Sam Harris (3:23)

Yeah.

Jonah Goldberg (3:23)

And I guess the thing I'm sort of most shocked by, it's hard. I should have made a list. But I guess the thing I'm most shocked by is the cavalier way a lot of people just sort of price in the corruption. And I don't mean, I don't necessarily just mean like the crypto stuff and the bitcoin stuff and taking a plane from the Qataris and all of those sort of obvious things. You know, corruption has a more. Is a richer, more redolent meaning than the sort of just bribe taking kind of connotation to it. The corruption of sort of the way the system is supposed to work. The, you know, one of the things that's good about hypocrisy that people don't really appreciate is that even lip service to an ideal that you fall short of maintains this idea that the ideal should be an ideal. Right. Like Wayne Booth, the literary critic, says that rhetoric is the art of probing what men believe men ought to believe. And so the fact that Trump has been so successful in just dispensing with the pretense of doing the right thing some of the time, and people cut him slack for it. You know, this idea that you're going to fill the government with loyalists, where you make them take loyalty tests, and everyone says, well, that's just Trump. That's what people voted for. The idea that you're going to put some of these, some truly unqualified people in power solely because they're loyal. That's the kind of thing that loyalty tests are a thing in politics and have been for thousands of years, and they're never going away. But the pretense that you're doing things for other reasons is usually cover for it. And here there's a lot of crap he's doing that they're just. They're just owning it. And that's been pretty shocking to me.

Sam Harris (5:00)

Yeah. That point about hypocrisy is a deep one. I think there's this La Rochefoucauld maxim that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice plays to virtue, and that does have the same. It's making the same point that you're only truly capable of hypocrisy if you're to some degree granting the importance of certain norms, tacitly. So it's by reference to those norms that you can be convicted of hypocrisy. But there's just no pretense of normativity at all with these guys. The one thing, I mean, Trump lies about everything under the sun. He's a massive imposter and has been in so many respects. He pretended to be rich when he wasn't rich, et cetera, but he's never pretended to be a good person. Right. He's not a hypocrite in that sense, and I think that's some key to his charm for at least half of America.

Jonah Goldberg (5:51)

Yeah. I'm kind of curious what you think about this, because I. I often try to explain this point to people, and they look at me the way my basset hound used to look at me when I tried to feed it a grape with just sort of head tilting. Total incomprehension. I see Trump, in many ways as almost a culmination of postmodernism. Right. And we can stay on the hypocrisy thing for just a second. You know, as. As a friend of mine once said, when Hugh Hefner moved out of the Playboy Mansion to raise little kids, no one criticized him for failing to live down to his principles. Right. Like the I. In a healthy society, the hypocrisy thing about upholding the ideals is important because it still keeps the standard alive. And the cult of authenticity, which is more from romanticism than postmodernism, but they overlap, says no. The truth, the highest version of. Of truth, the highest version of legitimacy, comes from within. You just have to be true to yourself. And that's why I think our culture for the last 50 years has been so obsessed with notions of hypocrisy. But I always used to say, you know, if a glutton says everyone should overeat, that he's being true to himself, but he's giving terrible advice. It's better to say, don't do what I do. Right. The essence of good parenting is to say, you know, don't make, you know, is not to sort of teach your kids to make the same mistakes you made, but to say, I learned from some things and we're going to set some standards and do as I say, not as I did. And Trump, I think, comes partly from Norman Vincent Peale and the power of positive thinking upbringing that he had, and partly from his just, you know, malignant narcissism. He has this approach to the universe, which is to say that his feelings are determinative of reality. We just saw this last week with the firing of the BLS commissioner. Commissioner. It's critical Trump theory, right? If any external truth or standard undermines his desires, his will to power, his preferences, it must not only be corrupt or rigged, as he would put it, but it must be specifically rigged against him that it's bigoted against Trump. Right. When Barr told him, we looked into these allegations that the election was stolen and there's no evidence to it, Trump's response wasn't go look again or show me the facts. It was, you must hate Trump because he doesn't speak the vernacular of Foucault, reading campus radicals or anything like that. And because he's so naked in his appetites and his agenda, people don't see it, that in many ways, it's a kind of horseshoe theory thing where he's living down to this cult of authenticity thing, and it gets him off the hook. People will say, that's just Trump being Trump, as if an explanation is the same thing as an excuse.

Sam Harris (8:38)

Yeah, well, there's this phrase that is gaining some currency among the commentariat, which is the woke right or the postmodern right. And the claim seems to be that the right has learned, if not explicitly, by osmosis, from the success of wokeness on the far left, that you can essentially take all of your political assertions off the gold standard of reality testing and truth claims and intellectual honesty, and it's just all a matter of just the mimetics of what will win. I mean, what narrative can you force into people's brains on social media? Who can you smear successfully? And, yeah, then there's just whatever sticks, sticks, and it's just a Set of power relations. Right. You're worried about who has power, who's going to benefit from anything being established as true as opposed to whether or not it is true. And yeah, it does vindicate at least this part of horseshoe theory. I mean, I guess there's anti. Semitism also vindicates it. If you go far enough left or right, you meet antisemites of a different flavor. But the resemblance of the political extremes to one another is in the lack of principles and the conspiracy thinking and the willingness to really break all of the norms that allow for sane rational compromise. Yeah, it seems to be there and it just is self evident.

Jonah Goldberg (10:07)

I used to be a big critic of horseshoe theory and I'm still willing to defend my old criticisms. But I've had to say times have changed and I've changed my mind about it insofar as I used to defend the American right and conservatism and I still defend the conservatism that I believe in on these grounds. It's just that my conservatism isn't very popular these days. But you know, American conservatism is liberal in the classical liberal sense. Is the heart of the American conservative movement in my lifetime was defending, you know, the founding fathers and the, the Constitution, free market capitalism, all of these things that stem out of 18th and 19th century classical liberalism. And a big chunk of the American center left is classically liberal too. I mean, they have too much Rawls in it for me. But that's a different conversation. And what kind of just dawned on me is like I never, I always thought that the right would not let go of those commitments. And it turns out that the reason why horseshoe theory works is the second you stop being liberal. Right. In the classical liberal sense, you know, individual rights, the sovereignty of facts, the liberal of liberal arts. Right. That's the kind of liberal I'm talking about this idea that rules and rights are sovereign, that the individual is key, that conscience rights are important, that we don't judge people as members of groups, but on their own actions and based on their own arguments and facts and all that. The second you abandon that, whether you do it for a culturally loaded left wing ism or a culturally loaded right wing ism, the salient point is it's illiberal.

Sam Harris (11:44)

Yeah.

Jonah Goldberg (11:45)

And illiberalisms. It's sort of like in particle physics, you know, you got different. They start giving these different things different tiny little flavors to explain the differences of them. But at the end of the day, like illiberalism is illiberalism and the differences between them boil down to flavors and aesthetics and also which constituencies you want to reward. Right. Which powers, which groups you want to elevate and which you want to denigrate. But in terms of, like, respect for rights and facts and logic and reason and conscience and all that kind of stuff, the different forms of illiberalism are all remarkably similar.

Sam Harris (12:24)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, they're both tribal, right. You're fighting for your tribe and there's no pretense of the universality of your commitments to be actually ethical, to be saying something is good or something is evil, really, it can't just be. It's that way because you are you part of your group or you have your skin color, you have to be making a claim that's generalizable to people regardless of identity. But once you give up that criterion and you just think identity is everything, then, yeah, there's no reason to respect expertise. I mean, obviously expertise is a sham. That's just another power relation. Institutions don't have to be preserved. As you go far enough left and far enough right now, you meet people who don't seem to think there's much of anything worth preserving in our society. So it's definitely not conservative. The further right you go, you meet the tear it all down brigade just as surely as you meet them on the left.

Jonah Goldberg (13:27)

Yeah, yeah. And one of the arguments, I think, I apologize if we talked about this last time I was on here, but one of the arguments that drives me crazy is this claim which you get from a lot of people on what they call the common good, constitutionalism. It's one of these post liberal right wing intellectual niches and the argument that they like to make, which has its analogs in the arguments that the Trump administration makes all the time, is that the Constitution, and by extension the rule of law, but the Constitution is a morally neutral document. And I find this really grotesque because first of all, where the Constitution is neutral, that neutrality itself is profoundly moral. Right. This idea that you, you know, the reason why justice is blind is that you're not supposed to pick favorites by the color of the skin of people walking to the courtroom.

Sam Harris (14:18)

Right.

Jonah Goldberg (14:19)

But at the same time, you know, the idea that you have the right to confront your accuser, Right. That was one of the most hard won moral victories for humanity. Right. The idea that you should be secure in your papers and your properties and you have a right to privacy and all these kinds of things, that is not morally neutral. And it's very easy to see how it's not morally neutral if you feel like when it's violated, you know, if you start thinking about the Fifth Amendment or the First Amendment. The right to speak your conscience without punishment. Right. The right to worship as you please, to associate as you please. We take these things for granted, which is a shame. But taking them for granted is not the same thing as thinking that they're morally neutral.

Sam Harris (15:02)

No, no.

Jonah Goldberg (15:02)

The. This is what makes Western democracies morally superior to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes of the right or the left. Right. The fact that we recognize these things. But this tribal thing that you get on the post liberal right says no, no, no, because they don't reward the things that we like and they allow for the freedom of people we disagree with. That's a suicide pact, and we got to get rid of it. And I think that's what's suicidal, is that kind of thinking.

Sam Harris (15:34)

So what do you make of Trump's apparent failure to put the Epstein mess behind him in a way that is as efficient as his dispatch of most of the scandals he's had to deal with?

Jonah Goldberg (15:46)

So. And I'm glad we've moved on from the philosophical stuff for a little bit. So I think the Epstein thing is kind of fascinating. We'll just do this as political punditry, just for a second. Part of what we're seeing here is it dawning on the various hotbeds of maga, social media, podcast, pros, whoever, Right? Steve Bannon. It's dawning on them that Trump's not going to be around forever, and the Epstein story is just too good, Right? It's got. I mean, it is, as my friend David French says, it's something like, he calls it, the thinking man's QAnon. Right? And it just checks so many boxes and scratches, so many erogenous zones. It's got this perfidious Jewish guy at the head of it, right? And he's in the shadowy globalist world of banking and all of this kind of thing. And it's got pedophilia and sexual depravity, which is always a big theme of the QAnon crowd. And to let go of it means that you can't use it down the road, say, in the Republican primaries or in the post Trump era. And so part of it, I think, is like a bunch of people are realizing this topic is just too damn monetizable to let go of. That's part of it. There's also the fact that it's just too damn juicy, right? And people like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel. They have invested so much of their identity in these stories that they're presented with and for listeners, I assume they know head of the FBI and the number two guy at the FBI that for them to say, oh, we were just. There was nothing there, puts them in this incredible bind, which I find utterly justified and delicious. Because either the only choices are we were lying to you all along or we were full of crap all along. Right. Maybe that it could be one or both of those. I think they're both. But we were gaslighting you all along and now we're telling you the truth. Or we were telling you the truth before and now we're lying to stay in power. And that rubs up against this whole sort of anti deep state, anti establishment thing. It creates excruciating problems for them. And the fact that Trump has had such a hard time putting it to bed, I mean, it's kind of gone to bed now. It's taking a nap. I don't think it's gone. Shows how fraught creating a mass movement based on a cult of personality is because you've got this massive coalition that is only unified basically around one thing. It's Donald Trump. And that's not an ideological coalition, that's not a political coalition, that's not even a coalition of interests, properly understood. It is purely a grift about a cult of personality. And the fact that you can see that he can't hold it all together when it comes to an issue like this is fascinating. Now, as for why he wants it to go away, I'll just be clear. I don't think there's any. I don't think we're ever going to get evidence that he was on the blackmail list. I don't think there was a blackmail list. I don't think there's going to be any evidence that he was sleeping with underage girls. And the reason I think that is not because I have a high view of Donald Trump's character. It's because if that stuff existed, there is no way the Biden administration or New York District Attorney's office or the Justice Department generally wouldn't have weaponized it when they were putting Donald Trump on trial for the stupid bank, you know, business records thing.

Sam Harris (19:28)

Right.

Jonah Goldberg (19:29)

And that kind of stuff. If they had this and opted not to use it, that would be utterly bizarre. The idea that it wouldn't leak is utterly bizarre. At the same time, do I think there's embarrassing stuff in there for Trump? Absolutely. And I think that's probably enough and he deserves all the grief he gets for it because he's covering up something that he's told his people for years. Any government cover ups of something is proof of some conspiracy and now he's covering up something that he said he was gonna release. So it would sort of take a heart of stone not to laugh at all of it.

Sam Harris (20:02)

Yeah, yeah, no, my schadenfreude circuits have been humming along for at least a month now.

Jonah Goldberg (20:08)

Yeah.

Sam Harris (20:09)

So, yeah, I mean, the only time I can remember Trump getting sideways with his cult in this sort of way that was kind of briefly surprising and then he'd never touched that again, I think, was when he in front of some crowd. It might have been cpac. I don't know where he was, but he took credit for the vaccines and he got boo. Right. And that was just this first moment really. I mean, I think not to be repeated until the Epstein mess where it was just clear that, okay, his cult, it's all about him. Except there are a few things they really do care about. And if he seems to see those things differently, that's a potential problem for him. Right. So they really were against the vaccine more or less to a man at that point. And so for him to take credit for it as though it were a good thing, that was just too much cognitive dissonance. They erupted in booze. And here it seems like, yeah, they know he lies about everything, or they pretend not to know that he lies about everything, but here's a case where he seems to be lying about something they actually care about. Right. And that might have been the first occasion where that was the case.

Jonah Goldberg (21:17)

So I agree with you entirely on the analog. I think that is the last time. I think it's worth pointing out that this sort of adds another layer of schadenfreudastic deliciousness to all of this, which is that Donald Trump's bubble, like when he was. I think you're right, it was cpac. But if it wasn't cpac, it was TPUSA or one of those kinds of groups. His primary feedback mechanism are the extremely online ultra MAGA types. Right. The people who. That's his pool of narcissists, are those people. And they steer him the wrong way all the time. And sometimes to his credit, I gotta say, he doesn't listen to him. But like he sees those kinds of crowds as avatars for the rank and file Republican voter and the rank and file Republican voter. There's not a lot of polling evidence that they care much about the Epstein stuff that they're focusing on the Epstein stuff. This is an obsession among the groups that he's obsessed with rather than sort of the median voter. And, you know, the Democrats are trying to change that and turn it into a bigger thing. And I do not blame them in the slightest as a matter of just raw politics. But Trump would be in better shape if, you know, he stopped caring what Laura Loomer and these other gargoyles thought about stuff because they actually, off of social media platforms, they actually don't seem to move the needle very much on public opinion. But he cares about them. Don Jr. Cares about them. The people in his orbit care about them. And I think some of it is a function. I remember back when he was running for the first time in 2016, he would constantly talk about how online polls are very scientific. And the reason he thought they were scientific is that he did well in online polls. And because he invests in the shadows on the Plato's Cave, he. He overreads their importance in all sorts of ways. It's why he puts Fox News hosts throughout his administration. He lives in this very meta, sort of online on TV universe. And he doesn't actually have good instincts for reading the normies all that well. And that's one of the reasons why this thing has gotten him into trouble, because he cares so much about their feedback that he's the one who keeps bringing it up.

Sam Harris (23:42)

Is there anyone in that orbit who's fundamentally broken with him over this? I mean, I haven't followed this that closely, but people like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens, they were quite disgruntled in the beginning around how I think they deflected a lot of their blame onto Pam Bondi and Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. But has anyone just actually broken with Trump and Maga over this? This is clearly. They've just become the swamp. And, you know, the new rulers are as bad as the old rulers.

Jonah Goldberg (24:13)

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. I mean, I remember. I mean, Charlie Kirk said shortly when this thing first started to blow up, that he would never let go of the story. It's the most important story of the 20th century. And then, like, 72 hours later, after he got a call from the White House, he's like, yeah, I'm not gonna be talking about this anymore. I think I try not to follow Tucker too closely, but I don't think Tucker's let go of it. But I don't think. I don't think the incentives are quite there to say, I'm done with Trump. I mean, there's this dynamic that has been very common. I mean, I'm sure you've seen it a thousand times, right? There's this, it's sort of a cliche among, about Jews in, in Czarist Russia where they would always say, if only the czar knew. Right. And there's this desire to say, oh, whenever Trump gets himself into trouble, his advisors should stop telling him this, as if he hasn't made these decisions himself. Right? Falsifying Trump gets you in a lot of trouble. Saying that the people around him are in error is usually the safe harbor.

Sam Harris (25:16)

What do you think about the state of the Democratic Party at this point? I mean, as you say, they're trying to ride this political controversy to some better spot on the map. But until this moment, until the Epstein story began to cause Trump this amount of anguish, I mean, they seemed completely feckless and I mean, it's hard to even know what they were attempting to do. It seemed like they were. It was just nothing but apathy and bewilderment that had subsumed the party. I mean, it's like they were. Apart from the rallies that Bernie Sanders and AOC were holding that got some traction, which seemed to be pulling the party in absolutely the wrong direction for future political success. It was hard to know what anyone was attempting to do to push back against Trump in his second term. How do you view the Democratic Party at this point, and what do you think the prospects are going forward?

Jonah Goldberg (26:14)

So Ezra Klein had this piece, which I don't think was. I'm not trying to insult Ezra. It was less that it was so insightful than it was so indicative of a mood shortly after the election where he was lamenting the fact that given how close the presidential election was in 2024, the vibe shift is way bigger.

Sam Harris (26:35)

If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe@samharris.org Once you do, you'll get access to all full length episodes of the Making Sense podcast. The Making Sense podcast is ad free and relies entirely on listener support. And you can subscribe now@samharris.org.