The Dishcast with Andrew Sullivan

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

Caitlin is a longtime writer at The Atlantic and the author of several books — the most recent is “Girl Land” — and she’s a frequent guest-host on the Femsplainers podcast. I’ve long been a super-fan. To see why, here are two recent essays Caitlin wrote — one on the dark lessons of Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, and one on the abortion debate.We share a Catholic faith and encounters with mortality, but Caitlin’s brushes with near-death have been far more acute than my own. Her extraordinary poise and deep humanity are on full display in our chat. I’m so grateful for her time.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 listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Caitlin — on the recent reemergence of her cancer; and on the similarities between the AIDS crisis and back-alley abortions — head over to our YouTube page. Since I’m on Christmas break this week, here’s my new book review for the New York Times, on Edmund Fawcett’s new tour d’horizon of conservatism and its history in the US, Britain, Germany and France. Money quote on the end of Britain’s inclusion in the European Union:Enoch Powell remains a fascinating figure, especially now. A Tory member of Parliament, and briefly in the cabinet in the early 1970s, he insisted, against his party, on the nation-state as inviolable and solely authoritative, held that nonwhites would be forever alien in Britain and profoundly opposed the project of the nascent European Union. His views, hugely popular among the Tory masses but deemed taboo by party elites at the time, were not so much countered as repressed. And like many repressed ideas, they eventually came to the surface, long after his death, in the anti-immigrant, nationalist fervor of the Brexit campaign. As Buchanan was to Trump, Powell was to Brexit.Meanwhile, a reader responds to our latest episode, with Meghan Daum:You two talked about 2015 as the year when Woke culture took off, but I started to see it creep up in 2010. I, an Autistic activist at the time, wanted autistic voices to have a say in our politics. I founded the largest and one of the most active chapters of ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network). One of the things I started to see was an incipient generation of Autistic activists. Just look up Lydia Brown, Kassiane Sibley and Nick Walker. They all write with erudition, and I do agree and have agreed with much of what I read. But between the lines, there were ideas that were highly inane, with some being downright stupid: the idea that an individual can self diagnose themselves autistic; the idea that all “so-called” autistics were the same and part of a distinct group; the idea and insistence that they use autistic “people” as opposed to autistic “individuals” (a word better suited for the historical self-determination movements within the disability communities); and the idea that all autistics were equally impacted by autism (which left out many individuals who were severely impacted).Facebook was our organizing engine (before it was sexy to use Facebook to broadcast politics) and we trafficked in identity politics. We felt a spark of danger and revolution in positing these ideas, and as young people, we knew that we were young and maybe a bit irrational. Almost all of us were burgeoning socialists/anti-capitalists, and many of the ideas were rooted in postmodernism. A lot of this came from a feeling of helplessness in the wake of the austerity of the 2010s, the lagging economy, the lack of opportunity, the lack of social services. For many of us, we felt that if we organized, we could change the world as we know it. Make no mistake: the woke generation started within the margins of the Great Recession. They thought to themselves, if we can’t change the world through government programs, can we at least change the culture.I saw the tides turning when the movement dallied more in how to be as radical as possible, as opposed to how they could get things done. I left the movement in 2013, as I knew that I wasn’t ever fully welcome. Being diagnosed young as autistic, with papers to show, never fit as a future leader in the movement, as I didn’t look the part.That said, we got political work done that positively impacted autistics throughout the United States. I look at the articles that were written about us from time to time in publications such as Truth Out, Huffington Post, and all of the news networks within the state we did business. Things happened. Thanks for the work you do. I’m still progressive, but your ideas bring clarity and understanding to my life, each and every week. Keep being outspoken and without fear.  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

Meghan is the author of many books — the latest being The Problem with Everything: My Journey Through the New Culture Wars — and she’s the host of her own podcast, Unspeakable. I hadn’t met Meghan until this week, but it was a pleasure. We talked about our generation; what it feels like, if anything, to be a man or woman; the truthful hyperboles of wokeness and Trump, the poison of Twitter, the lessons of facing death early, and the benefits of solitude. It was a blast. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Meghan — on the difference between gender outliers and gender outsiders; and how both of us had near-death experiences — head over to our YouTube page. Listen to the whole 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 on multiple platforms.Meanwhile, a reader looks back at our most recent episode:I feel like Marusic and Hamid were the Colmeses to your Hannity; they were too polite and too bowled over to really respond strongly to your points — though Marusic did rally at the end. I should start by stating my credentials: I have none, aside from the fact that I have been teaching AP Government for about 20 years, and a course in Western political theory for about 15. That being said, I have a few points. 1) While Trump was a norm-busting jerk that has taken complete control of his party, this is only an aberration when we look at modern politics, particularly the centrist consensus of the post-WWII era. Up until the 20th century, all sorts of crazy excesses went on throughout US politics, ranging from cooping to routine brawls on election day to paramilitaries suppressing the votes of blacks in the South. And Andrew Jackson called his defeat a “corrupt bargain” and raged against JQ Adams until defeating him four years later. All this is to say, America survived.2) This brings me to the point of American survival. You have sounded so negative about American democracy and referenced the section of Plato’s Republic where Socrates argues that the tyrant naturally follows the democrat. You also reference the fall of the Roman Republic. But there is a major difference between our modern society and those of the ancients: the overwhelming majority of the people in pre-industrial societies were far poorer than any poor person in a modern democracy. These poor people (still found in developing nations) were one harvest away from watching their children starve to death. These individuals were far more susceptible to tyranny because they were desperate — just look at all the shenanigans that happened with the grain dole during the late years of the Roman Republic. To quote Bob Marley, “them belly full but we hungry / a hungry mob is an angry mob.” This is the reason why democracies were always so unstable prior to the modern era. This is why Rousseau proclaimed that democracy was a government only for angels. But if you want to look at the ancient world, look at Aristotle. Aristotle recognized that the key to building a successful state was a strong and robust middle class.  Indeed, Aristotle’s best form of government run by the many isn’t even called a “democracy” at all — he calls it polity or constitutional government. Again, Aristotle takes time to define democracy as rule by the poor. So, while the framers of the US Constitution were very worried about the rise of tyranny, they needn't have feared because the USA would turn out to be the first nation defined by its dominant middle class. This is a long way of saying that we are not nearly as susceptible to tyranny as you say. Our poor are fat and not thin. Can you show me any example of a prosperous democratic nation turning to tyranny? If it does happen, it is only after the nation in question is brutalized economically (and politically) as in the case of Weimar Germany. While the close of factories has decimated blue-collar communities, and while bifurcation of the American populace is something to be feared, our poor are not nearly as desperate and hungry as the poor plebeians of Rome or the hoi polloi of ancient Athens.This takes me to point (3), which is that the antics of Trump turn out to be not fascism but hucksterism. Republicans must participate in his acts of kayfabe, but everyone knows that it’s all b******t. And Trump is the consummate bullshitter. If you haven’t done so, I encourage you to watch this one-minute clip of Trump on Letterman in 2015:  There’s one moment when Letterman nails Trump on the source of his ties. I know you are a classics man, so I can tell you that it rivals the scene in Republic where Thrasymachus blushes. This is the real Donald Trump: a bullshitter, a faker, a conman, a huckster. The fact that such a man has succeeded is alarming, but we are still a rich, comfortable, powerful nation. He’ll rant and he’ll rage, but he’ll go — just like the loser in any good professional wrestling match. And then get ready for the yawps and bellows as he gins up the views for the 2024 rematch.I am not arguing that the United States will last forever. We are certainly vulnerable and if our economy should actually collapse (as it seemed it might in 2008) or we end up with a COVID-22 that kills 50 percent of the afflicted, then katy bar the door. But we have not yet gotten to that point. Trump memed himself into the presidency, but I don’t think that America will meme itself into tyranny. It’s not so much that American institutions are so strong as the fact that the null hypothesis usually holds — especially given the lack of the kind of hardship that was widespread and common in the ancient world — indeed in all preindustrial societies. Not to digress, but this is also the reason why the French Revolution so quickly degraded and eventually spawned an autocrat.I have to say that is the most effective counter to my worries about our democracy that I have ever read. It’s so great to have my readers, mainly far better informed than I, make the Dish as rich in context as it is. 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

This week I did a simulcast episode with Damir and Shadi that will also air on their own podcast, Wisdom of Crowds. We discussed and debated the resilience of American democracy in this fraught time — with some sharp disagreements. (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 long conversation with Damir and Shadi — on Trump’s missed opportunities to become a dictator; and on the current dangers of authoritarianism — head to our YouTube page.)Looking back at our popular episode with Dana Beyer, a reader writes:I learned so much from this conversation. The information about how a trans individual can be created due to pre-natal pharmacological interference was extremely useful. Beyer’s point that we’re introducing all sorts of endocrine disrupters into the gestational process is really important. We’re imposing all sorts of problems on fetuses that cause lifelong suffering (another example is learning disabilities). This needs to be considered seriously.On a personal note, I would have liked a bit more discussion of the David Reimer case and John Calapinto’s book about Reimer, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as A Girl — which is a different matter, though aligned of course. It’s also a cautionary tale about therapeutic arrogance and its horrific consequences.Another reader:Regarding your guest post by Katie (I’m a huge fan and a BARpod subscriber) and your convo with Dana, it’s so refreshing to hear an honest conversation about the limits of trans ideology and how it relates to how trans people view themselves and the world. I am trans myself, but only at the very beginnings of my journey (okay maybe a bit further than the beginning), and a major stumbling block for me has been my dissent from the dominant narratives of transness:* Identifying as a woman* Born in the wrong body* Trans women are biological women* Trans women have always been womenThose narratives (while surely helpful for some) just strike me as unscientific or grossly essentialist. If you “identify as a woman” and what you identify with is clothes, social roles or behaviors, what does that mean for biological women who don’t identify with those things? How can I as a trans person stake a greater or equal claim to womanhood based on those things?For me, gender is inextricably related to sex; it is how humans signal sex to prospective mates. As a trans person, desire to physically transition requires a belief in the binary in order for that desire to make sense. If the binary isn’t real, what’s the need to change? It’s simply dishonest for me to deny I am biologically male and experience dysphoria since that is exactly what I am. Asking 99 percent of the populace to change its metaphysical understanding of sex and gender to accommodate a very small minority is crazy when there’s no need to do so to ensure trans people are treated with dignity and respect.Another reader touches on a super controversial topic: I attended a panel discussion in 2015, the 40th and final year of the Michigan Women’s Music Festival. It was a panel of detransitioners. Many openly discussed transitioning to avoid the onslaught of unwanted male attention (for many before they were able to understand it, buffer themselves from it, or reject it). Abigail Shrier discusses this, explaining that many of the “transmen” she interviewed had no real desire to be cis men, as much as a desire to not be read as women. They saw being read as male in the public sphere as a way to escape the sexualized response to their existence. Many had already lived through sexual trauma, assault, rape.Another trans reader:There are so many great things in your conversation with Dana Beyer that make this something I want to share with other people in my life who maybe don’t entirely understand “the trans issue”, or conflate it with the whole non-binary/queer thing. I’m just glad that 20 years ago it was relatively straightforward for a middle-class trans person like me to get hormones and reassignment/corrective surgery. In my opinion, the main trans battle outstanding is to make that treatment equally accessible to poor and working-class people.There are aspects of what you and Beyer discussed where I disagree, but for much of the podcast I was practically cheering along. It’s so refreshing to finally be able to hear people speak sensibly on these topics. I can’t tell you how much it means to me to hear this after that miserable black hole of a few weeks ago when supposed trans allies were raging away mindlessly, ignoring what I had to say.In case you are interested, here is a good article on sex/gender segregation in sports. I think it’s a red herring to make this into a trans issue. I think it’s fair to argue that segregation by sex or gender is inherently problematic — it’s not about cis versus trans athletes. Personally I like the idea of moving toward a utopia where we don’t have segregated sports, or indeed any other segregated spaces, but I understand that to be a radical position and I know it will take a long time to get there (if we ever do).This next reader, on the other hand, is grateful for segregated sports:I am a 62-year-old white, hetero woman (biological). I consider myself a feminist and somewhat gender critical. I have a trans woman friend that I have know before she transitioned. She is a former neighbor of mine and moved to DC as a government contractor, but we stayed close on Facebook. I followed her through her transition and have always been in total support of her life change and self-actualization.After her transition, she took up bicycle cycling, and I was supportive of her achievements. She won almost every race she competed in. Then, I started to think about her podium wins. I am a former high school basketball player (I am 6' 2" and played the varsity center position) who won the right to play interscholastic because of the passage of Title IX in 1973. Title IX changed my life and gave me opportunities that I never would have had without it.So I started to get angry at my friend’s wins. I would see the women standing beneath her on the podium with their heads down and frowning because they knew that a biological man had beat them. I recognize her as a trans woman. I believe that she should have every right that any human being has. She should be safe, loved, cared for, allowed equal housing and employment like any human being should have.BUT. I have a problem with trans women competing against biological women in sports. I have a problem with boys competing with girls. I have a problem with boys/men who have not undergone any transition competing in women’s sports. The IOC has just passed a ruling that states that a person does not have to have reassignment surgery or undergo any hormone treatments to compete in the sex of their choosing.I made the grave error of expressing my opinions on my personal Facebook page. I own a small business — a food truck. I don’t know who it was, but someone (and it was a so-called “friend”) called me out and took screenshots of comments taken out of context to harm me and my business. I am still thriving since this happened in June, but not without death threats, boycotts, public shaming, etc. for me stating that it is unfair for men to compete with women because trans women are biological men and cannot change that. They have an unfair advantage. Period. 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

Olivia is the brilliant 27-year-old Washington correspondent for my old haunt, New York Magazine, who has been covering all things Trump. I talked with her about the man who has defined so much of the news these past five years. (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 Olivia — about the first time she met Trump; and on whether he’s a germaphobe or just a snob to the unwashed masses — head over to our YouTube page.)Meanwhile, a reader sounds off on the previous episode with Matt Yglesias, author of the new book, One Billion Americans: The Case For Thinking Bigger:One billion Americans? I shudder to think of it. Has Mr. Yglesias not been to China and India and witnessed the crowds, the trash, the pollution and loss of nature there — much less the environmental devastation that would result from one billion human beings gorging resources with the customary appetite of Americans?Fifty years ago I moved from the Northeast to California to enjoy the wide open spaces of the West: the spacious skies, fruited plains, and amber waves of grain of America the beautiful. Alas, since that time our population has doubled, our exurbs have metastasized, and 70% of our wildlife has disappeared. Practically every problem that haunts California now — homelessness, high prices, electricity blackouts, fires due to global warming — has its roots in overpopulation. So do the immigration and refugee crises that are undermining stability and stirring up nativist backlash worldwide.By all means let’s be more open to immigrants, but enough is enough. There are three times as many human beings on this planet than when I was born. One billion Americans is a recipe for dystopia. Matt responds:California’s problems don’t stem from overpopulation (it’s about a third as dense as Connecticut) but from the underbuilding of housing in its already developed cities. As I discuss in the book, for example, Los Angeles invested a considerable sum of money into building the LA Metro into what’s now actually one of the most extensive rail transit systems in America. But they didn’t change zoning laws in a complementary way to put big apartment buildings near the stations. Consequently ridership is low, and the pattern of housing scarcity, high prices, and sprawl pressure continues. All throughout the hyper-expensive Bay Area, land use is dominated by mandatory single-family zoning that makes rowhouses and even modest sized apartments illegal. This leads, again, to high prices and sprawl with all the attendant problems. Another reader praises “the smart and interesting conversation with Yglesias”:The part of the episode that keeps striking me is how serious publications are disallowing words like “looting” or “rioting” when precisely these things are happening. This “woke” language censoring is, I believe, damaging and undermining the efforts of those who may be marching or protesting for change and doing so in a peaceful way.When the quasi or fully criminal disrupters are not being called out for what they are doing (vandalizing, looting), but we hear that police need to be “defunded,” it appears more and more Americans who otherwise do not align with Trump and his abhorrent rhetoric, go in his/their direction. The Left has/had a perfect opportunity to garner more moderate support in this country, and seem to be doing everything in their power to push it away, precisely because we are being held (cancellation) hostage by the “Woke.” Perhaps we should stop looking at how deranged Trump is, and start seeing that we too are being forced to radicalization under penalty of a social media execution.Thanks for being willing to have THAT conversation. Perhaps it can only be had now by those of us Cancelled, and we need to lead the way. 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