Confirming the Unconfirmable

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Commentary Magazine Podcast - "Confirming the Unconfirmable"

Release Date: January 30, 2025
Host: John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary Magazine
Guests: Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor), Matthew Continetti (Washington Commentary Columnist)

---

1. Tragic Air Accident and Social Media Response (02:21 - 04:33)

The episode opens with the hosts expressing their condolences regarding a devastating air accident near Reagan Airport in Washington, D.C., resulting in the loss of 64 lives. They critique the immediate polarization on social media, where individuals prematurely assign blame to ideological factions without waiting for factual information.

Notable Quote:

Matthew Continetti [03:07]: "Let the dead be buried. Let them, let the victims be mourned and, you know, don't just use them as playing cards in the political game."

---

2. Chinese AI Announcement and Skepticism (04:33 - 08:13)

The discussion shifts to the recent announcement of a Chinese AI technology named "Deep Seek." The hosts express skepticism about its legitimacy, suggesting it may be an information or disinformation operation coinciding with the U.S. crackdown on TikTok. They highlight concerns about data privacy and the timing of the AI's release amidst geopolitical tensions.

Notable Quotes:

Matthew Continetti [04:43]: "They're just rolling out the Apple Store download Deep. Once again, I can't remember the word Deep seek. Deep Seek."

John Podhoretz [07:48]: "It does have the feeling of an information operation, no matter how good the technology turns out to be."

---

3. RFK Jr.'s Nomination and Confirmation Hearings (08:13 - 32:52)

A significant portion of the podcast delves into Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The hosts critique Kennedy's stance on pharmaceuticals and vaccines, arguing that his appointment could undermine the American pharmaceutical industry's innovation and economic impact. They scrutinize his testimony before Senate committees, highlighting his perceived lack of understanding of HHS's complexities and his controversial positions.

Key Points:

• Economic Impact of Pharma: Emphasis on the pharmaceutical industry's role in the U.S. economy and global health advancements.
• Confirmation Hearing Dynamics: Kennedy faced intense questioning and opposition from Democratic senators, with comparisons made to past contentious hearings.
• Potential Senate Vote: Discussion on the likelihood of Kennedy securing the necessary votes, considering the Republican senators' positions and the influence of his independent political base.

Notable Quotes:

Matthew Continetti [12:22]: "We haven't really talked about the Chinese AI panic that began the week with the introduction of deep fake, whatever it's called."

John Podhoretz [16:03]: "You gave one. I'll give two more. One is his record as a pro-choice advocate... the second reason I'll offer to oppose the nomination, which is it's a huge agency."

Matthew Continetti [24:28]: "He was struggling to respond to the barrage as well."

---

4. Tulsi Gabbard's Nomination and Internal Republican Dynamics (32:52 - 45:00)

The hosts transition to discussing Tulsi Gabbard's nomination, outlining the challenges she faces in gaining Senate support. They analyze the internal conflicts within the Republican Party, particularly between MAGA supporters and more hawkish senators. The conversation highlights the strategic maneuvers necessary for nominees like Gabbard to secure confirmation amidst factional disputes.

Key Points:

• Senate Committee Votes: Gabbard's difficulty in securing unanimous committee support, especially from influential Republican senators.
• Republican Factions: Tension between MAGA proponents and hawkish senators who may oppose Gabbard's positions.
• Nomination Strategy: Potential consequences of failed confirmations and the strategic decisions within the Republican leadership.

Notable Quotes:

Matthew Continetti [37:28]: "We have a magazine, but it's like a magazine. They must be stopped. They must be just. I understand that the American conservative wants us destroyed because we're more successful than they are..."

John Podhoretz [35:26]: "Another play, too. And I think what you're saying there would mean that would be more Cassidy..."

---

5. Foreign Policy and Energy Strategy (45:00 - 60:03)

The discussion shifts to U.S. foreign policy, particularly concerning Iran and the broader Middle East. The hosts advocate for a robust stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions, emphasizing the strategic importance of alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They critique internal political opposition and misinformation, arguing for a clear and forceful American presence to ensure regional stability and deter nuclear proliferation.

Key Points:

• Iranian Nuclear Threat: Urgency in addressing Iran's nuclear capabilities and its alliance with North Korea.
• Middle East Stability: Importance of supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia to counterbalance Iranian influence.
• Energy Policy: Endorsement of Trump's energy agenda to achieve American energy independence and reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

Notable Quotes:

Matthew Continetti [51:10]: "It's a direct threat. That's not, that's a direct threat."

John Podhoretz [52:55]: "He doesn't want to start a war. He doesn't want to send Americans overseas. We know that."

Matthew Continetti [57:29]: "This is a way out. This is a way to change our posture there and not to feel as though we are on a knife's edge constantly..."

---

6. Education and Literacy Concerns (60:03 - 64:27)

Towards the end of the episode, the hosts briefly touch upon the declining literacy rates among American students, referencing the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicating that a third of eighth graders are functionally illiterate. They lament the educational shortcomings and humorously discuss the challenges faced by filmmakers like Christopher Nolan in engaging an increasingly illiterate audience.

Notable Quotes:

Matthew Continetti [61:00]: "It's awful, by the way. Achievements."

John Podhoretz [63:18]: "We’re in big trouble."

Matthew Continetti [61:01]: "Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey without the introduction. That's my, that's my recommendation today."

---

Conclusion

The episode "Confirming the Unconfirmable" provides a critical analysis of contemporary political nominations, foreign policy strategies, technological advancements, and educational challenges facing the United States. Through in-depth discussions and pointed critiques, the hosts underscore their concerns about ideological shifts, policy decisions, and the future trajectory of American leadership both domestically and internationally.

Final Notable Quote:

John Podhoretz [64:27]: "You don't have to read the introduction. Trust the tale, not the teller."

---

Note: This summary captures the primary themes and discussions from the podcast episode. For a more comprehensive understanding, listening to the full episode is recommended.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Oh, such a clutch off season pickup Dave.

[Matthew Continetti]

I was worried we'd bring back the same team. I meant Those blackout motorized shades lines.com made it crazy affordable to replace our old blinds.

[John Podhoretz]

Hard to install?

[Matthew Continetti]

No, it's easy. I installed these and then got some from my mom. She talked to a design consultant for free and scheduled a professional measure and install hall of Fame son. They're the number one online retailer of custom window coverings in the world. Blinds.com is the goat shop.

[John Podhoretz]

Blinds.com right now and get up to 45% off select styles plus a professional measure. Rules and restrictions may apply. Hope for the best, Expect the worst.

[Matthew Continetti]

Some preach and pain Some die at.

[John Podhoretz]

First no way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best Expect.

[Matthew Continetti]

The worst Hope for the best welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, January 30, 2025. I am John Pothor, the editor of Commentary magazine, reminding you if you have not already done so, to go to commentary.org and sign up for our daily newsletter, written by our own Abe Greenwald, comes into your mailbox late afternoon every weekday. Top of our menu, you'll see it says subscribe donate this, that it also says newsletter. You click on newsletter, you put in your name, you put in your email address and you will receive. Abe's highly praised given the amount of mail we get every day thanking him for the email, for the for the daily essay that he is providing, along with some important links to articles of interest in Commentary. And I would be remiss and Matt Continetti would find me remiss if I did not say, please go to our YouTube channel at commentary Magazine podcast and like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. You can watch this podcast every day on YouTube now through the magic of video. And the more likes and subscribes we get, the more income and revenue we will get from it. And that helps us to keep the lights on and to keep the candle burning. So with no with without further ado, let me introduce executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi John.

[Matthew Continetti]

And Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi Matt.

[John Podhoretz]

Hi John. And thank you for that plug of the YouTube channel, because I was ready to do it. And I just want to remind our listeners it's not just because we're greedy and we want more revenue. It's also we want to spread the message, especially to the rising generation who get all of their information from YouTube. So now if you go and you subscribe and you like the videos, that means that the message of Commentary will Go forth among the, among the nations, John. And that's why it's so important.

[Matthew Continetti]

I want to bring up before we obviously express our deep sorrow at the horrific air accident last night just next to Reagan Airport in D.C. apparently there are no survivors either from the, from the 64 people on the, on the American Airlines flight or from the Blackhawk helicopter that collided with it. We know nothing about what's happened. There has been a repulsive social media effort already to sort of draw, to line up ideologically on one side or another of this matter. And at least people could wait until we get some sense of what happened before they can start levying blame on their own favorite priors. That would be nice. That's not the world we live in anymore, if it ever was, to be fair. But, but, but the speed with which people can do that is really appalling. You know, let the, let the dead be buried. Let them, Let the, let the victims be mourned and, you know, don't just use them as, as, as, as. As playing cards in the, in political game. There is something deeply unseemly about that. But I did want to bring one thing up before we get to everything else. We haven't really talked about the, what we did a little bit about the, the Chinese AI panic that began the week with the, with the introduction of deep fake, whatever it's called.

[John Podhoretz]

Deep Seek.

[Matthew Continetti]

Deep Seek. And I want to commend my friend Charlie Cook on the editor's podcast, who points out that, you know, there's something a little fishy about this announcement. It's like, oh, yeah, we've invented this AI that runs basically on a chip that you could you have used in a Commodore 64 machine in 1983. So we're just, we're just rolling go to add the Apple Store download Deep. Once again, I can't remember the word Deep seat. Deep Seek. I don't know why. And of course, if you do that, you're providing the Chinese Communist Party with your email address, with your IP address and they'll collect data on you. And this just happens to have happened right at the time that TikTok has been, you know, the, the law demanding the sale or the shutdown of TikTok went live, even though it has been illegally.

[John Podhoretz]

A week after Project Stargate was announced in the White House with President Trump, Larry Ellison Sohn of Sam Altman and Sam Altman and Sohn is the Japanese executive's surname.

[Matthew Continetti]

So in other words. But part of this is, are they just trying to get in Knowing that some of their sources of data may end up being shut down within 75 days. If in fact, you know this, as I say, this bizarre intrusion by Donald Trump into the legally binding aspects of the law that passed, that criminal called for the sale or shutdown of TikTok goes through, are they just getting their last licks in to get some apps on phones that will collect the data that they continue to wish to collect? And I want to commend Charlie for bringing this up as he did, because I hadn't really thought of that. And it is seems almost self evidently a perfectly plausible Occam's Razor motive for this announcement coming now, particularly when apparently people who are using this don't really know that it's true that this is this huge technological breakthrough. They're merely responding to the reports out of the people who made it that it's a huge technological breakthrough. They haven't seen the innards of it and they don't really know.

[John Podhoretz]

When the deadline to force the sale of TikTok or shut it down was approaching, there was a flurry of stories about, and let me say this, Xiaohong Shu, a TikTok alternative, also based in China. And everywhere you looked in the press it was like, oh, now all the kids are downlining Xiao Hongshu. And it's amazing and it's a wonderful thing. It just happens to be named after Mao Zedong's Little Red Book. But that's nothing to worry about. It's extremely popular. I got the same sense with all this deep sea stories.

[Matthew Continetti]

Look.

[John Podhoretz]

Oh my God, wonderful China. And we knocked off, I think, something like $500 billion from the Nvidia value on the stock market. Yeah, I'm just an incredible amount. And they undercut the Stargate announcement. It did have the feeling of an information operation, no matter how good the technology turns out to be.

[Matthew Continetti]

So I only wanted to bring that up because I think, I don't want to be credulous and I don't want to sort of follow the mob. And it is true that Silicon Valley responds to vaporware almost as it responds to everything, that an announcement of something is almost tantamount to the creation of something. This is a problem with Silicon Valley, it's a problem with high tech. It has been for decades and has led to many, many bubbles, stock market bubbles in pursuit of the latest and best thing. And so I think people need to, as we keep saying, keep their powder dry. This is a long fight and something that very few of us really understand the implications of what AI is what it's going to do, why it's so disruptive, why it will be so revolutionary and all of that. And therefore it's pretty easy for us to get taken and for say stock market, you know, investors and speculators to get taken by the latest shiny new object. You mentioned Nvidia losing 17% of its stock value in a day. I mean the, almost the entirety of the stock run up of 2024, which was substantial as everybody with a 401k knows who was watching their 401k increase in value in 2024 should know that a disproportionate amount of the stock market run up was due entirely to Nvidia, to this one stock which went up, I don't know, 10,000% in value and created an entirely new frame of reference, bringing the Dow industrial average well over 40,000 almost on its own. So you know, bubbles come and bubbles go and maybe Nvidia is a bubble or maybe it is in fact the, the key architectural foundation of the AI revolution. We don't really know that yet. That was, I think what the challenge of, of this new proposal was is there was going to be a way to do this without Nvidia and to do it more cheaply and to do it without as much energy consumption and all that. And so people just, you know, if we're going to be whipsawed this way, we need to learn, just like the machines learn in AI, how not to respond, how not to panic, how not to think that everything is Sputnik and that we're in this while we are clearly in some kind of a technological arms race with the Chinese. You know, not every announced victory on the, on the enemy's side is necessarily a victory. It could be an information operation, a disinformation or misinformation operation intended to run us dizzy and ragged.

[John Podhoretz]

And I think it's important to recall why we're in this technological race with the Chinese. It's because the People's Republic of China is a communist dictatorship that means to overturn the American built world order. If this was a Japanese company that all of a sudden found an amazing new technology, well, they're our ally. If it was a, you know, a British company or even, God help us, a French company that had a huge technological advance, wouldn't it be a problem? But when you have China that organizes itself as an adversary of the United States and means to displace us as the world's superpower in a closed society, these things matter. And we were Reminded of this as well when on social media, you saw people ask deep seek about what happened in Tiananmen Square in June 1989. And the artificial intelligence, which is built to be a super intelligence, said, oh, I don't know what you're talking about. I can't. I can't. I have no idea.

[Matthew Continetti]

Let's talk about a field in the world in which America is the unambiguous leader leading the world. Revolutionary whining. Remarkable, no?

[John Podhoretz]

Oh, we're very good at that.

[Matthew Continetti]

I'm talking about pharma.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes.

[Matthew Continetti]

Okay.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes.

[Matthew Continetti]

So yesterday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Sat before the Senate and testified on his own behalf as part of the process of his nomination to be the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. People don't understand how important American pharma is, not only to the American economy, but to the world's health. There is this one drug that everybody is all crazy about now because it has this miraculous effect that is not an American drug, although part of is. Now, there are American adjuncts of it, which is the semi glutides, the ozempics, mounjaros, victozas, these things that seem to be largely made in Scandinavia or having been innovated in Scandinavia. Aside from that, in the last 30 years, almost every major advance in medicine from not only ordinary drugs that help with cancer and diabetes and this and that and the other thing, but also biologics, new forms of immunotherapy, all of that, these are. This is American innovation at its best. And people keep saying, oh, you're being so mean to rfk. He was only asking questions about vaccines. He's only asking questions about. But he is institutionally, personally, logistically, economically, and financially hostile to this very, very important American economic engine. Engine of innovation, engine of profit, engine of change, engine of extending life, ameliorating pain and helping people. And are there bad aspects to pharma? Have there been inadvertently the inadvertent use of pharmacologics to do damage in the form of, say, fentanyl or, you know, or. Or the opioids and all of that? The answer is absolutely yes. Have there been terrible tragedies that have happened as a result of drugs brought to market that it turns out after, even though they had been through 10 years of study, had inadvertently bad side effects? Yes. Has life in America and life in the world been immeasurably enhanced in almost every possible way by American innovation in not only medical technology, but in these drugs? Unquestionably. And we have simply taken that for granted. And Trump has appointed as his head of hhcs somebody who is, as I say, institutionally hostile to Big Pharma, wants to control it, wants to seize its patents, which is a form of social, which is a form of nationalization. I mean, that is literally, you take a patent away from a country that is a company that has spent $2 billion bringing a drug to market, which only has a 17 year shelf life as an, as a product that it gets exclusively anyway because of copyright law, and you are basically going to war against one of the great success stories of modern American capitalism. That is why I oppose his nomination, because I think it's really, really bad for this very, very important American industry that nobody will defend.

[John Podhoretz]

There's so many reasons to oppose his nomination.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's true.

[John Podhoretz]

You gave one. I'll give two more. One is his record as a pro choice advocate, which many of the Democrats seized on in the committee hearing. I believe it was Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, the senator, who said, just when did you give up your principles for everything you believe in to adopt Trump's position on abortion? But there is still great skepticism that RFK Jr. Is going to pursue and implement Donald Trump's pro life policies as head of this important agency. And that's the second reason I'll offer to oppose the nomination, which is it's a huge agency. HHS has a budget that is larger than the statutory budget of the Defense Department.

[Matthew Continetti]

It is the largest agent we need to $1.7 trillion a year in the federal government.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. Flows.

[Matthew Continetti]

Most of that is spending that is automatic. Right. That Social Security and.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, it's Medicare and Medicaid.

[Matthew Continetti]

I don't think Social Security goes through Medicare and Medicaid. So Medicare in particular.

[Abe Greenwald]

Another reason to oppose him is he doesn't seem to know how Medicaid works.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, that's my point is that you would want someone who kind of is at least familiar with the differences between these two entitlement programs. Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, the working poor.

[Matthew Continetti]

Medicare is a national Medicare. Right. This is what, astonishingly, it's our single payer system. For a single payer system, older people over the age of 65 and Medicare. Medicaid, excuse me. As we learned with the horrifying shutdown of the Medicaid website. Oh, the panic is a. Is a block granted program. Money sent to the states.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

By the federal government to be administered at the state level and with money match depending on how states, how much money states are willing to commit to their own programs for the poor in their states and the health care for poor in their, in their states. And so these are two very different things. One is a federalist system. Right. Of sending money statewide. And the other is administered from Washington as a direct payment or system of direct payments from the federal government to providers and hospitals and things like that. As a pass. You're the pass through for that money to go from the federal government into the people who provide you with health care if you are over 65.

[John Podhoretz]

And it also includes the National Institutes of Health.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

And the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. It's this huge sprawling thing. And I don't think he necessarily displayed the knowledge of the institution he is supposed to be leading in that hearing. There was another remarkable moment in the hearing that the Wall Street Journal opinion page seized on. I'm using seized on because I don't know, everybody loves that you're pouncing. I'm pouncing and I'm continent. I'm pouncing on the. The amazing hearing for RFK Jr yesterday.

[Matthew Continetti]

There is a one today, by the way.

[John Podhoretz]

And there's another today.

[Matthew Continetti]

If you're confused. If you turn on your TV and there's, and there's Kennedy again, it's because he's testifying before the House today.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, no, he's testifying before a different Senate.

[Matthew Continetti]

Before a different Senate committee.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, he's.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's how much I know. That's why you shouldn't let me be your nomination.

[John Podhoretz]

It's in jeopardy, John. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. Yesterday RFK testified before the Senate Finance Committee. Today he's in front of the HELP Committee. Health Education or Labor and Pensions, I believe. So Warren said you can you tell us you won't, you won't profit off of lawsuits. Yeah. Will you commit not to not suing the drug companies and taking your rake out of that while you are a secretary? And for four years after and persistently this exchange went on for some time. RFK Jr wouldn't say he would do that, which was suggesting he'd be leaving open the door to profit off of lawsuits that his firm engages in against pharmaceutical companies while he's Secretary of Health and Human Services. And so this led to a cosmic realignment, a potential singularity where Paul Gigot and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal praised Elizabeth Warren against a Republican cabinet nominee. So that's kind of where we're at with the RFK nomination. And that leaves out the single funniest exchange of the Hearing, which was when Senator Bernie Sanders, you know, pounding on the, on his desk there, said to RFK Jr. Do you endorse these onesies? And again and again with this picture of kind of a onesie for a baby that said, you know, I don't, I'm unafraid, I think is what it said, because this child who wears the onesies supposedly isn't vaxxed.

[Abe Greenwald]

Unvaxxed and unafraid.

[John Podhoretz]

I think unvaxed and unafraid. That's the onesies. And so you had this bizarre scene. Again, you know, one reason I've, I'm open to supporting RFK Jr. Is because I think it might force Larry David out of retirement to produce another season of Curb your enthusiasm where his ex wife on the show Cheryl has to go into politics because of her husband. And there you had, not only did you have Cheryl Hines in the background as RFK was testifying, you also had Larry David's cousin Bernie Sanders there talking from the deis and questioning the, the nominee. So all the ingredients are there, Larry.

[Matthew Continetti]

It was, it was a reminder that if you want to hate American politics, watch confirmation hearings. One of the first things I did when I got to Washington in 1984 was that a friend of mine was the special assistant to somebody who was nominated for a major office in the federal government. And it had. And the senator, the Democrats had control of the Senate and he was targeted. I'm not going to say his name because he doesn't need to relive the experience and he's still around with us. But he was targeted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and by the Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chuck Percy, a patrician Republican from Illinois, notable for his anti Semitism, among other things. And so it was one of my first experiences in Washington, was going to support my friend who was sitting there with his boss at his confirmation hearing, which he completely booted and embarrassed and humiliated himself and was sort of caught in what sometimes is called a perjury trap, where a series of questions was asked and he didn't understand where the questions were going and they went to something that he had said earlier that wasn't really true. And then having answered the subsequent questions, that came back to the original question and, and Percy said something like, are you willing to, are you now willing to stand by? Did you say, Was what you said true at the beginning? And this was an effort to make it clear that he could not be confirmed. And the person in question said, I stand by what I meant to Say, which is one of the great Washington statements of my lifetime. I bring this up only to say that the dynamic of a con. Of a confirmation hearing is unbelievably unpleasant. And no matter how it happens, it makes you feel sympathy for the witness, because there is this, like, phalanx of people, and they just start yelling at the witness. Like Ron Wyden, who I think was the. Who's the ranking member of the committee, meaning he's the. He's the leading figure in the minority party, in his opening statement, just spent five minutes abusing RFK Jr. Now, there was no one in American politics I revile more than RFK Jr. And after about two minutes of this, I was feeling really sorry for him. I wasn't far from. You weren't?

[Abe Greenwald]

Nope. I felt his. Particularly his effort to fudge his past statements and past record and to try to bring it in line with something more centrist or moderate reminded me exactly of Kamala Harris's attempts to cover up her liberal past.

[Matthew Continetti]

Okay, but I'm talking about. What I'm referring to is he hadn't even spoken yet.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yeah, I.

[Matthew Continetti]

So I'm just saying this is the dynamic, is he hadn't spoken yet. So, yeah, he. I'm not saying he acquitted himself well. And that's an interesting political question about how his behavior will affect the. The. The vote in the Senate. But Wyden screamed at him. Sheldon Whitehouse, who had some kind of bug bear about cms, which is this agency that helps administer Medicare, Medicaid payments, How. How it functioned. And Whitehouse literally said, I'm going to talk, and you're going to listen. And then you can. And then at the end of my five minutes, you can respond in writing to anything that I've said.

[John Podhoretz]

Make a point about. Quick point about Sheldon Whitehouse.

[Matthew Continetti]

You know, there was a Democratic senator from Rhode Island.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes. And there was an exchange with RFK Jr about whether he's a conspiracy theorist. And he gave kind of a, you know, an evasive answer, saying, well, that's what some people call me because I like to ask questions. But I just want to point out there is no bigger conspiracy theorist in the United States Senate than Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode island, who is like, you know, Glenn Beck with the blackboard and the charts talking about the nefarious influence of the Federalist Society on American politics. And that's dark money, which apparently only favors Republican and conservative causes in the world. So it was a moment of, I think, the pot calling the kettle black when this charge of conspiracy theory is raised against RFK Jr.

[Matthew Continetti]

Okay. So Matt and I have now. So I'm saying sort of the dynamic creates. I think it's just because of the dynamic. Because of the dramatic dynamic of one person against this wall of people who start, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and stuff like that. People who would have agreed with RFK Jr. Two years ago. Right. This is all because he's Trump's nominee. It just. It's discomforting to see a person, you know, who is.

[Abe Greenwald]

I'm normally. I'm normally with you.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hey, but, hey, please go, go.

[Abe Greenwald]

No, I'm normally with you, but I just. I find him to be such a nefarious figure in our politics that his very presence there was, to me, the more offensive predicate for. For the entire event.

[Matthew Continetti]

And he said many offensive things, too, yesterday.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, well, he.

[Abe Greenwald]

But I will add this if you're inclined to have some pity on whoever is going through this. That was also would be boosted by the fact that he has this voice debilitation. So he was. He was struggling to respond to the barrage as well.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, he's got this condition called. Is it somatic dysphonia, symphonic dysphony, something like that, where basically his. His voice box stopped working. There's a famous. Was a famous Washington radio personality named Diane Ream. The same thing happened to her. And you basically have to learn how to speak again in a way not using the ordinary mechanics of the voice. So he's talking like this, and it's disturbing, it's sad, but he's also evil. So let's balance.

[John Podhoretz]

I do have to observe that RFK Jr. Is one of the more popular political figures in America. Not on this podcast, but just broadly among the American people, and that will help him in this process. I thought Dan Foster had one of the best lines of the day when he said, you know, the thing about RFK Jr is he believes in so many crazy things that each one of his beliefs has a constituency that also believes it. And so you add all this up, and Dan Foster said he's basically the Captain Planet of Kukuri because he kind of amasses all these different groups of people who believe one or two fringe beliefs, and that kind of amalgam actually makes for his independent political constituency. And I think the test of this nomination, which is still playing out because it's unclear how it will go, is how powerful is that constituency, which we call the Maha, the Make America Healthy Again movement. When you look at the vote for Pete Hegseth last week, you know, that was a, that was a 50, 50 vote. And the tie was broken by Vice President Vance. The people the senators who voted for voted against Hegseth Rather, Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska, and McConnell of Kentucky. I don't think any of them are likely to vote for RFK Jr. So what that means is he's going to have to hold all 50 remaining Republican senators. And I, it's unclear. I didn't see anyone come out against him after yesterday, but. And he did win some people over. It seems like Thom Tillis and Todd Young are both inclined to support his nomination. But that leaves Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who's a doctor, and maybe some others who could make a.

[Matthew Continetti]

There is this medical phalanx, right? There's like there's Cassidy as a doctor, Barrasso is a doctor. There's one other person who is a doctor. And I think that that gives them cover if they want to vote. They can say, as a doctor, I cannot in conscience support this nomination because, you know, I spent my years vaccinating children and his views.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, there's also another, there's another play, too. And I think what you're saying there would mean that would be more Cassidy, I think who would be in a position to make such an argument? There's also the new senator from Utah whose name is Curtis. John Curtis.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes, John Curtis.

[John Podhoretz]

Now, he, you know, he's new, but he comes from Utah, which is, has a slightly, you know, different political profile than most other states in the Republican coalition. If someone, he or someone like him said, well, I just don't trust RFK on the basis of his record, that would be another way that the nomination could fail. I'm not saying it's going to happen. What I'm saying is it's not clear to me yet that you have the 50 votes for him to allow Vance to break the tie.

[Matthew Continetti]

Utah is a very crunchy state, which also has. There's a lot of weird ideas bubbling around there, but it's also not only.

[John Podhoretz]

Around what it's a pro life state. So that's what I'm saying.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's a pro life.

[John Podhoretz]

I think a pro lifer could also come out and say, I just can't do this. You know, yeah, this position is too important to have someone who is pro choice even now to be in charge right now.

[Matthew Continetti]

There have been circumstances in which Republican, in which pro choice people have been confirmed by, by Republicans played a role in confirming them. The big one that I can think of is Louis Sullivan, who was George H.W. bush's health and Human Services secretary, who was pro choice. And Bush said, don't worry, I'm gonna appoint a pro life deputy for Sullivan. But the idea there being that if he comes out and says, as Kennedy said, I am here to implement the policies of the President of the United States, and if his policies are X, Y and Z toward issues of life and abortion, I'm going to implement those as his representative. That may not be sufficient unto the day. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. But that gives pro lifers cover right to say, well, he said he would do what the president wants. I also think it's going to be very hard for Republicans, for example, to say that use the profit. Will he profit on X, Y and Z while he's in office? I mean, this is a weird but you know, Trump is getting $25 million from Facebook to settle his lawsuit against Facebook's suppression of him. He got a $15 million payout from somebody else. There's Trump coin. The, there's all kinds of weird stuff going on where the Trump and the Trump family are, after being very circumspect about this in the first term, seem to be not circumspect at all on the idea that it's okay to trade on Trump's name to make money. These things come perilously close to violating the emoluments clause. I mean, this Facebook settlement, if Democrats hadn't ruined forever their possibility or capability of suing Trump or doing something about Trump in the impeachment realm by having impeached him twice and having failed to get that through, they could be building a case on this right now based on a couple of these things.

[John Podhoretz]

But the term is young, John.

[Matthew Continetti]

I know they can try again. It's clearly not really a successful maneuver is what I'm saying. But it's going to make it hard for Republicans to come out and wag fingers about people, you know, like double dipping for their right.

[John Podhoretz]

And that's why I, that's why I think RFK Jr is much more likely to get through than say, Tulsi Gabbard, whose hearing is also today.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

Shortly after we finish recording the podcast.

[Matthew Continetti]

What we, what we don't know on Tulsi Gabbard is whether the hawks in the Senate and again assume that there is now this and there is this flank of Republicans in the Senate who are going to vote down his most people they think are his most extreme nominees, meaning those three McConnell, Collins and Murkowski are saying, I'm sorry, we're voting for everybody else, but there are these three or four people we cannot vote for. And let's say that they will do that again with Tulsi Gabbard. So then you just need one more. And there are 10 hawks in the, in the Republican caucus who are being asked to do a very heavy lift for themselves if they are going to vote. Yes, Graham Cotton.

[John Podhoretz]

Ernst Sullivan.

[Matthew Continetti]

Ernst Sullivan, right. I mean, people who are there, they are, they are supporters of the war in Ukraine, they are supporters of a strong defense posture. They are opposed to playing footsie with Syria. They don't like people who are overly friendly toward Russia and stuff like that. And only one of them has to go if, again, if this three person anti Trump extreme nominee rump remains in play or in force. And from what we've heard, Gabbard has not acquitted herself well in her private meetings with Republican senators. I mean, I think we've heard a couple of people say, I think Lindsey Graham may have said like she wasn't good or I can't quite remember who we've heard this stuff that her. Well, when she went to have these meetings, she did not manage to figure out a way to talk to them in a way that would reassure them.

[John Podhoretz]

And right now, from what we understand from the reporting, it does not seem that Gabbard has the votes going into her hearing to pass the committee. And so you mentioned Tom Cottage.

[Matthew Continetti]

Can we explain that? Can we explain that process?

[John Podhoretz]

Sure. Well, once the hearing is done, then the committee reports the nomination to the Senate and so they hold a vote about whether to pass the nomination along.

[Matthew Continetti]

Typically, I think there's one, and that's a majority of one Republican on each committee.

[John Podhoretz]

Usually it's a pro forma thing and they pass. Some of these committee votes for Trump nominees are straight down the middle partisan lines. I believe Pam Bondi's nomination to be Attorney General was just passed out of committee, but it was on a party line vote. What we're hearing about Gabbard is that she doesn't have the votes to be passed out of the committee, which means that the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Cotton, are not fully behind her going into her hearing. And those include Jim Risch of Idaho, Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Todd Young of Indiana and Ted Budd of North Carolina. So her first task will be convincing the names. I just mentioned, the senators. I just mentioned that she should be supported. She should at least go to the floor. And if she can't do that, then the nomination isn't big tribal.

[Matthew Continetti]

It can be reported out of committee for a full vote on the Senate floor without a recommendation. So that is something that can happen. But I believe John Thune, who is the Senate Majority Leader, threw cold water on that idea. And I think he threw cold water on that idea because he hasn't received a signal from the White House that Trump is going to punish people for a negative if he receives the message that Trump's. Trump wants her to have a vote so that Republicans are compelled to make it clear that they will vote against one of his nominees. So he has a new enemies list. He may well have to do that for party comedy.

[John Podhoretz]

Weirdly, all we know from Trump is that he urged Gabbard to last week to fight for her nomination in the same way that Hegseth did. And as I've been saying, I don't really see any evidence of that. I see Gabbard supporters within the MAGA movement fighting for her nomination and some outside right.

[Matthew Continetti]

But she hasn't gone on Laura Ingraham. No, she hasn't gone on Joe Rogan.

[John Podhoretz]

This morning will be the first time we hear for her. And so I wonder whether the White House is also taking a more cautious approach than some of the figures in MAGA media who are gung ho. You have to support Gabbard or else Trump's presidency will collapse and we're gonna primary everyone who says a nasty word about her. I think there might be some space between those two positions.

[Abe Greenwald]

To what extent do you think Gabbard's fortunes depend on RFK juniors in terms of a kind of trade off of allowing one of the extremists, anti American conspiracy theorists through, but not both.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, there's a way in which there is an off ramp here, which is why I referred to Thune and everything, which is that if she does not acquit herself well today she can withdraw. Right. And therefore you would. Kennedy is not going to withdraw, but she can withdraw. That would be the classic move. Right. It's that it's not that there has a. Cabinet nominees don't get rejected by the Senate usually when the tea leaves or when every indication is that they're going to go down. They don't subject themselves to the. We saw in the Oppenheimer, in the movie Oppenheimer when Louis Strauss is actually rejected by the Senate at the end of Oppenheimer in his nomination for Secretary of Commerce. That's only happened like five times in the last hundred years because people don't want to go through that, and the White House doesn't want them to go through that.

[John Podhoretz]

Especially when the Senate is held by the same party as the president. That makes it extremely.

[Matthew Continetti]

Which, by the way, wasn't the case in the Strauss nomination. The Strauss nomination went down in part as a show of Democratic power because they had gotten. And that's gotten control of the Senate.

[John Podhoretz]

For the John Tower nomination. During hw, the Democrats were same thing.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right. They were saying, don't think you're in such hot. You can just do whatever you want. We're here to make some noise. That's not the case here. So that would be the way in which they would not be balanced against each other. So Gabbard's performance today is really important. And she's good.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, she can be.

[Matthew Continetti]

We should make this clear. Like, we watched her in, what, 12 debates in 2019. You know, she is a very able, very smart, very capable person and critic.

[John Podhoretz]

Of Trump throughout the day.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, that's true, but I'm hitting Trump foreign policy. She was also a critic of Kamala Harris.

[John Podhoretz]

Oh, yeah. She ended Kamala Harris, everybody's.

[Matthew Continetti]

And she was, take no prisoners, tough and smart. She was the most able of all those debates.

[John Podhoretz]

She could meet the challenge today.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah. So we don't really know. And I'm also struck by the fact that what is peculiar about the defense of her is that a lot of it is contained in an attack on us. That is to say, Daniel McCarthy, former editor of the American Conservative. There are pieces all over the place, and the whole thing is Gabbard must be confirmed to stop the neocon. Where is there a neo. Where? Show me a neocon in the Trump administration.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, we just have a podcast. We're just sitting around talking.

[Matthew Continetti]

We have a magazine, but it's like a magazine. They must be stopped. They must be just. I understand that the American conservative wants us destroyed because we're more successful than they are and have more and have had more influence over the course of many, many decades than they. And that's an internal fight in the sort of small magazine intellectual world. But I really don't see where a world in which nobody who worked for Mike Pompeo or HR or John Bolton or anything like that can even be considered for a job in this administration that you must therefore confirm Tulsi Gabbard to stop the neocons from waging war on Iran, which is what Daniel McCarthy says in his piece today.

[John Podhoretz]

And that's what Carl. That's what Tucker is saying as well. That's the fight within the Trump world is that the MAGA restrainers, MAGA restrainers want to stop Trump from taking a hard line against Iran in his second term. And so the Gabbard nomination is one more front in this battle that we've been talking about playing out in the Pentagon.

[Matthew Continetti]

And would somebody explain that? So explain this to me.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

So you're maga. Trump invented maga. Trump had a first term.

[John Podhoretz]

He did.

[Matthew Continetti]

How was he on Iran?

[John Podhoretz]

He was pretty tough.

[Matthew Continetti]

Really tough. Pretty tough. He withdrew from the jcpoa. He did. Maximum pressure, the term.

[Abe Greenwald]

And neocons have only. Neocons have only praised it.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, there you go. There you go. That's the problem. But it's not like the Trump policy was something that we.

[Abe Greenwald]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

It's not Alien wrote.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right, right, right. I mean, this was his policy. And by the way, it was a policy that even Steve Bannon support in 2017 was an advocate of. The pull out from the JCPOA was a, was a, was a consensus view from us to Bannon. It's not like that was any controversy or that, you know, it was warmongering to pull out of the jcpoa, I guess, just because it was an Obama program.

[John Podhoretz]

That's what Obama said. Obama said there was warmongering. These critics now or this part of maga, they sound like Obama. Yeah, it's Obama's foreign policy they're advocating for.

[Matthew Continetti]

And why? Because of us. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The weird thing is that this is, this is part of an internal ideological fight among conservatives on the right. They are looking to put a stake through the heart of the influence of people like us. And Gabbard is one of their instruments, apparently. And some of what's going on here is a, I guess is a fight for the soul of maga. In the same way that we still haven't seen Trump say Ukraine is, you know, what Ukraine has done is wrong.

[John Podhoretz]

On the contrary, the spending freeze that we've been talking about in Washington all week quite explicitly left out defense aid to Israel, Egypt and Ukraine. There's a freeze on social aid to Ukraine through the State Department, the NGO complex. But not the weapons. The weapons are still going.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right.

[Abe Greenwald]

This is another way in which the Trump right is so similar to the woke left, which is that it's not the policy that matters so much, it's the person doing it. So if Trump enacts what would be considered neocon friendly policies, that's fine. It's just that he did it, so it's okay.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, we're to blame for him doing it. I think if.

[Abe Greenwald]

But that's. I don't even think they have a problem.

[John Podhoretz]

They're very upset. If you listen to Bannon's podcast, they wanted Trump to abandon Ukraine on day one. They wanted him to say, we're out, we're done. And when he didn't do that, it's because of the evil neocon influence in his administration. It's not. Because clearly Trump, you know, is no dummy and he kind of sees the various interests at play here, and he doesn't think it's smart to just say, we're out on day one. He wants to.

[Matthew Continetti]

If he wants to negotiate a deal, right. With the Russians, you don't pull unilaterally, pull the pressure on the Russians away and then say, no, you know what? You're the catbird seat. You're going to drive the negotiation. That. That's not the only warning shots that he has fired since becoming president are at Putin.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

So I'm not saying that I think he's going to go the right way on Ukraine. I assume he will not, in the end what I take to be the right way in Ukraine. I assume that I will be extraordinarily disappointed and upset by where this ends up. But he's not there yet, and he has spent two years refusing to go there.

[John Podhoretz]

Soon to be three.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's soon to be three. It's very interesting. It is a more layered set of circumstances than people realize, which is one of the reasons that people like Daniel McCarthy and others are so frustrated, because they are. They assume that he's with them. We kind of assume that he's with them, but he's not really crossing. You know, he's not crossing.

[John Podhoretz]

He doesn't want to start a war. He doesn't want to send Americans overseas. We know that.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right. And nobody.

[John Podhoretz]

We're not advocating that. That's just so bizarre.

[Matthew Continetti]

Right. So, yeah, this is a horrible caricature that somehow we, you know, even on Iran, which is really interesting, the only potential role that people who think that there is this unprecedented moment against an American adversary that is denuded of its defenses to degrade or destroy its capacity to become a major destabilizing international player with a nuclear weapon, our idea is not that Americans should get involved in a war on the ground in Iran. It's that we have the military overflight capacity to make unbelievably quick work of this. And if we're not willing to do it, fine. So at least we should do what we can to let the Israelis do it or let the Israelis do three quarters of it. And then we just fly and drop the huge bunker buster bombs, then fly away. That apparently even that which is not engagement in the way that they are, they are sort of, you know, Phyllis, they are making up, you know, that we're saying that there should be.

[John Podhoretz]

There wouldn't be boots on the ground in that. And it's not a, by the way.

[Matthew Continetti]

It'S the Israeli troops on the ground. There are no troops.

[John Podhoretz]

The lines are drawn. So, you know, they're like a kid with the marker. You just, it's all over the paper. You know, where are the lines drawn? Because if you advocate American maximum pressure against Iran, leaving open the option of an, an air campaign to set back the Iranian nuclear program and perhaps destabilize the Iranian regime, that might be, that might be a consequence. But that's not the aim. The aim is to set back the nuclear program years and years. Well, there are no boots on the ground. Israel last year destroyed the Iranian air defense network. So, you know, Israel showed that this operation would not be as difficult as people have made it out to be. And by the way, this is not a humanitarian war. There were a lot of debates in the 90s where people of our views were on various sides actually about, well, should America send our troops, our men and women, overseas for humanitarian purposes? That's not the case in Iran. This is a very discrete object, the Iranian nuclear program, which is now being accelerated to the point where the IA IAEA says there is no possible civilian purpose for what the Iranians are doing right now. There's no possible. So, okay, so this is a threat to America. It is a threat to America. This is a radical Islamist regime pursuing nuclear weapons.

[Matthew Continetti]

Let's talk about how it's not only just a threat to Israel. Right, because you can load, because Israel's 900 miles away. So you can load a nuclear weapon onto a, onto a relatively standard missile and fire at 900. That's like what the Houthis are doing. The Houthis are also like 900 miles away. Granted, they're not using missile, they're using drones or they're using these weird jury rigged craft. But Iran is in an alliance with North Korea. North Korea has spent a decade testing intercontinental ballistic missiles. They're not very good at it yet. Right. But they are doing real world tests of intercon in this axis of evil. They are doing tests. They have, they have the missile. Iran gets the uranium, it mills it to 100% capacity, puts it on a North Korean missile that is refined over the next three or four years. And yeah, the continental United States is under threat. That's not, that's a direct threat.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, it's also a country. Iran has an active assassination campaign against.

[John Podhoretz]

American officials, including the president. And just finally, the restrainers will say, in the end, they'll say, it doesn't matter, deterrence will work fine. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, well, then that might mean the Saudis get one, too. And then just we'll have nuclear balance of terror. And the argument against that is, is why get that? Why even get to that point? What do you want to live in that world? I mean, deterrence. Deterrence is a scary world.

[Matthew Continetti]

And let's talk about also the. You mentioned the Saudis. And what appears to be Trump's main foreign policy objective that isn't purely economic, which is he would like to advance and complete the Abraham Accords, because that will be his enduring legacy, is a rebalancing of all, all alliances and relations in the Middle east towards something that is aligned with the United States and the ideas and ideals of the United States and changes the way in which the Jewish state relates to its near abroad and all of that. The Saudis need the United States to stand as a bulwark against Iran, just as they need Iran is the great threat to Saudi Arabia. Iran, the Shiites in Iran would like to get control of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina. The way to do that is to destroy the Saudi regime and to take control of the holy places and the Saudis. In 2015, when the JCPOA, the Iran deal was signed, that was when the Saudis said, we're throwing in our hand secretly, quietly with Israel because we can't trust the United States to help us. The only people who are going to save us from Iran is Israel. That's it. There's nobody else. Trump then comes into office and makes that a more complicated question because he's siding with Israel. He wants the Abraham Accords. There are all these test cases that the Saudis are approving, right? The Saudis saying it's okay for Bahrain to sign the Abraham, it's okay for the UAE to sign the Abraham Accords. We're not going to stand in the way as a test to see how it goes. If this is what Trump really wants, ultimately, destroying the Iranian nuclear program is the final step in making sure that that happens. And while TUCKER and Daniel McCarthy and all these people think this is some kind of warmongering nonsense that will get Americans killed, it's almost exactly the opposite. It is a way to create a new world in the Middle east in which this place that has fomented. If you consider Afghanistan, one of these places, three or four wars for the United. Four wars for the United States since 1991. Right? The two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan, I guess it's three. I don't know. Or you could say the war against ISIS would be four or three and a half.

[John Podhoretz]

With the Houthis. Isis. And you add ISIS and the Houthis, you get to four.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, you get to four. You add each half war at each one. That's all. This one place on Earth.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, it's a mess.

[Matthew Continetti]

And this is a way out. This is a way to change our posture there and not to feel as though we are on a knife's edge constantly with the destabilizing forces.

[John Podhoretz]

And just one final point, because then they'll say in return, well, it doesn't matter. The wars are only a consequence of our involvement over there. To which I reply, what happens in the Middle east does not stay in the Middle East. It never has, it never will. And just think about what happened on the streets of New Orleans on New Year's Day. Right? The radical ideologies that emanate from that place do not remain there. And so it's up to us to create the conditions of stability and peace in the region. We're not talking anymore about transforming the region into Jeffersonian democracy. We're beyond that now. All we want to do is create stability and order and re. Establish deterrence. And the way you do that is by resuming the maximum pressure campaign against Iran as soon as possible and put.

[Matthew Continetti]

That together with Trump's energy agenda. Interesting detail we learned yesterday is that Doug Burgum, who will be the Secretary of Energy, has also been appointed. Not Secretary of Energy. Right.

[John Podhoretz]

He'll be Secretary of the Interior.

[Matthew Continetti]

Of the Interior.

[John Podhoretz]

Our man Doug.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes, yes, our man Doug. So Secretary of the Interior plays a role in the energy revolution because Interior, of course, permitting for all oil exploration, stuff like that, and development is. Is. Is interiors, is Interior's job. He has been given a seat on the National Security Council. That has never happened before. Why? Because if his purpose at Interior, together with this apparently very brilliant oil energy executive, who's going to be the head, who was going to be the Secretary of Energy? If Trump's agenda is drill, baby, drill, what we what we can do to create economic growth for the United States over 20 years is to fully exploit our energy potential in fracking on public lands, whatever exports. All of that. All of that is part and parcel of the effort to degrade the economic power of the Middle east over the last hundred years.

[John Podhoretz]

And of Russia.

[Matthew Continetti]

And of Russia. And of Venezuela.

[John Podhoretz]

And of Venezuela.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, everywhere you turn, the people who will be affected to their detriment by American energy exploration and some new order in the Middle east are bad actors, unambiguously bad actors. Unless you are somebody who goes and takes a Potemkin trip to Moscow and says, boy, these subways and grocery stores are so nice. Wow. You know, Tucker Durante there in support.

[John Podhoretz]

Of anyone who could go anywhere else actually in the world and compliment their grocery stores. The American supermarket is like one of the highest achievements of the human species.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's awful, by the way. Achievements.

[John Podhoretz]

There is no other symbol of American prosperity than our supermarkets, which, you know, litter the most of the landscape.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes.

[John Podhoretz]

And just the bounty. Right. So anyone who can go to Moscow, of all places, and say, oh, the supermarkets are so great. Get out, get out more. Get out, get out more. Go to a Wegmans. Go to a Wegmans.

[Matthew Continetti]

Wegmans is great.

[John Podhoretz]

It's great.

[Matthew Continetti]

Some of them are even carpeted. That's what's.

[John Podhoretz]

That's part of what's.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's part of what's interesting. All right, so I don't think we have a recommendation today, unless if I were to recommend Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey, which I think has already probably been recommended. I am in the middle of reading Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey. I'm very fascinated by this because her introduction to her translation of the Odyssey is one of the most nauseating things I've ever read. It's full of all this stuff about how it's gendered, and she was worried about how gendered it is, and it's all about male toxic masculinity and blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, oh, my God, how? Who foisted this on me? This is horrible. And then I start reading the actual translation, which is amazingly colloquial and flows like a river and is pretty dazzling. So if you want to take my recommendation and read Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey, just don't read the introduction. Well, trust the tale, not the teller.

[John Podhoretz]

What's funny about that is, as you know, but maybe our audience does not. The filmmaker Christopher Nolan's next project is a retelling of the Odyssey. And it was a sign of how poorly Americans are doing at school that all of the press releases about Nolan's great project, the Odyssey had to explain what the Odyssey is. Not even people haven't read Homer's epic poem of Odysseus return home. It's like just literally what I said had to be kind of spoon fed to people. And when you consider that the naep, our national academic, our National Assessment of Economic progress came out yesterday and showing continuing declines now horrifying.

[Matthew Continetti]

It said, I believe, if I have this right, that a third of eighth graders in the United States are functionally illiterate.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

One of the most terrible.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, hey, Trump's got a new EO on education.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's true.

[John Podhoretz]

And it's. Well, it's needed.

[Abe Greenwald]

Absolutely.

[John Podhoretz]

Because we're in big trouble.

[Matthew Continetti]

We're opening up a whole another hour. I will say one thing about that because I noted this the other. I remembered this the other day from There was a Netflix movie with Jennifer Lopez a couple of years ago. I don't remember what it was called, but there's a moment in it in which. In which somebody presents Jennifer Lopez with a book and says, this is a first edition of the Iliad. So I was like, well, I guess you wanted to mention the Iliad and seem like you were really, really literate there.

[John Podhoretz]

That would be the scene in Annie hall where he brings Marshall McLuhan into the frame for first edition of the Iliad. You didn't have a gu. Dressed in a toga, you know, with a. A wrap around his eyes. Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Walking stick guy who starts singing. Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

Rage, Athena. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

Anyway, Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey without the introduction. That's my, that's my recommends today. We'll be back tomorrow. For Matt Nabe, I'm John Podworth's Keep the candle bur.