Garry Kasparov and Jerusalem Demsas: Democracy Can't Defend Itself

Summary

The Bulwark Podcast — August 21, 2025

"Garry Kasparov and Jerusalem Demsas: Democracy Can't Defend Itself"

---

Overview

In this two-part episode, host Sarah Longwell and co-host Tim Miller are joined first by world chess champion and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, who discusses the global backslide toward authoritarianism, drawing lessons from Russia’s descent and the risks facing American democracy. In the second segment, Jerusalem Demsas, editor-in-chief of The Argument, examines threats to liberalism from both the post-liberal right and left, the challenges of revitalizing American liberalism, and debates among progressives about growth, inclusion, and policy priorities.

The conversation is rich with historical context, blunt warnings, and calls to action, peppered with memorable quotes and a few laughs.

---

Part 1: Garry Kasparov on the Global Struggle for Democracy

Kasparov’s Journey: From Soviet Chess Champion to Dissident

[02:19–06:16]

• Kasparov’s background: Born in the Soviet Union, early exposure to the West as a chess prodigy. Family was critical of the Soviet regime.
• After becoming the youngest world champion at 22, he shifted his credibility to support Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms.
• Hoped the fall of the USSR was permanent, but saw “the past returning” in the late 1990s and, by 2005, quit chess to fight Putin’s rise.
  • Quote: “In Russia, unlike in chess, the rules kept changing. But the result was the same.” (Kasparov, [04:27])
• Warns that complacency after the Cold War allowed “new forms of evil”—authoritarianism—to rise globally.

Lessons from Russia and the Peril of Complacency

[06:16–10:31]

• Kasparov cautions against direct Russia–U.S. comparisons, but notes a global pattern: regimes with no domestic enemies turn outward, fueling conflict.
• He predicted Russia’s aggression against Ukraine years before it happened by paying attention to Putin’s rhetoric and ambitions.
  • Quote: “Dictators always lie about what they've done, but very often they tell you exactly what they're going to do.” (Kasparov, [08:05])
• Condemns the West for not heeding overt signals from Moscow.

The Fragility of Democracy

[07:02–10:31]

• Russia’s inability to resist Putin, and Americans’ complacency about the health of their own democracy, are deeply linked.
  • Quote: “Democracy is a piece of paper...[it] is what you believe in and how far you're willing to go to defend it.” (Kasparov, [09:15])
• American friends with “contempt for Trump” underestimate the looming threat, especially from a potential Trump second term.

Trump and the Normalization of Authoritarian Tactics

[10:31–13:36]

• Kasparov highlights how Trump normalized unacceptable behavior and shifted American political culture:
  • Withholding tax returns, firing non-loyalists, self-serving partnerships with oligarchs, openly flirting with overextending his term.
• Watergate is now “almost a joke” by comparison.
  • Quote: “Donald Trump has been successfully normalizing things that were unacceptable.” (Kasparov, [11:26])

The Russia–Ukraine–U.S. Triangle and Trump’s Weakness

[15:30–19:42]

• Dismisses the idea of real Trump-driven negotiations; Putin won’t meet Zelensky except for a capitulation.

• “Alaska” (referring to a summit) as a humiliation: “Trump looked...totally unpresidential.”

• European leaders forced to flatter Trump for Ukraine’s sake, showing loss of focus on principles.

  “Trump's ego becomes the centerpiece of American politics and also global politics. I mean, it's not going to end well because at the end of the day, all we know about Trump is that everything he does, everything he says has only two points of interest, monetization and glorification.” (Kasparov, [17:32])

Trump’s Social Media & Ukraine Policy

[19:42–25:32]

• Analyzes Trump’s Nixon–Putin meme: an attempt to look strong, but unconvincing (“Putin is smirking”).
• Trump claims the Ukraine war would never have happened if he were president. Kasparov retorts: Only possible if Trump forced Ukraine’s submission, not because he deterred Putin.
• Partial agreement: Biden was too restrictive on Ukraine’s offensive options.
• Highlights advances in Ukraine's military tech and outmoded U.S. weapons.

What Should America's Role Be?

[25:32–27:01]

• The West, especially the U.S., should help Ukraine severely weaken Russian infrastructure.
• Advocates for lifting restrictions on Ukrainian use of Western weapons and for stronger European (especially energy) sanctions.

Response to U.S. Vice President’s Take on Putin

[28:40–31:56]

• The VP (clip played) characterizes Putin as “soft-spoken” and “careful, deliberate.”
• Kasparov: “Stalin was soft spoken...this is the guy who is responsible for hundreds of thousand, most likely millions of lives, who has no allergy for blood.”
• Challenges narrative that Trump has ever criticized Putin or acted against his interests.

Tucker Carlson, WWII, and the Dangers of Historical Revisionism

[31:56–34:26]

• Kasparov slams nonsense about siding with Hitler over Stalin, reminds listeners of the complex tragic choices smaller European nations faced.
• Warns against the allure of “sliding down” to rationalizing totalitarian figures—notes that Putin today is worse than Hitler in 1938.

Strategies for Defending Democracy

[34:44–37:20]

• The focus shouldn't be on 2028 or Trump’s aspirations for a lifetime presidency, but on imminent threats—especially the 2026 Congressional elections.
• Fears gerrymandering and attacks on voting methods, stating Trump “cannot lose the levels of power.” Congress is the only real check.
• Quote: “We have a person who never recognized his loss in 2020...and now in 2026, he will have all levels of power, including DOJ and FBI.” (Kasparov, [35:38])

Chess as a Metaphor: Magnus Carlsen's Loss

[37:20–39:15]

• Kasparov’s take: chess teaches the dangers of complacency and pride—Magnus Carlsen’s meltdown is a public lesson in losing vigilance.

---

Part 2: Jerusalem Demsas on Defending and Revitalizing Liberalism

The Argument: Mission and Media Context

[40:12–44:30]

• Demsas describes her new outlet, The Argument, aiming to “revitalize American liberalism”—understood as rule of law, individual freedoms, equality, and pro-growth policies.

• The focus is on substantive arguments for policy—not just “lecturing” about democracy.

• Commissioning diverse writers who embrace positive-sum, pro-equality, pro-growth ideas.

  “There are issues people care about...and instead of just saying you need to care about liberal democracy, we should just explain and argue for the things that we think would make the world a better place.” (Demsas, [41:38])

Positive Liberalism vs. the Post-Liberal Left and Right

[44:30–49:16]

• Demsas is motivated by defending against the “post-liberal right” (identified as a greater, more coherent threat currently) and also opposes illiberal trends on the left—especially anti-growth, anti-immigration, and anti-debate sentiments.

• On the left, she sees a contradiction between espoused pluralism and policies that restrict growth and opportunity—e.g., NIMBYism and anti-business sentiment.

  “Many people on the left would say things like...we want diversity. And then they're also supporting anti growth policies that make it impossible for that to be true.” (Demsas, [45:53])

• Demsas critiques “red–brown alliances”—where both fringes oppose globalization and liberal society from different motives.

Real-World Policy: Zoning, Growth, and Progress

[49:16–54:38]

• Uses Zoran Mamdani in NYC as an example of a left-leaning “pro-growth” politician. Contrasts him with Karen Bass (LA mayor) who has blocked affordable housing construction.

• Demsas’s core critique of the left: anti-growth, anti–change impulses hurt equity and undermine living standards.

  “People who will call themselves liberals [have been] not interested and not available to tolerate this kind of debate.” (Demsas, [59:13])

Liberalism, The Free Press, and Anti-Woke Critiques

[54:38–57:26]

• Demsas distinguishes her project from The Free Press, foregrounding differences on both domestic and foreign policy. Critiques the latter for fueling anti-liberal resurgence and anti–Trump stances that paradoxically boost Trump’s power.

Wokeness and Academic Freedom

[57:26–59:47]

• Admits there were illiberal trends in campus culture but sees a false equivalence between social pressure and state censorship. Emphasizes persuasion and tolerance.
• Cautions against the right’s weaponization of “woke” as a pejorative for any equity-focused initiative.

The Post-Liberal Right’s Vision for America: J.D. Vance

[60:38–67:36]

• Plays tape of J.D. Vance arguing that lineage (“whose ancestors fought in the Civil War”) should weigh more than belief in American values.
• Demsas identifies this as blood-and-soil nationalism—a radical break from decades of American identity.
  • Quote: “What we actually want is like blood and soil nationalism. Like, I'm like, actually so serious.” ([63:06])
• Warns: Vance’s rhetoric is not a gaffe, but “the precursor to someone who really believes...that is more important than anything else that you’re doing.”

Radicalization and the Fragility of American Identity

[64:59–66:11]

• Longwell and Demsas discuss how Vance’s evolution parallels a wider radicalization; critique the white supremacist core of bloodline-based definitions of American identity.
• Demsas doubts Vance’s sincerity, but notes he’s adept at capitalizing on where the movement is going.

Liberalism, Inclusion, and Tolerance: The Mahmoud Khalil Case

[67:36–71:11]

• Demsas brings up the Khalil case to stress that even distasteful or unpopular speech and beliefs need protection if a truly pluralistic society is to persist.
• The “liberal project” is to allow deep difference without violence or exclusion.
  • Quote: “The entire point of liberals...is how do we live with each other when we're so different that those differences could lead us to kill each other?” ([68:45])

---

Notable Quotes

• Kasparov ([09:15]): “Democracy is a piece of paper...[it] is what you believe in and how far you're willing to go to defend it.”
• Kasparov ([11:26]): “Donald Trump has been successfully normalizing things that were unacceptable.”
• Kasparov ([17:32]): “Trump's ego becomes the centerpiece of American politics and also global politics.”
• Demsas ([41:38]): “We should just explain and argue for the things that we think would make the world a better place.”
• Demsas ([45:53]): “Many people on the left would say things like...we want diversity. And then they're also supporting anti growth policies that make it impossible for that to be true.”
• Demsas ([63:06]): “What we actually want is like blood and soil nationalism.”

---

Key Timelines

• [02:19–06:16] — Kasparov shares his Soviet childhood, chess career, and shift to activism.
• [10:31–13:36] — Parallels between Putinism and Trump-era American politics.
• [15:30–19:42] — Update on Russia–Ukraine–U.S. triangle and critique of Trump’s diplomatic performance.
• [28:40–31:56] — Response to U.S. VP’s soft take on Putin, challenge to Trump’s supposed toughness.
• [40:12–44:30] — Demsas introduces The Argument and its mission.
• [49:16–54:38] — Analysis of housing policy as a litmus test of real liberal values on the left.
• [60:38–67:36] — Dissection of J.D. Vance’s nationalist rhetoric and its dangers.
• [68:45–71:11] — Defense of pluralism and liberal principles via the Khalil case.

---

Closing

The episode concludes with calls for vigilance, reminders that liberal democracy requires constant, intentional defense—and a preview of the next show.

---

For listeners who missed the episode, this summary captures both the gravity and engagement of the discussion—connecting transnational struggles over democracy and identity, with a focus on what’s at stake and what can be done.

Transcript

[Tim Miller]

Since 1983, Nissan has been building award winning vehicles right here in America and this summer they're making it easier to drive one home. No new tariffs, just lower MSRPs on.

[Garry Kasparov]

The rogue and Pathfinder so you can get the car you want at the.

[Tim Miller]

Price that feels right. But don't wait. These deals are only here for a.

[Garry Kasparov]

Limited time and while supplies last.

[Tim Miller]

See why Nissan is number one for.

[Garry Kasparov]

New vehicle quality among mainstream brands?

[Tim Miller]

Learn [e-mail] For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit jdpower.com Awards.

[Sarah Longwell]

Save big during Labor Day at Lowe's get up to 40% off select major appliances plus buy more to get up to an additional 20% off shop. Even more savings with three stay green, 1 cubic foot vegetable and flower garden soil bags for $10 this Labor Day take care of your home for less at Lowes we help you Save ballot through 93 soil offer excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Selection varies by location. Select locations only while supplies last. See Lowes.com more details hey everybody, I could not have enjoyed the doubleheader podcast we have ahead for you anymore. Two just wonderful, delightful guests. I hope that your ears appreciate it as much as mine did. Really quick. I should just say I mentioned this yesterday in case you missed it. This Toronto show, it's coming up in September, it's going to sell out. I think it's going to sell out today. So if you want to come hang with us in Toronto next, maybe I'll wear a Jamal Murray jersey or something. Or maybe a Canadian hockey team jersey. And you know, we can feel our Canadian pride together as they stand up against Donald Trump. If you want to experience that with us, you should get your tickets today. Up next, we've got Garry Kasparov and Jerusalem Demsa. Stick around. Hello and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. First up, we have a former world chess champion and Russian dissident. He's chairman of the Renew Democracy initiative and in April he launched the Next Move on Substack, which offers in depth analysis of the shifting front lines in the battle against authoritarianism and strategic insights on what to do next. Couldn't be more excited to welcome Garry Kasparov.

[Garry Kasparov]

Hey Gary, thanks for inviting me.

[Sarah Longwell]

I assume that our listeners and viewers are at minimum familiar with your decade and a half long reign as the Grandmaster Chess Champion of the entire world, but maybe give folks a little backstory on the dissident part of your background and your political activism.

[Garry Kasparov]

I was born and raised in the Soviet Union 62 so grew up in a family of engineers. And if you want to look for the roots of my dissident views, you have to dig deep to look at my family education. My father died when I was 7, but still I was surrounded by family members who were, say, critical about Soviet life. And as a chess prodigy, I traveled early. First time I went abroad, I was 13 in 1976 to visit France, representing my country, Soviet Union, as the junior champion under 18. And I quickly recognized the shortcomings of the Soviet political system, even being at young age. And most important, I saw the gap between reality and propaganda, and as the youngest world champion at age 22. So I thought that was the right moment for me to invest my popularity and my credibility as the chess world champion into what was Gorbachev perestroika. And I was in and out. Not that I just, you know, I ever wanted to drop chess. And I thought that in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that the job was done. So share the belief or joyful belief of many millions, hundreds of millions of people that the past would never come come back. But by the end of that decade, in the 90s, I saw the signs that the past was returning. And eventually, in 2005, I stopped playing chess, decided that my chess career had to come to a glorious end, and I joined pro democracy opposition, trying to stop Russia from sliding into backsliding in the KGB dictatorship. You can guess how successful I was, because now I live in New York. Today I'm in Croatia in my summer home.

[Sarah Longwell]

Because you're about as successful as the Never Trumpers advocacy.

[Garry Kasparov]

Yeah, okay. Don't say that, please. Yeah, actually these things are somehow connected, but those are things we do. Thanks for raising, by the way. This. It's because it's the right thing to do. That's why I was always very skeptical. People ask me about my chess experience and how it helped me to navigate in this murky waters of Russian politics. I always told them it did not help me because in Russia, unlike in chess, the rules kept changing. But the result was the same. We are now it's experienced in America. And I would probably bet my bottom dollar back then when I recognized that we were desperate trying to stop Putin's rise to power and Russia turning back into KGB dictatorship, that one day we would have this conversation in the United States. So, and I think it's. It's. I don't want to say inevitable, but probably, you know, it's. It was a logical development, global development, because the world free world became so complacent after the end of the Cold War. And we recognized a very simple truth, that the evil doesn't die. It could hide, it could disappear. It could be buried for a while under the rubble of Berlin Wall. But the moment we lose our vigilance, the moment we become complacent, the moment we do not recognize that the values are just everything and they're not transactional, so we open door for the new forms of evil. And it's not surprising that last 20 years is a steady decline of democracy in the world, and it's the attack of authoritarianism. And now, again, who could imagine it? Now America is facing challenges that, that we people like myself and my decent friends face back in our countries.

[Sarah Longwell]

Given the backsliding you saw in Russia, it's hard for me to come up with a coherent path out of this trajectory that we're on towards authoritarianism. There would be one thought, if you had asked me this five years ago or six years ago, I would have said, if things get bad enough with Trump or if things get bad enough in the world with some of these leaders, if there's enough bad actions, then people will wake up and there will be, you know, reaction against it. But, you know, we went through Covid. We've gone through this invasion of Ukraine. We've seen the negative effects, and nothing. And I mean, the people of Russia have suffered far greater than we have so far here in America. And you don't see a big uprising. Do you have any wisdom on that on the path out?

[Garry Kasparov]

I wouldn't compare Russia to America. Different traditions, sure. Of course, it's a basically different cultural and political code in our genes. I live in America. I'm just. I can say I'm partially American, and I fully support. Actually, I've grown on American values, while most of my compatriots, they have very different, Call it genetic memories. And it was not difficult for Putin to turn it back because, you know, if we look at the current Russian predicament, actually, the sufferings that Russia imposed on Ukraine, it's the war of aggression and the genocidal war that is being carried on again against a neighboring country. It somehow also was predictable because that was a trajectory, because every regime, like Putin's regime, it's starting with a soft, authoritarian rule, eventually runs out of enemies inside the country, and they always have to double down, raise the stakes. And country as big as Russia would inevitably turn from looking inward, it's outward. So it will start looking at other targets. And Ukraine was a natural target. When Russia attacked the republic of Georgia back in 2008, I wrote in my Wall Street Journal article in mid August that next would be Ukraine. And when I was asked how did I know, I simply said, because I looked at the map. And also I listened to Putin. Putin was never very secretive about his plans, which is also an interesting phenomena with many would be dictators and eventually dictators. They always lie about what they've done, but very often they tell you exactly what they're going to do. After all, Mein kampf, published in 1925, was a blueprint. But in 1925, Adolf Hitler was ahead of the small nationalistic party, and nobody would imagine that eight years later he would be in charge of Germany. When Vladimir Putin said bluntly, it was straightforward message. In 2005, at the Joint session of Russian Parliament and Russian Senate of April 25, 2005, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. He was already President of Russia, second term in charge of Russian nukes and having control more money than probably any other individual in the history of mankind. So it was a clear strategy. It's not that he was trying to hide it. So the problem of restoring the Soviet greatness, the problem of taking revenge for what Putin believed was World War three, the Cold War, and winning not because Russia had the best military, but because the west was weak. So everything has been laid down, and now we just, you know, we are paying the price for us not listening, for these, for these very direct warnings from Putin. And unfortunately, Russian population proved to be incapable of building the strong resistance. I'm here now just trying to tell Americans that no one is safe, thinking that democracy can defend itself. It's a wrong narrative. Democracy is a piece of paper, basically. It's a constitution, It's a piece of paper. It's what you believe in and how far you're willing to go to defend it. And I think now it's even by my friends, many American friends, who have nothing but contempt for Trump. I think they do not recognize the seriousness of the threat to American democracy coming from Trump's second coming.

[Sarah Longwell]

I totally agree. And it's sort of silly to make comparisons at some level between the American tradition and what you saw, what you experienced in Soviet Union. But there's certainly lessons you could learn or echoes. And I made a little list here of things that we've seen in the US in the second term that are maybe even a little different from his first term. The oligarchy developing and kind of the richest the leaders of the biggest companies kind of coalescing around Trump, starting to erase unflattering history. Internal police force consolidating with ice. There's a culture of fear I think now more so than the first term. People don't want to criticize him or else he will lash out at them. Firing of non loyalists from the government, taking stakes in private companies. I mean that's a list of things like there are definitely some parallels and it's certainly not the same, but what do you make of that?

[Garry Kasparov]

Oh, absolutely. And the list could be longer, but I think that is one common theme for all of them. And that's what Trump has been successfully, unfortunately successfully doing for more than a decade now. I pointed it back in 2016, 2017. Donald Trump has been successfully normalizing things that were unacceptable. He has been single handedly changing American political culture. So today, I mean mentioning Watergate is kind of a joke. I mean we have Watergate every hour. Donald Trump, when you look at so many things he did, I mean it started with something innocent. Oh, everybody released taxes. I don't want to release taxes, sue me. So step by step he pushed American public just one milestone to another. And today you talked about many things that 10 years ago would be absolutely unimaginable. The way Trump deals with any crisis is he doubles down and goes even with a bigger lie, with a bigger challenge to the Constitution. So he talked about the third term. Oh, I remember I had an interview with, I was interviewing the Preet Bharara just a month after Trump's elections. And I asked Preet about it. He said, ah, it's impossible. So this is pretty, you know, slow down. Yeah, I think it's impossible. But he already raised this issue and now again I don't think it's going to happen. But the fact is that you already have some members of the House publicly calling for Trump staying in powerful life.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[Garry Kasparov]

And are they being criticized? Are they being, you know, expelled from gop? Are they? No, nothing is happening. It's this is, that's why everything else taking stakes in not just a private company is a major private commodities.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[Garry Kasparov]

So where the government decision can basically influence the value of the stock and the attention of the Trump's world is on Mamdani. Of course we don't want to have the government run grocery stores in New York. But obviously the threat to American democracy from these failed socialist experiments and the unfolding oligarchy, they are incompatible.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, A trial run of four grocery stores run by the government that will probably Fail is not great. I'm against that. But literally the President just was taking his 10% stake in a big chip maker and says he's going to bully us other companies that don't buy chips from the government approved chip company. I mean that is straight out of authoritarian playbook. Deleteme makes it easy and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Data brokers make a profit off your data. It's a commodity and anyone on the web can buy your private details. This can lead to identity theft, phishing attempts and harassment. But now you can protect your privacy with Delete Me. Boy, it feels, I think, apt to have a Soviet dissident on the podcast on the same day that we're talking about Delete Me. You never know who's out there spying on you these days trying to get your info. I left my credit card at the bar over the weekend and I got out all kinds of concerns. Who knows what people could do with that. Luckily, our friends at the Saint had it nice and safe for me. But vigilance is important. It's better safe than sorry. That's why I'm using Deleteme. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com Bulwark and use promo code bulwark at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com Bulwark and enter code Bulwark at checkout. That's JoinDeleteMe.com Bulwark code Bulwark. Well, let's talk about the state of play in Trump's favorite word, the tri lat, his desired tri lat between Russia and Ukraine and us. What do you see as we sit here Today on Thursday, August 21st as the state of play in the negotiations between Russia and US and Ukraine?

[Garry Kasparov]

Yeah, if this is a triangle trilat. So the two ends are not connected. I don't think Putin will ever meet Zelensky and Lavrov made it very clear. So he just, he comes up with tons of the conditions. One of them is we're not sure Zelensky is legitimate and they can meet only when the all issues and root causes have been resolved, which means why they're meeting. So basically Putin says I will meet Zelensky if he's willing to capitulate. That's it. That's bottom line. The rest is exist in the trans fantasies. And in Trump's world, they're trying to pretend that Trump is doing the greatest job. I give him credit. He's trying. So I'm not here to analyze why he's so flattering to Putin. So there's clearly the case of dependence, whether psychological dependence or there are other material reasons for his dependence. I'm not here to just speculate. Clearly, Trump in the presence of Putin is melting down. That's a fact. That's what we all can see. Yes, of course, you can spin it and you can say that Trump forced Putin to make concessions. Okay. But it's the, in the daylight. So this is, it's you. You can see that is this Alaska was a big triumph for Putin and actually domestic trial because Putin proved that he could basically, he could not control Trump. But he's back. So this, the, the whole idea that he's totally isolated and yeah, he's. Trump, you know, rehabilitated Putin. And what he got in exchange, Nothing, Zilch. That's important. Now the whole idea that this, you know, that it's. The America now is just, is playing a key role there and it's this. And, and he's trying to be kind of objective dealer. It just doesn't work because Trump made so many conditions and Ukraine eventually accepts most of them. Putin spat on all of them. They just didn't even care. So America's credibility is fairly low. And, and I had mixed feelings when I saw European leaders flanking Zelenskyy in Washington. Why? Because I think it's a shame that leaders of the free world have to flatter Trump. Again, I don't want you to make comments of his intellect and other things, but it's sad, almost insulting for democracy as an institution. I mean, the real people, the serious people running the largest democratic countries and the leader of the country that has been suffering from the invasion, Russian invasion, and paying huge price every day, every hour. And they had to flatter Trump, but what else they could do? I mean, Europe was weak, so Europeans have no means to help Ukraine to win the war. So they need American weapons, they need American support. So they had to do it. And Zelenskyy had no other choice. So that's just, he, he thinks about his country, so he had to do these things. He want to wear a suit. So just to play, you know, with Trump's ego. But the fact is that Trump's ego becomes the centerpiece of American politics and also global politics. I Mean, it's not going to end well because at the end of the day, all we know about Trump is that everything he does, everything he says has only two points of interest, monetization and glorification. That's it. There's nothing else. So for anybody who wants to analyze it, and I'm telling you, look, don't try to search for black cat in the dark room, because it's not there. So Trump cares about Trump. Not about Ukraine, not about Russia, not about America, only about Trump. And two interests, monetization to make money, to become rich, richer, and glorification. Now is paranoid. With the Nobel Peace Prize, he's not going to get it, but still it's paranoid. He's the greatest peacemaker of all the time. And the fact is that American political system proved to be incapable of shifting away from this, you know, from being centered on paranoia of one person. That's, again, that's bad news. But I cannot blame Europeans. That's why I said it's a mixed feeling. They succeeded in taking Trump away from Putin's narrative. They changed the narrative. It's no longer about Ukraine giving up territories, but about them buying American weapons. I don't know whether they have this money to buy weapons, but at least they made Trump talk about something else to that point.

[Sarah Longwell]

I don't know. Trump has sent two posts this morning about Russia on social media. Have you had a chance to see them yet? I'm excited to show them to you. Live here.

[Garry Kasparov]

If not, okay, show me live because I saw one in Colorado, so that's why. Too many. Trump.

[Sarah Longwell]

Trump, yeah, he's posting all the time. He's very prodigious. One of the posts I think you're particularly suited to reply to, he posts a picture. It's a dual picture. One was, you remember the picture of Nixon poking his finger at Khrushchev's chest? And he posts a side by side of that with himself pointing his finger at Putin. But the difference is Putin is smirking at him in his picture and Khrushchev has his eyes closed and is grimacing at Nixon. It's hard to get inside Trump's head, but I think that my interpretation of this is he realizes people are making fun of him for being weak and he thinks this is going to make him look better. He also posts, he goes, it's very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking invaders country. There's no chance of winning. It's like that with Ukraine and Russia. Joe Biden would not let Ukraine fight Back, only defend. How did that work out? Regardless, this is a war that would have never happened if I were president. Interesting times ahead. I don't know. How do you interpret it?

[Garry Kasparov]

Absolutely. No. The comparison with Nixon, Khrushchev, yeah, He wants to look like a strong leader opposing Soviet Union, Soviet empire. He was not on Alaska. Alaska was indelible spot on American reputation. It's a shame that will probably not be erased anytime soon. I think that Alaska's humiliation was much worse than stampeding Kabul, which was terrible, but it was far away and again, it was poorly managed. It's obviously the fault of Biden administration, though we should remember that it was Trump who made a very bad deal with Taliban. So the peace deal was done by Trump and Trump's administration. First administration negotiated with Taliban without the government. There were seeds already in a fertile ground to sending a message that America would walk away and Taliban would be in charge. But still the stampede from Kabul, total disaster. But I think what people saw in Alaska was much worse and it will require giant effort to recover the reputation because again, Trump looked. Weak is probably the wrong word. I mean, he looked totally unprecedential. So that's why I think now he analyzed it. Probably analyzed the wrong word. He had enough data submitted by. By say, sicker funds, who tried to explain to him that something probably was not as perfect. It was not 10 out of 10 or it was 10 out of 10 for Russia, actually, not for him. So, yeah, that's why Trump is trying to come back. So Nixon pictures clearly. You know, it's about him trying to. To look strong, you know, in historical timeline. Now, as for the second one, it.

[Sarah Longwell]

Didn'T really work because Putin's smirking. Putin's smirking is so funny. He's like, I think I looked up here, but Putin's laughing at him anyway. Sorry, the second one.

[Garry Kasparov]

Yeah, second one is. I think it's not bad because again, it's obviously repeated the same lie. The war would have started if I were the president. There are no indications. The only reason it would not have started because Trump would probably force Zelensky to give up his country. Putin was about to destroy Ukraine. That was a plan. It's not just. It's not about Trump. It's not Biden. Putin has been building his military force because his plan was to take over Ukraine. Not part of Ukraine, all Ukraine. Ukraine had become a Russian vassal state, period. Not. I'm telling you, he has been saying that that was Russian propaganda machine and that has been repeating since 2014. And that was a Russian official line. That has not changed. Even now Lavrov talks about Ukraine not being a sovereign state. So that's why the war of aggression was inevitable as long as Ukraine wanted to preserve its sovereignty. But Trump criticism was partially correct. Biden administration restrained Ukraine from responding against Russian vulnerable infrastructure. Ukraine has not received weapons that could destroy the Crimean bridge. And Ukraine could definitely take advantage of Russia's retreat in 2022 or could have far more successful operation in 2023 if America would have supplied with weapons and also lift all restrictions on use of American weapons. So here is Trump is right. What kind of interesting times are ahead? I don't know. We read about new Ukrainian missiles that being built. Some say it's probably it's the result of the joint cooperation not with Americans, but with Europeans, Germans and Brits. So Ukraine is now having very capable, probably one of the most effective military productions in the world. And it's quite interesting that America now is looking for Ukrainian drone technologies because Russian, Ukrainian war made a lot of American weapons in the storage obsolete. America has more than 10,000 tanks sitting somewhere in Nevada, in California, in the desert and they are totally irrelevant now. Instead of sending them to Ukraine, they just, they, they, they eventually will be cut in metals and we American taxpayers will pay Lockheed Martin or whoever, you know, just Raytheon to do the job.

[Sarah Longwell]

It'll be a museum. It'll be a museum.

[Garry Kasparov]

There are thousands of them. So this is the, you have to put cut them. You don't have museums that big. But they could be on Ukrainian frontline. But the drone, drone war now changed everything. So that's why now it's for America to basically to learn from Ukrainians. And I think the interesting times are ahead. But what is American game plan in Ukraine? I don't know and I don't think anybody knows. Of course Trump doesn't know because he can change.

[Sarah Longwell]

But yeah, I mean, I'm skeptical that the interesting times ahead are that Trump will actually fully support Ukraine's efforts to go on offense. But it's a better position than we were in a week ago with him and his strange behavior.

[Garry Kasparov]

There's no doubt Ukraine under current circumstances does not have manpower to kick Russians away on the open battlefield. It doesn't have to. All you have to do is to destroy Russian infrastructure. Russia is suffering now. Russian economy is not in a good shape. Actually it's almost threefold. So what America can do is to also force Europeans to take more decisive steps to cut to absolute minimum Russian oil export. And it can be done. And also to lift restrictions on Ukrainians using weapons. Crimean Bridge this is the main artery that supports Crimea. So if Ukrainians can actually attack it with missiles, that will change the logistics games. Plus there's so many targets. Russia is a vast country and now the vastness of Russia, which is works against Russia, it always helped against invaders but it does not help actually its opposite against drones or missiles. So destroying Russian infrastructure, the facilities and Ukrainians do not attack attack civilians. It's very, very important. The difference is Putin exclusively attacks civilians. So civilian infrastructure. Ukrainians attack either military targets or oil depots. The I mean everything that is related to war. There's some casualties, but minimal casualties. Even Russian propaganda cannot blame Ukrainians for committed crimes against civilians.

[Sarah Longwell]

Oh, Canada. Hey y'. All. We're going on tour this fall. We're going up north. I demanded it. I wanted to support our Canadian listeners and friends being attacked by this administration. So we're going to do the whole deal. Mounties, Tim Hortons maple syrup. I'm going to be drinking Seagrams on stage. Those Seagrams Canadian anymore? I said that in the last episode and I think they might have been bought by a multinational corporation. Anyway, I'm going to have a Canadian cocktail on stage. You guys can tell me what I should do. And yeah, we get to all be an allyship against our terrible mega president. So come check out me. Sarah Longwell, Canada's favorite Sam Stein. We're going to be in Toronto in September. Want to see you there, especially if you're Canadian. But if you're American, you want to go support our friends up north and come hang. Would like to see you too. If you aren't up for stamping your passport, you can catch Me Sarah and JBL in D.C. or New York City in October as well. Anyone can grab tickets or more information [e-mail] events. They didn't tell me to tell you this in the ad read but since you're a friend, since I'm looking up for you, I'm letting you know that I was looking at the pre sales. That Toronto ticket's gonna be a hot ticket, baby. So if you want to go to Toronto, I jump on that now. You should jump on all of them now but Toronto in particular. Take a look at your schedule, see if you can make it. Hope to see you in Toronto once again. It's the bulwark.com events. I have to play this for you. I have no choice because the vice president was on Fox last night. Discussing his assessment of Putin. And I just, I would like to hear your response to that. Let's listen.

[Garry Kasparov]

What's it like meeting Putin? What was he like?

[Jerusalem Demsas]

Just one on one. So I've actually never met Putin. The President did that, that meeting. I've talked to him on the phone a number of times. You know, it's interesting. He's more soft spoken than you would necessarily expect. You know, the American media has a particular image of him. He's soft spoken in a certain way. He's very deliberate, he's very careful. And I think fundamentally he's a person who looks out for the interests, as he sees it, of Russia. And I think one of the reasons he respects the President of the United States is because he knows the President looks out for the interests of the American people. And while they often disagree about issues, and obviously the President has been very critical of Vladimir Putin, the president's also willing to work with anybody if he thinks it's going to accomplish an important goal for America.

[Sarah Longwell]

What say you to that?

[Garry Kasparov]

I would like to challenge vice President. And just to bring one quote, one quote from Donald Trump that was critical of Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump said terrible things about virtually everybody. I'm not sure he said something about J.D. vance when Jayd Vance called him Hitler nine years ago. Or like Hitler. I don't think Donald Trump noticed Jay Devance. He was too small. But he insulted every competitor who was in the Republican Party, every American politician, every leader of the Democratic country. He even went very critical. Not as dramatic, but still critical about dictators. Psychologically, he feels more comfortable as dictators than with Democratic leaders. But still, you know, he was critical, you know, even about the North Korean dictator or Xi Jinping Erdogan. So occasionally he said something bad about them or critical about them. I, maybe I missed it. I never heard Trump saying anything negative about Vladimir Putin. And of course, he never did anything that could harm Vladimir Putin. So here I think vice president was exaggerating. So that's one. Now two is soft spoken. Stalin was soft spoken. I know, I don't know what Hitler. But you're talking about worst dictator. I mean, this is the guy who is responsible for hundreds of thousand, most likely millions of lives, who has no allergy for blood. It's a vicious, brutal killer that's living on the planet. Soft spoken now, speaking about interest of Russia. Okay, Mr. Vice President, I mean, it's just, you know, stop selling this nonsense. I don't know whether you pretend to be an idiot or just, you know, you feel comfortable because that's way too just to stay in the Trumps, you know, entourage. Vladimir Putin caused tremendous suffering for Russia. You have more than millions, million casualties for what? For, you know, few square miles, you know, for what, of totally scorched earth. That's interest of Russia. Are you serious? The Russia is now is turning into a Chinese colony. It's a Chinese gas station with nukes. That's interest of Russia. And as for Donald Trump taking care of America and just in American interests, I leave for American voters to decide. But again, it doesn't seem to me that Donald Trump does anything that may hurt his interest to promote the interest of America at large.

[Sarah Longwell]

Speaking of pretending to be an idiot, I also am obligated to pick your brain about. There's a video going around this week of the Tucker Carlson show he's a guest on. And Tucker agrees with his guest when he says it turns out. I think the story we got about World War II is all wrong. One can make the argument we should have sided with Hitler against Stalin. What do you think about that?

[Garry Kasparov]

Yeah, I saw it. Yes. Look, the problem again is that it's an attempt to distort historical facts because America sided with Great Britain, with the one remaining stronghold of democracy, against Hitler, Hitler was the greatest threat. Yeah, Stalin was bad. I mean, it says the Stalin Hitler combination was horrible. And many European nations still recovering from being squeezed between Nazis and communists. Ask the Baltic nations. It's tragedy. Some of them had to make a choice. And Putin's propaganda is still blaming. Oh, look at these Latvians. They sided with Nazis. Yeah. But they had Soviets on the other side. So it's, you know, it's the. Yeah, it's terrible. So this is. Many European nations suffered because of this, of this horrible dilemma and impossible choice they had. They had to make. So. But siding with Hitler against Great. It's against Great Britain. You know, it's important. But it's a slide. You're sliding down. And by the laws of physics, you know this. When you're sliding down, there's only one direction and the speed keeps increasing. So I'm not surprised that the Tucker, you know, who at one point praised Putin and, and took, no doubt, you know, just took a very hefty compensation for his services. Now he is fairly comfortable, you know, talking about standing with Hitler, which is, by the way, it's great illustration that we have to connect the dots. It's the. Let's stop saying, oh, Hitler is impossible. No, by the way, 1938, when European democracies, Britain, France, gave Hitler Sudet land, most important defendant, part of Czechoslovakia. Hitler was not Hitler from history books. Hitler was in 1938, even before Kristallnacht. It happened in November, in September. He has not started a single aggressive war. Of course Hitler was bad, but it's not Hitler. 1945. So today Putin is much worse than Hitler in 1938. Takhari likes Putin, so he talks about Hitler with some sympathies. That's natural because Putin and Hitler belong together. So thank you, Tucker.

[Sarah Longwell]

Carlos, your substack you talk about on the next move, which people should check out about strategic insights on what we should do going forward on authoritarianism. Do you have anything right now, people who are listening as we think about the state of play in August of 25 that we should be doing here in America that you're not seeing enough of?

[Garry Kasparov]

Again, I think that it's important to understand that the threat to American democracy is real. And I think it's not yet time to talk about 2028. It's not even time to pay attention to Trump's murmuring about his term and some of the Republicans just offering him powerful life. I think the Top priority is 2026. Gerrymandering in Texas is just the beginning. And Trump's attacking mail vote, it's also just the beginning because Trump has reached a point, I think it's probably point of no return. He cannot lose the levels of power. The only institution in America and is Article 1 of the Constitution that could stop Trump is the Congress. So Trump will be number one priority to held his firm control of the Congress. That's the key. So in ideal scenario, Democrats could find four Republicans highly unlikely, that could shift sides and they can take over the Congress. Unlikely, but still, let's fantasize. Maybe, God knows. But in 2026, the battle lines will be as clear as the sky in a good day. Because remember, Trump doesn't lose elections. If election is lost, it's rigged. So he must win elections. So we have a person who never recognized his loss in 2020 and tried to overrun the public will by more or less, you can make a coup on January 6. First thing he did, he pardoned these people. That's again a very important message. And now in 2026, he will have all levels of power, including DOJ and FBI and statistics in his sides. So to protect his majority in the House. So we have to work day and night to make sure that American people will have a chance to take part in the free and fair elections. It will be free But I'm afraid will not be fair because I'm afraid. And if you don't trust me, if you think I'm paranoid, okay, fine. I'm Russian. I earned my rights to be paranoid. So just ask one question. If you know it's at the crucial moment, on this day, imaginary day X, will Pam Bondi and Cash Patel follow constitution or Donald Trump's orders? When you answer this question honestly, you understand why we all should worry about what happens next year. It's a 205th anniversary of the greatest event in history. The Declaration of Independence, Birth of the United States. Let's make sure that the Republicans. That was one back then. Will not die.

[Sarah Longwell]

Now, I have one really quick thing I have to ask you about. One other thing. Have you seen this video? I'm not a big chess watcher, I have to admit, but Magnus Carlsen has been a five time world champion, has captured people's attention. There's this video going around two months ago where he loses this match and he gets so angry. Yeah. He throws it down. And many people were sharing this and even those of us who don't watch chess because just the emotion in the moment was so fascinating. And I was just wondering what you thought about that match and, and his reaction.

[Garry Kasparov]

Actually it was a good promotion for the game of chess. Let's, let's agree on that. So, okay. Because it became viral now. Look, it's, it's, I understand emotions. I mean it's the. Magnus is the strongest player, but he's no longer the world champion because he decided not to defend official title. And he just plays for, for, for, for money and for fun. And again, it's, it's tremendous player. And he faced the young Indian who is now official world champion, but not as strong or as impressive as Magnus. And Magnus wanted to win and he was absolutely winning. That's important. He outplayed guess completely. He was winning. It's ss, it's the couple of correct moves, the game is over. But guess kept, you know, fighting. So and Magnus lost, lost his vigilance. He became complacent. Sounds familiar. Sounds familiar. And all of a sudden, you know, just, and it happens. So it's. Instead of having, you know, just easy win, he had to work hard for win. And every time, you know, just, you know, you just, you, you see that the difficulties kept increasing. So you made him nervous and he lost control of the game. And, and at one point he had already basically, you know, to, to step on his pride and say, okay, let's make a Draw. Let's, you know, just. But he pushed, push, push. And he lost. And I think he was so emotionally overwhelmed, he just banged. But okay. Emotions. Chess is a very emotional game. Very cruel game.

[Sarah Longwell]

It was really captivating to watch. Anyway, Garry Kasparov, thank you so much for coming on the Borg podcast for your wisdom. Let's do it again sometime soon.

[Garry Kasparov]

Absolutely. Thank you. Always available for you guys. Thank you.

[Sarah Longwell]

Up next, Jerusalem Dempsus.

[Tim Miller]

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

[Garry Kasparov]

Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

[Tim Miller]

Could you be more specific?

[Garry Kasparov]

When it's cray venient.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay.

[Garry Kasparov]

Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter, available right down the street at am, pm. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can.

[Tim Miller]

Grab in just a second at am, pm.

[Sarah Longwell]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

[Garry Kasparov]

Well, yeah, we're talking about what I.

[Tim Miller]

Crave, which is anything from am, pm.

[Garry Kasparov]

What more could you want?

[Jerusalem Demsas]

Stop by am, pm, where the snacks.

[Sarah Longwell]

And drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. That's cravenience. Am, pm.

[Garry Kasparov]

Too much. Good stuff.

[Sarah Longwell]

All right. And we're back with an opinion journalist, formerly at the Atlantic and now editor in chief and CEO of a new outlet, the Argument, a publication that aims to push back against the populist moment and strengthen the ideas of modern liberalism. To Delighted to welcome back to the show Jerusalem Dempsis. Hey, girl. Hi.

[Tim Miller]

How are you? Thanks for having me.

[Sarah Longwell]

I'm just so excited to have you back. I was excited to see the news about the Argument. I was excited to see all the blowback that you got on X. You know, nobody. You're not doing anything good if people aren't shitposting you. So why don't for folks who are listening that, you know, might not be as very online as us, give us. Give them a pitch on what the new outlet is and what you're trying to do.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, if you're the one person who has not yet heard about the Argument. So the Argument is a new liberal media company and our goal is to revitalize American liberalism for the 21st century. And by liberalism, I think that that word is used very differently in the US Than in his other context. We don't just mean left wing. We mean basic principles around protecting individual rights, egalitarianism, freedoms of speech, but also that the government should the basic framework to allow people to achieve those things. And so what we're doing is we are creating not just another place for you to get lectured at by political scientists about the importance of liberal democracy. You have to care. But actually a place where we're actually.

[Sarah Longwell]

And that is important. And there's a time and a place for lecturing about the importance of global.

[Tim Miller]

Democracy, I wouldn't say. And too much time, too much place, I think, at this point. But I think that what's really important is that there are issues people care about. They care about housing, they care about the economy, they care about tariffs, they care about immigration, they care about gender and gender equality and all these different things. And instead of just saying you need to care about liberal democracy, we should just explain and argue for the things that we think would make the world a better place. In that vein. And so what we're gonna do is we're commissioning a bunch of really great writers, folks like Matt Iglesias, Matthew Brunig, Rob Meyer, who's at Heat Map News, all over the kind of political spectrum, but all people who believe in like, positive sum, pro growth, pro equality, a system of government.

[Sarah Longwell]

So you're living out.

[Tim Miller]

We are living out. We actually trademarked living out. I want you to know that.

[Sarah Longwell]

Really congrats.

[Tim Miller]

No one else had done it. I'm shocked.

[Sarah Longwell]

What's the process for trademarking the phrase living out?

[Tim Miller]

Well, to be fair, we have applied for the trademark. I want to be very precise here. We hired a lawyer. And I go, hey, can we do this? And she was like, I don't see why not. But we'll find out in like six months when the Trump administration gets back to us.

[Sarah Longwell]

Are you capitalist shills? Are you planning on shilling for the tech oligarchy? Like the left looks usually?

[Tim Miller]

I mean, how could we not? They're in charge. No, I mean, I think this is so funny because I think it's like there's weird sense that there's no way to think about. I mean, most normal people, you ask them like, hey, do you think economic growth is good? They'd be like, yeah, economic growth is great. Hey, do you think that we should have business friendly policies that make it easier for people to start businesses? Like the argument that we want to create low prices, that you should have access, access to consumer goods that are like, cheap, that you want, like a cheap dishwasher, you want a TV that doesn't cost $1,000. These things are good. And of course, that comes along with regulations to make sure these companies don't destroy our brains. I think in particular, when it comes to what's happening with AI right now, it's really important to think about how the regulatory frameworks we're creating are going to make sure that either we are immiserated because they've taken away every single job that we can do, or that they've made our lives a bunch better. And that's a question of what government does. And so what we're doing is thinking through what is it that policy should actually do, what should individuals do, what should companies do to shape our future in a positive some way? I mean, the core belief I think that we all have at the argument is that it is possible to have things that benefit everyone. That when an immigrant comes here, it's not taking away from someone else, it's actually adding and creating a better future. When a new company comes out with a new product, it's not necessarily hurting you because someone else is making money. These things can be positive sums. Someone else is making money off something that benefits you. So I think to me, that that's really a big part of what we're trying to do.

[Sarah Longwell]

All right. I know that you specifically said in the rollout that you're trying to make positive arguments for things rather than arguments against things, but I got to tell you, I'm pretty motivated by negative partisanship these days. And so we're going to have to talk a little bit about the arguments against things. You wrote this. I'm largely focusing on the post liberal right for a couple of reasons. First, they're currently in power and representative, the greater threat to humanity. Second, they're more coherently organized. This is not to let the post liberal left off the hook at all. Much of my writing of the Atlantic has been critical of the anti growth, anti individualist parts of liberalism and the left. Whether it comes from tariffs, a love of localism, minoritarianism, decentralization, antipathy towards open debate and empiricism, poorly reasoned anti immigration attitudes or NIMBYism. Post liberal ideas have sprouted up from the furthest left and right corners of the Internet all the way to the center left pages of the New York Times. So I want to get to the we agree on everything in that sentence. I certainly care more about the post liberal right more. But let's just talk a little bit about the post liberal left. What exactly worries you about the post liberal left? What are the elements that you think are pernicious?

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, and I mean, I think it's harder. I mean, there are people on the right who will call themselves the post liberal right. You know what I mean? They're like, we bar post liberals. This is our manifesto.

[Sarah Longwell]

I mean, literally, the Vice President of the United States for Example who we're getting to in a second.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, yeah. So like, you know, that's a much more like coherent movement that is developing in that way. But I think with the post liberal left, I mean, it's like really a bunch of ideas I think often are contradicting inside of people. Like many people on the left would say things like, I think that it's really important that we are open to be a pluralistic society. We want diversity. And then they're also supporting anti growth policies that make it impossible for that to be true. Like, how can you be pro growth, pro immigration if you're against housing in your backyard that's affordable for immigrants? These things don't actually work together. So in many ways I think it's often a bunch of contradictions happening within people who have both some good values and others that are opposed. And I think there's also though, people who actually have a intentional project of doing kind of honestly what looks like a red brown coalition to me. One of the big critiques that came out of the argument, literally, I think Day two was from one of the kings of the post libs, Saurabh Amari and Unheard from compact to decide whether.

[Sarah Longwell]

That'S a critique from the post liberal left or right. Because he's been both.

[Tim Miller]

No. 1, I mean, in a year from now he could be a neolib and we would, you know, wouldn't be surprising. But like that critique gets retweeted by people like David Sirota and like other people on who are like very clearly on the left. Like that's like David Sirota's like, you know, former Bernie staffer and he's retweeting this guy who's most famous for going after Drag queen story hour. Like, I mean, that's that kind of like coalition that I see forming on a couple on issues where they're pretending like they're being pro worker, but in reality they're supporting kinds of tariff policies and are clearly hostile to the kind of open, free society that has made America great. I mean, to me, like, that is a big concern. It's not a big concern because I think that they're in power. I think it's a big concern because if there's going to be an alternative offered to the American people in response to the post liberal right. And I think my biggest concern is what alternative will that be? Will it be the version that is anti growth, that is negative sum, that views someone else's gain as your loss, that is a pro tariff, that is anti building More housing and making it easier to access the best basic qualities of human life. Which alternative are you going to get? So at the argument we're trying to provide an alternative that isn't the version that's being proffered in the pages of whatever Sirota's magazine is called.

[Sarah Longwell]

I don't even know my New Orleans buddies, Current affairs. Maybe let's put a little meat on that though then, because. Right, it's like the question is, is this a left center debate or is it kind of an up down debate, if you will, about liberalism and statism and et cetera? We'll use Zoran as an example just because, you know, and he's the most, I think, prime candidate right now that's sort of navigating this line. Right. And I think that there in some ways, I don't know. Well, I guess I'll let you say there's probably some ways that you see him as, as part of a post liberal left, but he also has expressed openness to abundance ideas and openness to the fact that government needs to provide better services. And when you look at the actual candidates out there, instead of the meta online debate, people like him or, I don't know, Dan Osborne or whoever the other kind of avatars are for the populist left, how do you assess what you've been seeing from them?

[Tim Miller]

I think this is a really good question because a big part of what I'm trying to do is change the cleavage everyone talks about. Everyone's like, oh, mod versus left. But I think it's not actually the most relevant cleavage. It's like pro growth positive sum versus anti growth negative sum. And that transcends the left and right. So with someone like Zoran, for instance, that's someone who has a very pro growth vision of New York City. He's very clear about wanting to build more housing. He's very clear about wanting to actually tackle the very basics of what makes New York City a difficult place for people to live. Like that. To me, like that kind of. He even like, I think is referenced like sewer socialism, which in many ways is a version of pro growth liberalism. I mean, to me liberalism does not mean that you're like in the center right. Like if you look at writings from like the most famous liberal people, like, they sound like they're. I mean, I think they're arguably socialists. And Matt Bruenig is someone who's writing for us, like Mills, like Rawls. These people are like arguably socialists. Like, and at level of Eddie, when you go read Them like they're very, very radical. And there's been, I think the liberalism like the 1970s or whatever that people often call like the neoliberal term. But like no one knows what the hell everyone means when they're saying that. But like I often think it's actually just people making it all milquetoast and what we're trying to do is like revitalize. Doesn't look like Zoran. I think it's very much someone who I could see as being a part of this. I think it's really hard because there's obviously again in every individual person a ton of mixes. So like, who knows, I guess is he going to empower a bunch of the people who are in his coalition who are really skeptical of business, really skeptical of capital? Like we're going to see what happens when I think he becomes mayor of New York. But I'm like cautiously optimistic at this point. But then I think that getting more granular about other people. I think that a lot of the people that I see as being part of the populist left on the sort of pro tariff, really concerned about globalization, really concerned about environmentalism. You see this environmental totally to me, when you see how these environmental groups have opposed clean energy being built, transmission lines being built, I mean it is genuinely going to become a huge problem A as we see electricity prices rising for people, I mean that's going to be a huge problem coming down the pipe. Not just because of AI, but just like we're just electrifying a bunch of stuff right now, you know what I mean? There's a lot of demand coming on and people are either not going to be able to get access to stuff they expected, or there's a genuine risk of at some point blackouts becoming more common in the American landscape. And so to me, the parts of the left that are doing this, whether it's certain environmental groups or it's some of these groups that are very anti business and anti trade, that's really who concerns me.

[Sarah Longwell]

Again, just to use this as an example. So people process this because I do think it's hard. It's like a lot of people just get in this dimensional view. It's because our politics was like this for so long. For a long period of time everybody was a liberal basically in the global sense of the world. And it was, you know, just degrees right. And you know, we're on this sort of left right spectrum where it's like this more big government liberalism versus small government liberalism. Now you some anti liberal socans and like a small number of commies on the left, but like, among the elected officials, it was mostly this left right spectrum. And that is like changing now. And one example of that is. So you give what seems like at least maybe consciously positive thoughts to what Zoran's been talking about. You've got Karen Bass out in Los Angeles.

[Tim Miller]

God, don't trigger me right now.

[Sarah Longwell]

Who is more of like an establishment den. She was on the Biden VP shortlist. Right? So not like a far leftist by any stretch of the word.

[Tim Miller]

Dude, I've been a Bass hater for like years now. I've been.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, well, let's explain to people why. So here was yesterday she signed a city council resolution opposing this new California housing bill, SB 79. She wanted an exemption for Los Angeles for the housing requirements. Talk to people about what that was and why you're triggered.

[Tim Miller]

I mean. Yeah, why am I triggered? Why is she triggered? That's actually the whole magazine. I mean, at a very base level, it's about building housing near transit in Los Angeles. And Karen Bass has now like a long history of like pretending to be pro housing and then like actually taking steps that make it harder to build housing in Los Angeles. And, and I mean, to be clear, like, the only arguments that are being made about why this is a problem is like local control and too much, too fast type rhetoric about what's going on. I mean, the most galling thing was that Los Angeles actually landed upon a way to build affordable housing very quickly and Karen Bass stopped it because it was happening too fast in exclusionary neighborhoods, in richer neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Like, this is like, like the Democratic Party in Los Angeles, supposedly a very, very liberal city, a very, very left city is like literally making it harder for working class people to live there because they're so opposed to growth. Because there's anti developer sentiment that like dominates anyone's ability to think clearly about housing and housing markets. Like this to me is the like, apotheosis of like post liberal left economic thinking that you can somehow get to a better world by. By blocking every changing thing that could possibly come into your community and that it'll be fine in the end. Like, yeah, no, as you can tell, very triggered. She got me. I'm mad. Put it in the papers.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, you should be mad. It's crazy. It's crazy and it's irresponsible.

[Tim Miller]

I also think she's also like, she's also like tweeting online about how Trump is going after these black cities. And I'M like, if you care so much about racial justice, why are you upholding exclusionary zoning? It's just like, are you joking? You can tweet all you want and get your retweets about Donald Trump, but. But maybe you should do something in the city that you actually govern. My two cents.

[Sarah Longwell]

I'm snapping because this is a live. Because we're living out. So we're snap. We snap now.

[Tim Miller]

We're living out.

[Sarah Longwell]

I have a trouble making question listening to that answer.

[Tim Miller]

Okay.

[Sarah Longwell]

There were elements of that answer that sounded kind of like what you would hear in the Free press. Their critiques of San Francisco and Los Angeles. You hate to hand it to the free press. Talk about how you would see the arguments. Maybe compare and contrast for me.

[Tim Miller]

Compare and contrast the free press and the argument. Well, I think that the free press has a different view of liberalism than I do. I mean, first of all, I mean, we're not going to talk a lot about foreign policy because it's not really the focus of what I write about. But I have pretty strong views about Gaza and what's going on in Israel being both obviously a genocide and unacceptable. We should not be giving them money. And I don't think that that is the line that the Free press has been giving. I think that's a very big difference that I think I have with people who are. But in terms of domestic policy, I mean, I agree that there has been a right wing critique that has existed for a while about left cities that a lot of right wing people go like, oh, you're suddenly waking up to the problems of liberal governance. And I'm like, yeah, okay, clean hit a little bit. But also at the same time, the alternative they're offering is not exactly what we're going for. Like, yeah, I don't like my cities, but I also don't want to live in a state that denies basic access to reproductive freedom or denies basic access to, you know, healthcare. Like, I'm just like, these are. This alternative you're offering me is also not super attractive, honestly. And so to me it's like, I'm not saying that like the best idea would be to replace Karen Bass with like, I don't know, Greg Abbott or whatever. I think that that's not like the goal, but like, I think you can dream better than that.

[Sarah Longwell]

I don't know who would be the dream Free press candidate, Tom Cotton as mayor of Los Angeles?

[Tim Miller]

No idea. But I just think that, like, the difference here too is that, like, in many ways I think you Know, the free press has really focused on the wrong things, but I think that, like, the focus, the editorial focus and the editorial line has really been on, like, what you're actually pushing for. Often I think the impact has been to essentially push up Trump, because by default, even if I think they would say that they are not pro Trump. And so to me, like, I think Trump and the post liberal right and everyone he's a part of is, like, the biggest step to this country. And so, like, anything you're doing to make that more of a reality is a big problem.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah. All right, I'm going to get to the puzzle right next. But that sparked another troublemaking thought I have, because another thing they write a lot about over there, which is a major urgent issue for the country, is woke on campuses. Yeah. It's just too woke. If there's a teacher at UT San Antonio who has been critiqued for being too woke, that might be something you ought to look into. What about that? How much woke talk do you think that there will be at the argument?

[Tim Miller]

How much woke talk? Very little woke talk. I mean, I think people often don't separate these things out cleanly. I think it is definitely true. I saw it both in myself. I mean, I was in college at kind of the peak of what people call the woke revolution, or was it the great awokening? That's what it is. And so I find myself even think I regret in many ways, views that I held that were, I think, what I would call illiberal now in terms of just, like, not wanting to, like, hear different opinions. But I think there's a false equivalence that people draw here where there were private actions that I think were illiberal and bad. And that's different from the state coming in and now going, we're gonna send a letter from Russ Vaught to the Smithsonian saying, like, don't talk about slavery or whatever he wrote in that letter. He's like, these are like, these are not the same things at all. And I think there's like, a false equivalency that's being drawn here. Like, I think that, like, as a culture of people who care, living in a pluralistic society, like, we as liberals need to do much better and should have done much better at both a caring about persuasion rather than just browbeating people who disagree with us, because I think it's actually not effective at our goals. And also, secondly, just being more tolerant to the fact that stuff is kind of confusing for people.

[Sarah Longwell]

Things are changing.

[Tim Miller]

I had to explain how trans stuff to my father. And he is a very loving, very wonderful person. But it took him a while to get it and to become more accepting of how you would talk to someone who seems different than you. And maybe he doesn't like fully get what the thing is now. But like he's a very wonderful person and I love him a lot. And like, you know, I think that like approaching these kinds of conversations that way and I don't think it's true that like all the left was doing that, but it was a significant loud part of the left and people who would call themselves liberals who were not interested and not available to tolerate this kind of debate. But that is different than I think the larger anti woke critique that I think has existed in a bunch of places now in conservative media that like any focus on diversity, any focus on equity, any focus on black.

[Sarah Longwell]

Little Mermaid is woke.

[Tim Miller]

Gotta get married.

[Sarah Longwell]

Ye. Apparently Cracker Barrel's terrible rebrand is woke. I'm like, how are you blaming this on the wokes? This is fucking corporate America sucking. That's what this is.

[Tim Miller]

I went to school in Southern Virginia and so I am also mad about the rebrand.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, we can all unite together. Maybe the Cracker Barrel rebrand will be the thing that finally brings this country together. Let's go bring in our post racial future that Obama didn't deliver on. Sorry, sorry, President Obama. It wasn't your fault. Okay, okay. Let's talk about the pro table, right for a second. I was on vacation when J.D. vance gave probably the most alarming speech of the decade of my lifetime. Maybe even, I don't know, maybe that's overstated. But he was with the Clair monsters out there in California. And I want to play a clip for you about how we define what an American is. Let's listen.

[Jerusalem Demsas]

If you were to ask yourself in 2025 what an American is, I hate to say it, very few of our leaders actually have a good answer. Is it purely agreement with the creedal principles of America? If you think about it, identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let's say of the Declaration of Independence, that's a definition that is way over inclusive and under inclusive at the same time. What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, it was, it would include hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens who agree with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Must we admit all of them tomorrow? If you follow that logic of America as a purely creedal nation, America purely as an idea, that is where it would lead you. But at the same time that Answer would also reject a lot of people that the ADL would label as domestic extremists, even though those very Americans had their ancestors fight in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. And I happen to think that it's absurd and the modern left seems dedicated to doing this, to saying, you don't belong in America unless you agree with progressive liberalism in 2025. I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a. A lot more claim over America than the people who say they don't belong.

[Sarah Longwell]

I guess I'll just let you cook on that. What do you think about the post liberal rights definition of an American who counts, who is an American, who isn't, who we should honor, who we shouldn't?

[Tim Miller]

I think this is actually at the center of what the post liberal right is trying to do. And I think that people should not confuse this as just like, oh, this is just like classic racism. Just your classic run of the mill bigotry.

[Sarah Longwell]

It's a little bit of racism. Notice that he talks about how we should honor somebody that is deeply American if they do not believe in the principles of the Declaration, but their ancestors did fight in the Civil War. And I would note that he doesn't say which side all of that. He's like, if your ancestors fought for the Confederacy, either side, and you don't believe in the Declaration of Independence about equal rights for everybody, you're more American than somebody who's here recently that does believe in the Declaration. That's basically how I'm interpreting him.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah. To be clear, I would definitely say there's racism on the postal right. But I'm just saying, like, I think that there's often this, like, oh, it's like, this is the same thing, just a return to racism. Like, this is a complete abrogation of, like, what has meant to be an American for, like, decades. Like, you can go back to, like, speeches people are making, like, obviously we have not lived up to the promise of America for a very long time. This is a very common theme, like civil rights leaders, activists pointing out that, hey, you have all these values in this here Constitution. Doesn't seem like you're really doing this for everyone. That is obviously true. But there's a difference between, oh, someone saying they're for egalitarianism, they're for a vision of America that is expansive and that we can absorb people from different places, and then we take the greatness of the world and we make it our own. There's a difference between that and not Living up to it and going, like, actually we don't want any of that. What we actually want is like blood and soil nationalism. Like, I'm like, actually so serious. I read that speech and I'm like, this is the precursor to someone who really believes that the fundamental thing about America is just, have you spilled blood here and have you died and do you have like parents who have like, died and have. Are in cemeteries? Like when he says, and he evokes like, oh, seven generations of his family in cemeteries in Kentucky, like, what he is saying is that is more important than anything else that you're doing. And like, I think that he also setting up a strawman for libs here, right? Because like, no person believes that, like, oh, if you like the Declaration of Independence, that automatically makes you an American. Like, like, obviously not. Like, no one is saying that. The question is like, do we believe in a type of nation that can absorb new people and new cultures and new ideas and make it our own? Or do you want to like stagnate and die in like 1955 Brain America? Like, it's just so absurd to me. But I do think it's very dangerous that he feels so comfortable saying this.

[Sarah Longwell]

And I think that sometimes white supremacy gets thrown around willy nilly a little bit on the left. But this is pretty. I mean, he's essentially saying whiteness. Essentially saying that's what he's talking about. And it's not as if there were non white people that came in the Mayflower and were fighting the revolution and there were slaves and white people. Right. By modern definition, essentially. So he's talking about white people, people. You can see how radicalizing this is just in how J.D. vance has gotten radicalized. I mean, 10 years ago he literally wrote a book about how his ancestors were trash. Kind of. Honestly, the purpose of the book was that. The purpose of the book was my parents and grandparents. Didn't my one meme I did. But the rest of my bloodline, my recent bloodline didn't really add anything to America of value and we need to revitalize that.

[Tim Miller]

Brutal. Yeah, yeah.

[Sarah Longwell]

And now here he is talking about how it's only his Kentucky dead ancestors that have been the things that have added things to the cultural fabric. He's been radicalized by essentially white nationalist ideology. I don't think that's overstated.

[Tim Miller]

I think it's like, I mean, to me it's like I have no idea what is sincerely in J.D. vance's heart. I can't. I have no idea what he's at because like maybe he's just a power hungry lunatic who like all he cares about is just like whoever seems like they're in charge. Oh, Peter Thiel, I mean he has.

[Sarah Longwell]

Changed his name three times, changed his religion a couple of times, changed his political ideology. So I'm up for change and growth. But that points towards, that points towards sociopathy.

[Tim Miller]

That's.

[Sarah Longwell]

Points towards sociopathy.

[Tim Miller]

I don't know. But it's just like to me, I think what's relevant is that someone who's clearly very, very successful at reading where the tides are going to end up in a powerful position thinks the tides are going towards this great point. And if you just even track the way he's talked about this. He used to be a lot more subtle. I went back, I was looking through his other speeches, even his speech at the convention, I believe accepting the nomination or either accepting the nomination or the one where he gave it after the victory party. I mean he was much more muted in how he talked about post liberalism. He was like, oh, my parents died in Kentucky. I mean he referenced it. But this level of analysis, even calling himself part of the post liberal right, sitting next to people like Patrick Deneen, all these other thinkers who have much more radicalized views on this. I actually think he thinks this is where the ball is going and the question is what alternative will be there.

[Sarah Longwell]

It's a great point because if, you know Patrick Bateman, Republican Patrick Bateman thinks that this is where things are going. I mean, maybe he's wrong, but it's not an accident what he's doing. It's not strategic. He's not doing it out of some purity of heart. You brought in your intro video, the example of Mahmoud Khalil, which I thought was interesting that you mentioned that in particular because I agree with you. I find a lot of, a lot would be overstated. I find some of the things that Maud Khalil has been saying to be not my cup of tea, to say the least about it. Right. Like I find some things he says totally. Frankly, there are other things he says I think are obviously right about human rights, et cetera. You know, humans are complicated. But it's an interesting point, right? And it's about the difference between the J.D. vance view of America and what you guys are espousing on liberalism that you specifically mentioned. This case is an example of illiberalism when he's not, not a native born American. Right. But yet he still was not treated with the rights that he was merited as somebody that was Here legally. Talk about why you brought that up and about that case in particular.

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, I mean, I brought it up in part because I knew that there was a lot of. I mean, there's rightfully a lot of controversy over the stuff that he's said and has believed. I think that Fire the free rights organization, Free Speech Organization by Greg Lukianoff, is like, a really great example of this. I mean, like, under Democrats, people thought they were really anti Democrat, anti left. And now under Republicans, they're getting hit for being anti right wing and being so super woke. But really the thing is that the reason why we evoked that case is that really unpopular speech has to be acceptable. The entire point of liberals. I think that the simplest way that I can think about what the point of liberalism is is how do we live with each other when we're so different that those differences could lead us to kill each other? Literally. If I think that the right way to live is to, you know, a Christian living in a big city, like, and a feminist, like, that's, like, that's who I am. And, like, that's what I think people should be. And then someone else thinks that the right way to live is to be in rural America and to be Muslim and like, whatever. Like, and like, those are two, like, actually incompatible worldviews about what a good life is. Like, I, like, cannot also fulfill that. And what I think is right. But how do we not kill each other? Because the entirety of the human species and, like, all of history has been us killing each other because our views are so different and incompatible, even in homogenous societies, right? Like, even in, like, Europe when. When they're, like, literally all Christians, they're killing each other. Like, it's everywhere throughout history. People who will find ways to make each other different, and then they will kill each other over it. And so what do we do about that? Because I don't want to live that way. I want it to be okay that I feel very differently about what a good life is, and I'm still able to live in a society with other people. And so someone like Mahmoud Khalil, like, some people may view all the things that he says is completely reasonable and right. Others may view him as like, someone we should never have let into this country because of his. His beliefs. Either way, like, how do we set up systems where both of those views can exist in society and not, like, devolve into chaos? And so the reason why I evoked that case is just because I knew that there were gonna be, like, A lot of people who are just like. I mean, I had people messaging me, like, why would you include this person? Why wouldn't you say someone else? And I'm like, because even that view should be respected. It doesn't mean you lose due process. It doesn't mean you lose basic freedom of speech. I think Romeza is another great case. The Tufts student who wrote an op ed and literally got, I mean, picked up by, it looked like kidnappers in the middle of street in Boston.

[Sarah Longwell]

Like, I mean, yeah, you don't get jailed without Dubrovnik. You don't just sit to rot in a prison because you have. Have bad opinions. In her case, I don't. She didn't even really have bad opinions. But, like, that's just not how the American way is supposed to be listening to your answer. I do feel like you've recently read Liberalism and its Discontents by Francis Fukuyama before you started the argument.

[Tim Miller]

Not recently. I'm a Fukuyama head. For years, buddy. I've been on this.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, so it's just burned into your subconscious. It's just kind of coming out a little bit from time to time. All right, that's it. Anything else that's triggering you in the news right now you want to pop off on? Wow.

[Tim Miller]

I think you already. You expelled it all out of me, really. So thank you.

[Sarah Longwell]

Congratulations. Good luck on the new outlet.

[Tim Miller]

We'll be checking in theargumentmag.com check us.

[Sarah Longwell]

Out theargumentmag.com and come back soon. All right?

[Tim Miller]

Yeah, for sure. Bye, Tim.

[Sarah Longwell]

Thanks so much to Gary and Jerusalem. Hope you enjoyed that as much as I did. We'll be back tomorrow with a fun weekend podcast. We'll see you all then. Peace and time Time.

[Garry Kasparov]

And here on my own skin I can finally begin Let the century pass me by Standing on the night sky Tomorrow is nothing.

[Sarah Longwell]

I.

[Garry Kasparov]

Was only a child then Feeling barely alive when heard from a speaker.

[Tim Miller]

Of a.

[Garry Kasparov]

Br star Memories fading I can almost remember seeing we.

[Sarah Longwell]

Watch the.

[Garry Kasparov]

End of the century compressed on tiny screen Dead star collapsing and we could see something was ending while you threw pretend we saw the signs and the.

[Sarah Longwell]

Bulwark Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.