What is a Museum For?

Summary

Firewall with Bradley Tusk – Episode Summary

Episode Title: What is a Museum For?
Date: February 18, 2026
Host: Bradley Tusk
Co-host/Producer: Hugo Lindgren
Recording Locations: Bradley in Istanbul, Hugo in New York

---

Overview

In this episode, Bradley Tusk and Hugo Lindgren dive into several interlocking themes through the lens of travel, politics, economics, and culture. Bradley’s travels in Istanbul and Madrid serve as a backdrop for a wide-ranging conversation about the meaning of museums, the impact of tax policy on philanthropy, the evolution and morality of European and Middle Eastern societies, and the present and future of Western politics. The episode is candid and thoughtful, blending travelogue, policy musings, and political analysis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Bradley’s Istanbul Impressions

[00:00–07:13]

• Modern vs. Historical City:

  • Bradley describes Istanbul as “in some ways a very beautiful city, but it does not feel like a first world city” ([00:45]).
  • Notes historical significance, narrow winding streets, hills, sweets everywhere, but not an atmosphere of visible poverty.
  • Observes that it feels neither European nor Asian, but characteristically Middle Eastern.
  • Memorable Moment: Istanbul is a city “in some ways of this time, but in some ways could be of a hundred or a couple hundred years ago. I mean, some of the city was built 1500 years ago.” ([04:21])

• Tourist Experiences:

  • Visiting Hagia Sophia, the Grand Bazaar, historic cisterns, a synagogue.
  • Experience of getting scammed by a taxi driver, “he took us to where he thought we should go, which was nowhere near where we asked to go.” ([03:06])

• Observation on Obesity vs. Activity:

  • Despite a plethora of sweets, locals aren’t obese: “I think the reason why is it's a lot of walking and there's a lot of walking up and down hills” ([04:21]).

• Cats Everywhere:

  • Unique note: “cats everywhere… Just cats that live on the street.” ([06:46])

2. Madrid vs. Istanbul & Human Ingenuity

[07:13–11:22]

• Madrid as More European:

  • Bradley finds Madrid “more like it's part of Europe,” whereas Turkey feels “more like it's part of the Middle east” ([07:28]).

• Museum and Synagogue Visit:

  • Emotional resonance due to Sephardic Jewish ancestry.
  • Comments on security at the synagogue as indicative of past attacks and societal attitudes toward minorities.

• Marveling at Innovation:

  • Profound appreciation for ancient engineering, like the Basilica Cistern’s water systems.
  • Quote: “Even though innovation is very incremental, there often still is an aha moment that somebody had.” ([10:20])
  • Uses the example of the invention of fried chicken as proof of incremental human progress.

3. What Is a Museum For? – Debate on Museums as Public Good

[11:22–19:42]

• Joy and Value of Museums:

  • Discusses visits to the Prado and Thyssen museums in Madrid with Abby.
  • “One of the things that's really good about humanity [is] the ability to express yourself creatively in ways that are also appealing to other people…” ([12:15])

• Cost and Accessibility:

  • Admission around €20, contrasted with the $50 Punk Rock Museum in Las Vegas.

• Ethics and Economics:

  • Raises the ethical quandary: Should immense value tied up in art be redirected to feed the hungry or build affordable housing?
  • Quote: “Is it almost inhumane to ignore the starving child on the street while then spending €20 and giving tax breaks so that we could look at a Van Gogh or a Goya?” ([13:29])

• Tax Policy & Donor Incentives:

  • Suggests possible limits:
    • Reduce tax benefits when museums far exceed collection wall space ([16:31]).
    • Make museums free or heavily discounted for locals ([16:57]).
    • Dedicate space to local/living artists as condition for tax breaks ([16:57]).
  • Criticizes practices where donors get tax write-offs for art that’s never displayed, calling it a “tax dodge” ([20:49]).

• Abby’s Perspective:

  • Abby, as a studio art major, values museums but supports more support for living/local artists and questions the status-related dynamics of some museum boards ([20:03–20:49]).

4. Macro Political Discussion: Europe, Decline & US Relations

[21:20–37:00]

• Rubio’s ‘Love Letter to Western Civilization’:

  • Bradley reflects on Europe’s “decline” since WWII, with diminishing global and military power ([21:55]).
  • “Europe hasn't shown itself to be particularly humane or trustworthy when it has significant military power” ([23:15]).

• Europe’s Regulatory Overreach:

  • Praises some of Europe’s tech regulations but critiques the lack of tech innovation (“only one meaningful tech company has emerged…Spotify”).
  • Links overregulation and left-leaning policies with stifled innovation and the rise of reactionary far-right parties ([25:00–26:00]).

• US–Europe Public Sentiment:

  • Dispels the premise that Americans are angry at Europe (“No one gives a [expletive] about the European perception” – [29:03]).
  • Suggests mutual tourism and personal relationships remain positive.

• Republican Political Forecasting:

  • Rubio and J.D. Vance as potential 2028 frontrunners, positioning themselves within/alongside MAGA.
  • Quotes concern over inauthenticity: “People still prefer an authentic to an inauthentic. Rubio is trying to be the, hey, I hold the values of MAGA, but I’m my own person…” ([31:47])
  • Discusses how a moderate/centrist candidate could emerge if the MAGA vote splits.

5. Religion, Identity, and Political Signaling

[33:10–36:54]

• Rubio’s Christian Values Rhetoric:
  • Hugo notes unease with emphasizing “Christian values” given Europe’s religious diversity.
  • Bradley skeptical: “I think they look at the world and say, this is how the world has to be, and it's us versus everybody else. And that is their philosophy and their worldview.” ([34:01])
  • Discusses challenges of political double-speak in the Internet era (“it's hard to exist in a world where everything is being filmed…” – [36:41]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Museums & Public Good:
  “Is it almost inhumane to ignore the starving child on the street while then spending €20 and giving tax breaks so that we could look at a Van Gogh or a Goya or whatever it is?” — Bradley [13:29]

• On Human Progress:
  “Even though innovation is very incremental, there often still is an aha moment that somebody had.” — Bradley [10:20]

• Museum Tax Dodge:
  “That feels like a tax dodge. … there should be some rule that said if your collection exceeds your wall space by X percent, then you can’t just keep taking works that you’re never going to show solely to satisfy people who are wealthy in your community.” — Bradley [20:49]

• On Europe’s Waning Power:
  “Europe hasn't shown itself to be particularly humane or trustworthy when it has significant military power. So there is a question of be careful what you wish for.” — Bradley [23:15]

• On American Attitude Toward Europe:
  “No one gives a [expletive] about the European perception.” — Bradley, recalling a speech in Lisbon [29:03]

• On Political Authenticity:
  “Oftentimes when Trump acts like an [expletive], you sort of understand it in the broader context of who and what he is…when Vance acts like an [expletive], you’re just like, oh, what a clown…inauthentic.” — Bradley [31:47]

---

Other Highlights and Recommendations

Travel & Food [43:54–48:55]

• Film: Hamnet – “Beautiful movie… about tragedy, but also a parent’s love for a child. If you have patience, you might like it.” ([43:56])
• Food:
  • Madrid: Recommends Coaxio for an innovative tasting menu experience ([45:20]).
  • New York: Bartolo in West Village, though prefers Ernestos ([46:47]).
  • Spanish Cuisine: “Slightly underrated…right up there with French and Italian and Japanese.”
  • Best Food Cities: Madrid, Mexico City, Bangkok, Barcelona; dreams of visiting Beirut for its cuisine ([48:00–48:55]).

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:00] – Istanbul travel discussion begins
• [03:06] – Taxi overcharge/tourist story
• [07:28] – Religious/cultural reflections in Madrid & Istanbul
• [11:22] – Museum visits and philosophical debate launched
• [13:29] – Ethics of art spending versus philanthropy
• [16:31] – Museum tax policy recommendations
• [20:49] – Critique of museum collection/donor practices
• [21:55] – Reflections on Europe’s place in the world post-WWII
• [23:15] – European military history and contemporary power
• [29:03] – On American indifference to European opinion
• [31:47] – Republican political branding and authenticity
• [34:01] – On Christian values signaling in US political rhetoric
• [43:54] – Book, film, and restaurant recommendations
• [48:00] – Discussion of best global food cities

---

Tone & Language

• Open, reflective, conversational with flashes of humor and candid opinion.
• Analytical but approachable, balancing policy wonkishness with personal anecdotes and relatable insights.
• A mixture of earnest critique (especially around institutional structures and political rhetoric) and adventurous storytelling, particularly in travel and dining.

---

Conclusion

This episode of Firewall is a rich patchwork—using the lens of travel, art, and food to explore wider questions of public good, policy, and cultural identity. The discussion about museums is especially thoughtful, pairing personal experience with larger ethical and fiscal debates, and the political segment provides a nuanced take on current and future dynamics between the US and Europe. Whether you’re interested in the morality of art institutions or forecasting the evolution of the Republican Party, this episode delivers both food for thought and some strong restaurant tips.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome back to Firewall. I'm your host, Bradley Tusk. It's a Tuesday episode. So this is our friend and producer, Hugo Lindgren. Hugo, how are you?

[B]

Good. So this is actually a Wednesday episode this week.

[A]

Oh, that's right.

[B]

Our altered schedule.

[A]

You're absolutely right. And we are not recording live from PNT Network. No, we are recording from. I am in Istanbul, Turkey, and you are in New York, but you're not

[B]

at the store, I imagine not at the store. So you are in like the hotel you're staying at. You, you're a hotel now?

[A]

Yes, I'm in my hotel.

[B]

And it is, it is what? It is like a, like center city? Like what? No, we're on the other side of sights and sounds.

[A]

We're in a. It is really, really beautiful new hotel on the other side of the Bosphorus. But it's not like we just walked across the, the, the bridge earlier from the Grand Bazaar. So it's not that we're on the water and we're in kind of an ultra new modern part of town that, you know, some developer obviously just raised billions of dollars and built a couple of beautiful hotels and apartments and a giant mall and all that kind of stuff. But overall, for those of you who haven't been here, and this is my first time here, it's a very historic city. In some ways it's a very beautiful city, but it does not feel like a first world city. Now I have not been to the Commerc center, so that might be different, but it, it, it certainly feels like you're, you could be in a different era.

[B]

So what, what have you done? Like, you got there yesterday, what do you got there?

[A]

I mean, today was like all of the, the big picture stuff. The, the Hagia Sophia, which is their giant mosque, the basilica, cisterns, the synagogue, the Grand Bazaar, you know, crossing the Bosphorus or you just generally walking around.

[B]

Can you get to all those more or less on foot?

[A]

More or less? Yes. We've, we've walked quite a bit. Some, some Ubering and one lesson learned in a taxi.

[B]

But what lesson was that?

[A]

So we trying to go from the synagogue to the Hagia Sophia and it was like a 40 minute walk and it was raining and called an Uber and it couldn't get to us because the street was closed. So then a taxi went right by us which meant the street wasn't closed. So we got in the taxi and you know, the guy had a lot of advice for us and a lot of what we should be doing. And then when we got out of the Uber, the price was, I don't

[B]

know, we got out of the taxi.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, taxi, sorry, like 1500 lira instead of, say, would have been 500 in the Uber. And I knew I was getting ripped off. I didn't. Wasn't worth fighting over, you know, 25 bucks or something like that. But the worst part was he took us to where he thought we should go, which was nowhere near where we asked to go.

[B]

Are you kidding? So he actually just took you to a different destination?

[A]

Yeah. So then we had to get an Uber again to where we wanted to start. So. Awesome.

[B]

I feel like that's good. I feel like you. I feel like that's a success in a weird.

[A]

Why?

[B]

Well, just because, like you got the full experience. Like, yeah, the local guy was like, God, you guys don't know what you're doing.

[A]

I would say this. If you are in a non clear first world city and you have a choice between a local taxi and an Uber, by the way, the Ubers here are taxis. Right? It's the, the only distinction is just that the price is all the money is handled by Uber. So they can't just randomly charge you whatever they feel like charging you.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And you're American, you're probably better off in the Uber simply because I'm sure what was going through this guy's mind was like this, I'm rich American. What's the difference if he pays $10 or $30? And you know, he's not wrong in a way. But you still can't just charge me arbitrarily whatever you want because, you know, I'm not from here. And so, yeah, I don't think we'll take actual taxis off the street. Again, the rest of this true, you

[B]

don't want to go to someplace you don't want to go. So you described it as a third world city as opposed to a first world city. What does that exactly mean in terms of like walking around?

[A]

Streets are very. And it's cool in all the streets are very windy, very narrow. It's a very hill. So like getting around. Definitely. It's interesting because they sell sweets everywhere energy, and yet at the same time, people are not obese at all. It's not like being in a lot of the US And I think the reason why is it's a lot of walking and there's a lot of walking up and down hills. And so that might counteract all the sweets or maybe also the sweets are all for the tourists. But like, but, but, but when you walk around, it seems like a disproportionate amount of, of Turkish kind of cuisine is, is des. But, you know, it's like a lot of shops that seems like they could have existed 100 years ago or 200 years ago. It doesn't mean that the device, the things in them aren't a little more modern. But it's not like we've also walked past like three Apple stores either. And you know, it just has the feel of a place that is, you know, in some ways of this time, but in some ways could be of a hundred or a couple hundred years ago. I mean, some of the city was built 1500 years ago. So it's, you know, we're about to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. this is six times that. Right. So it's pretty remarkable in a way. And also I think the historical significance of it being this gateway between east and West. It was much more of one, you know, in the past than it is today. But, you know, you can see it's interesting that people are. It doesn't feel like you're in Europe. It doesn't feel like you're in Asia. It feels like you're in the Middle east actually.

[B]

You're obviously in the, in the nice areas, the tourist areas, where the historic, like, destinations are, but it does. Is poverty, like, pretty prevalent? Like, is it?

[A]

No, I mean, I saw, we saw a kid on the street who was seen to be by. Homeless or by, by himself or something. And I felt that you felt bad seeing that, but. No, not, not. It doesn't seem extremely poor, or at least if it is, it didn't seem so in an outward way. It just doesn't seem wealthy either. Like, I was in Madrid before this, and Madrid, a old city, but it's a, you know, modern in a way of terms of the, the commerce and the culture and all of that. They're also interesting if you like cats. Just cats everywhere.

[B]

I don't like cats.

[A]

Then you might not like it because there's cats everywhere. They don't bother you?

[B]

Just, just like, just on the street, like a window ledge or whatever?

[A]

Yeah, but not like in someone's home. Just like cats that live on the street.

[B]

Wow, that is a little weird. Are they there to, like, keep the rats under control or something? Like, what are they doing? Just.

[A]

I don'. Or just could be that there's a big population of feral cats and so they breed and have big litters and there's more and more cats.

[B]

So you mentioned you were in Madrid and what. So Madrid? Yeah, more modern city in a lot of ways, even though it's also got a lot of old buildings. But is there any other difference just in terms of like walking around or stuff you notice that feels interesting or not?

[A]

I mean, Madrid, and we'll get into this more, feels more like it's part of Europe. Turkey feels more like it's part of the Middle east or. But one example that'd be I went to the synagogue and it was a synagogue and it was a kind of museum of Judaism in Turkey. And for me, in some ways it was very moving. My grandmother was Sephardic and from Odessa, which is not far from Turkey. And so she actually spoke Turkish. And so some of the history that I saw felt like things that I recognized and was familiar with. But to get in the doors were like bomb level doors and multiple level security and metal detectors and you know, it was not. And their own history shows that that synagogue had been attacked twice, you know, in modern era. In the modern era. So clearly, while there is a Jewish community of sorts, it's not a place that is probably as hospitable to Jews overall. Not that I felt any anti Semitism, but when you have that level of security, you don't have that for no reason. Yeah, so that, that says something. But also what was sort of just not, not surprised me because I feel like I think about this a lot. But we went to the Basilica Cistern, which is sort of the system of aqueducts and water that they use to, to bring water into Istanbul, because even though it is surrounded by water on three sides, apparently it's not potable or in a way that was, was available to people. And just the human ingenuity. Right. You know, in an era so long before any sort of concepts of more modern engineering or technology or anything like that, just the ability to devise, you know, how to get water hundreds and hundreds of miles from point A to point B without things other than gravity, basically is the driving force for it. As I, as I understand it. It's just pretty incredible. And you just, just. I feel like I frequently kind of marvel at humans and what we have been able to create. And I understand that when you're looking at something that's, that's, you know, a thousand years old, you just kind of can't believe that they thought of it back then. It's all incremental. Right. Someone who works, you know, at least around technology is not in technology. You know, I see how it happens, which is there's an idea and. And then each person kind of moves the ball, you know, half a yard further until you finally get into the end zone. But there's still that moment. Like, I mean, I know this sounds almost crazy, but I was eating fried chicken. This is when I was with Abby in Madrid, and I said to her, like, somebody at some point realized that it would taste good if you fried chicken. Right. And even more than that, like, if you eat a raw chicken, you'll die of salmonella. And obviously, probably that's what happened. And then somebody had the idea of cooking it, and that would get the germs out. Right. And just, you know. So even though innovation is very incremental, there often still is an aha moment that somebody had. And you kind of wonder. A lot of times those things get lost to history, especially if they were all happened a lot of them before history was even recorded. But it is kind of amazing to just think about that. Human beings, through trial and error, just kind of keep striving to improve at least their own circumstances in the world around them. I'm not sure if they strive to always improve themselves or actually make life better for everybody. Some people do, some people don't. But. But there is certainly one of the facets of being a human is not just in, you know, evolution over tens of thousands of years or even millions of years, maybe one day, but just a constant evolution of trying to make things a little better. And that's, you know, that's very unique, at least on this planet.

[B]

So one of the things you did with Abby is you went to a bunch of museums.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And you had some thoughts about the morality of museums.

[A]

Yeah, just, you know, we went to the. Went to the Prada, went to the Thiessen. Incredible, right? I like the art.

[B]

The Prado really is. I haven't been to the Thiessen, but the Prado is unbelievable.

[A]

You know, I don't like the art as much in the Prado, so if you love Rubens and Goya and Velasquez and that kind of stuff, it's amazing that style of art. Overall, though, there are individual works that are truly incredible is less interesting to me than the Thiessen was much more of a survey of art from, say, the Impressionist era, not quite up till today, but there were a few contemporary pieces in there too. And I just started thinking a little about the pros and cons of museums. And, you know, the pros are obvious. Right. One, there's Just enjoyment. Abby and I enjoyed seeing those museums, and there were lots of people in both places. And that's great because it takes what's, you know, one of the things that's really good about humanity, which is the ability to express yourself creatively in ways that are also appealing to other people and share that museums obviously drive economic value for cities. We paid admission at both places. You know, anything you. You get at either place, people come.

[B]

Is it expensive? Is it like 50 bucks or something? Is there.

[A]

No, no. I think they were maybe about €20. That's not bad. So not.

[B]

Not.

[A]

Not terrible. I mean, the Bunk Rock museum in

[B]

Las Vegas was 50 bucks.

[A]

Yeah. Anyway, Vegas is a very captive audience in a way. And maybe at the punk rock museum, it's sort of like if it's so niche, that if that's the kind of thing you're really into, you're going to pay whatever it is. And clearly.

[B]

Well, look, I think the Prado is a better value at $20 by a lot.

[A]

I don't disagree. But either punk rock fans care enough that they are willing to pay 50 bucks, in which case that's what the market has set, or they don't and it'll close, or they'll have to reduce the price and stay in business. The punk rock museum may not even be a nonprofit.

[B]

No, no, sure it's not. And they don't have state support, obviously, so as many.

[A]

Right. So it's a business. And like any business, they charge what they can to as much as they can get away with their product or service. So, look, museums do create some jobs. They don't pay taxes, but they can be a source of civic pride. They create a way for art to live on and for artists to be appreciated after they're gone. And it's also an important part of the study of. Right. When art history curriculums frequently have, you know, museums embedded into it. So the value of museums is very clear. But you could also look at it a different way, and I don't think this is the outcome that I would choose. But, you know, if you were to try to calculate the total market value of all of the art just in those two museums that we went to, it's got to be tens of billions of dollars. And soon the question becomes, if you were just looking at it from a macro societal standpoint, what would be a better use of those resources? Is it showing great works of art that people can enjoy value in that for sure? Or is it, let's say that you had all that was in private hands. All of it was sold at auction over time to maximize the value. And you had $20 billion, $30 billion that could be put into building affordable housing or feeding hungry people or whatever it is. Is that ultimately more important? And is it almost inhumane to ignore the starving child on the street While then spending €20 and giving tax breaks so that we could look at a Van Gogh or a Goya or whatever it is, you know, the money comes, the money would get spent, and then it would be gone. And so I think the answer to that is no. But, you know, when you donate art or money to a museum, it's a tax write off. And even if you don't think that museums should have to just deaccession their work and sell it and have it be used for something else, I'm not sure that every cause is created equal. And you could look at tax policy and say that perhaps some of the. If someone is donating to Feeding America, that might be different than if someone is getting a board seat at the Met because they gave $5 million to get that seat. And they want that seat because of their own status, not necessarily because of the cause itself. So a few ideas, at least that you could consider. One would be if you said that if a museum exceeds a certain threshold in visitors or revenue or donations, then you reduce the tax burden, tax benefit of donating to it. Or let's say a museum's collection exceeds its actual wall space by 100% or whatever number you want, then there's no more tax deductions for donating works of art unless they're, you know, permanently shown. That would be one way to just say, hey, we're going to recognize the fact that some of these are becoming,

[B]

these are not financial plays or like things. Right. That don't have anything to do with the public sort of.

[A]

Good, good. And therefore we're going to reduce the economic incentive to give your money to that. And instead we would rather either see that money donated elsewhere or collected in taxes instead. You could make museums more civic minded. So like in London, they're, they're free. What if museums in New York, for example, were free for locals? You know, make tourists pay for it.

[B]

You can go to the Met for free, right?

[A]

Yeah. I mean, there's a suggestion. They don't want you to. I, I pay when I go to the Met. Yeah, but, but you can go for free. But you know, arguably, if the, if you made the case for museums when I did earlier, a lot of it was about how it is a public good for a city and for the citizens of that city, they're arguably treated as such. And for the people who live in that city and pay taxes in that city, make it free. You could also maybe say that museums be more locally focused so that in return for the tax exemptions, some amount of space has to be devoted to feature local living artists. That would be a way to do it. Or you could do. I mean, I don't support what's happening in California with the referendum of the wealth tax, because I think it's just going to. It already is driving significant wealth out of their state and will result in far less tax collection at the end of the day than more. But you could say that if a museum has a total value of a certain amount, you know, $10 billion in art or whatever it is, you know, it has to sell a certain number annually to go into some public fund that's sort of the equivalent of taxes. Or if we created a universal basic income system, it's a contribution to that or to a specific cause or whatever it is. I think that's probably too extreme of a solution. But I don't think it's unfair to say that museums, while extremely valuable, perhaps aren't quite the full public good in the sense that other things might be, and that it is worth examining at least tax policy around it to see if it could be done better.

[B]

And you also like the idea of putting aside space for local artists?

[A]

I do, although sort of depends on where you are. Right. You know, in New York, there would be a tremendous amount of opportunity to highlight really wonderful artists. And other places, perhaps the artistic community there is less talented or just smaller, and you'd be forced to show work that isn't nearly as good, that no one should have to pay for to see. And you could argue that artists who are. Or showing, that's what galleries are for. And galleries are free to go into, and therefore it already exists, just in a different form and let it stay the way it is. So, you know, there's a good argument against it, too. I mean, to me, I would probably, if I had to land on any of these, just say that if all of the current tax benefits are going to exist as is, there should be a way for locals in that city to get in for free or at least at a significantly discounted rate.

[B]

So it's interesting to me that you, you know, you obviously love museums. You go to them a lot in the city. You go to them when you travel. It's like A bonding thing for you and Abby. But when you go there, like your mind went to some of these, like more kind of public policy thoughts. Did you talk to her about that or did she agree or what? Okay, what did she say?

[A]

She ultimately kind of landed where I was, which was. And keep on thinking someone who's a studio art major, right. She would one day to see her in a museum. So she certainly wasn't for forcing the sale of all works and donating that money to charity. But I think that she did agree that at the very least providing some way to benefit local living artists or local residents and recognizing that a lot of museum boards and donations of art that's never going to get on the walls. Right. I remember when Harper, my ex wife, was A curator at MoMA, learning that what they owned compared to the wall space they had, especially this was before they renovated it and built the.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Was, you know, I don't remember number 10 to 1 or something like that. Right. So somebody donates their collection, gets a huge tax write off. That works not really good enough to be on the shelves, but the museum takes it. That, that feels like a tax dodge. So, you know, and, and maybe there should be some, some rule that said that if your collection exceeds your wall space by X percent, then you can't just keep taking works that you're never going to show solely to satisfy people who are wealthy in your community.

[B]

This is not like a hard pivot like we sometimes do. It's more of like a soft pivot. But I want to ask you about Marco Rubio's speech in Europe. It sort of ties into a little bit to what we're talking about. But he went to the Munich Security Conference and made a speech that I just saw it described somewhere as a love letter to Western civilization wrapped inside a lecture about how Europe has lost its way. So the first thing I want to just ask you, just generally, do you agree that Europe has lost its way? Does that make sense to you as a, just as a sort of starting point?

[A]

It depends on what its way is. Right. Europe is certainly a lot weaker than it used to be. You know, for a long time, for probably close to a thousand years or 2,000 years, we start kind of more with the Greeks and the Romans. It was the center of the world. It was the most powerful region in the world. And the fact that, you know, so many other continents, Asia and Africa and South America and North America, Australia, basically every other continent was controlled by countries from Europe. So it clearly implied that now it reached its apex and then decline with World War II. And Europe since then has been, I think, to a certain extent in decline. And I guess there's a few different ways to look at it. So, you know, Rubio has made the point and Trump, I think, has rightly made the point that Europe has been free riding on the US For a very long time when it comes to security and NATO and defense and all of that. And it's not quite fair that the American taxpayer should have to pay more than the Belgian taxpayer for defense. So that's true. On the flip side, I kind of just wonder, whenever Europe has a lot of military power, bad things tend to

[B]

happen in recent memory.

[A]

Are we. Yeah, are we like they basically like. I remember this with your kid. Abby once came home with a map of the world and it was, it showed the countries that England had never invaded and it was like six out of the entire globe. Right. It's like, so, you know, and obviously their school is ultra progressive. And I'm not sure that it's not slanted in some ways. But, but even taking that into account, Europe hasn't shown itself to be particularly humane or trustworthy when it has significant military power. So there is a question of be careful what you wish for. Is it a good thing that Europe. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Europe is sort of militarily weak right now? I think that's a fair question to ask. It is certainly true that I think Europe has to a certain extent managed itself into decline while there are, if you just take my little area of expertise in tech regulation. Europe has passed some regulations of tech that I certainly agree with, most notably in trying to regulate social media and protect people from its negative externalities. But at the same time, I think only one meaningful tech company has emerged from Europe this century, and that's Spotify. And when you have a continent as big as Europe and still as advanced as Europe, that has. So it is so bad at innovation. That would, that would clearly imply that in the balance between innovation and regulation and trying to get it right, they're way over indexing on the regulation side. And that may be that as much as they don't like MAGA in the US and I don't like MAGA in the US either, that they were engaged in a left wing version of that for far too long, that, you know, I believe that when you let extremism control your country and your ideology and your culture on either side, you become much weaker and worse for it as a result. I think Europe did do that to themselves. And they did that because one is, you know, the cognoscenti sort of developed this notion that they were the antidote to the US and even though in a way the US doesn't really pay more that much attention to Europe, Europe pays a lot of attention to the U.S. so if you want power in sort of the Brussels type world, being kind of snooty and condescending is the way to get it. Though of course it backfired. And that you see the rise of far right parties across Europe right now. I was seeing kind of things about the box party in Spain when I was just there. So I do think that they have done a bad job managing their own individual economies and culture to a certain extent. And I also think that the Greenland example, even though Trump backed down, is a sign that Europe is for their own purposes, too weak militarily. Because if Trump had wanted to invade Greenland and take it over, he could have. It would have been morally wrong to do so and stupid and everything else. But that usually doesn't stop Trump. So I think that if I were them, I would seek to say we want to be a place that has the values of liberalism, which doesn't mean left wing politics, but liberalism, democracy. We want to be economically strong, we want to be militarily self sufficient. What is the right balance of regulation, innovation, taxes, immigration, economic policy to get there. And I think right now that does not seem like it's how they look at the world. The other thing I need to realize is they still very much cling to this notion of their relevance. That isn't true. So in 2016, right during the presidential election, on election day itself, I was in Lisbon and I was scheduled to give a speech. There's a big tech conference every year called the Web Summit. And I was scheduled to give a talk or kind of an interview the next morning in the main Lisbon basketball arena. So, like, you know, 12,000 people.

[B]

Orever it was your biggest audience ever. 12,000 people?

[A]

Yeah, probably, yeah. In person. And to talk about the U.S. election. And it was weird. It was me, a super left wing, obnoxious reporter from the Guardian, who's the moderator and the actress, Shailene Woodley. And I don't. She was very nice. I don't know why she was on the. It was me, her. But she was very nice.

[B]

Yeah, she was.

[A]

It's kind of like one time I was on a panel. It was me, Mary Barra, who's the CEO of gm, and Chris Bosh and Chris it's funny, I actually spent half an hour in the green room with Chris Bosh. He couldn't have been lovelier. And he was like, I really, really

[B]

enjoyed talking to him.

[A]

He was great, he was fantastic. But, but it was kind of random like that. Remember, the guy was, you know, very, the, the Guardian guy was very the Trump one. As. And I was too. Right? And in fact, because of the time difference, I literally hadn't slept at all the night before because I was awake trying to, you know, and watching everything, figuring out. Right. But I remember at one point he said to me, and I saw this, you can find it online, you know, what does this all mean for the European perception of America? And he'd already been like anti American like six times before that. And I'd finally had it. Plus, I had slept, I was tired, I was like, I forgot the guy's name. It was, you know, Richard, John, or whatever. Like, listen, John, you know, as you saw, Americans disagree about a lot of things. Our election was clearly an example of that. But let me tell you one thing that we all agree on. No one gives a. About the European perception.

[B]

Okay, so, so let me, that's. I, I think I'm remembering this story now and I. That makes me wonder. So, so one of the things that Trump seems to want is he wants Americans to be mad at Europe. You know, like, Rubio's speech was way more mild mannered than obviously Trump has been. But, but J.D. vance went there last year and sort of made everybody upset with like a lot of really tough talk about how America doesn't need Europe, etc, and, and this idea that they, you know, they were running a backwards society which is, you know, consistent with some of the things that you're talking about. But you're not, you're not angry about it? You're not like, pissed off? You're not?

[A]

No, no. I mean, I, I think you have

[B]

this thing where to be pissed off. So I'm wondering why, why, why would we be pissed off like, there? Obviously, I guess there's some of the idea that we've been subsidizing their defense and all that. But, like, are Americans angry at Europe? Does that, is that a sense that you have?

[A]

I mean, look, we live in New York City, so maybe we have the least informed opinion of how America feels about this kind of thing. Yeah, anything but like. No, that's certainly not my sense. And my sense is Europeans generally like, visiting the US And Americans like, visiting Europe. And when I go to Europe, most people seem pretty nice to me, and I think most Americans probably seem pretty reasonable and nice to Europeans. If someone in New York stops me on the street, asks for directions, I give it to them. Right. So, no, I don't think it's at an individual level. I think it might be at a kind of a macro political level. But keep in mind, if you are a demagogue on either side, and Trump certainly is a demagogue, then you're going to goal is to control your supporters by making them angering and then harnessing that anchor in a way that further empowers and enriches you. And that's what Trump is doing. But another way to look at the two speeches, Vance and Rubio, that to me is interesting, is a Preview of the 2028 Republican presidential primary. Right. So at the moment they are seen as the two leading candidates. It doesn't.

[B]

And Rubio has definitely been explicit about sort of being on, you know, supporting Vance so far.

[A]

Yeah, but that, that, that never. Right. Just like Obama wasn't gonna run for president until he did. That shit never holds. And Biden was going to be a transitionary president until he decides to run for a second term. So we. I don't believe that for a second. So. But what's interesting is they both are staking out their Personas for the race. So they're, they're both sticking to MAGA because there's not enough votes in a Republican primary to be the anti Maga candidate right now and win. Right. But at the same time, also, you're

[B]

not gonna be able to survive very long in the Trump administration being anti Maga for sure.

[A]

Yeah. If you leave, maybe. So Vance is trying to imitate Trump and I think it's gonna fall short because Trump, for all of his many, many flaws, is a genius at being Trump. And pretending to be him doesn't work. And oftentimes when Trump acts like an, you sort of understand it in the broader context of who and what he is, even if you disagree with it. When, when Vance acts like an, you're just like, oh, what a clown. He's just trying to imitate the other guy. And like, yeah, inauthentic. So, like, people still prefer an authentic to an inauthentic. Rubio is trying to be the, hey, I hold the values of maga, but I'm my own person and I don't need to pretend to try to be someone else. I'm just me. I think that's a much, much smarter approach. I think the downside is sometimes when you try to be all things to all people. Like Hillary Clinton tried that. It doesn't really work. Right. You end up being nothing to anyone. And so that opens the path for a third person who is perhaps not trying to be all things to all people. But also, that doesn't come off just like an inauthentic clown like Vance does who can perhaps emerge through all of that.

[B]

You know, it's funny. I thought the speech, Rubio's speech was, in a lot of ways, better than the coverage made it out to be. And yet there were some things in there that were, I don't know, disturbing. He talks about the sort of. He highlighted just the Christian values of Europe. Europe, which you're going around even to Turkey and visiting synagogues and stuff. When someone like Rubio highlights Christian values as this kind of fundamental connection with Europe, does that kind of stick in your craw a little bit? It feels like some kind of signaling that is it has sort of shitty intent.

[A]

Well, look, someone like Trump or Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller clearly believes in a Christian or Judeo Christian.

[B]

I think you leave the Judeo part out, though, don't you?

[A]

Well, I threw that in because Miller is technically. I say technically Jewish only because I'm so embarrassed that he's Jewish, quite frankly. You know. But, but, but, but still, I think they look at the world and say, this is how the world has to be, and it's us versus everybody else. Else. And that is their philosophy and their worldview. And they genuinely believe that people of some genetics are better than people of others. Right. They. Trump truly does believe that. Susie Wiles admitted that in her Vanity Fair interviews. So I think that. I don't know if Rubio believes that or not, because technically, Rubio is not white. Right. You know, he might look white, but he is Latino. And Trump might respect or like Marco Rubio or not, I don't know. But he clearly doesn't feel that way about all people of Latin American descent certainly feel the way about Mexicans, the way he talks about them. So Rubio, at the very least, though, knows that in terms of major power sources within a Republican primary, evangelicals, major religious leaders, major donors, people like that, that Judeo Christian dominance view of the world and a view that people's value is determined by their genetics is something that he has to sort of pay some homage to if he wants to support. Whether he believes or not, I don't know. And this may be where he ultimately fails, which is if he's trying to both signal to those people he's with them. And then in a room of say, you know, let's say I had a fundraiser for Ruby and it was a bunch of sort of wealthy New Yorkers who are a little more center, he might try to imply he doesn't really mean it. He's just saying that because he has to say it. Once you're doing that, it tends to fail ultimately, especially in a non institutionalized world and in a world where before the Internet, when the sources of information were mainstream media and there were relatively few that mattered, perhaps you could manage to say different things to different people and get away with it. That becomes much, much harder. For example, Mitt Romney was in some fundraiser and he talked about how 47% of the country isn't paying the taxes. And that got a lot of people sad. Or Obama was in a fundraiser and talked about how people, white people in rural America kind of cling to their guns and their religion and all of that.

[B]

And then Hillary had the deplorables. That was a big right.

[A]

So it's hard to exist in a world where everything is being filmed either overtly or secretly and then broadcast to get away with trying to have very different signals to different audiences.

[B]

Did you have an overall opinion of the Rubio speech?

[A]

No, not really. I mean, I don't really know that he said anything that was all that different than what Trump or Vance said. He just said it in a kind of kinder, gentler way. Like to me, the most significant thing was it was a preview, like I said, of if you take the Van speech and the Rubio speech of the 2020 presidential election. I don't know of any specific US policy towards Europe that's gonna change. It's not gonna impact tariffs one way or the other. And I don't know of any real European policy is gonna change other than they have already been forced to and I think rightfully pay more for their share of NATO. But other than that, I think it's a lot of process and a lot of words and a lot of people like us who like analyzing and parsing through things, talking about it, but I think the real world impact of it's pretty limited.

[B]

So if you have Rubio and Vance kind of, you know, let's say they split the MAGA vote, that leaves a pretty good opportunity for someone else. Do you have a sense of who that is and who has credibility? Sure.

[A]

Because it can't be another like someone like Josh Hawley might try to. There are other hyper ambitious people who are senators or governors or whatever. Who will run? I guess the question is, could a traditional Mitt Romney esque Republican pick up enough votes and have a shot? You know, also keep in mind, traditionally, although maybe in this case because Rubio and Vance are such powerhouses, this wouldn't happen. But like think about the 2020 Democratic primary. You know, Bernie Sanders was dominating before COVID before Super Tuesday, and then all of a sudden Bloomberg implodes in the debate and and maybe was never at the end of the day a credible candidate to win the nomination anyway because he wasn't really a Democrat and it

[B]

seemed like he didn't actually want it, I mean, the way he performed anyway.

[A]

Right. Yeah. And Biden emerges as the centrist alternative. And because of the pandemic, it just became this almost unspoken thing of like, well, Bernie can't be in charge right now and Biden just became the nominee by default. But Fast forward to 2028. You know, there is a world where when you start with 20 something candidates, AOC does really, really well if she runs in the, in the first few, because if there's a lot of choices and most of them are relatively similar and then has a different base and they turn out and you need to own the plurality, not a majority, and you can get, you know, 19%, 24%, whatever it is, and win a caucus or a primary, she could win the first couple. And then what would likely happen is one person, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen, whoever it is, who's more centrist, becomes the other alternative. And then the rest of the primary is a battle between those two, most likely in the Republican side, that's what would happen as well. So if some really impressive, kind of moderate, ish Republican CEO, or if Bob Iger, he's too old now, but someone like him or Jamie Dimon ran, they might, if there's a bunch of MAGA people on the other side, do well early. But then probably someone like Vance or Rubio becomes the other candidate. And then the question is if they're the MAGA candidate and someone else is sort of the centrist, kind of old school Republican candidate at the moment? The distribution of power and votes within the Republican Party in the primary would still argue that the MAGA candidates get one.

[B]

Has anybody who knew figured out that you're an American asked you about Trump since you've been over there?

[A]

No, but keep in mind, I find that when I travel, you don't talk

[B]

to randos that much.

[A]

Yeah, I mean the problem, everyone I deal with is typically in a service capacity, it's at the hotel it's an Uber driver. It's, you know, a restaurant, whatever it is. And they don't know my politics. And so, you know, I don't spend enough time with anyone that they would venture something like that.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I don't. I don't know any locals. You know, there was, you know, one person that I knew in Madrid who's an American who happens to live there, and I had lunch with her, but I knew her politics before all of this, so that didn't, you know, so. No, not. Not really. I mean, I think you have to kind of live here or be here for an extended period of time or at the very least, maybe have friends who are locals and they have a dinner party or you offer dinner with them and they're local friends for, you know, that kind of conversation to happen.

[B]

Yeah. So tell me, what's the rest of your agenda before you come back to New York?

[A]

You know, I just got dinner tonight. Cause we're eight hours ahead. And then tomorrow there's some different today. Can we kind of hit all the big sites? And then tomor. Tomorrow is going to be more of the, like, neighborhoods and things like that. And then fly back Thursday and get back to work. So, you know, I was, as we were just coming on to record. On one hand, I always enjoy when we do this, but part of me was thinking I'm kind of undermining the per. The. The underlying purpose of a vacation by working during my vacation. But I don't. I can't recall ever being on a vacation where I didn't work. Maybe I didn't work. You know, I try not to work the entire time, but there are very few days where I don't have a call or two or one of the most amazing things.

[B]

Bradley, I remember when you were working on your. On the adaptation and TV adaptation of the Fixer, I think you wrote. Did you write 10 scripts while you were on safari? No.

[A]

No more than four or five.

[B]

On your phone. On your phone, though. That's the part I love that you

[A]

did it on your phone.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I have to say, I kind of hate writing on my phone, but. But, yeah, but I was. But you know, the Predictors, the show I'm working on now. I did wake up this morning with. I don't know if you do this writing, not just ideas, but like, things that were gnawing at me that were problems with the script or the. Or not even less, because I'm not at the. I've written five episodes, but I'm not at the place where I'm like editing the script itself yet really, but more just the overall structure. And there were like. I had a plotline for the next episode that I just didn't really think was that good. And then I kind of woke up with a solution to it, which was a totally different plot, but it makes more sense. I realized that the pilot, which is a lot longer than all the other episodes, should just get broken up into two episodes and what I need to add into it to do it. And so, you know, sometimes actually when you have a little bit of remove from work, I think the ideas or solutions to things you're writing or doing creatively emerge a little easier for sure.

[B]

Have you doing any reading? Do you have any recommendations?

[A]

Yeah, I've been doing some reading, but nothing. It's stuff I've enjoyed, but nothing. But I would say I saw the movie Hamnet, which is really not my kind of thing, but I watched it. I was trying to fall asleep. I was jet lagged and kind of in bed where I was, was pretty relaxed and had nothing else to do. It worked really well for me. If I had seen it in the theater, I think I would have got bored. I wouldn't have left, but I would have got bored because it just would have been too slow. But if you have a little more patience than I do, which would encompass 99 of the population, I think you might like it. It was.

[B]

It was.

[A]

Did you see it or read the book?

[B]

But it's funny, I was gonna go see it yesterday with Scarlett because she's home, but we didn't.

[A]

I thought it was beautiful. Really, you know, just about a. Like I found myself at the end just sending Lyle a text telling him how much I loved him because it was, you know, about, you know, tragedy, but also parents love for a child and for, in this case, a son, you know. And then if you happen to be in Madrid, Abby and I had this and you're willing to spend a zillion dollars on a meal and four hours. Abby and I went to this place called Coaxio. Q U E out of. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it properly or not. And it wasn't just that. It was like a 19 course meal, but it was so innovative. Like you literally ate the meal in four different parts of the restaurant.

[B]

You had to get out. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. Wow.

[B]

I would think you might not like that.

[A]

You know, Abby and I just really kind of went with it. Yeah.

[B]

If you're with Abby, that's sort of a different thing because it's just like an adventure.

[A]

Well, and it's funny because I didn't really realize. Realize what it was. And she. I met her at 8:30 and, you know, she was gonna go out with her friends and. And we didn't finish till 12:30. And she actually. Great accomplishment. I got her to eat some fish, which was, you know, some protein. So I was. I was very pleased with myself about that. But. But it was spectacular, and the food was incredible. And it was not. Even though it was, you know, long and a lot of courses and very expensive. It wasn't stuffy. It was fun. And so if you happen to be in Madrid and want to do a blowout meal. And it was, you know, the Spaniards really kind of pioneered the whole molecular gastronomy thing.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And they didn't go wildly overboard with it. But a couple times, like, there was one dessert course where there was this consistent flow of cinnamon scented, like nitrous oxide or some kind of dry ice or whatever flowing at the table the entire time to have, like, the scent inform the taste of the dessert, whether it did that or not, I have no idea.

[B]

But did you find that annoying? No, it was cool.

[A]

No, it was cool. It was cool. So, you know, the, The. The things, the. The gimmicks, I thought worked pretty well.

[B]

They worked.

[A]

So those would be my recommendations. You have.

[B]

I have to say that I. Well, I just ate at a Spanish restaurant last night that. Have you been to Bartolo in the West Village?

[A]

Yeah, it was good. Did you like it?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I really liked it, but I. I don't think it's as good as their other restaurant, Ernestos. But it's definitely. It's definitely good. If you're in New York, you just go to Berto.

[A]

I would agree with that. But. Yeah, but look, overall, I think Spanish cuisine maybe doesn't quite get the credit it deserves. I mean, you could make the case that a lot of, you know, at least the best of Spanish cuisine is right up there with.

[B]

Oh, for sure.

[A]

You know, French and Italian and Japanese and, you know, Peruvian and Mexican and some of the other great cuisines of the world. So. So, yeah, I think it is a slightly underrated. It's funny. Alex Coutts, you know, we did the podcast with. At the end of December.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

Tokyo. We were texting. He's in Tokyo right now. And he was saying to me he thought Tokyo was the best food city in the world. And, you know, I kind of went through my list and it was on there, but it certainly wasn't in my mind. The clear. Number one, is there a city in the world that you're like, if you had to eat, if you could. If you had your last supper or your last series of meals, and there was one city you had to eat them in? And let's take New York out of the mix.

[B]

Yeah. You know, I think I might say Madrid. I have. I think Madrid might be number one for me.

[A]

Fair. Yeah, that would be fair.

[B]

So what's your number one?

[A]

You know, Mexico City is pretty spectacular. So that could be it. Bangkok. Pretty. Pretty amazing. Barcelona. Pretty. Pretty incredible. So maybe those. The one city that's supposed to be just incredible for food or. You know what? Actually, New Orleans really might be mine, to be perfectly honest. But. Okay. But the one city that I haven't been to and maybe never will get to is Beirut because of the, you know, just not safe. But, like, that is supposed to be. And Lebanese food is just incredible. Right. So, like, of all the Middle Eastern cuisines, I like a lot of them, but Lebanese is the best. My view. So. So Beirut is a city that I would love to go eat in, but I don't know in general when it's safe and for Jews, you know, that much more. So.

[B]

Yeah. All right, Bradley, we'll have a safe trip back. Thank you. Next week.

[A]

Okay, thanks, guys. Bye. Firewall is recorded at my bookstore, pnt.net, where located at 180 Orchard street on the lower east side of Manhattan. We'd love to hear from you with questions, feedbacks or idea for a guest. Just email me me at Bradley at Firewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new substack at bradleytus. Substack. Com. Thanks again for listening.