they will pocket a ball on the break more frequently, which allows them to continue shooting. In a “race to eleven”, if a woman fails to pocket a ball just one or two times less than her opponent, then that’s the whole ballgame.Back in 2003, Jeanette actually gave me several academic studies that she had researched. Sorry to say, but Mara is just not correct when she says there aren’t real studies on the topic of the advantages that boys have in sports from an early age. All these years later I have found these articles in my file cabinet:* “Longitudinal Change in Throwing Performance: Gender Differences”* “Development of Gender Differences in Physical Activity”* “Transcending Tradition: Females and Males in Open Competition”One of the studies, however, does make an interesting point on why girls might want to compete with boys (and presumably trans girls.) Girls who compete against boys are forced to up their games and their skills improve much more quickly.During your discussion with Mara, she also said that people thought Martina Navratilova had an advantage because she was a lesbian. Nobody within the world of tennis thought that. They all knew she practiced almost exclusively against guys.  That, and she was the first player to hit the gym and rigorously lift weights. I’ve heard Chris Evert talk about how she was then forced to lift weights in order to keep up and that made her a much better player.If a top women’s billiards player were to adopt Navratilova’s training regimen, no doubt they could rise to the top of the women’s rankings and perhaps give the guys a run for their money.Another reader turns to a different sport:I’m an avid tennis fan. Both Serena and Venus in the prime of their fitness faced an aging male tennis pro ranked 203 in the world in the twilight of his career after he had two beers. It’s a well-documented event from 1998. He absolutely destroyed them both. One female trans tennis player ranking anywhere in the top 500 getting on the women’s tour would absolutely destroy the WTA (Women’s Tennis Association). Every Grand Slam trophy, every Masters 1000 event, every Olympic match. This is proven with objective metrics of the game. Serve speed, groud-stroke speed, reflexes. There’s absolutely no argument here that gender can be mixed in tennis. I don’t know about other sports, but I’m assuming the same principle applies.This soccer headline says it all: “Australian women’s national team lose 7-0 to team of 15-year-old boys.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Mara is a brilliant transgender rights activist and founding executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. I’m so grateful for her willingness to have a robust exchange of views on some issues, along with much agreement as well. Every few weeks, I hope to add another perspective to the debate over trans identity, a subject that has suffered from the mainstream media’s horror of open debate. Dana Beyer kicked the series off. You can listen to the episode with Mara Keisling right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts of Mara — on the tensions within the new Equality Act; on the conflation of sex and gender in public policy; and on the fairness of trans athletes competing with cis athletes — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back, here’s a question from a reader prompted by our episode with Kmele Foster:You expressed your frustration with terms like “whiteness” or “white values”, which mean nothing more specific than anything the speaker disapproves of at that moment. Whilst I agree, I’m not sure this is a new phenomenon. When I was at university, people on the left would use the phrase “bourgeois values” in the same way. Whilst the points of reference are rooted in identity politics rather than economics, and the underlying ideology is critical race theory rather than Marxism, is it not the same phenomenon? And, if so, do you believe they are interchangeable or is this generation’s activism significantly different?My concern is associating a whole slew of characteristics to a single “race” and erasing all the variety and diversity within that population is, itself, a form of racism. Values are not black white; they are human, and available to all. Last week’s episode with pro-Trump intellectual Michael Anton elicited the most email of any episode we’ve had so far. A reader writes:I appreciated your discussion with Anton, as it can be useful to hear the best defense of even (and perhaps especially) those things one finds largely indefensible (allowing me to check my Trump Derangement Syndrome levels, and all that). But boy, that sure didn’t move the needle. Anton’s defense of Trump boiled down to a combination of relentless whataboutism and what appeared to be, if we’re being extremely generous, highly selective “epistemological humility,” as he puts it. I came away with the impression that, whatever his rationalizations, what was driving him was largely the same motive driving my Trump-supporting relatives: a desire to own the libs/spite the elites/stick it to the Dems. Why that particular tribal motive is so powerful, and what can be done about it — in conservative and liberal circles alike — seems important to figure out if we’re to keep the republic chugging along.Another reader focuses on our fiery exchange over the 2020 election:Thank you for interviewing Michael Anton. I’d never before listened to a person espouse theories of voter fraud who actually has the mental resources and willingness to debate the topic, so the discussion was very revealing. I do wish that you, or someone, would ask him why he feels that our “loosey goosey” voter registration system (to use his words) is being massively exploited only by Democrats. If the fraud is not baked at the voting machine level (which Anton conceded) and is instead organic, then why does this organic fraud only cut in one direction? Anton casually asserts that half of the electorate (his side) is honest, while the other half is widely corrupt on an individual, person-by-person level: millions of people individually deciding to cheat the system. Anton himself has written a response to his Dish experience. Check it out. Another reader is “disturbed by the ongoing ‘bad election’ narrative”:As someone who has worked elections, may I suggest the doubters please work a poll? My experience is people of all political ideologies work together to make free and fair democracy happen. I am in Georgia. Workers here risked their health to open the polls. Then they spent long hours counting and recounting and recounting. Then they reset the whole thing for a 5 January run off. All this during the holiday season! The Senate double run-off is proof Georgia was free and fair. Georgia — a state run by Republicans — spent $100 million between 2016 and 2020 buying new voter-verified paper and digital voting machines. If Senators Purdue and Loeffler had won reelection, the Democrats would not have challenged the result. They would had gone back to discussing why they get 48-49% but never crack 50%.This next reader looks to other parts of the episode:Two things that really stuck out that I would’ve loved to hear Anton address as he played his whataboutism rhetorical games with you:* During his campaign in 2016, Trump promised to not only get rid of the budget deficit, but to eliminate all US debt within 8 years. This wasn’t a throwaway promise. It was on his website, and I know people who voted for him precisely for this reason.* Anton grotesquely underplayed the entire attack on the Capitol. He did this by focusing solely on the deaths, but there have been hundreds of serious injuries to Capitol and DC police officers caused directly by the insurrectionists, and obviously plenty of videos documenting some of these attacks. I’d love to hear him defend these as well, as if this was some sort of fun lark and people went in because they didn’t know there was a Visitors Center (give me a f*****g break!).Anyway, an enraging but enlightening discussion. Makes me skeptical of any reconciliation any time soon.Lastly, some much deserved praise for Anton:I really enjoyed the episode, and Michael Anton has the kind of perspective I never really hear in my bubble, so I found it fascinating. While I think he was wrong about virtually everything over the first half of the podcast, he did have some insightful criticisms of the left toward the end. Thank you for your effort to provide fans of the Dish with some much needed intellectual diversity. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

One of the leading intellectuals of Trumpism, Michael was a senior national security official in the Trump administration and is most widely known for writing “The Flight 93 Election”, an essay endorsing Trump in 2016. He’s out with a new essay, “The Continuing Crisis”, and a recent book, “The Stakes”.I think you’ll find our debate, er, lively. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my chat with Michael — on what he believes are Trump’s greatest achievements in office; and how he thinks Trump caved to the GOP establishment — head over to our YouTube page.A lovely note from a reader about the Dishcast:My husband and I listen to your podcast separately. We then discuss it on our weekly date night. I learn something new in each episode. We miss you on Real Time. Thanks for brightening our Covid mindsets.Another reader dissents over the still-new format:One tiny piece of feedback: Please, please, please stop interrupting your interviewees/guests. I found myself thinking during the Kmele Foster podcast, “Andrew stop interrupting him and let him finish his response on the question you JUST asked him!” There are so many platforms (like Bill Maher’s) that are meant to be a more strident debate between commentators where it is more of an interruption and zinger battle between them, and that makes sense. But in a 1:1 interview for an hour-long podcast, I expect the pace to be slower and for the two people to not interrupt each other.This is not the first time a reader has told me this. I get absorbed into the conversation too easily and can forget I’m broadcasting. I will try harder. Another reader “very much enjoyed your discussion with Kmele Foster” and dissents over a passing comment of mine:I particularly enjoyed those parts that touched on the power of words and mob rule; the concepts of “use vs mention”, “intent vs impact” and the power the mob has in exercising its almost ritualistic cancelling of a person’s career.It was interesting to me, therefore, that you stated George Floyd was murdered. Interestingly — actually, surprisingly — your statement ignores the very concepts upon which much of your discussion with Mr. Foster was focused: intent and the need to defend against mob rule.Murder is when one person kills another (unlawfully) with the intention to cause either death or serious injury (UK). In the States, I understand it to be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought — and malice aforethought means the “intention to kill or harm”.  Intent matters, and the case of George Floyd has not yet been adjudicated. Mr. Floyd was killed. From what the general public has seen, his killing was appalling, horrific and heinous, but we do not yet know if he was murdered.Defending the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is vital. Intent in all its forms should also be defended. Otherwise the mob rules.Point taken. (There’s also the complicating factor of fentanyl in Floyd’s bloodstream at the time of death — which may be irrelevant but will still doubtless come up at the trial.) Another reader continues on the theme of preventing mob rule:I totally second the concerns of Kmele Foster. Before social media, the methods that political victors could use to suppress the other side in the USA was limited mostly to government structures. The separation of powers and the guarantees of individual rights stymie the urge to suppress others through government. When these rights are violated, individuals can seek redress through the legal system. It is not a perfect system, and it often takes longer than it should, but our civilization depends on most citizens believing the system will ultimately work.Social media has dangerously changed that by bypassing government. I fear that cancel culture and the example of groups like Antifa — which can coordinate on social media and behave as they do with few consequences — is shaking the belief in our system of government. There are new methods of suppression, outside of our legal structures. Many feel a vulnerability they did not feel a few years ago.Another reader illustrates the divisiveness of woke initiatives in the workplace, even among friends:I wanted to share a story with you after listening to your conversation with Kmele Foster. I work for a very well-known big tech company in the Bay Area. (I can hardly stand CA, from Texas originally — two different worlds.) A few weeks ago, the company sponsored a week-long summit for women of color. The summit description invited all groups of women or people who identify as women that were: black, latina, asian, native american, muslim, etc. — all listed there except white. So while they didn’t say “anyone who isn’t white”, the message was clear. I am Lebanese (not a muslim) and have never thought of myself as white until the 2020 census included Lebanese ... as white (?).The summit invited anyone outside of these listed groups to join as allies but also made it clear that swag was not available for allies. I didn’t join for numerous reasons.But a colleague who is Mexican-American did, and when next we spoke, I asked her how it went. She was most impressed by the keynote speaker’s explanation of whitewashing. She explained that having to change her look and the way she speaks to fit into corporate America is an example of whitewashing. I noted back that everyone has to change to accommodate office and business formalities, i.e., I have to leave myself at home too. Then I pressed her to say more about whitewashing so I could understand what it is. She told me that as a “white woman,” I couldn’t possibly understand. This is someone with whom I have exchanged stories of our families and childhoods. We’ve laughed more than a few times about how much we actually have in common. I am Lebanese. She is Mexican. We were both raised Catholic by big families and have many siblings. This is also a women who recently sold her house in SF for 3 million. I am still trying to pay off my student loans.In your conversation with Kmele, it was mentioned that calling people out and asking them to explain is a good first step. I try to do that where I can AND find that most folks, when pressed, CAN’T explain. But at work, I can only press so much without putting my livelihood in jeopardy.  There must be ways for people in my circumstance to counter this effectively, without having to put our families at risk. One last reader has a suggestion for an upcoming topic and guest:Just finished listening to the pod with Kmele Foster — another early gem in this project. I’m also in the midst of reading Cynical Theories, and I was struck by how much the conversation with Kmele overlaps with the dangers of applied postmodernism and critical race theory highlighted in the book. The rejection of reason and objectivity in favor of opportunistic groupthink, the emphasis on superficial and contrived identity-based power dynamics over individual experience, the dismissal of intent in favor of (often disingenuous) wailing over subjective impact — all came through in your discussion. If only more of us could approach these issues with the courage and intellectual honesty you and Kmele called for at the close. Along those lines, it would be interesting if you could find a guest to dissect some of the similar overreaches of the me-too movement. I was struck while listening to this pod by how many of the themes you and Kmele criticized with respect to race are also prevalent in some me-too cases, especially those where unprovable subjective responses to awkward situations end up ruining the lives of men and boys who actually have a lot less power than the woke left will admit — all in furtherance of a different kind of identity-based reckoning. Emily Yoffe comes to mind as someone who has shown some guts in countering the prevailing narrative.  Emily is a great idea. Thanks for prodding me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Kmele is co-host of the brilliant and funny Fifth Column podcast and the lead producer at Free Think. You may have seen him on a recent episode of Real Time. A friend and an inspiration, Kmele really opens up in this conversation.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Kmele — on the tensions between African-Africans and black immigrants; on the intractable problem of the racial wealth gap; and on the purging of the NYT’s Donald McNeil — head over to our YouTube page.This week we didn’t get many notable responses to our episode with David Wallace-Wells — just lots of praise for David — but here are a handful of good emails from readers on other topics. One writes:The beautiful passage in your latest essay that begins with “I prefer another form of liberation…” should be required reading for students along with the classics. But the term you throw out at the end, “neoracists”, caught my attention as perhaps having greater significance. What reasonable folks need to combat these woke zealots are quick, intuitive arguments, phrases and most of all, labels. The Woken fight their battles chiefly with labels. “Racist” is the big one. Why not “neoracist” for us? That term, especially without a hyphen, is relatively nonexistent on a one-minute Google search. (Hey, I do my research!) It’s perfect. It immediately puts them on the defensive while they scramble to explain why they aren’t racists. It completely turns the table.John McWhorter has seized on “neoracist” for his new book. And speaking of new terms, Charlie Sykes floats “Never Again Trumpers”.Another reader articulates a core philosophical point about being a minority, an outsider, a rebel:As a child of the ‘60s, I came of age during the time when my generation was busy giving the finger to our elders, shocking them with long hair and telling them they could park their sexual repression in their own bedrooms, not in ours. We were content to be outsiders. If we grew our hair long, we did not believe we enjoyed a right to be employed with it. If we identified as free lovers, we did not expect our elders to endorse it, let alone like it. Today it is different. For many so-called rebels, it’s not that they are free to go their own way, but that society must come with them. Their identity is an absolute. Not only may they grow their hair long, but their employer is obligated to accept it. Increasingly the employer is not even allowed to enjoy the right to object to it.This next reader makes an ever-necessary case for classical liberalism — especially needed during impeachment week:I’ve held characteristically liberal positions on most political matters throughout my adult life and I’ve voted almost exclusively for Democrats for 20 years. Yet in recent years I’ve become more of an institutionalist and even a bit of a small ‘c’ conservative. Your recent newsletter, “The Big Lie That Must Die”, reminded me of why I’ve gone down that path in recent years.I’m a Foreign Service Officer. I served in Guatemala from 2014-2016. In reading a book about Guatemalan history, I noticed a disturbing trend. When liberals came to power, they threw conservatives in prison. When a conservative such as Rafael Carrera took power in the mid-1800s, he was named presidente vitalicio — president for life — which effectively locked liberals out of power. This pattern continued for well over a century. Liberals criminalized conservatives until some sort of revolution took place. And then conservatives criminalized liberals until yet another sort of revolution took place. To quote from the book’s description of the Cold War battle between the left and the right: “On neither side was their tolerance or acceptance of the actual game of politics, because tyranny was the only way to ensure the defeat of your opponents.”The implication is clear: Tyranny is the attempt to destroy politics, because politics is the never-ending settlement of power between coalitions of people who have different interests. This is what makes classical liberalism so powerful. Instead of ferocious violence on behalf of the “correct” set of interests, liberalism accepts that there will always be a competition of interests in society. So we create baseline political rights for individuals, we diffuse power across institutions, and we live to fight another day when our side loses an election. Because coalitions will shift and our constitutional rights protect us from those who happen to hold power today.But that arrangement is fragile. It’s precious. And it recalls a line from American Hustle, which I actually saw in a movie theater in Guatemala: “You know what, if the country were run by people like you, Irving Rosenfeld, we’d be living in Eastern Europe or Guatemala.”And perhaps we are. I suspect there is a frightening number of American conservatives who would happily criminalize the left, just as I suspect there is a frightening number of American progressives who would happily criminalize the right. This is not good for the long-term health of society. And the reason I write this to you is because you have been clear and consistent on the importance of liberalism, the fragility of liberalism, and the staggering number of Americans who seem to have no concept or concern for liberalism.So I’m glad that you are raising the alarm. I don’t know whether it’s a fight we’re going to win, but it’s a fight worth having. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

David is a deputy editor at New York magazine and one of the sharpest journalists covering the Covid19 pandemic. (He edited my essay on plagues this past summer.) He’s also a clear-headed expert on climate change and the author of The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. This pod is full of fact, insight and speculation on the virus, the vaccines, and the new variants. If you need to get your head wrapped around where we are in this plague, check it out.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with David — on the threat posed by vaccine skeptics; and on whether lockdowns did more harm than good — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader sounds off on last week’s episode:I was so pleased to hear Christopher Caldwell on your podcast! I agree he is one of the sharpest conservative thinkers and a first-rate stylist. In fact, I’ve become a bit obsessed with his work. I’ve recently written a lengthy review of Age of Entitlement for a specialized scholarly journal, to be published soon. (So, if I'm lucky, maybe a couple dozen people will read it.) You and I have never met, but I am the editor of a book that features essays by both you and Caldwell: American Epidemic: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Opioid Crisis (New Press, 2019).I have a few thoughts about your podcast interview. First, I wish you had pushed back at one point. Caldwell said that Age of Entitlement is “not a manifesto,” but rather “a work of history.” I suspect you will agree that it is often difficult, while reading that book, to separate Caldwell (the historian) from Caldwell (the rancorous, sharp-witted partisan). Age of Entitlement is not just an analysis of the continually broadening scope of civil rights since the 1960s. It is also, very plainly, a jeremiad against the post-1964 civil rights movement. He’s trying to have it both ways. Second, you occasionally talk over your guests when you’re excited about something! Caldwell said he liked the idea of the 1776 Commission, and I think he was about to talk about it more substantively. I would have liked to have heard him assess the Report’s quality and execution. But he didn’t finish his thought. You declared the Report was execrable garbage, then the conversation moved in a different direction.From another reader who listened to the episode:Caldwell claims that civil rights legislation has created a system whereby courts can overrule democratic majorities, but the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent rule by democratic majorities. George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote but got to be president and appoint a bunch of judges that were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. That the resulting court affirmed things Caldwell is uneasy with, like same-sex marriage, is no different than them carving out religious exemptions that I am uneasy with, such as allowing discrimination against same-sex couples trying to adopt children. Importantly, that is the system working as intended. Neither of us gets entirely what we want and so we are motivated to cast our votes for representatives we feel will pass laws and confirm judges that we like, but that tension cannot be resolved because it is fundamental to our system of government. Conservatives like Caldwell seem to be arguing against the entire constitutional system of American representative democracy because it doesn’t always deliver the results a bare majority of people want — in same way Woke critical theory adherents want to tear down the system because it sometimes delivers the results a bare majority of people want. They are both upset about the necessity of empowering minorities in a democracy. How are the two views fundamentally any different?Another reader digs into some legal history:I listened to the podcast and thank you for the gentle challenging you did, which helped illuminate the argument. I was startled by Caldwell’s apparent lack of acknowledgement during the podcast that there might be strong reasons for a civil rights regime in places outside of the South, e.g., in the context of housing policies in northern cities.But the place he really lost me was in his description of the Griggs v. Duke Power ruling, which introduced the legal theory of disparate impact. Yes, nominally, the ruling said a neutral rule that just coincidentally causes a disparate impact could be unconstitutional. But the actual rule employed by the Duke Power Company was in fact no such coincidence, as was transparent to the Court and all litigants. Here's Richard Primus describing the background:The defendant in Griggs, the Duke Power Company, had officially discriminated against blacks until July 2, 1965, which happened to be the date that Title VII became effective. On that date, the company ceased its official discrimination but adopted a rule that only high school graduates who passed two written aptitude tests could be employed anywhere other than in its lowest wage, lowest status division. These requirements had the effect of preventing all but a few blacks from gaining employment outside the one division where blacks had been allowed before Title VII. This tactic was an obvious subterfuge for intentional discrimination. Nonetheless, the district court found as a fact that the company had no discriminatory motive in adopting the high school diploma and written testing requirements. The Supreme Court accordingly faced a choice between overturning a factual finding or imposing liability without respect to the defendant's intent, and it chose the latter. One way of reading Griggs and later cases is that they authorize courts to recognize, and forbid “obvious subterfuge[s] for intentional discrimination.” That’s the kind of stuff the doctrine is most often actually used against.Another reader looks to an episode from December:I had some time to catch up on your podcasts. I noticed the sound quality has improved, which is great, and even though they may be a tad on the longish side, the conversations are really interesting. So I listened to your conversation with Damir Marusic & Shadi Hamid. About 15 minutes before the end, you talk about the absence of religion in the world. You mention continental Europe (where I live), call us continentals “dead inside” and quote Francis Fukuyama’s statement that we “are shadows of human beings”. Because “we” do not have religion.Well ... thanks!I could just get on with my life and chalk your insights up to Christian and/or British delusions or whatnot. But something about it bothered me, because I see it reflected in the English reaction to the Brexit negotiations with the EU. You situate the border between people who are dead inside and the people who are still (?) “alive inside” in the English Channel and the North Sea. How convenient. This merits some soul-searching on your part. When is the last time you visited Europe, besides England? You spoke on your podcast with a soft authority on the subject of European zombiedom as if you spend alternate weekends on the continent. Your readers know that not to be true. I look forward to you unpacking some of this stuff. Best and warm wishes to you and your colleague Chris for a much better and life-affirming 2021!I can get carried away sometimes. I was thinking of the post-religious ennui in Western Europe, which is no different in the UK. The dissenting reader who back in December told me to chill over Trump — a dissent I called “the most effective counter to my worries about our democracy that I have ever read” — follows up:I spent quite a bit of time feeling very proud that you guys published my dissent in which I argued that Donald Trump was not going to lead a coup and that you were too worried about the prospect of violent uprising. Then came the Capitol Hill Riot and this caused me to engage in some hard self-reflection. Had I been wrong? To what degree did these actions legitimize the notion that Trump and his supporters represent an existential threat to the government of the United States? Still, despite the Capitol Riot, I believe I was right. I think that it’s important to divide two things that you might argue are indivisible.  One is the fact that there are a huge number of Republicans who believe in the Big Lie that the election was stolen.  This trend is extremely worrying, and is seen in the votes of the Republican members of the House and Senate who voted against certifying the election results. The second is the riot itself and the attack on the Capitol — a lawless use of violence to upend a key aspect of the election.  One might argue that the riot naturally grew out of the soil of distrust of the election results, and on one level this is self-evidently true. The Big Lie called all those yahoos to DC and sent them off into the Capitol Building. And yet, given that huge numbers of Americans believe that this election was legitimately stolen, this riot turned out to be a farce and a fiasco. If millions of Americans really believed that the dark night of tyranny was about to fall, would only a couple thousand have shown up? The crowd was only “large” because the police were not present in large enough numbers to block them.Despite zip-tie guy (who most likely found them on the ground), I still believe that this riot was largely unplanned LARPing that met with no security and pushed its way in. That is to say, if it was planned, what the hell was the plan? Assuming that this was a calculated assault assumes that the rioters were smart enough to know that the Capitol would be largely unguarded but dumb enough to believe that they would somehow be able to get Congress to change the election? I suppose you could argue that there was a cohort of trained terrorists/paramilitary members ruthlessly accomplishing their goals while the open doors allowed clowns like shirtless buffalo guy to wander in. But there seems to be no evidence that anyone was ruthlessly or efficiently doing anything. In your podcast where you rehost (and re-roast) Shadi Hamid, you argue that the protesters got what they wanted in that they disrupted the certification of the vote.  But they didn’t get what they wanted — not by a long shot. They delayed the certification for about half a day and, if anything, probably reduced the number of Republican dissenters in Congress. Additionally, the riot has led to the unpersoning of Trump on social media along with many other right-wing figures. Parler was basically annihilated by Apple, Google and AWS. And now a bunch of the rioters are going to go to jail — maybe for decades. As an aside, isn’t the glee with which everyone is turning them in a sight to see?  Where was this glee when mobs were burning, stealing and looting this summer?  You certainly never would see articles like this or like this. Imagine a world where the riot didn’t happen. You would have had *more* Republicans dissenting from the certification, and wouldn’t that have been worse? You cite Plato to argue that the tyrant is undisciplined and cannot control himself and you are right! Plato does argue that this is the defining characteristic of the tyrannic man. You use this definition when Trump’s incompetence is pointed out —of course he’s incompetent, his tyrannic nature makes it impossible for him to rule effectively. But here’s the key point: Trump is such a tyrannic man that he cannot rise to the level of actual tyranny. You compared him to Richard III, but how could you insult Britain’s last Plantagenet king this way? If Shakespeare is to be believed, Richard was a schemer par excellence. Trump has no plan, and no capacity to plan.  Finally, I do share many of your feelings. The fact that so many Republicans were willing to overturn the views of their own voters is disturbing. All of the aspersions that Trump has been casting on the results really are corrosive. The fact that our media has schismed into two warring realities is profoundly upsetting.  Here’s some more Republic for you:Have we any greater evil for a city than what splits it and makes it many instead of one? ...Doesn't the community of pleasure and pain bind it together, when to the greatest extent possible all the citizens alike rejoice and are pained at the same comings into being and perishings? I worry that the United States is no longer a shared community of pleasures and pains. The hypocritical responses by the right and the left make this clear. I do believe that this division is a cancer in the heart of our nation. Still, I don’t think it presents an imminent threat. We are still too fat, prosperous and successful. If our economy crashes — I mean really crashes — or if we get hit with a much more deadly and fatal virus, then I will join you in panicking. I’m grateful for this thoughtful response, and want to share your optimism. We’ll see, I guess, won’t we? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Chris is an old friend and, in my view, one of the sharpest right-of-center writers in journalism. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, his latest book, The Age of Entitlement, is a constitutional narrative of the last half-century that is indispensable — especially for liberals — in understanding the roots of our polarization. Here’s a great primer from Sean Illing:Caldwell doesn’t defend racism or the apartheid system the Civil Rights Act dismantled; rather, he argues that the civil rights movement spawned a whole constellation of other liberation struggles — for immigrants, for gay and transgender rights, for sexual freedom — that Americans did not sign up for and did not want. And the result of this steady encroachment is what Caldwell calls a “rival Constitution” that is incompatible with the original one and the source of a great deal of social unrest.It’s a challenging way to understand our tribal divide. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Christopher — on the exodus of elites from Middle America; and on the dearth of intellectuals on the Republican right — head over to our YouTube page. Meanwhile, a reader remarks on last week’s episode: Your conversation with David Frum was excellent. His perspectives are always worth listening to, and I enjoyed your challenging questions. To think you two are supposed to be on the right side of things (and I, as a left-leaning person, agreed with most of what you said) shows what a strange — nuanced? — world we live in.Another reader focuses on a specific part:I felt the most thought-provoking part of your discussion with David Frum came near the end, where he talks about not having spent any time in a hospital. Does he deserve this good fortune? I suppose the woke answer would be that he is health-privileged and should be forced to do his fair share of hospital time. Perhaps he should intentionally be made sick? Or more likely the less-healthy should be given some other benefit to level the playing field. So indeed Frum’s advantage is undeserved and we should try to take it from him.I think the classic American answer (if it had occurred to anyone to ask the question) is that “deserving” doesn’t enter into it. We want everyone to reach their full potential, aware that ability (i.e. “luck”) is not evenly distributed. We want our best and brightest to fly the highest, and they will elevate the whole country with them. To borrow a phrase, this is what made America great.The left now tells us that “meritocracy” is a code word for racism, but really one of the problems with racism is that it prevents us from having a true meritocracy.This next reader appreciates the Dishcast medium in general:I am new to your commentary, which I got onto after your episode with Sam Harris. I’ve struggled to understand your (and Sam’s) critiques of the left on race since you also make it clear you recognize there is a problem with race in America. Your conversation with Mr. Frum went a long way toward helping me reconcile and better understand your positions. Please keep talking about this stuff, including talking more about what the race problems are, and not just what they aren’t. I’ll stay tuned. Another reader has a recommendation for a future episode:There was a very charming moment at the beginning of this week’s podcast, where David referred to you as a star teaching assistant at Harvard’s government department. People would apparently come out of your section burbling with enthusiasm, and then the next group of David’s students would trudge into his section. (“Another hour with this guy.”)Anyhow, it got me thinking: What was the class? Who was the professor?  (Mansfield?) How did you approach teaching those undergraduate sections? (I guess it hadn’t occurred to me that you were once at T.A.)I started reading you in the early 2000s, and even though I’m a huge fan, I’ve never heard you systematically discuss your intellectual origins and development. I know bits and pieces of the story — a provincial kid, debated at Oxford, proud Tory and Reagan supporter, came to the States, courted controversy at The New Republic, was a pioneering supporter of gay marriage, supported the Iraq War and lived to regret it, and so on ...But I bet podcast listeners might enjoy hearing you interviewed thoroughly and in-depth about how you see the trajectory of your intellectual life. (I know I would.) Another impetus for this suggestion is that I recently enjoyed listening to Glenn Loury do something like this on his own podcast. He allowed himself to be interviewed about his intellectual origins for three hours! I loved it and learned a lot. (My other, more prosaic suggestion for an interview subject is Christopher Caldwell, who puzzles and fascinates me.) Good idea, perhaps. This podcast interview with Giles Fraser gets at some of this, and, believe it or not, my dissertation is in print. The Conservative Soul defines what conservatism means for me, if for very few others. Later this year, a collection of my essays from 1989 - 2021 will be published. To get a good sense of my intellectual connection to Michael Oakeshott — the English philosopher I wrote my doctoral thesis on — see my profile of him for The Spectator. Money quote:When you think of Oakeshott in this way, you realise why co-opting him for a political party — the way some tried to turn him into a patron saint of Thatcherism — was a profound misreading. Such passing allegiances seemed alien and trivial to him. So too did the incessant chatter we now call politics. I remember telling him I thought I would become a journalist after my PhD. His face fell. ‘I’ve always thought the need to know the news every day is a nervous disorder,’ he said, with a slight grin. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

David Frum needs little introduction; he’s a long-time writer at The Atlantic and the author of many books, the latest being Trumpocalypse and Trumpocracy. We cover a range of issues in this episode. You can listen to it right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with David — on the problems of mass immigration; and on our disagreements over Russiagate — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, we got a ton of reader response to our episode with Michael Hirschorn, across a range of opinion. The first reader:Thank you for finally — FINALLY — having a conversation with someone like Michael. I am often maddened by you constantly banging on about wokeness, and though you concede (always as an aside, though) that there are problems with racism in America, you somehow never get around to exploring them. You like to yell at the left for painting everyone on the right as racist, yet you spend A LOT of time painting everyone on the left as “woke.” It’s tiresome, unproductive, and untrue.Which is why your conversation with Michael, who echoes nearly 100% of my own thoughts on these subjects, is a course correction for you that I appreciated. It showed why exploring issues of racism are still necessary and valid and why it isn’t just about “wokeness” or critical theory. It shows how if you got out on to the ground and into communities, and away from Twitter and a handful of people with the loudest microphones, you might find a left that doesn’t comport with your characterization of it. There are a lot of us who don’t care about the cesspool of social media and aren’t trying to get our op-eds into the NY Times, those of us who are honestly trying to right some wrongs without losing sight of the bigger picture — a messy, nuanced, but also hopeful picture. I sincerely hope you have more conversations with Michael or those like him in the future. Keep it up.Thanks. I definitely intend to add more conversations with lefties and critical theory stans. Many, however, don’t want to debate, because they believe that debating is itself a manifestation of “white supremacy”, if it isn’t loaded to compensate for white privilege. Because of my genetics, my views are, to a greater or lesser extent, illegitimate. The premise of my podcasts is that anyone can talk about anything and no one has any authority other than the cogency of their argument. This next reader was less aligned with Michael:Thank you for your courage in challenging some of the woke myths that Mr. Hirschorn seems to think are “obvious” — they absolutely are not. He seemed surprised that you challenged some of these but I am glad you did. These are extremely sensitive topics that many of us are afraid to even talk about. I am glad you did, and I hope you continue to do so.On to specifics, another reader:“A real effort to contend with race and racism in America” means everyone has to share the New Left’s redefinition of racism. Andrew, please don’t listen to Michael Hirschorn. There is nothing naive about you, and the fact that you did not spend your first 20 years in America has nothing to do with your ability to read and analyze what is really happening. I was born and raised here and have been liberal all my life until people like Mr. Hirschorn drove me away with their specious sloganeering. I find it astonishing that he asserts that Trump (whom I despise) is “openly racist”, and when asked for examples proceeds to give examples of Trump engaging in actions that are highly arguable and can only be tangentially disputed as racist. For example, the Muslim ban that may involve some stereotyping based on disproportional involvement in terrorism around the globe (in the same way all cops have been stereotyped as racists) — but it’s not “obviously openly racist”. Mr. Hirschorn then asserts that Trump’s exhortations to crack down on “law and order" cannot be “extricated” from racism. Who says? I am Latino and feel exactly the same way Trump does when it comes to law and order. I have very little sympathy for criminals, be they black or white. I’m with you. It may also be true that those of us who are immigrants can see American more clearly than natives, marinated in white guilt and shame. Another reader compares countries:I’m part of a Puerto Rican diaspora in Ohio and some of my best friends are naturalized Mexicans. We recently discussed how one of the best things about the United States is that one can count on the law and expect the order that American law enforcement (and the courts) provide. My friend added, “In this country, when one says no, it’s respected”. In Mexico, and to some extent in my native Puerto Rico, you either can’t count on the police or you have to actively defend yourself from them. For all the claims that Democrats make about being a voice for the immigrant community, they sure don’t understand the millions of immigrants in this country and why we do care about law and order — and not in any racist way.Many readers backed Michael by pointing to other examples in which they believe Trump has been “openly obviously” racist. One writes:When you asked Hirschorn for concrete examples, he got lost in the whole “law and order” thing. But he could’ve given way more concrete examples, such as Trump’s stalwart defense of Confederate monuments or him repeatedly refusing to simply condemn white supremacist groups. “Stand back and stand by”? There are non-racist arguments to defend keeping statues around, even if they echo a horrible past. Outside the British Parliament, there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell, for example, a genocidal, theocratic dictator. But part of British history. In England, if you wanted to remove any statue of person who opposed democracy, every statue of a king or queen would have to be taken down. Another reader points to “Trump’s false claim that ‘Arabs’ (not Muslims) in New Jersey were cheering 9/11, and years later telling members of The Squad to ‘go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.’” Another adds, “Calling Third World countries mostly populated by darker skinned people ‘shithole countries.’” Another reader links to this USA Today piece from a few months ago that fact-checks a viral list of 28 of the most racist things that Trump has purportedly said. The summary:Of the 28 listed comments, Trump said 12 of them as plainly stated. Two he said but lack context. Four comments are disputed, eight are paraphrased from similar statements and two he did not say.Another reader zooms out:The word “racism” has been overused by the political and intellectual Left. It can now mean almost anything. In the name of “white guilt,” the political Left has proved ready to jettison its most cherished ideals: the rioting, looting and burning in the name of “Black Lives matter” was deemed okay because it was done by blacks and those supposedly allied to blacks. The warning to wear masks to avoid the spread of COVID-19 was dismissed by medical professionals in the name of fighting a false emergency of “racism.” Heaven forbid they should tell BLM that they can’t do anything they want to do. In Europe, the cherished ideals of feminism and gay rights are being tossed aside to accommodate the backward attitudes of many Muslim immigrants. Apparently rape and gay-bashing are only serious crimes if white men commit them. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Michael (@hirschorn) is the Emmy-winning CEO of Ish Entertainment, which makes political documentaries, and the founder of The People PAC, which promotes democratic values. He’s also an old friend from Harvard, former house-mate, and one of the smartest people I know. We talk about race, class, the resistance, the Democrats, “deep canvassing,” the woke and the promise of the unwoke left. It gets pretty real at times.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Michael — on whether invoking race undermines liberal economic policy; and on whether Trump is actually “openly” racist or not — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader responds to the latest episode with Shadi Hamid, on the Capitol assault:You’ve put into words everything that I’m feeling. This monster’s misinformation campaign was so successful that even after the assault we witnessed on January 6, I have family members who are still justifying these events, because they remain utterly convinced the election was stolen from them. I am heartbroken for my country, and I’m having a hard time seeing the path forward just now. But please take care of yourself as best you can.Another reader also tries to cheer me up:I just listened to the Dishcast, which I enjoyed as I always do. At the end it was clear how hurt you were by the Ben Smith piece in the NYTimes. Just wanted to say — though I’m not sure it will help — that it was this piece that encouraged me to subscribe to the Weekly Dish. I thought you sounded fascinating, and thoughtful, and Smith wrote you off in a way that was more revealing about him and the new rules at the NYTimes than about you. If you’ve read the most-liked comments on that piece you’ll see this sentiment is widely shared. I say this as a long-time lefty who now feels alienated by the direction this movement has taken, and its puritanism on issues like identity politics. Thanks for all that you do to keep debate alive. Thank you. I’m used to this kind of thing, but obviously when directed by the New York Times, it stings. The solace is that the Times still publishes someone its chief media writer cannot defend, and that this newsletter has been such a huge success — speedily heading toward 100,000 paid and unpaid subscribers.This next reader sees eerie similarities between Trump and another strongman:If you look at Venezuela, the U.S. fits the pattern. First you have a rich, powerful country that for some reason goes in decline. Typically it is financial, like in Venezuela, and in our case, it was 9/11 combined with the 2008 Financial Crisis. This decline gives rise to a populist nationalist demagogue. In Venezuela’s case it was Hugo Chavez, in our case Donald Trump. This demagogue will rise through democratic means but then govern and cling to power through undemocratic means. This is received enthusiastically by the masses, so initially the autocrat’s popularity rises … until the decline is so severe that everybody will rebel. Except by then, it’s too late, and the regime degenerates into a dictatorship. I believe the U.S. is in the beginning stages of this, where Venezuela was with Chavez in 2001/02. Luckily Trump will be out, but we may be here again in four years when the aging Biden has to run for reelection against some Trump wannabe. Speaking of which, one last similarity: Venezuela’s last president elected before Chavez, under the so-called Fourth Republic, was also a past leader — in this case a former president, Rafael Caldera — who was way past his prime at *78 years old* — the same age as Biden. Caldera is still the oldest man Venezuela has ever elected. The similarities are CHILLING!Another reader is grimly hopeful:January 6, 2021 is a date that belongs next to only one other in American history: April 12, 1861, the firing on Ft. Sumter. Astonishingly — and I do mean astonishingly — I cannot think of a second comparable moment to set alongside what can only be described as the first salvos of actual civil war (9/11 and 12/7/41 and the British burning DC in 1814 were all foreign attacks). But as embarrassing as it was as a country on the global stage; as chilling as it was to watch the possible complicity of uniformed officers; as tragic as it was to know that people — possibly elected officials — were about to die; and as heartbreaking as it as to watch the world’s greatest temple to liberal democracy fall, I cannot help but hope against hope that this may break the fever in a way that, quite simply, nothing else could. Americans needed to SEE the inevitable result of all the lies and grievance and fascist cosplaying. It’s possible this country required not only the images of Charlottesville, or recorded phone calls extorting foreigners, or refusals to concede an election, but actual video of our radical tribalism swarming the Capitol.This is my hope too. But we’re not there yet. This last reader responds to my appearance on UnHerd’s Lockdown TV:I was very pleased to hear you refer to the woke ideas about global white supremacy as a “conspiracy”. I have been thinking for some months that while people on the right have their millenarian conspiracy theory in QAnon, people on the left have their talk of a cabal of white supremacists. But I haven’t yet heard anyone refer to the “white supremacist” narrative as a conspiracy.I recently delivered a lecture at the University of Cambridge that’s related to this, and wrote about it on Substack. My argument was that, just as the invention of the printing press brought on Reformations, so the invention of the internet is bringing on “Deformations”. Both marked “liminal stages” in society, during which all the norms of the culture are inverted, allowing millenarian cults to fill the vacuum as people tried to cope with the sense of disorientation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

A senior fellow at Brookings and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, Shadi runs a podcast and pens articles with Damir Marusic at the Wisdom of Crowds. He’s been a strong advocate of the argument that American democracy is resilient, and that Trump never represented an existential threat to American democracy. We debated this before, so I asked him to come back and defend his case in the wake of the insurrection in Washington this week.I also began the podcast with an extemporaneous rant about Wednesday. I needed to get it off my chest.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Shadi — on the silver linings of the Capitol crisis, and on the hypocrisy of much of the left right now — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, several readers respond to my Black Christmas conversation with Caitlin Flanagan:I hope your Christmas wasn’t too miserable. I thoroughly enjoyed your conversation with Caitlin. You did an excellent job of articulating the underlying philosophical truths and half-truths pervading the far left and Trumpian right. However, I have some criticisms. I agree with you, Douglas Murray and others who have pointed out that Wokeness is filling the Christianity-shaped hole in our society. A decrease in traditional faith has given rise to a new religion led by modern saints. I also agree that it is a faith devoid of the “good” parts of Christianity like forgiveness and individualism. However, this does not mean a return to classical religious thinking is the solution to the deficiencies of intersectionality. By asserting the credibility of the evidence-free foundation of Christian faith, you are providing cover for the equally unfalsifiable dogma of the Woke. By claiming that a belief in God watching over us is justified because it brings meaning, you excuse the belief that the ethereal patriarchy is what keeps women down. We must reject all irrational belief systems if we are to criticize any one of them, even if some are worse than others. Islam is worse than Christianity, but they are both unreasonable. Wokeness is worse than Catholicism, but they are both built on wishful, anti-scientific thinking.Another reader dissents from the other direction:Your articulation of the gift of your Catholic faith and upbringing, your gratitude for the Church’s ancient traditions and ritual, and the powerful paradoxes of the Christian story — these things I embrace, and I share in the wonder. But I confess to wincing when you (not infrequently) make a snide or dismissive remark about the Church of England or the Episcopal Church. As a gay man and “cradle” Episcopalian, who grew up in the American South with nothing but support and acceptance from his parish clergy, I find this brand of Roman Catholic snobbery a bit unattractive.Yes, I know, that the Anglican Church came into being for “political” reasons in Tudor times and that the Episcopal Church was born in Revolutionary America because the Scottish bishops would recognize its episcopacy and the Anglican bishops (for obvious reasons) would not. But the Roman Catholic Church — from the Spanish Inquisition to the brutal colonization of the Americas — has hardly been an apolitical and pure institution.My Anglo-Catholic (Episcopal) parish in Hollywood is ritually more rigorous with the liturgy than any Roman church in the diocese (we even have a Latin Mass on Saturdays, for God’s Sake!) In the Plague years here in LA, it was a singular haven for gay men seeking solace in a traditional church when the local Roman Catholic bishops were disciplining their priests for trying to embrace and minister to suffering and dying gay members.And, in the podcast, when you extolled your wonderfully diverse parish in DC and the Roman Catholic Church in general as being uniquely “inclusive” ... well, I beg to differ, at least a little. Not too many years ago, a Jewish friend of mine returned from a trip back East to visit his ailing father, only to find his 31-year-old Latin-American partner dead in their home from alcohol poisoning. (He had struggled with his addiction for years, sabotaging a promising legal career.) I was among their friends who attended the funeral mass at a huge and packed Roman Catholic parish church where the family had worshiped. The celebrant and members of the family in their homilies praised the many virtues of the deceased young man ... without mention of the partner or their relationship. And the priest extended a welcome to guests — but reminded us that, if we were not baptized Roman Catholics, we were not to come to the altar for communion.It was a strange sensation, being at the mass of a friend in that church — every word, each prayer and movement of the liturgy intimately familiar to me — and yet being uninvited to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I’ve rarely felt so “excluded,” in a way. I believe to be truly catholic is to be truly welcoming to all, respectful of all faith traditions, trying not to get caught up in a hubristic regard for the theological or aesthetic superiority of our branch of Christian worship.Another reader recommends an alluring book:During your recent podcast with Caitlin Flanagan you mentioned that — forgive me I don’t have verbatim — you have embraced “the new” (e.g. jumping in new forms of journalism) but you also really appreciate “the old” (e.g. traditions). This brought to mind the book, Why Old Places Matter, by Thomas Mayes, of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Tom beautifully articulates that old places give us, among other elements for social wellbeing, Continuity, Memory, Beauty, History, Sense of Sacred, Community, Ancestors ...Another reader zooms out with a much needed dissent:After falling a few episodes behind, I caught up on the Dishcast this weekend, which, in general, I rather enjoy. But I’m noticing a theme: most of your guests share with you the general premise that wokeness is bad and illiberal, the effect of which is sort of an ironic one: many of your conversations become an echo chamber of criticism of wokeness.Now, yes, some of your episodes haven’t even touched upon the theme, such as your conversation Olivia Nuzzi, which, incidentally, was wonderful. But the dichotomy is that you toggle between focusing on a guest’s expertise and expressing mutual exasperation with wokeness. I too love exploring every nuance of the rising illiberal tide, and I think we, your audience, get some sort of catharsis from you discussing it. But you may make more headway on the subject engaging with folks who are influenced by or sympathetic to critical theory. The podcast presents an opportunity for that in a way your column does not.Perhaps your answer is that you can’t engage with someone who is fundamentally illiberal. Unfortunately, that would suppose a binary between wokeness and anti-wokeness that doesn’t always play out at the level of the individual (though it usually does at the level of a Twitter mob). The best evidence of this is your two podcast episodes on The Ezra Klein Show. In practice, Ezra Klein is about as liberal as they come, hosting people of all sorts of ideology and background. But he is often sympathetic to critical theory-inspired viewpoints. And that’s what makes those conversations with you so fascinating — that he has to concede some points to you on the subject and you to him, painting a more nuanced picture of the situation. The true liberal must believe that their opponent argues from a place of earnestness, believing that the small concessions which debate forces reveal the kernel of truth hidden in each side. Therefore, in the case of Woke v. liberals, it is the liberal’s obligation to engage because only the liberal has the faith that free dialogue will lead to progress.I don’t think the illiberalism involved in being a card carrying member of the social justice left comes from a bad place. The justice part is in there for a reason. Every time I get frustrated by the orthodoxy of my woke friends — I’m 24, live in cities and went to a private university — I try to remember that. I would love to hear you explore the common aspirations between yourself and the proponents of wokeness as fiercely as you investigate the wrongheadedness and unintended consequences of their methods. Yes, as the reader anticipates, it’s been difficult to find good-faith adherents to critical theory who are willing to come on the podcast, but we’re committed to doing so, and it’s a big shortcoming of the Dishcast so far. If you’d like to suggest a woke guest prepared to debate the issues in good faith, we’re open to any suggestions. I want to do this. Stay tuned. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe