Can Mamdani Be Defeated?

Summary

Summary of "Can Mamdani Be Defeated?" – Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode Details

• Title: Can Mamdani Be Defeated?
• Host: Commentary Magazine
• Release Date: July 7, 2025

---

1. Introduction to Mamdani's Mayoral Campaign

The podcast delves into the burgeoning mayoral race in New York City, focusing on the candidacy of Mamdani—a figure garnering significant attention and controversy. Host John Podhoretz initiates the discussion by highlighting Mamdani's prominence in the race and the challenges he presents to traditional political structures.

Notable Quote:

"If every person who opposes Mamdaniism, if we all leave, we are ceding the city to Mamdanism." – John Podhoretz [05:04]

---

2. Evaluating the Political Landscape and Potential Opponents

Panel members, including Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, and Matt Continetti, analyze the current political dynamics. They discuss the polling data indicating Mamdani's strong position in the race and the fragmented opposition among other candidates such as Eric Adams, Andrew Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa. The conversation emphasizes the strategic missteps that could inadvertently bolster Mamdani's chances.

Notable Quote:

"Curtis Lewa got 30% of the vote in New York City in 2021 as the mayoral candidate... this means that Mamdani wins unless he wins." – Matthew Continetti [09:00]

---

3. The Role of Third-Party Candidates

The discussion shifts to the influence of third-party candidates like Curtis Sliwa, whose presence in the race poses a potential threat by siphoning votes away from traditional party lines. The panel debates whether consolidating support behind institutional candidates could effectively counter Mamdani's appeal.

Notable Quote:

"Curtis has that in spades... but he doesn't. He's a fulmar pushing." – Abe Greenwald [11:24]

---

4. Elon Musk's America Party: A New Variable

A significant portion of the conversation addresses Elon Musk's foray into politics with the formation of the America Party. The panel examines the feasibility and potential impact of Musk's unconventional approach, drawing parallels to historical figures like Ross Perot. Concerns are raised about the sustainability and practical implementation of Musk's political ambitions.

Notable Quotes:

"Elon Musk may be creating the 21st century with space X and other things." – John Podhoretz [22:51]

"There's a very performative aspect to Elon Musk, which I think draws a lot of support and fans online." – Noah Rothman [29:31]

---

5. Analyzing the One Big Beautiful Bill

The panel provides an in-depth analysis of the recently passed "One Big Beautiful Bill," a significant tax legislation aimed at perpetuating the 2017 tax cuts. While acknowledging its necessity in preventing a fiscal cliff, they critique its implementation and the lack of comprehensive fiscal responsibility, debating its long-term economic implications.

Notable Quote:

"Its passage was absolutely necessary not only for the Republican political future, but to create a stable American platform from which to grow the economy." – John Podhoretz [35:03]

---

6. Politicization of Natural Disasters: The Texas Flood

The tragic floods in Central Texas become a focal point of discussion, highlighting the rampant politicization of natural disasters. The panel critiques the tendency to assign partisan blame rather than addressing the practical aspects of disaster preparedness and response. They argue for a more nuanced understanding of such events, emphasizing human error and local governance over simplistic political narratives.

Notable Quotes:

"The argument of whether the federal government should be involved at every local level rather than this county... has been a long-standing debate." – Matthew Continetti [46:57]

"Human nature has these two qualities... we organize, we save ourselves, we save our communities." – John Podhoretz [51:42]

---

7. Israel’s Political Standing and International Isolation

In the latter part of the episode, the conversation shifts to Israel's current geopolitical situation. The panel discusses Israel's military successes against Hamas and Hezbollah, juxtaposed with its growing international isolation. Despite overcoming significant threats, Israel faces criticism and diminished support on the global stage, raising questions about its future diplomatic relationships.

Notable Quotes:

"Israel has defeated its foes, but deepened its isolation." – John Podhoretz [59:02]

"The facts on the ground will be the facts on the ground... leave it alone." – John Podhoretz [67:19]

---

8. Concluding Remarks

The episode wraps up with reflections on the interconnectedness of local politics, national policies, and international relations. The panel underscores the importance of strategic alliances and pragmatic approaches in addressing both immediate political challenges and broader socio-economic issues.

Final Notable Quote:

"If you can find it, Condominium By John D. McDonald, you will... amazed at what an imaginative writer has predicted." – John Podhoretz [71:12]

---

Conclusion

"Can Mamdani Be Defeated?" offers a comprehensive analysis of New York City's mayoral race, the complexities of third-party influences, and the broader implications of national policies and international relations. Through engaging dialogue and insightful commentary, the panelists provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of the current political climate and the multifaceted challenges ahead.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best Expect the worst.

[Matt Continetti]

Some preach and pain Some die of.

[Christine Rosen]

Thirst the way of knowing which way.

[John Podhoretz]

It'S going Hope for the best Expect the worst Hope for the best welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast Today. Today is Monday, July 7, 2025. I am John Pothor. It's the editor of Commentary magazine suggesting yet again that you go to our website or go to commentary.org roast to learn about this year's gala event, the 15th annual or 16th. I got to get the countdown. I gotta, I gotta actually do a count on my fingers of all the roasts. The common annual Commentary Roast Roasties prior to this year's have included Ben Shapiro, Barry Weiss, Mayor Soloveitchik, Jonah Goldberg, Dick Cheney, so many others. This year we are roasting the hedge fund manager and all around economic stage Clifford Asness. He will be our roasty. Very fun event. Huge enthusiasm for this event takes place October 19th in New York City. Go to commentary.org roast to find out more. To meet the commentary 500 of your fellow Commentary ites will be present and accounted for, including my panelists today we have of course executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi Christine.

[Noah Rothman]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Con Netti. Hi Matt.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

So I mentioned on Thursday that I was going to the Northwoods of Wisconsin for the time first 4th of July weekend where my one of my kids is a counselor and the other is a camper at a sleepaway camp very much knit into the history of my family as my my in laws met at this camp in the late I think 1950 and my wife went to this campus to their siblings. And now my kids have been going to this camp now for many many years and and it is near Eagle River, Wisconsin, the snowmobiling capital of the world according to Eagle River Wisconsin where Paul Ryan, the one time vice President Shawami told me, I believe he went on his honeymoon with his wife Jana to Bowers Dam, a local cold spot in in the middle of winter and took her snowmobiling on Lake Bucket of Bond, which is the lake on which my kids campuses and took her 100 miles an hour on the snowmobile across Lake Bucket of on they came back in and she said we're never doing that again. And so that was the auspicious beginning of a really wonderful marriage on Lake Bucket of Bond, which is also the home of as I said, my kids camp. And I was at the first 4th of July parade in a small town that I've ever Been to. Even though I am 64 years old and should have done this long ago. And I just want to say one thing because of our conversation last week about how 36% of Democrats say they're proud to be Americans and what's going on with American patriotism and our education system and all of that. And let me just say that the people of Eagle River, Wisconsin at the 4th of July parade, they are proud to be Americans and they love this country and they love this. The displays of patriotism that come from the local fire department, from the local marching band, from the local church, from the local. All kinds of things. Just going down the middle of Wall street, as it's called in Eagle River, Wisconsin, lined up, everybody lined up to watch fire people on the top of these trucks, hosing down people with, with water guns being shot at back by water guns from the street. Just high levity, good humor and, and a real distinct spirit that you know, when you live where we live and we do do what we do, you forget what the feeling about America might be elsewhere that that is not home to the most cosmopolitan, intellectually sophisticated.

[Matthew Continetti]

I'm sensing a theme here, John. I'm going to just intervene a couple of weeks. Yes. Mamdani.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Your trip to rural Wisconsin. I think, I think you need to consider getting out of New York City. Listen, really do. Moving. It's real America somewhere. You know, I mean you can still be in a. Near, a small, you know, mid city, mid sized city or something. Go to Iowa, Indiana. I think it make you happier.

[John Podhoretz]

I. I'm going to say one thing about this that relates to and Donnie and relates in a larger way to the. One of the main issues on this podcast of our, of our magazine, our institution over the 80 years of its existence. Yeah, Zionism. If I leave New York, just as a lot of Jews talk about leaving America, I gotta stay here and I gotta stay in America. Why? Aside from the fact that I'm an American and I love and I'm proud to be an American and I'm not gonna have that taken away from me. Just as New York needs to be saved from Mamdani. And if every person who opposes Mamdaniism, if we all leave, we are ceding the city to Mamdanism. I mean demographically or whatever. Except with the hope that a bad mayoralty will cause people to wake up and splash water in their face and get sane again. Similarly for Jews in America need to understand that part of the Zionist project requires American Jews to remain in America, to act as a counterweight to Mamdanism inside the United States to continue to do what they can to support Israel through the American pull it through their, our existence as free citizens of the United States wishing to express our will about what we think the world should be like and how it should function with, without leaving the playing field to the rising world of the squad and, and all of that. So that's the argument, the sort of serious argument against not leaving New York, even though maybe I would enjoy it more, is that you can't just, you can't just walk, can't just walk away. Walking away has itself a deep political meaning. Which gets to Elon Musk for a second. We want to talk about.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, I wanted to talk about Mamdani. Didn't really think we'd start here, but, you know, there's been a lot of news about him over the past couple of days. And I was wondering whether the poll showing that, you know, he's in the low 40s in the four way race or this amazing New York Times story that on his application to Colombia, where he was denied admission despite having his father be one of the more prominent professors at this university, Columbia University, Mamdani marked that both black and Asian as his ethnicity, despite he's not black. I mean, he's of Indian descent, born and raised for about the first six years of his life in Uganda. Has that changed your view that there is no possible way on earth that we can stop Mamdani from becoming the mayor?

[John Podhoretz]

The news stuff is pretty amazing and a lot of it is just people going through his Twitter feed.

[Abe Greenwald]

Oh, well, yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Plus the means of production.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. Giving the finger to the, to the statue of Columbus, these mock videos he made about, about, about Christmas and Hanukkah. Yeah. Saying he wants to seize the music, speeches that he's giving, talking about how Rashida Talibas's hero, all that kind of stuff. That's, that's not, it's not exactly like, that's, you know, hard to find. And it's interesting that he didn't, you know, he didn't clear up his Twitter feed or clear up, clear up his social media the way people do to get controversial stuff out. He's clearly decided that he is going to embrace who he has been and run with that because running away from it wouldn't work. I sort of agree that it wouldn't work. He's going warts and all. Or, you know, or maybe the warts aren't warts to be people. The central problem, as you Point out is that, is that there are four people in this race and he comes in the race as the heavy favorite because he'll get 40% of those voters. Now, here's the interesting fact that people aren't talking about because everyone's talking about, well, Eric Adams, the current mayor, disgraced mayor who was running as independent. Well, you know, we got to get behind him. People are going to get behind him to stop. To stop Mamdani. Or wait, Andrew Cuomo, the disgraced former governor who was humiliated by him in the primary. He's polling in the 30s and we need to get behind Cuomo because Cuomo is. But maybe Cuomo's not. He doesn't want enough. There is sitting there, the Republican candidate for mayor, Curtis Lewa. Curtis Lewa got 30% of the vote in New York City in 2021 as the mayoral candidate. He got over 300,000 votes. There will be a Republican on the line in November. If Curtis Lewitt drops out, there will still be a Republican on the line. November, if he runs and says, I'm not running, his name will still be on the Republican line. And several hundred thousand people are going to vote for the Republican. Generically. This is a city of eight million people. There are four and a half million voters, 250 to 300,000 of them are going to vote for the Republican. That tells me that if you really seriously want to look at how to do this, you talk Adams and Cuomo out of the race and you put all your chips on the institutional. Not that it's very strong institutional power of the Republican Party because that's the only reliable anti vote against the Democrats that there is in the city. And nobody is talking about that. And people look at Curtis and think, he can't do it. He's kind of silly. He's got a lot of cats. He was famous 40 years ago. He's not really a major player. But his existence in the race means that Mamdani wins unless he wins. There is, there is that logic. Do you.

[Abe Greenwald]

I think that's a really interesting idea. And I also think, I mean, I think Curtis is a very interesting figure, actually. And he doesn't have. He's. Not, he's. Yeah, he was famous decades ago, but he's not stale. He's not sort of freshly stale the way Cuomo and Adams are.

[Matthew Continetti]

He's retro.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yeah, but, and, but he's also got. If this is going to, if Mamdani is out there as something different and dynamic, Curtis has that in spades.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, you know, 70. So you have the, you have that. But of course, but he doesn't. He's fulmar pushing.

[Noah Rothman]

So what's interesting is we are just going to begin the media process of vetting Mandani finally, which they should have done earlier. And I think he's an example of the future of politics. When someone young and charismatic comes out of nowhere and delights the left wing media because they seem so fresh and new. And then of course somebody looks at their social media feeds and you know, looks at former rap videos he or she might have made and sort of cringes. But that's actually where I don't think we've heard the last of upsetting stories about Mamdani and what he believes and he is leaning into it. This is actually the approach of this generation of young political leaders is to say shouldn't call him a leader, but politicians in waiting, they lean into their crazy because actually that gets them a lot of attention online. But Curtis Lewis is an old school, has an old school charisma that might actually serve as an interesting contrast to the mumdani style. But a weird race it will be.

[John Podhoretz]

What you are hearing from me is not being discussed in New York City. The people who are talking about we're going to raise a billion dollars to make sure Mamdani as a business community is horrified by the prospect of Mamdani. Jews are horrified by the prospect of Mamdani, but they're not. If they're meeting with Curtis Sliwa, I'm unaware of it. If they are thinking seriously about what I just talked about, I'm unaware of it because a lot of the people who are doing this are sort of advocating for it at the front of the lines aren't conventional politician political figures either. There are people, a lot of them have been act, were activated politically by October 7th, they're in business. What they want is for there to be a deus ex machina like Michael Bloomberg to float down from the sky self fund, be perfect and take the guy out. And I'm saying that the practical logic says these three candidates are damaged. Cuomo is damaged, Adams is damaged and Curtis Lee was damaged by sort of being an also ran radio talk show host guy who patrolled the subways in the 1980s as a part of a sort of a.

[Noah Rothman]

And a Republican and being a Republican Republican.

[John Podhoretz]

So but he's we're having this conversation about how to defeat somebody in one party and leaving out the other big party.

[Matthew Continetti]

So my read on the couple polls that have come out in the past week is that even though Mamdani is the frontrunner, it's a, it's a tight race. And to your point, conceivably, any one of the four could win, depending on the turnout. You know, who shows up, Right. And then the extent of the opposition research and the ability of these three alternate candidates to define Mamdani in the coming months. Those are the two X factors, it seems to me. You know, the turnout in the Democratic primary was high, but it wasn't overwhelming. I think about a third of registered Democrats in New York City went out to vote for Mamdani. It was an extremely hot day. So the seniors who might have been reluctant to pull the lever for him and more supportive of Cuomo say they didn't show up. And then you have this oppo that's been coming out, the resurfaced social media posts, the Columbia University story. Now, he's young, so there's 33 years, or, you know, if you're, if you say adult since adulthood, that's what, 15 years. So it's kind of a defined universe where you can look at. But I have the sense that this is a man who might not be able to withstand scrutiny. When you look at his Meet the Press interview, for example, what came out of that, his whole thing that we shouldn't have billionaires. Now, you know, most people don't vote based on their views of billionaires, but the whole idea that here is a man who wants to be mayor of New York and eliminate an entire class of people, which, by the way, is totally inconsonant with his radical Marxist ideology, I do think is alarming. And I also think that the bodega community is something, is something that can be harnessed, maybe in a different couple, different directions. But they are clearly afraid now of this whole idea of public grocery stores, government run grocery stores that Mamdani wants to implement in the city. And finally Trump, of course, is going to play in this race. He's already starting. He attacked Mamdani at his Iowa rally at the beginning of the holiday weekend. He's talking about Mamdani on Twitter. I think Trump needs to go back to a Bronx bodega, as he did last year. It was one of the highlights of the campaign. In 2024, he also had a rally in the Bronx that was well attended. I think he needs to go back. And I think he can just say, look, everyone stop this guy. I'm going to. I don't have to necessarily put my finger on, put my thumb on One of the other candidates. But let's look. We have to stop this guy. I think that would be an important message, too.

[John Podhoretz]

So you're right. In other words, it's a. He is a target rich candidate. Mandani as target rich as any candidate that we have seen of this sort since David Duke. Remember 1990, the Republican Party en masse. David Duke wins. The Louisiana gubernatorial primary is far, far and away. Given the position, the shifting politics of Louisiana at the time, the generic Republican candidate would have run away with that race. The entire institutional Republican Party turns on Duke, right? The President of the United States says, do not vote for the Republican. The Republican President of the United States said, do not vote for the Republican candidate for governor in Louisiana. He is a racist. He is a monster. And I, you know, I withdraw the Republican umbrella from over his head. And Duke lost. One Democrat, as far as I can tell, has so far said he should not win, and that is John Fetterman. We have had Republicans, we've had Democrats say, I don't like the sound of this, and I don't like the feeling of that. And I'm a little troubled by this, and I'm a little troubled by that. And he is. He is, in Democratic terms, not much different. Why? Because David Duke's a Nazi. So, of course, no one should be a Nazi. Well, no one should be a Stalinist either in the United States or a supporter of a terrorist group that has murdered Americans in this year, in the last two years. But they'll remember he is a supporter of Hamas. And Hamas murdered Hirsch, Goldberg, Poland, among others, in the tunnels under, you know, under Gaza as he was about to be rescued.

[Noah Rothman]

He's getting the Democratic rehabilitation process that every member of the squad also received. These, these Democrats tutting right now will meet with him, be reassured by his statements, understand that he's running for all Democrats in New York. And they. And that's how they will whitewash all of this. It's done. Been done many times before. It's been done with people like Talib and AOC and all of the anti Semitic nonsense coming out of the squad. And, and they've already started, I mean, Richie Torres, others have just been, you know, sort of hinting here and there that they're open to, you know, giving him this rehabilitation. So if they do that, then I think it's even more important, as you say, John, for at least one Democratic leader besides Fetterman to say something. Where's Chuck Schumer on this? I'm curious. Where is Kathy?

[John Podhoretz]

Chuck Schumer will never say a word about him because, of course, he has a reelection campaign next year.

[Noah Rothman]

Exactly.

[John Podhoretz]

He is primarily able to. The Republican playbook of the 2000 and tens, which was, you really want to show your rising political power in the United States as a movement. Take out somebody big. Take out the. Take out the majority whip. Right. That was Eric Cantor. Guy took Eric Cantor in the, in a primary. Take out whoever take out. Go at your own party to show your power. That was. Mamdani didn't have to do that in New York, really, because Adams didn't run for reelection as a Democrat, but he did a little bit with Cuomo, kind of. I mean, Cuomo became the stand in for taking over the party from people. So you're going to see politicians like that refuse, absolutely refuse to do anything about it. And that speaks to, you know, that that is also something that is going to be useful to Republicans. So we didn't mean to start with Mamdani, but I do think that part of the problem here is that the we got to do something crowd that I can think of isn't politically thick enough with experience and the experience of spending decades in the trenches of politics to know what to do with their money and with their energy. And they're, and they're, they're going to the label, which is Eric Adams. And I think that's a mistake. Not that I am. They can do what they want to with their money, which gets to Elon Musk, whom I didn't really expect to be talking to about that much because I figured, okay, he's done. Doge is done. He's got to get back to Tesla. Tesla stock is tanking. He's got to do something about that. Nope. Comes out against the Trump budget bill and now announces the formation of a new political party. So he is, in many respects, following a model I thought we weren't ever going to see again. And I don't mean in terms of the really repugnant views that I'm now going to sort of talk about, but talk about the sort of mammoth business industrialist getting into politics of Henry Ford. So just as Henry Ford modern, you know, revolutionized the making of the automobile and created the 20th century, Elon Musk may be creating the 21st century with space X and other things. And just as Henry Ford couldn't keep himself out of politics and discredited a lot of his own positions with his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, and his, you know, sort of his creation of this entire world of toxic, anti semitism as a explanation for what's going wrong with America. Musk is now being Trump's friend, now is becoming Trump's enemy. Going to start a third party, the America Party, and do something. And do something.

[Matthew Continetti]

I think there's a more contemporary precedent, and that's Ross Perot. When I look at the formation of the America Party on Twitter or now X, I'm immediately reminded of the formation of the Reform Party on Larry king live on CNN.

[John Podhoretz]

That's right, CNN in 1996.

[Matthew Continetti]

92. Well, he ran in 92 as an independent, but I don't think he actually set up the Reform Party until after. But regardless, yeah, you know, it's same idea of billionaire. Not, not the industrialist, which is the Ford analogy, but someone who went into politics. What, what did, what were Ross Perot's big issues? Anti free trade and anti deficit spending. So Musk has one of them. Musk is, for all we know, is a free trader and has opposed a lot of the Trump protectionist agenda, but he's certainly against spending, or so he says. And so this America Party, announced again in this very public forum by an eccentric billionaire who's into politics, has a lot of the same resonance. Also like Perot, there is a question of how this is actually going to be implemented. I would say Perot did more of the groundwork for his movement because by 96, when he was also appeared on the, on the, on the ballot as a third party candidate, the Reform Party was an actual entity. And of course, in 2000, it was the Reform Party nomination where Donald Trump struggled with Pat Buchanan, only to lose to pat Buchanan. In 2000. We can see if the America Party will be able to launch as quickly and have such an interesting effect on American politics. But I would say that the recent track record of Musk in politics has been very poor. And he did make a bet on Trump's candidacy and went all out for Trump and that that paid off. Donald Trump won the election. We can argue about how important Musk was, but he did contribute a lot of funds. Ever since election night, Musk has not been doing well. He wanted to Howard Lutnick to be the Treasury Secretary. Trump went with Scott Bessant. He argued against some of these tariffs. Of course, the Liberation Day agenda with an asterisk is still ongoing. DOGE was created. I've argued that it is actually more successful program than the media gives it credit for. On the other hand, it did not achieve anywhere near his stated goals and he got into a fight with cabinet secretaries that he lost. And then he went into Wisconsin. He tried to win the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. He lost there. Finally he tried to stop the one big beautiful bill or OB3 as I heard it called over the weekend. And I'm going to try to popularize. And he lost there too. So you know, if I were him, I would probably stick with his businesses, but he seems addicted to politics.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey everybody, it's John here to talk to you about Shopify. You know, Commentary is an old line American product produced physically, mailed as mostly the way we do business with some newsstand sales, subscriptions, checks, cash, all of that. Only in the last 15 years have we had to become a digital product. And I got to tell you, if I were starting out today as a digital entrepreneur or what I would want on my side is Shopify, the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names to brands. Just getting started. It will help you just take off into the stratosphere. You get started with your own design studio providing you hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify will help you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. It will help accelerate your content creation. Packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines and even enhance your product's photography. It will help you get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. You can easily create email and social media campaigns whenever you're and wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Turn your business idea into cash, into an income, into a life with Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com commentary go to shopify.com commentary shopify.com/com commentary. Hey everybody. It is summer. It is thrilling to be summer. And it is time for me to talk to you about quints. I am the last person to chase trends. Conservative Jewish magazine editor, not a trendsetter, not a trend follower. But I am all about stuff that fits, right, feels good and actually lasts. And I keep coming back to quints. Their lightweight layers and high quality staples have become my everyday essentials. You know this, I've talked about the sweaters. I just bought a whole bunch of lightweight shirts for summer. The kind of stuff you I'll wear on repeat like breathable flow knit polos. Those are the ones I bought, crisp cotton shirts, comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. And the best part, everything with Quints is half the cost of similar brands. By working with top artisans cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markups. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So stick to the staples that last with elevated essentials from quince. Go to quince.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q Y N C E.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com/comply Commentary this is actually where Elon.

[Noah Rothman]

Musk's great strength as a human being, which is the fact that he is this polymath and he is easily distracted with one new idea after another, is a weakness in politics but but a strength in innovation and certainly in building his companies. But this America Party, I don't correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think he's even filed to form a party, which there are actually bureaucratic, logistical things you have to do. It's like that episode of the Office where Michael Scott comes in and says I declare bankruptcy because he thinks that's all it takes. So there's a sense in which there's a very performative aspect to Elon Musk, which I think draws a lot of support and fans online. I mean he did one of his, you know, wonderful trolling things back at Trump. Like what is truth social when, when Trump did his whole anti America party. But will he stick to it? Follow through is Musk's weakness when it comes to politics, as Matt just correctly outlined. So whether he can actually form a party, certainly charismatic enough to draw people in who can help do it for him. But I don't see this having a huge amount of staying power.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean ultimately the central problem with the America Party is that third parties arise or third party or like protest or revolt. Candidates arise from a person, a famous person putting themselves out there and he can't run for president. He is not a native born American, cannot run for president. Now he could run for governor somewhere. He could come to New York and run for mayor of New York. You can run for any other office, but constitutionally he cannot be president. United States. If you're going to create a national party, incept the national party out of nothing. There needs to be a person representing that party. Right? Teddy Roosevelt was the Bull Moose Party. Ross Perot was whatever Ross Perot was in 92 and then the Reform Party in 96. George Wallace was the American Independent Party. When there was no George Wallace, there was no American Independent Party left anymore. The Libertarian Party has had a great problem because it never was able to attach itself or harness itself to, to a national figure who could use that party line to give that party the kind of nationwide heft that might the.

[Noah Rothman]

RFK will get sick of running.

[Matthew Continetti]

No, you know, I think it's. That's an interesting point, but Musk has addressed it in his flurry of posts over the weekend. He commented that 2028 for him is way off in the distance and he's not that interested in presidential politics for the America Party. He wants, it seems, to start at the congressional level. And he had this post where he's like, well, we need to concentrate our efforts on very close districts where we might be able to turn on a few thousand votes, House and Senate races, and begin to address the spending question there through the legislative process. I thought there was a very interesting post because it leaves room for Musk to have the America Party in quotes endorse the 2028 Republican candidate if that candidate is more amenable to the Musk agenda than, than Trump is. And you know, I was just a.

[Noah Rothman]

Can't he, can't he recruit all the fiscally responsive, responsible Republicans who are driven out of Congress by maga? Like, get those guys back in and he can run them against their.

[John Podhoretz]

There is the rub. Because what you are describing is political nonsense in this sense. If he goes into, if he wants to go into a race to promote X type of candidate in a congressional race or a senatorial race, the structure of American politics would say that whoever that candidate is, is parasitic or vampiric, meaning will not bring new voters into a 2026 congressional race out of nowhere.

[Noah Rothman]

Spoiler.

[John Podhoretz]

What they'll do is take votes away from one or the other party, meaning take votes away from the Republican Party, since he wants to run on deficit hawkishness and thereby elect Democrats and help Democrats if this were to happen.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's what the Libertarian Party does. Of course, the Green Party takes votes away from the Democrats. And this is my, my question or kind of why I'm amused by it. The American Party, which is. I have no idea what it stands for. I have no idea what it stands for. It just stands for opposition to this piece of legislation which was signed into law 72 hours ago. And why were we opposed to it? As I've been saying all along it was unclear what was Elon Musk's critique of the one big beautiful bill was spent too much money. Okay, well where was his alternative? Did he want harsher Medicaid cuts? Did he want to address Social Security and Medicare as part of this? We know he also is very upset about the clawback of the inflation Reduction act, so called green energy spending. So we're against spending except if it subsidizes these alternate energies that Jimmy Carter started 40, 50 years ago. Now it doesn't make any sense. And that's just the spending side. Where does the American parties stand on taxes go up or should they go down? Where is it on social issues? You can see conceivably a Democrat as some of the professional class Democrats, liberal gentry type Democrats. Now, while they're upset about spending, maybe they want to run on the America party line.

[John Podhoretz]

I want to. We had talked just before we got on there, we talked about whether we're going to talk about the one big beautiful bill. And we said now, we talked about it enough on Thursday, but I've been thinking a lot about it over the weekend and about the sort of almost universal. It's a, it's a tar baby, right? Like Trump is the only person who is like, this is the greatest thing ever.

[Matthew Continetti]

Everyone.

[John Podhoretz]

But the Republicans who voted for it aren't like dancing in this. They're careful. They're careful. Like we had to. There were things in it we don't like, but we did it anyway. And we had seen it give, gave Trump a political victory. You've been talking about it as a political okay. So the thing is that Democrats hate it. All Democrats hate it and are opposed to it. And they're 10 different reasons. They don't like the Medicare provisions particularly. They don't like this, they don't like that, they don't like the other thing. It's going to kill people, all of that. And then the Republicans who were like, it spends too much, it spends too much, spends much. We didn't cut, we needed to cut more. This bill had one, has one mega purpose. That is why it passed and why it had to pass, which is that the tax cuts of 2017 had to be made permanent. And what you need to think about, if you are thinking about this bill and talking to people about it is not what. Why it's bad that it exists, but what the world would look like if it didn't or if this major element of the major element of it, which is the perpetuation of the permanence of the 2017 tax cuts would not have happened this year. You want to talk about an inflationary effect, you want to talk about an economic earthquake, you want to talk about resetting people's every, every financial, long term financial decision that people from the lower middle classes to the very rich have been making under the provisions of the 2017 tax cuts would have to be revisited en masse really quickly to figure out what's going on. Immense uncertainty about the effects, all of that. So there is no credit being given because it's politically advantageous to almost everybody to sort of, you know, spit on it and say it's garbage. But in the end, its passage was absolutely necessary not only for the Republican political future, but to create a stable American platform from which to grow the economy from here on out. Because growth is the only way we're going to get out of this spending problem that we have that clearly politicians are not going to address. They're not going to address entitlements, they're not going to address the real needs of defense spending. And we need an explosion of economic growth one way or the other in order to have money flowing into the federal government to start tackling some of this or reducing the threat of the fiscal cliff in the long run. And no one's talking about that. And I would like to be a purist and talk about how wonderful, you know, would be if it were more fiscally prudent and responsible the bill. But that's not what the bill is about really. That's the truth.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right. I mean it forestalls the worst. It also has a debt ceiling increase in it. So that takes that issue off the table for a while yet at least. Yeah, I agree the bill was necessary. I would, I think maybe I'm a little bit more skeptical of the pro growth elements in the bill because it doesn't actually cut income tax rates.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

Maintains the current level and then it has these carve outs for populist purposes which are not necessarily pro no taxes on tips.

[John Podhoretz]

Right? Yeah. And I'm only saying, I'm only saying you have to compare the growth aspects of maintaining the tax cuts with the anti growth aspect.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh yeah. Well that's one of the most ridiculous arguments I read over the weekend, which I believe it was. The Washington Post had a front page story about, you know, one another one reason this tax bill is so bad is that the labor market looks a little bit rocky. So what, we're supposed to raise taxes if the economy looks weak? What kind of, I mean, what kind of economic nonsense is that, that's, it's why the, I think you're right. The liberals and Democrats haven't grappled with the enormity of the tax cliff that we were facing at the end of the year. And they, of course, they would prefer, they would prefer not to have to grapple with it. That's the way they are. And it's always hard, I mean, politics, I should add, to proven negative. So I don't think you're going to see Republicans go onto the campaign trail next year and say, you know, we passed this bill and it's great because we prevented a tax increase. No, of course, they may use that to attack Democrats. But what they're going to have to say is some of the other things I think, no tax on tips. I think a lot of the emphasis will be on the immigration aspects of the bill. So it's, it's, it's this, you know, it's not a Rorschach test, really. It's kind of like this blob that you kind of just try to grapple with and certain aspects pop up. And then, you know, there are other aspects that you don't want to, like you try to stamp down.

[Noah Rothman]

But they will, they will have to answer for them for the Medicaid stuff. And that's going to be really hard as rural hospitals shut down. And there are all these other things not entirely caused by what was passed in this bill. But that is going to be the Democratic message. They're already honing it. And that's actually also difficult for Republicans to respond to because it involves getting into the weeds, as we did last week on the podcast, about what, what's being cut, what's being reversed. That was brought in under Biden. And it gets very technical very quickly. And people just see old people not getting health care and they say, this is terrible. Republicans want this.

[John Podhoretz]

But just quickly, the, that's why the mega or the sort of what am I thinking here? The macro qualities of the bill are what matter. I'm not saying it's a gross bill, but I'm saying it's now Trump's economy got his bill, guys, 2026 will be do you feel good about the economy? Do you not feel good about the economy? No one's going to vote on a rural hospital closing. I mean, they'll vote on a rural hospital closing if they feel crappy about other stuff. And then they're like, and all these rural hospitals are closing. If they feel better off, they're going to vote like people who feel better off and give credit to the people who, who have been claiming that they were going to make things better, not the people who said that things were going to get worse. Abe, I do think this is the.

[Abe Greenwald]

Case that, you know, we've talked a lot about, especially during the Biden years, about how if you are feeling the economic hit, if you are taking a hit personally, you cannot be talked into the idea that, that the economy is good and everything's great and everyone, and everyone feels wonderful. I don't think it works quite in the reverse. I think if you are okay, you can be talked into the idea that there's deprivation out there now, okay, because of what has happened. You may not be feeling it, but it's happening and it's bad out there. It's a, it's, it's, it's more effective than, than the non starter.

[Matthew Continetti]

But even that is about the general atmosphere.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, right.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, that we, we went through this with Biden.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Because Biden was always saying and complaining, well, you just don't understand all the great things that I, I passed for you and why, why is this district or state going for Trump when I had all these infrastructure projects as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law and I've had all these green energy projects because of the inflation reduction Act. It doesn't, it doesn't work that way. Politics is driven by these general sentiments and attitudes, yes, about the state of the country, but also more particularly about the state of individual candidates. So I continue to be skeptical that somehow the future of the Republican majority at risk for sure, is tied to this one bill. And maybe this is a segue to another topic we need to address today. You see a kind of preview of coming attractions in the ghoulish attempt by liberals and some Democrats in order to blame this awful, horrifying tragedy in Central Texas on Trump budget cuts. Right. The floods that happened over the weekend on the Guadalupe river, killing up above 80 people now, many of them children, dozens of children who are attending summer camp during this once in a century, once in two centuries flood. When you think about how much rain fell in such a short amount of time on social media, almost immediately people were saying that the reason that the warnings did not get to the affected parties on time was because of personnel shortages thanks to Doge and Trump or thanks to cuts to the National Weather Service that Republicans have wanted to impose. These are myths they've, they circulated on social media. But here too, I think that people are getting better at confronting these charges. As soon as they happen in real time. And if this happens down the road where someone says, well, look at this family, they've lost their Medicaid coverage and it's all because of the one beautiful bill, yes, that will convince people, partisans who are already convinced that Trump is the source of all evil in the universe. But I think that how far it plays won't. Won't be as what these partisans expect.

[Noah Rothman]

The tragedy in Texas, really, I mean, has happened before. We're now finding these sorts of flash floods have happened before in this area. But it's Kerr county where most of the, certainly where the kids camp was and where a lot of the casualties were. Kerk county has over time recognized it needs to have some sort of alarm system for, for rapidly rising water. And locals have voted against it because it costs money. And so there is actually this, this strange sort of federalism argument about should the. I think the people blaming Trump are, as Matt says, incredibly ghoulish and wrongheaded. But the argument of whether the federal government should be involved at every local level rather than this county, which said, you know, they know they need it. They know it would be useful because cell phone signals that do give those flood warnings which I get on my cell phone, lots of people do, they don't reach into those more rural areas. They need an alert system. They haven't agreed. The people in that community have not agreed to raise the money through tax increases or however they're going to do it, property tax increases to, to install one. Now maybe they will. But this debate has come up locally many, many times over the past few decades. So it, but, but I do think the political usefulness to people on the left at this particular moment does show a real degradation in our politics rather than understanding, first of all, natural disasters do happen. The weather service was issuing warnings. It doesn't. There doesn't seem to have been a breakdown. Freak weather events do startle and surprise even the most sophisticated forecasters. And it's a horrible tragedy for which no one is to blame. These things. There was the famous, you know, during Mark Twain's time, the famous newspaper headline when a ferry boat caught on fire and burned and was like, hundreds died, no one to blame. We're out of the habit of understanding tragedy in that way. But I do think the real question is going forward, how should these local communities distribute their resources to prevent this in the future if possible?

[John Podhoretz]

Two things about that one, Matt, as you say, people are getting better at combating it all. All it took was going through the living memory of people who live along the Guadalupe river to remember that a Christian camp in 1987 was overrun and 10 kids drowned. Camp like right on the banks of the river and there was a flood and 10 kids drowned. That's not hundreds of people drowning, as was the case here, but the case Here was a 30 foot wall of water where rain was, where water was rising at the rate of a foot an hour until it hit this, you know, sort of this. It's like a tsunami in fresh water. And yeah, you can then do one of these classic environmentalist, you know, regressions where it's like this happened and this happened, this happened. And you see, it's all because of global warming. So the latest thing is this is the result of the aftermath of a worst storm that created the conditions under which the rivers rose and this happened. And so we need to go back, regress back to why this storm happened. And obviously global warming is.

[Matthew Continetti]

Climate change is a great illustration of ideological thinking that predominates the left. That every event has to be kind of retrofitted into some larger ideological framework. And whether it is the partisan progressive framework that everything that goes wrong is somehow reducible to the Republican agenda of lower taxes and less government spending, or this much broader global progressive framework that everything that bad that happens in the natural world is, is based on global warming or climate change. It's a, it's the ideological mind at work. Whereas I think a conservative approach is exactly as Christine says, as we will look at the circumstances, look at also the fact that tragedy and nature is red in tooth and claw and these awful and things happen sometimes. And yes, what's going on with the locality? What's going on with human error? Because these warnings were coming in, it was at night, people were sleeping. How do you get. I mean, it's a tragedy from start to finish. And that's why I get so incensed when I see these people making these arguments on Twitter trying to score partisan points, including the aforementioned Chuck Schumer, who I just can. He just retires. Just retire today. Chuck, you're useless. You're worse than useless.

[Noah Rothman]

Now in the Sun Valley is on his way to Sun Valley to tell.

[Matthew Continetti]

Us just announced the retirement. And plus that AOCs entry into that race would just. Would get attention away from Mamdani, maybe make it easier to beat him.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so our Jim Megs, our tech Commentary columnist in Commentary magazine, has been writing since he started writing his column, I think seven or eight years ago, repeatedly about how America deals with disasters. And there is A problem with. There are two associated problems that he dictates. One of which is that people, ordinary people, do not respond to threats of danger or they are skeptical of threats of danger because they live on the planet Earth and they don't expect. Someone says, oh, you better flee now, something's coming. And they're like, well, where am I supposed to go? And I don't have the money to rent a hotel room somewhere. And what's more, it's going to cost me. I don't, you know, I'll, I'll, I'll take my chances and maybe that's unwise, although 90% of the time it's probably wise. And then there is what happens when the disaster happens, when astonishing thing when if you leave people to their own devices, they will organize, they will save themselves, they will, they will save their communities. And looking for top down help is often, and there are incredibly counter, there.

[Matthew Continetti]

Are remarkable examples of heroism in the rescue effort that's been going on now for several days in central Texas.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean it's not that, that, that that overcomes the horrifying, tragic aspects of this, but human nature has these two qualities, one of which is I haven't seen this before. I'm not going to pick up stakes and like drive off somewhere until somebody gives me the all clear that, you know, that's going to be unbelievably disruptive to my life and my finances. And then, and then the freak, the black swan event happens and there's 30ft of water and there's nothing that you can do about it.

[Noah Rothman]

But this is important because it ties both what you're saying and what Matt just said together in something that's even beyond partisan politics. And that's worldview. Because the sort of left leaning worldview traffics and abstractions and looks to abstractions to explain freak events. The conservative worldview accepts that unexpected things will happen. It doesn't mean that they tolerate it or even encourage it. But then it's the question of how do we solve this practical problem based on our real world experience.

[Matthew Continetti]

And that really does our understanding of human nature.

[Noah Rothman]

Exactly, exactly.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. So in 1992, the worst, maybe the worst natural, one of the worst natural disasters in American history, which was Hurricane Andrew, right. Destroyed a lot of southern Florida. And practically speaking, by the way, that was Florida was a purple state, had Democratic governor at the time. I think it had a Democratic legislature at the time. So these were, you know, more regulatory people with a more regulatory framework than otherwise. But the disaster happened. Everybody looked and they said our building codes here in Southern Florida cannot withstand the natural events that can occur here on a regular basis because of where we sit in Hurricane Alley or whatever. And the state, in an extraordinarily nonpartisan fashion, doing something that Republicans generally don't do, but Republicans agree to. And then there was a Republican governor who, like the Republican governors who continued this effort, including Jeb Bush, that they reformed the building code system, created new regulations in a good way, good regulations, all regulations.

[Matthew Continetti]

California, after the Frisco quake in the 80s and then the Northridge quake in the early 90s, same thing.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. So it's not like we don't see a way in which there are practical ways to deal with crises, particularly after they happen. Because when you say we have to do X, Y and Z in order to prevent a crisis, you never know that the crisis would actually take place. And telling people, you know, we need to spend $40 billion rebuilding the bay Bridge so the Bay Bridge can survive an earthquake. Like, until an earthquake destroys the Bay Bridge, no one on earth is going to want to spend that money on that bridge so that it can sway, you know, if, if, if the tectonic plates move, like, that's not going to happen. So there is this kind of utopianism about repairing problems for them. It's just not the way human nature is. And the hope that you can affix blame for something to another political party or to your political opponents or something like that is frankly, morally repellent. Is morally repellent to say this 30 foot wall of water that no early warning system could have detected, by the way, just could have said, oh, you better get out of the way, there's a flood coming.

[Abe Greenwald]

But I can't think of a, I can't think of a single natural disaster since over the past decade, at least, that has, that hasn't been immediately politicized in this way.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's our tribalism. But I will say there is, I do draw a distinction between kind of backward looking, you know, kind of retrospective bias, hindsight bias, and criticisms of how government is responding once a disaster occurs. And so I do think in the case of Sandy, in the case of Hurricane Helene just last year, I mean, the converse is true of, say, recent hurricanes in Florida, where the government response has been incredible, Katrina in 2005, that there is, that is a more ambiguous case, as our friend Yuval Levin likes to explain at length when he's asked, nonetheless, there are places where, how is FEMA responding? How is, how are different levels of government responding? To tragedy.

[John Podhoretz]

I will say this.

[Matthew Continetti]

So far, it seems to me our government, the Texas government and the local government is responding very well in trying to rescue everyone that's still alive and recovering those who are no longer alive. There might be time down the road where people want to say, well, did FEMA do this? Did FEMA not do this? But that's how I would kind of draw the distinction. And that might take us to the federal government. Yes, President Trump and his meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu this evening, which is the last thing we ought to talk about.

[Donnie]

What if everything you've been taught about happiness is wrong? We chase careers, approval, more stuff, hoping it'll finally make us feel fulfilled. But it never sticks. What if happiness isn't out there, but already inside you, just waiting to be unlocked? Discover the Book the Happiness Experiment Every person has a unique happiness type and when you understand yours, everything shifts. You'll stop chasing and start creating joy on your own terms. Discover your happiness type with a free happiness type assessment. Go to myhappinesstype.com that's my happinesstype.com it takes just a minute and it might change your life. Then grab your copy of the Happiness Experiment at Books a Million. This isn't just a book. It's a practical framework, a journey inward. It's a tool to help you reconnect with the happiness that's been waiting inside you all along. Pick up the Happiness Experiment and start your happiness experiment today.

[Matt Continetti]

Hi everyone, I'm Matt Ebert, CEO and founder of Crash Champions. Welcome to Pod Crash. On Pod Crash, we'll dive deep with industry leaders and game changers because we want to uncover their secrets to success. We're going to explore everything from building trust, building a rock solid team, to champion blue collar work. And we also want to talk about creating explosive growth in your business. You you'll hear actionable advice, real leadership and business lessons along with what's worked for these incredible people throughout their career. We're even going to go in depth into what I call a champion's mindset. This is the very philosophy that I use to champion people and take Crash Champions from a single shop to over 650 locations today. And now I want to share that information with you. Watch or listen to pod crash on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

[John Podhoretz]

So over the weekend. So Trump is meeting Netanyahu. Obviously the the meeting was set with the idea that at the end of it or during it or something like that, it's possible that a big announcement could be Made either about a ceasefire with Hamas, a hostage deal with Hamas, or some kind of roadmap to the conclusion of the war in Gaza. And there's been a lot of news over the last week about how the things are going. And there's Israeli delegation in Doha on one floor of a hotel, and the Hamas delegation is on another floor of the hotel, and someone's taking the elevator up and down. It's like running, running between the floors with the latest proposal or counter proposal, since they won't sit at the table together. I am more interested in the fact that this is all happening after some weird acknowledgments of certain things that are happening in Israel, in Gaza that indicate that except for Israelis this and sort of lunatics on campuses and the people who are, you know, making money off activism here, that the war in Gaza is effectively over. Two details. One is the Gaza Humanitarian foundation has distributed 60 million meals since it started doing its work. This non UN volunteer organization funded by the United States with volunteer workers and all of that, setting up shop. Hamas is trying to disrupt it, trying to, you know, shoot people who are trying to wait online or trying to create chaos. Then there is a lot. There is chaos. And yet 60 million meals have been distributed. Yes. Over the weekend, two Americans were injured when hand grenades were thrown at them for the crime of attempting to distribute food in Gaza. So after 20 months of how Israel is starving everybody in Gaza, Israel, the United States have figured out a way to feed the people of Gaza and it's wildly successful. You're not hearing about that. But suddenly the everybody's starving in Gaza story has quieted down. That's number one. Number two, I want to talk about an astounding piece in the New York Times on Saturday by Michael Scheer reporting out of London. By the way, news, analysis. The cost of victory. Israel overpowered its foes, but deepened its isolation. So what is this piece about? This is about how, Warren, the war started by Hamas on October 7 has flipped entirely from this attack on Israel that left it vulnerable, that made it look like it had lost its deterrence against its enemies, that had broken its spirit, that had broken its heart. I mean, when I wrote my big piece on this after visiting there In November of 2023, I, you know, I wrote a piece called A heartbroken country. That was what the mood was and all of this. And now here we are, 20 months later, Israel has defeated Iran, Israel has. Hezbollah is now negotiating over whether or not to lay down its arms to become a functioning political party. Inside Lebanon that does not use the risk of violence to dominate or play its role in politics. Hamas is all but neutered. And then the New York Times greets all of these successes with an amazing piece on Saturday by Michael Scheer about how Israel's ended up isolating itself on the world stage, while, as it has demonstrated, that it is now the superpower of the Middle East. It's just so isolated because, you know, it was in such great odor on October 6, 2023. And really, people just loved Israel and were so supportive of it all over the place.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

And, you know, and so this is, this is the mindset that is reading the result of Israel's reassertion of its, the need for its existence and its willingness to do what it takes to defend the 9 million citizens who live within its, within its borders. Kind of an astonishing fact. And Bibi is coming here to talk to Trump with this as the new reality, which is that Trump can build on Israel's and his successes in Iran to start advancing the international peace process. That supposedly Israel is so isolated that it's probably going to make four or five different Abraham Accords deals in the next year, year and a half with the countries that supposedly hate it the most.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, the countries that, the countries that hate it the most are in Europe and the people that hate it the most are in the West.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, I think there's plenty of, there's, there's billions of people on this planet that don't like that, don't like Israel and didn't like Israel before October 6th. Right. The one, the most important ones are the ones in Europe and the elites in the United States and all of that because they have genuine practical power and an effect over the diplomatic things that can be done to Israel.

[Matthew Continetti]

It, it is a constant trope that somehow, quote, unquote, global opinion is more important than the decisions democracies make. I've encountered this a couple of times over the last week. One in the spate of global opinion polls showing that foreigners are thinking less of America under Donald Trump. And you know, how that's supposed to affect American domestic politics, I really don't know, even though I know that for many liberals and many Democrats, that's the be all and end all is what other countries, in particular the Western European countries, think about our domestic governance. I also saw this. I'm reading Gene Edward Smith's biography of George W. Bush, which came out about 10 years ago. And while it contains a good factual summary, it's also just a Partisan piece of dreck. And again and again and again he, he talks about how, you know, there was this moment after 911 where the world was just so sympathetic for America and look at how this crazed religious fanatic, George W. Bush dealt with it by invading Afghanistan and just ruining all of the goodwill of the United States. And I want to kind of, and I do periodically shake the book while I'm reading it, but I want to be shaking genes and saying Gene, you know, what did you want us to do? We were not. I mean you had to get to the Al Qaeda through the Taliban. They weren't giving them up, right? This is the Afghan war, much less the Iraq war which happened a year later. And yet again and again it's this idea that if other countries think bad of us, somehow all of our actions are delegitimized.

[Abe Greenwald]

We should also remember though, Israel never had such a moment after October 7th. On October 8th the protesters were.

[John Podhoretz]

That's right.

[Matthew Continetti]

There was no good rule against exactly making Michael Shearer thesis even more ridiculous.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean it's almost my only point.

[Abe Greenwald]

About when I said the people who hated most are in Europe or in the west or whatever is that it's more important what happens with the countries in the Middle east and Israel. That's the important thing here for Israel. And obviously internally, as Matt says, what happens within a democracy is what matters, but also what it's doing regionally. The changing facts on the ground, as John details here, that matters more than you know, people in far off parliaments denouncing Bibi or the IDF or whatever else.

[John Podhoretz]

And it will have longer lasting reverberations. Nothing succeeds like success. And if Israel is seen to have won this seven front war, which I believe it probably is very close to succeeding in doing with the still, with the Houthis still firing stuff at Israel, gonna have to be dealt with by them at some point it looks like. But the world map, the world, world's future changes and you know, you could have encampment people still existing screaming about how terrible Israel is and leftist American Jews complaining about the composition of the duly elected Israeli government representing its people and the way that they vote. But the facts on the ground will be the facts on the ground. Israel approaching, you know, approaching its 80th year will have established itself as a country that this dream of its non existence will now be seen as a schizophrenic illusion, you know, a schizophrenic delusion. It's not going anywhere ever. And in fact quite the opposite if you try to do something to make that happen, you are likely to find yourself in, in, in. In tatters and ruins. So leave it alone. Don't. Don't play this game anymore. I think it's a very powerful moment and a powerful message. I just. As we go, I just. Because of the conversation we had about disasters, I want to talk. I have a recommendation to make, which I think I may have made a couple years ago. But I'm just reminded again of this unbelievably prophetic, kind of junky novel, semi junkie novel from the 1980s by John McDonald about a South Florida condominium. You know, the author of the Travis McGee novels wrote a. Wrote a novel called Condominium, which came out in 1977, which is about this poorly built apartment complex in North Miami and that you meet everybody. It's one of those books, you know, you meet all the 12 characters and they're in different apartments, this and that, blah, blah, blah. And then 300 pages in, there comes a hurricane. And he then describes what happens to this condominium building as the hurricane hits it. And it's this hundred pages of a description of how a building collapses and how he did it. I don't know how he saw it, I don't know. But it literally predicted Hurricane Andrew in 1992. And it is an amazing sort of Jules Verne like feat of predictive fiction. And it's fun to read, like all such books are. And as he is a very fun writer, you know, one of the great mystery novelists of our time. But it is just sort of an amazing thing. So if you can find it, Condominium By John D. McDonald, you will. You will find yourself, particularly in the wake of what's happened over the weekend, sort of amazed at what an imaginative writer who saw something interesting going on probably in his own apartment building, and then sort of extrapolated it into this. It's essentially like the Towering Inferno. You know, it's like a disaster movie of the 70s, but it's about a single building and, and a neighborhood which.

[Matthew Continetti]

The hammers are back. The hammers are back.

[Noah Rothman]

I do have to add. Yeah, the hammering. But can I add, as someone born and raised in Florida, it's not super prescient or super astonishing since you grow up knowing you're living on like a Swiss cheese of limestone at sea level and basically sinkholes. These things collapse all the time. Because you do understand, I think in a similar way, if you live in California with earthquakes, that the earth you walk upon is not entirely predictable.

[Abe Greenwald]

All right. We are having some technical issues here. So John is vanished.

[Matthew Continetti]

So construction workers got to him.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yeah, that's right. The hammering couldn't take it anymore. So this is Abe saying for John, Christine and Matt, keep the candle burning.

[Carl]

I'm so excited to talk to you, Carl. To talk to me, a guy who's had this illustrious business career. What made you decide to write a book on happiness? You could have gone in some of the other directions.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, actually, I didn't, Donnie. I didn't decide to write a book. Something happened. This happiness experiment happened in real life, in real terms. I had no idea about writing a book, but I saw it working. The experiment was working. My friends and family were getting happier. They're increasing their happiness. And I saw it. So I thought, I need to write about this. And so that's when I got into writing the book.

[Carl]

And talk to me about prequesting. Talk to me what it's about and how it's the foundation of things.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, it came about through three major things that happened in life. One, I almost died in a plane crash. If you read the book, you'll find out whether I survived or not. Okay. The other thing that happened was I got a call from my sister in England. She told me her husband was dying. He had six months to live. So I flew to England, and she was in my will. And I said, janet, you're in my will as a. As a bequest. But that's something you need right now. So I'm going to make it a prequest. I'm going to bring that bequest forward and pay it to you now while you can enjoy it and your husband can fulfill his last wishes. She was overjoyed, burst into tears, of course, and said, oh, this is great. My brother was there at the same time. I said, barry, since I've done this to. For my sister, I'm going to bring your bequest forward, make it a prequest. And he said, oh, that's fabulous. Thank you very much. You're very generous. His wife went ballistic. She said, this is too much money. It's wrong. I don't want anything to do with it, and stormed out of the room. So that was a real surprise. Anyhow, she got over it. And the next thing that happened is I look in my. My investments. I got a lot of money sitting investments. Not doing anything wasn't working for me, wasn't working for my friends. So I said, why don't I use this money for my own success and happiness and also for my friends, the people that Helped me get to be wealthy and successful. That's what I did.

[Carl]

So it's not a one time thing. This is kind of a lifetime experiment, if you will.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, it turned out that way because I didn't want to just give people money and say, you know, be happy. I said, I want this to enrich your life. Be something special. So I'd like you to think about it, plan something, write a happiness plan. They asked, what's a happiness plan? I said, when I get that, I'll give you all the money and let's see how it works out.

[Carl]

So you talk about coaching and grants to reshape and change lives, which is timely given what's going on in the world today.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, and the thing is that it wasn't just about the money, Donnie. The money's important. We love money. It's good to have it. But what really worked with these people was the planning. With a happiness coach. They. They thought about carefully what they wanted to do that's gonna enrich their life, make them happier, what things they love, things that they were fascinated with. And they wrote all that down with a happiness coach. They had a plan. And as soon as I got the plan, I said, here's the money, all of it, it's all yours. You don't owe me anything, no strings attached. And they went off and started becoming happier.

[Carl]

It's incredible. So the inspiration for this was just your, your. Your near death experience?

[Christine Rosen]

Well, that, that was part of it, but it was, it was a number of things that happened. First off, I was very, very grateful for the people that helped me to become successful. And I wanted. Being grateful is terrific. Okay. You would love that. You talk about gratitude and gratitude, journaling, all those sort of things, but the real thing is, is expressing the gratitude, telling somebody how much you care about them, appreciating what they did for you, writing a letter. It doesn't have to be about money. It can be possessions, it can be money, it can be attention, can be time, can be knowledge, wisdom that you share with younger people. But it's what you're doing while you're still alive that counts. When you're dead, it's over.

[Carl]

It's such a great. It's such a simple but brilliant point. And how do you think, let's say, play this out, that people kind of really buy into this intentional happiness and prequesting. How does the world become a better place? Let's take this up 10,000ft.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, it would be great. The reason I wrote the book is I want this idea to get into the world, world, so that certainly the wealthy people, they can do the prequesting, make themselves and their friends and family happier right now while they're still alive. The other thing, I want the book to show how these people planned, thought about their happiness, created a happiness plan and then worked it, and to become happier. And others can learn from their experiences reading their plans and then doing the same thing. And in the back of my book, there's a workbook which goes through that step by step, and a plan to increase your happiness.

[Carl]

How do we get this into the workplace, into schools, and kind of really, to your point, get this in there.

[Christine Rosen]

You know, that would be lovely if it went into the schools. And I think in, in high schools, this would be a really good subject to put on the curriculum. How do you. What is happiness? How do you achieve happiness? What's it all about?

[Carl]

What is happiness?

[Christine Rosen]

It's a great question. You have to read my book. But in short, in short, emotion. We all know what happiness is. It's feeling good, it's joyful, it's exhilaration, it's loving life. Is that so? It is a feeling, but it's also a mindset. You have to think that I deserve happiness. Yeah, I want to be happy. I'm taking my happiness seriously. So it's heart and mind, not just one or the other. So it's that combination. But really, I give a whole chapter in the book on what is happiness. And it's a, it's a, it's a great chapter. You'll love the book.

[Carl]

Now, a lot of people, I can't, cannot, cannot wait to read it. I'm so excited. I'm like, just turned on listening to you. A lot of people equate happiness to financial success and things. And what am I going to learn in the book about that?

[Christine Rosen]

Well, happy money is important. Okay, let's get that off the table. Listen. But it's not going to buy you happiness. The good use of money is really important how you do it, but it's the mindset, it's the pursuit of happiness that counts. Taking your happiness seriously, wanting what you want. And what you want is important. Your dreams, your purposes in life, what you want to achieve in your career, what you want to. With your family, what you want to achieve. The purpose is all around what you value. Are you pursuing those values? Are you living those values? This is what it's all about. Money helps, but it's all those other spiritual things, if you like, psychological things, that really, the root of happiness. And as we all know, some people very rich and they're very unhappy. And this.

[Carl]

Yes, a lot of people.

[Christine Rosen]

People really happy.

[Carl]

I would say money can solve problems, but it can't buy you happiness. But you certainly can throw it at problems. But that's about the extent of it. So let's play this out. How does the. Right now, the world could use this more than ever. So how does. Let's say if I just did this fantasy and said, okay, everybody's going to. Everybody's gonna do this prequest, Everybody's gonna do the happiness planning.

[John Podhoretz]

What is.

[Carl]

How does the world look different?

[Christine Rosen]

Well, as you know, Donnie, when you're happy, your family tends to be happy, your friends are happier, and happiness ripples, it spreads. And if this idea gets into the world, which I'm. I'm working very hard to do, get it into the world talking to you. Because you're going to buy lots of these books and you're going to tell all your friends about it, right?

[Carl]

Yes, I am. Yes, I am.

[Christine Rosen]

If this goes, it spreads, it ripples. It doesn't stay just with you. It goes down to your family, to your friends and to your community. And if a lot of wealthy people did this. And it's not just about wealth, it's possessions, it's time, it's love, it's wisdom that we can share with others while we're still alive here and now. And if that gets into the world and there's a lot of people start doing this, then this, that the happiness level in the world will increase little by little. And I'd be very happy about that, Mr. Barney.

[Carl]

It's been inspirational talking to you. I am going to get this book immediately. I could recommend it just based on what we've talked about to anybody, because we all could use a little happiness. I appreciate. Appreciate you taking the time.

[Christine Rosen]

Happy to be here. Thanks, Donnie.