Bret Stephens (3:30)

Good to see you, Gary.

Garry Kasparov (3:33)

So when did we meet first time, Brett? It was a long, long, long time ago. Yeah.

Bret Stephens (3:37)

Yes. I actually remember the occasion very vividly. You were a contributing editor for the Wall Street Journal for the Wall Street Journal, and you came in for lunch with Bob Bartley, and someone walked past my cubicle and said, hey, do you want to have lunch with Garry Kasparov? And I jumped out of my seat. And so I remember that. Precisely.

Garry Kasparov (4:00)

You moved to the Wall Street Journal from Jerusalem Post.

Bret Stephens (4:03)

Well, I had been at the Wall Street Journal, yes. And then after 9 11, they hired me for the Jerusalem Post. I was there for nearly three years during the second Intifada and then came back to the Journal and had a very happy career. Until another event.

Garry Kasparov (4:17)

Exactly. So I remember this. We talked about the rising star in GOP politics, Donald Trump. I remember that you were quite worried about Donald Trump after meeting him at this luncheon in the Wall Street Journal. It was the beginning of 2016, and you were full of emotions.

Bret Stephens (4:36)

Well, you know, so I had written a column in 2015 essentially comparing Donald Trump to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. And apparently Trump was infuriated by the column. So what followed was this dance in which, at various points, he was threatening to sue the Wall Street Journal. Then he was demanding a meeting, and finally the meeting happened. And when the meeting occurred, in fact, he was very ingratiating. You know, he gave me a big handshake. He said, oh, you're a killer, you're a kill. And yet by then, he was already the clear front runner for the nomination. And what, of course, he did understand, perhaps much better than I, was the psychology of the conservative movement as he found it, and I think the psychology of mass media, mass persuasion of the reality TV show. I think if we look at it now, one plausible interpretation of everything Trump does. Plausible. I don't think it's convincing, but plausible is that for him, it's just a reality TV show. It could be Love island, except it involves ICBMs.

Garry Kasparov (5:41)

So you were one of the staunchest, never Trumpers back in 2016, 2017. At one point, you softened the edges. This is the column that you wrote. I was wrong about Trump voters. So just tell us about this journey. So from 2017 to 2024. So is it based on your reevaluation of the whole political situation and Trump's impact on American democracy?

Bret Stephens (6:08)

Well, you know, the first line I wrote about Trump in that 2015 column when he first came on the scene, I think the line went something like, if by now you don't find Donald Trump appalling, you're appalling. It was an indictment of the voter himself or herself back in 2015. In 2015. And basically my point was, if you listen to his bigotry, to the inanity of so much of what he says, and you say, well, he's the guy for me, well, then, you know, ultimately, in a democracy, it's the voter who puts the man into office. You know, my attitude towards Trump at the time, and I think certainly the attitude of most Democrats was, you know, if you like this guy, you are a bad person. And telling voters they are bad people for their likes, political likes or dislikes, is not going to win them to your cause. It's just not. It's bad politics. Abraham Lincoln liked to quote this proverb that a drop of honey kills more flies than a gallon of gall. And I think now you listen to a lot of Democratic leaders, and the theme that is finally emerging in the Democratic Party is we need to listen to the Trump voter. We need to meet that Trump voter where he is. We have to stop condescending, we have to stop calling them names, people, because if we do, we're simply gonna strengthen the very movement that we're seeking to defeat.

Garry Kasparov (7:43)

So it's politics. Now you think that this is the we need a new appeal to the Trump voter?

Bret Stephens (7:49)

Well, two things. It's politics as well as policy. You know, at the end of 2024, after Trump won, I wrote a follow on column called Done with Never Trump, and it was widely misinterpreted. You know, I wasn't saying that Trump was gonna be a great president or that I changed my mind about him, but what I was done with was a certain style of politics that became kind of typified by some of my friends, real friends, personal friends in the Never Trump movement, which was this constant obsessive loathing of the man and his movement and everything he represents, and an assumption that if Trump has done it or said it or thought it, it's a lie, it's dangerous, and so on. And I just thought that that style of politics was bound to fail. But I also think this is important. You know, those of us who detest the man, but also want to oppose him effectively have to acknowledge that now and again, he strikes on something that has real validity. I wish Democrats had taken more seriously the constant Trumpian taunts that Joe Biden was physically unfit for office, which I think now is beyond dispute. I think we, I wish we had more seriously taken the view that the border had become completely unpoliced. And you can have a sensible pro immigrant view without essentially accepting a de facto open border policy. And so we have to sort of rethink our approach to voters to oppose the MAGA movement or to bring people back from the MAGA movement. And also on some policy questions, we can adopt what I call George Costanza politics. George Costanza, the wonderful figure from Seinfeld, who at some point thinks that the answer to all of his problems is to do the exact opposite. I don't know if you recall this episode or if you ever watched Seinfeld back in the 90s.

Garry Kasparov (10:05)

I have not.

Bret Stephens (10:05)

Yes, you're missing out on a great trove of wisdom, American wisdom. But I think a lot of people listening this podcast will get the George Costanza do the opposite reference. If Trump says there's a problem at the border, the opposite approach is not necessarily the right one to take.

Garry Kasparov (10:23)

Agreed. But Trump's first term was quite different from what we're seeing now. So he's just starting with the choice of his Vice president, Mike Pence, traditional conservative and his first cabinet. And just most of people who served in his first administration, they were, well, just belong to the elite, very traditional. There were a few exceptions that were not crucial for decisions, decision making process. While Trump's second term is dominated by 2025 project and it's probably just aims at a fundamental change in the United States. I don't know whether it's just it has a global vision of overthrowing the foundation of the Republic. But anything that Trump has been doing so far and everything he has been saying so far, it's far more radical.

Bret Stephens (11:18)

Well, you know, leaving the 2025 project to one side, the most important and most distressing change between the first and the second term is that we have a cabinet staffed by manifestly incompetent people. I mean, with the arguable exception of the Secretary of the treasury and the Secretary of State, who is a person I don't recognize anymore. The Marco Rubio that we knew.

Garry Kasparov (11:44)

Is it the Marco Rubio?

Bret Stephens (11:45)

It's a line from the movie. The Marco Rubio that we knew is gone, gentlemen. He's gone. And in place, there's this kind of ridiculous doppelganger who's trying to find some high flown way to reconcile what he knows is true, exactly what he knows is true with what he's required to say. But as you're pointing out it's also an ideologically much more radical and in some ways ambitious project than the kind of traditional conservatism with Trumpian characteristics, you know, to kind of use a Maoist sort of style slogan that the first term was. And it's exceptionally worrisome. However, one final point. What worries me most in all of this is JD Vance, because I think that he is an exceptionally opportunistic and cynical character in American politics and much, much brighter than his boss.

Garry Kasparov (12:43)

And.

Bret Stephens (12:44)

And I think if the Democrats don't get his act together, get their act together, he's gonna be the next President of the United States. So, Democrats, get your act together.

Garry Kasparov (12:53)

Okay, let's talk about disagreements. You write a column with Gail Collins at the Times.

Bret Stephens (12:58)

I did.

Garry Kasparov (12:59)

Where you model a way of having arguments so disagreeing about fundamental principles, even so without resorting to hostility or personal attacks. How did that come about?

Bret Stephens (13:13)

Gail Collins, who had been the editorial page editor at the beginning of the century and longtime liberal columnist at the paper, lovely human being, approached me when I came to the Times and said, you know, I'd like to do this thing where you and I kind of have a conversation about political topics. And. And would you do it? I thought, yeah, sure. You know, why not? I thought it was kind of a courtesy to an older colleague and not central to what I was doing. And then it just took off and became this wildly popular feature, weekly feature in the Times. Our readership was incredible. There was clearly a real hunger among, you know, the silent majority of Times readers for political difference in conversation that wasn't based on outrage where people could like each other despite their political differences. I think that's an untapped. That's an untapped market in American political media.

Garry Kasparov (14:18)

Are we talking about the disagreement on fundamental principles?

Bret Stephens (14:23)

There's no question that having at least some baseline shared values, belief in.

Garry Kasparov (14:28)

You do believe that you have the shared values. Because it's very important for us to actually find out the common ground. What are the core values that bring together liberals and conservatives?

Bret Stephens (14:39)

Well, you know, it's funny. It used to be when I was growing up in Mexico, but then in the United States, the difference between conservatives and liberals, I mean, all happened philosophically within the world of liberalism. I mean, within the model of John Locke and Jefferson that kind of framed the disagreements so that there was no difference between a Reagan and a Carter on respect for free speech or the value of immigration. I mean, they disagreed about how many B1 bombers we needed or whatever, or on how to address inflation. But there were policy differences within the framework of, I think broadly shared values. We've moved from a world where the difference is between liberal and conservative to a world where the difference is between liberal and illiberal. Because I think the Republican Party to a great extent has become an illiberal party, not a conservative party. There's an important distinction between those two. So I was able to. I think one of the reasons the conversation with Gayle succeeded is that we do share basic values, a basic sense of fairness and decency. She's not a radical progressive democratic socialist and I'm not a MAGA Republican, but.

Garry Kasparov (16:05)

Is MAGA just has any ideology because illiberal for me it's more about having sheer power. So it's the what is the ideology of MAGA that feeds Trump and Trump and World?

Bret Stephens (16:17)

I think an ideology is beginning to cohere around maga and it's a kind of a concept of very old school reactionary European nationalism that distrusts elites, at least educated elites, distrusts outsiders. So I mean one of the things, I mean it's not surprising that a guy like J.D. vance doesn't simply dislike the thought of illegal immigration. He dislikes legal immigration because it's about protecting a concept of nation that emerges from tribe identity, common ethnic, linguistic, racial characteristics. You know, it's what used to be called throne and altar conservatism. It's not something that we haven't seen before in politics. Religion is a big part of it. And of course with religion comes hypocrisy. But I don't think you can dismiss it as just a bunch of jerks having knee jerk bullying instincts. Although there's plenty of that. There is a thought pattern to it.

Garry Kasparov (17:29)

We'll be right back.

Bret Stephens (17:40)

Recently we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts.

New York Times Subscriber (17:43)

I would be very interested in having separate logins for a shared subscription. I'm 35 years old. I still share my parents New York Times subscription.

Bret Stephens (17:53)

I think if my teenagers were to have their own logins we could share articles. It doesn't let us play the same games as each other. I do the crossword.

New York Times Subscriber (18:01)

I do the spelling bee.

Garry Kasparov (18:03)

I do the wordle.

Bret Stephens (18:04)

Please help.

New York Times Subscriber (18:05)

Having our own accounts would be amazing. My mom could save her own recipes. My friends could save their recipes. I want to get the weekly newsletter, but they seem to always go to my husband and then he doesn't forward them to me. We both love cooking. I'm a 30 minute and under dinner girlie. My boyfriend is very elaborate. I think him Having his own profile would be great. We love the New York Times and we would love to love it individually.

Bret Stephens (18:29)

We heard you introducing the New York Times. Family Subscription one subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out more@nytimes.com family this episode is.

Progressive Insurance Announcer (18:41)

Brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.

Garry Kasparov (19:10)

Now it seems to me that the old divide of the 20th century, so left right, so center right, center left, social labor on one side, center right, conservative Christian Democrats on the other side. This politics is dead. It's no longer relevant. So we have different dividing lines, correct?

Bret Stephens (19:32)

It's dying.

Garry Kasparov (19:33)

Yes, it's dying. So what is this new coalition? Because when we got together back in 2017 and started the Renew Democracy initiative and you were one of the co authors of this manifesto, so we talked about democracy being surrounded or just attacked from both sides, like siege from far left and far right. So one side attacking the market economy, another one the the liberal democracy. But it seems to me that the antidote has not yet been worked out. What are these new dividing lines? Do we have to consider a new coalition that will drop some of the traditional disagreements and concentrate on preserving these very values that are so far are not being shared by our opponents?

Bret Stephens (20:24)

So the thing that we don't need is a centrist party.

Garry Kasparov (20:29)

We don't need it? No.

Bret Stephens (20:30)

And I'll tell you why. Because everyone defines centrism differently. And every person who'd like to be a part of a centrist movement has some red line, but it's different from the other centrist red line. And so I've seen it in kind of small ways and in large, but it never works. Everyone wants to be reasonable, but you end up with mush. I think what America needs is a liberal party. And I mean liberal in the Australian sense of the word or the Dutch sense of the word, which is a party that really is dedicated to the ideals of a free and open society governed by an effective rule of law that believes in the power and the goodness of market capitalism, of free speech, of due process, of other central liberal values, but rejects and has clear opponents or differences with the ideals of nationalism or the views of socialism. The problem with centrism is it's always trying to bid for the affection of the Most dissatisfied, so called centrist. And so it doesn't work.

Garry Kasparov (21:54)

But this liberal party, so what is the, what is the political goal? I mean, the party, you know, if it's being formed as to appeal to the voters and win elections. So can you imagine this kind of party? Yeah, look, the problem being built in.

Bret Stephens (22:12)

The United States, the problem that you have, it would have to be built over the wreckage of a defunct party. We have a system.

Garry Kasparov (22:21)

Defunct parties or parties.

Bret Stephens (22:22)

Party, maybe parties, but we have a system that we're not gonna get rid of in any plausible way. The electoral college, politically plausible way that favors a two party structure. That's just the system that we have. It has disadvantages, it also has advantages. But it means that the Republican Party could only succeed once the Whig party had failed. Right. And so I don't think we're gonna be able to get a liberal party unless one of the two parties so implodes that there is a movement to create something new. But that will only happen once, say the Republican Party. And it could happen implodes. Of course, I've been hoping for this to happen for, you know, for long years now, and it hasn't worked out, but I think there's now actually a space in the Democratic Party to create a party that says, you know, we oppose totalitarianism, we believe in old fashioned classic American values, and we're against this kind of nativist, know nothing nationalism that the Republicans represent. That's, that's a coherent political space. The point is there are elements that could create a winning coalition behind these ideas. What's required is a charismatic major political figure. And the Republicans, I hate to say this, but they found a hugely charismatic figure. He's not charismatic to my taste, but Donald Trump embodies a politics of personal charisma. Is there a Democrat who has that, who has that kind of quality that Obama had and that Clinton had? And I think before that you'd have to go back to lbj. That's what remains to be seen.

Garry Kasparov (24:20)

So do you expect this American politics to go through this realignment? So to create this new dividing lines and to make it a part of the campaign? We have 2026 campaign, 2028 campaign. But right now we have other challenges. So we just, you know, it's the onslaught by Trump administration on some fundamental principles. So how do we go through this period of cold instability or turmoil? How this new political balance will be created to make sure that America will not simply collapse?

Bret Stephens (25:00)

Well, I hope I'm right, but I think the basic laws of Politics that this country's operated under for generations still applies. I think if Trump continues to screw up, if he drives away people in his coalition through tariffs, through mismanagement, through erratic policy, if taxes don't go down but instead effectively go up, the Democrats are likely to at least take the House. The Senate is a little more challenging for them. In 2026, you'll get political paralysis. And if Democrats can actually coalesce around a charismatic winning political figure, they have a reasonable chance of winning in 2028. That's a long way away. People are always saying, oh, the Democratic Party is dead. It has, I don't know, 37% approval rating. The Republican Party's approval rating isn't that much, Isn't that much higher. So what's the expression? The only way out is through, and we'll get through it. I was on a panel about a month ago in Brooklyn, and the question that was being asked quite earnestly is like, well, Donald, is Donald Trump gonna be president for life? No, Donald Trump is not gonna be president for life. He is not gonna be president for life. Well, what if he repeals the 22nd Amendment? Well, in that case, the Republicans, at a minimum, would have to win the election. But what if all the elections stolen? All of this kind of nightmarish scenario, I think is anathema to is unlikely to happen for a whole variety of reasons, but not the least of those, is that our allegiance as a people to bedrock institutions and to a certain set of ideas is still pretty damn strong. We're not the Weimar Republic. We're not Yeltsin's Russia. Right. I mean, 250 years means something in this country. And I don't think it's all going to be washed away. So we are going to get a restoration of some kind of balance. I think the real question that I worry about is whether the Democratic Party comes to the realization that it has to bid for voters at the center, or whether it thinks that it has to become a kind of perverted mirror image of MAGA Republicanism, that is to say, to move to its extreme left again.

Garry Kasparov (27:24)

I remember this is the first time, actually, my first visit to America was 1988.

Bret Stephens (27:29)

1988.

Garry Kasparov (27:30)

1988, yes. And I remember the elections. So Dukaikis has been crushed by Bush 41 again, expected so after eight years of Reagan. So the country was on the rise and this mood was so, you know, it's like a positive. And Duke stood no chance. And then the Democratic Party just did its soul searching and shifted, you know, from this Mondale, Dukakis leftist policies into Bill Clinton, they found Bill Clinton. So again, all they needed is an attractive, very smart candidate, also from the South. So they from the red state. So though Arkansas was not a red state yet at the time a governor. But I don't feel that today we are going through the same process.

Bret Stephens (28:21)

Well, you know, the great question the Democrats have to answer is do they need to go through one election cycle to find their Bill Clinton or does it have to be three? Right. In the case of the 1980s, it was three. Carter was destroyed in 1980, Mondale was destroyed in 84, Dukakis in 88. Finally they thought, okay, we're gonna have to bite the bullet and get a guy who's a moderate Southerner who believes in the death penalty, among other things. Right. That's what they had to do. My fear is that the Democrats will be goaded once again by the MAGA right into capitulating to their own worst instincts. And I'm afraid. But it's a very effective tactic with the Democrats. Democrats really have to sit down and internalize the lessons of their loss last year against one of the most known and one of the most detested figures in American politics. How did you lose to this guy?

Garry Kasparov (29:22)

The reason is second time.

Bret Stephens (29:23)

The second time, how did you lose to this guy? Because you are worse. You are worse because you sound contrary to Tim Waltz. You guys sound like the weird people, not the Republicans. And so there's gotta be a Democrat who understands that.

Garry Kasparov (29:39)

So moving to the left or winning.

Bret Stephens (29:41)

Yeah.

Garry Kasparov (29:41)

Or improving your chances to win.

Bret Stephens (29:44)

So what's more important, you know, what is it that Niels Bohr said? Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. So I don't know. I don't know. Maybe they're gonna have to lose so badly again to J.D. vance or Josh Hawley or someone else that they just hate that they're gonna say, okay, we've gotta reclaim the center. I guess the question you're really asking is, is the head gonna beat the heart? Right. The heart wants to beat left in the Democratic Party, but the head wants to win. And the head wants an agenda that is going to serve middle America, middle class America, middle political America, and not a class of radicals who have an idea about this country that is.

Garry Kasparov (30:32)

That brought us Donald Trump.

Bret Stephens (30:34)

That brought us Donald Trump.

Garry Kasparov (30:35)

Okay, Now I like to end the podcast on a more positive, forward looking note. So let me ask you, what is the way into the future? Because both domestically and internationally, America's traditional values have been Challenged or have been sacrificed for some very short term political gains. And just we could see the political center, the reasonable people, basically being bent over by the radicalism for the left or the right. So what's the way out? Give us just, you know, your positive vision. Will America, you know, become great again? Sorry for using this.

Bret Stephens (31:22)

Yes, America is great and will be greater still. You know, one of the differences between a dictatorship and a democracy is that a dictatorship advertises its strength and hides its weakness. Democracies, by contrast, we advertise our weakness and hide our strength. I mean, the media is a daily digest of everything that's going wrong with this country. You've never seen a New York Times headline that says things slightly better today than they were yesterday. Although we could have run that headline.

Garry Kasparov (31:51)

The Soviet newspaper headlines like, you know, the greatest harvest ever.

Bret Stephens (31:56)

Yeah, exactly. But in America, we look, we're constantly focused on our weaknesses and we hide our strength. There's a pessimism paradox, which is that pessimistic people, at least if they're not fatalists, are constantly attending to the things that are going wrong. And so they're adjusting, they're trimming their sails, they're trying to find solutions to problems as they encounter them every single day. And yet there's huge strength in the United States. If you look at any of the major technologies that are gonna be the defining technologies of the next 30 years, almost invariably it's happening somewhere in the United States. The innovation is happening here. The copying is happening in China, right? And this was the same story in the 1970s. 1970s was a period of deep pessimism in the United States. The Soviet Union was on the march. We were politically terribly divided and weakened at home. And yet that's when some guy nobody had ever heard of, named Steve Jobs was tinkering with a computer. And another guy nobody had ever heard of, named Bill Gates was tinkering with software. Think of all the great American companies that have emerged in the last 50 years and continue to emerge and compare that to a list of, of the major, say, European companies. The innovation is here. The excitement is here. Americans eventually get their heads out of their asses. It just sometimes takes a while. There's a spirit of enterprise and irreverence and trying new things and experimentation that exists in this country like nowhere else. People still want to come to our shore, and one day we will have the leaders who understand the, the still vast untapped potential of this country, and they're going to exploit it to its fullest. So in the long term, I'm an optimist, but I think actually it pays to be a pessimist in the short term because it makes you more attuned to both danger and opportunity.

Garry Kasparov (33:50)

Just want to clarify, short term, midterm, long term, what's.

Bret Stephens (33:56)

What are the timescales, exactly?

Garry Kasparov (33:57)

Timescales. So this is. We're going through the very revolutionary period in world history. We have wars, we have global conflicts. So there's so many challenges that we don't know how to address. And I think that's our response. Now, the outcome of these many battles will define the future for the next 50 years.

Bret Stephens (34:17)

Here's the question. Are we making mistakes at a faster or slower rate than our enemies are making mistakes?

Garry Kasparov (34:24)

Who are enemies? Are enemies within or enemies outside?

Bret Stephens (34:27)

Both.

Garry Kasparov (34:29)

So you're still optimistic, so that's okay.

Bret Stephens (34:32)

The only thing is, we're having this conversation on a Monday, but tomorrow I might be a pessimist.

Garry Kasparov (34:38)

Okay, Brett, thank you very much.

Bret Stephens (34:39)

Pleasure, Gary.

Garry Kasparov (34:42)

This episode of Photographers in America was produced by Arlene Orevolo. Our editor is Dave Shaw. Original music and mix by Rob Smirciak. Fact checking by Ina Alvarado. Special thanks to Paulina Kasparov and me Gringo. Claudia Nabay is executive producer of Atlantic Audio. Andre Valdes is our managing editor. If you want to learn more about the work Brett and I have been doing at the Renewed Democracy Initiative, I invite you to visit rdi.org and to subscribe to the next move on Substack. Next time on Autocracy in America.

Military Expert (35:21)

The fact of the matter is you want a military that will push back on orders and on positions. If you create an environment, a culture of fear that speaking up, whether it is against a particular mission or a particular policy, is going to get you fired, then you're going to find yourself as a military in a very difficult position.

Garry Kasparov (35:44)

I'm Garry Kasporov. See you back here. Next one.