Fight Fiercely, Harvard?

Summary

Summary of "Fight Fiercely, Harvard?" Episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Commentary Magazine Podcast
• Host: Jon Podhoretz
• Guests: Seth Mandel, Eliana Johnson
• Episode: Fight Fiercely, Harvard?
• Release Date: April 16, 2025

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Fight Fiercely, Harvard?", host Jon Podhoretz engages in a spirited discussion with senior editor Seth Mandel and guest Eliana Johnson from the Washington Free Beacon. The conversation centers on the Trump administration's confrontational stance toward elite universities like Harvard, focusing on alleged viewpoint discrimination and antisemitism. The hosts delve into the broader implications of governmental interference in higher education, drawing parallels to historical precedents and exploring the potential long-term effects on American academia and politics.

---

Trump Administration's Demands on Elite Universities

Jon Podhoretz initiates the discussion by addressing the Trump administration's extensive list of demands directed at Harvard. He criticizes the administration for overreaching, stating:

“They are refusing to comply with your demands, Donald Trump…they went far beyond what was necessary.”
(00:05:47)

Eliana Johnson provides her perspective, expressing ambivalence about the administration's approach:

“I have been really happy to see the Trump administration taking it to the universities with gusto… there were many more and much more stringent demands than those issued to Columbia.”
(00:04:48)

She questions whether the administration's goal is to compel reform or simply to punish, noting the unrealistic nature of Harvard likely complying with such an extensive list of demands.

Abe Greenwald echoes this sentiment, highlighting the intrusive nature of the demands:

“They are much more stringent than those issued to Columbia. The list of demands was so far ranging and so far afield from the enforcement mechanism.”
(00:05:47)

The discussion underscores the administration's use of the Civil Rights Act, Title 6, to justify claims of viewpoint discrimination and antisemitism, suggesting a broader agenda to control private institutions based on ideological conformity.

---

Comparison to the McCarthy Era

Jon Podhoretz draws a comparison between the current situation and the McCarthy era, emphasizing the resurgence of government overreach and suppression of dissent:

“We are entering a second McCarthy era here, and it'll be their rallying cry.”
(00:19:42)

He criticizes the liberal elite's nostalgic view of the McCarthy period, arguing that the administration's actions resemble historical purges of ideologically opposed individuals, thereby stifling free inquiry and academic freedom.

Seth Mandel supports this analogy by highlighting the administration's maximalist approach across various policies:

“The administration's M.O. shifts justifications in almost every case…whether it's deportations, tariffs, or negotiations.”
(00:14:43)

This approach, according to Mandel, creates confusion about the administration's true objectives, making it difficult to predict or respond effectively to their strategies.

---

Impact on University Administration and Funding

The conversation shifts to the financial implications of the administration's demands. Jon Podhoretz points out the significant funding Harvard receives from the federal government:

“Harvard gets $9 billion from the federal government. How did this happen under my nose?”
(00:30:13)

He criticizes the intertwining of government funds with university operations, suggesting that liberal foundations and massive endowments perpetuate a system where universities remain complacent despite potential overstaffing and ideological biases.

Eliana Johnson adds that the administration's demands aim to address real issues, such as the harassment of Jewish students, but questions the feasibility and sustainability of such financial dependencies:

“It's unclear whether Democrats will support universities receiving billions, given the public's disinterest in seeing institutions like Harvard benefit.”
(00:29:25)

This financial leverage is seen as a double-edged sword, providing necessary funds while simultaneously enforcing ideological conformity and accountability.

---

Foreign Policy and Administrative Challenges

The hosts also discuss the administration's foreign policy missteps, particularly concerning Iran negotiations. Jon Podhoretz criticizes the ineffectiveness of current negotiators like Steve Witkoff:

“Wyckoff is just negotiating like John Kerry…It's not proof rock, that's not what I meant at all.”
(00:44:53)

Eliana Johnson responds by highlighting Witkoff's lack of clarity and strategic direction, emphasizing the administration's centralized decision-making:

“Foreign policy in this administration is being made out of the White House…Trump is making the decisions here at the end of the day.”
(00:52:03)

This centralized approach, combined with frequent personnel changes, undermines the administration's ability to maintain consistent and effective foreign policy strategies.

---

Domestic Terrorism and Political Violence

A significant portion of the episode addresses a recent act of domestic terrorism targeting Governor Josh Shapiro. Jon Podhoretz laments the lack of media coverage and political response:

“The elected governor of Pennsylvania…was nearly burned to death during Passover. Why aren't 150 Democrats denouncing this?”
(00:58:42)

Abe Greenwald criticizes the Democratic response, suggesting that the party's internal divisions and fear of being labeled Islamophobic prevent a unified stand against such acts:

“The Democrats are unsteady and don't want to be the champions of this stuff because pro-Hamas people are making no good arguments.”
(00:62:59)

This incident is portrayed as a critical moment highlighting the administration's failure to protect against domestic threats and the Democrats' inability to effectively respond.

---

Fundraising and Internal Democratic Politics

The episode also touches on the internal dynamics within the Democratic Party. Eliana Johnson points out troubling fundraising trends and attempts to unseat moderate Democrats:

“David Hogg has raised $20 million to fund primaries to unseat moderate Democrats from the left.”
(00:59:29)

This internal strife is seen as weakening the party's cohesion and ability to counteract the administration's policies, posing significant challenges for future elections.

---

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The hosts conclude by reflecting on the broader implications of the Trump administration's tactics towards universities and political opponents. They argue that the administration's confrontational approach not only threatens academic freedom but also sets dangerous precedents for political discourse and governance.

Jon Podhoretz warns of the long-term cultural damage:

“Creating precedents for going at your enemies is bad for the future of the country.”
(00:19:42)

Eliana Johnson remains cautiously optimistic, acknowledging the groundwork laid by resisting administrative overreach while recognizing the uncertainty of the political landscape:

“It's too early to say if the tactics are self-defeating, but there's a lot of good in their demands.”
(00:38:12)

Overall, the episode presents a critical examination of the Trump administration's strategies, their impact on elite institutions, and the ensuing political and cultural ramifications.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Jon Podhoretz:
  “We are entering a second McCarthy era here, and it'll be their rallying cry.”
  (19:42)

• Eliana Johnson:
  “The administration is perfectly within its rights to say, we want to know you're complying with the Supreme Court decision that says you're not discriminating on the basis of race.”
  (05:47)

• Abe Greenwald:
  “The liberal media doesn't want to be on the same side as Kash Patel.”
  (04:44)

---

This episode offers a comprehensive exploration of the Trump administration's aggressive policies toward universities and the broader implications for American higher education and political integrity.

Transcript

[Jon Podhoretz]

Today's episode is brought to you by sapir, the quarterly journal edited by Bret Stephens. Devoted to ideas for a thriving Jewish future. SAPIR is proud to announce the SAPIR Debates, a public debate series on the most consequential issues facing Jewish communities in the U.S. israel and around the world. Presented in partnership with the 92nd Street Y, Sapir debates will be hosted and moderated by Bret Stephens and feature world class thinkers. The topic of the inaugural Superior Debate, to be held on the evening of May 15th at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, will focus on the only slightly controversial question, is Donald Trump good for the Jews? Joining the debate are Jason Greenblatt, special envoy to the Middle east and Trump's first term as president, and Rahm Emanuel, former mayor of Chicago and chief of staff to President Barack Obama. To purchase tickets for the inaugural Sapir debate at the 92nd Street Y on May 15, go to sapirjournal.orgdebates that's s a P I R journal.org debates some preacher pain, some die of thirst the way of know which way it's going Hope for the best, Expect the worst Hope for the best. And welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Wednesday, April 16, 2025. I am Jon Pudhoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me as always, Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi Abe.

[Seth Mandel]

Hi John.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Senior Editor Seth Mandel. Hi Seth.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi John.

[Jon Podhoretz]

And joining us today, our friend, Washington Free Beacon editor, host, co host of the Ink Stained Wretches podcast, Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.

[Eliana Johnson]

Hi John. Great to be with you guys.

[Jon Podhoretz]

I just want to begin today if I can find it. Actually, I'm not going to begin today if I can find it because I had it and now I've lost it. I was going to read an incredible letter that Donald Rumsfeld wrote to the IRS that he in 2013 explaining how the IRS is so screwed up that he, Donald Rumsfeld, could not promise, even though he signed the document saying so, that his taxes and the payments of his taxes were accurate because the tax code is so confused and confusing. But I can't find the text of the letter. So we will simply pay tribute to Donald Rumsfeld, late Donald Rumsfeld, and to the horrors of the IRS on this, the day after tax day, since people are reeling from their from their filings, last minute filings. And we will move on to the question of what the hell is going on with Harvard and Trump and day two of Harvard saying no in thunder. No, we will not comply with your Demands O Donald Trump. We are but a small, tiny school and you are a big, powerful man. But we will not agree to do things like make sure that we don't engage in viewpoint discrimination, and we will make sure that we don't let anybody understand how we admit people. And we will make sure that you can tell us what to do. All of which I think we agree that, you know, the government really shouldn't tell private institutions what to do. But that ship sailed 60 years ago with the, with the implementation of the Civil Rights act and, and the decision to compel universities and all private institutions to follow these laws passed by the federal government, really, for the first time, to that extent. So they're perfectly happy to obey all kinds of government dictates as long as those dictates conform with their ideological priors. Eliana, this is your baby. This subject, the subject of campus behavior. Elite institutions refusing to confront the evils that take place on their campus or to confront the people who do them. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, your alma mater. Yale, Columbia, others. So how are you feeling here on day two of the big war between Cambridge and Washington? Now you have to unmute because you muted. We told you to mute. Okay, there we go.

[Eliana Johnson]

Just, just following the rules, too.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Well, unlike Harvard. Yeah, go ahead.

[Eliana Johnson]

You know, I'm of two minds about this. I've been really happy to see the Trump administration taking it to the universities with gusto. That being said, I have to say, when I read the list of demands from the Trump administration to Harvard, I thought the question that arose to me right away was, are they seeking to have Harvard tell them to pound sand? Is the goal here to just cut off the funding, or is the goal to reform the school by reaching some agreement? And I don't know the answer to that, because reading those demands, I thought, there's no way that Harvard is going to agree to these demands. They were much more. There were many more of them, and they were much more stringent than those issued to Columbia.

[Jon Podhoretz]

I would just like to point out that the list of demands was so far ranging and so far afield from the enforcement mechanism that they adduce, which is that they can use the Civil Rights Act, Title 6 of the Civil Rights act to talk about viewpoint discrimination and antisemitism against Jewish students and against the behavior of people towards Jewish studies, Jewish matters, and Jewish students. So far afield did they go that I was surprised and frankly disappointed that they did not bring up the question and ask Harvard to answer the question of why, though I was waitlisted in 1978, I did not get off the wait list to go to Harvard. And I think if they had come to me, I would have asked them if they could just sort of like with a poll. Sometimes with polls, people will pay a little to append a question to a poll to get a specific answer. I would have liked that answer. I would have liked to know why I didn't get off the wait list. But I mean, that is kind of, there's stuff on that list that bears no relation whatsoever to the issues at hand or.

[Abe Greenwald]

You bring up a good point. I'm surprised that one of the demands wasn't a degree, an honorary degree from Harvard.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Well, that would have been once they agreed to some of it, but not all of it. They could have added the honorary degree in the second round. Right. Columbia agreed to stuff, and then the Trump administration went back with a second round of demand. So that's, I would, that would have been a mezzanine demand, as we say in, you know, in certain types of funding or loans. But, you know, look, I don't, I don't need Harvard. I didn't need Harvard. I don't need their stinking admission. I don't need their stinking degree. But it just an example of just how intrusive the Trump list of demands were. That I think it does raise the question Eliana raises, which is, did they really think they were going to get a positive response to this, or do they want to be at war with Harvard?

[Eliana Johnson]

It's not even like, yes, there's that. But also, did they think they could stand on principle if they, if they got a negative response? Because we're starting to see the Wall Street Journal has an editorial, this indicating that the administration went too far here. And they're trying to. The way they put it is Donald Trump doesn't need to try to run Harvard. He needs Harvard to comply with federal law. And Heather McDonald has a great piece in City Journal where she fixates on the demand that Harvard audit each department or teaching unit for viewpoint diversity. And if a department is found deficient in viewpoint diversity, the university must hire a critical mass of intellectually diverse faculty. But they don't actually define what they mean by viewpoint diversity. Like, does that mean if there's a deficit of there are too few Shakespeare scholars in the English department, does that mean they have to hire more? Or is it political diversity we're after here? So there's a lack of clarity in it anyhow. So that's the criticism from the right is on this viewpoint Diversity thing. I reject the criticism, however, from the liberal media, where all we're hearing all day on cnn, et cetera, is, well, these demands go far beyond anti Semitism. And so, you know, it's inappropriate. Well, okay, like, the administration is perfectly within its rights to say, we want to know you're complying with the Supreme Court decision that says you're not discriminating on the basis of race. I have no problem with them going beyond, you know, ensuring that Jewish students aren't harassed. But they do go beyond in some ways that I think there's no way any university would agree to it. By the way. I think. I do think I'm hearing from the administration this is not the case. But I just do think that Harvard's, Harvard telling the administration to go pound sand makes it less likely that Colombia now makes an agreement because it would just make them look pathetic.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Well, I don't think anybody can make an agreement. Harvard is the leading educational institution in the United States. It has established the baseline, which is say no. Now, what happens when you say no if you're a school that doesn't have a $50 billion endowment to cover? The shortfalls that may result from this will be a great difficulty to certain schools. Although, again, let's face it, what do we all know? You know, we all know. We all know that at many institutions in the United States, the number of administrators outnumbers the number of faculty and the number of students combined. Right. We know this why administrative state at these schools arose in response to. To state and federal demands for compliance with other regs, other rules, other things spelled out by the Justice Department and the Department of Education and other such, and their own internal liberal leftist constituencies that decided that what was really important was to have 140 DEI administrators at the University of Michigan, a department of 150 people trying to assert the prerogatives of essentially quotas, affirmative action, and the advancement of the interests of minority students, specifically in contravention, in my view, of the 1964 Civil Rights act, nonetheless, like that. So that if what happens here is a crisis that forces these institutions to make Hobson's choices about how they spend money, that is all to the good in the long run. In the short run, having the federal government come to you and say, we want to destroy you, even though I loathe most modern American universities and the way higher education is run is not a good thing, like, the United States government shouldn't be going around destroying things like, that's not.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, there's also the fact that, and I agree on the, that diversity part of the demand list, as I mentioned in my piece yesterday, also, that jumped out at me also. And so if that's jumping out at all these conservatives, just imagine how much it's jumping out at everybody else. So that's one sign that they sort of went too far. But the thing about Colombia is that the demands they made of Colombia were things that Columbia needs to do. And it's unclear that they can make that argument with Harvard. And it's unclear whether they just got lucky with Columbia and put out a sensible list of demands, a tough, but a reasonable list of demands, because that was the first one. And that made it look like they really do have a plan. Colombia needed to reform the way it handles behavioral complaints and disciplinary hearings and things like that because it really did have this kind of Soviet esque thing where it was never anybody's specific problem or decision to make and therefore whatever. And also it got the President of Colombia off the hook because she could always say, it's not really my department, even though I'm the President of Columbia. They had set it up in this way. So there were parts of this that, you know, when we looked at it, we thought one of the reasons Colombia said we want to work with the President is because if you are trying to run Colombia, you need to do some of this stuff. You don't have a choice. You have to fix. There are certain things at Columbia you have to fix because your campus is out of control and you don't run it. And so that's the other thing is that they should concentrate on, is that there are these points where, and I'm not saying Colombia is happy to get this list of demands or have this fight with the administration, but there is this middle ground where the tough demands can be things that both sides know the school really needs to do. And this gives the school the ability to say, the bad cop made me do it. I don't have a choice in reforming this. We have to do it to get our funding. But in the long run, both know, you know, it's an excuse for Columbia administrators to do something that they would desperately need to do to help the school in the first place. And then they seem to have gotten off that track completely with Harvard.

[Seth Mandel]

You know, I think Eliana's framing of the Trump administration's approach here is useful almost across the board, actually, well beyond the area of what it wants from Harvard. If you think about it going maximalist everywhere and shifting the justifications for it in almost every case has been kind of the administration's M.O. to the point that you don't really know what the aims are. This goes for deportations, this goes for Doge, it goes for the tariff, certainly. Right. Do they want the fight, do they want the rejection? Or do they have a specific and, or is this an opening gambit to get to a smaller deal? You don't know. And that's kind of, that covers almost the full ground here of everything that Trump's been up to.

[Jon Podhoretz]

That's a very concise summa. I mean, again, as you said, you've just taken Eliana's, you've broadened it and we can go back to specifics that don't involve the university. For example, Tom Homan, right, who was the head of ice, went on TV yesterday and said, look, okay, so they say we got to bring back the guy from El Salvador, but you know, we get him back here, we're just going to deport him because he's not allowed to be here. So why are we bringing him back? Just to deport him again? And the answer is that's not the right question. You have to bring him back because the Supreme Court said you have to bring him back because you denied him his due process rights. And a court at the Justice Department in 2019 said he could not be deported to El Salvador specifically because of a well grounded fear of persecution, which I have to say President Bukele of, or Bukele or however it's pronounced, of El Salvador, kind of demonstrated when he was in the Oval Office saying, you know, we want to take this guy and eat him and, you know, serve him up for dinner. So it kind of fits the model. And so what you have is Homan making the populist case, which is he's here illegally. We got him out of the country, that's what matters. Now we gotta schlep him back, only to find some other place to send him that's inefficient. And the idea is efficiency is not what's going on here. What's going on here is you're flouting the rule of law and how the United States government functions in terms of its competing its three branches of government, similarly with the universities. Yeah. If the case were as a result of Title 6 of the Civil Rights act, or as a result of the dot of the, of the decision in the affirmative action case, or as a result of regulations at the Department of Education regarding viewpoint discrimination, or as a result of da, da, da, da, you must do this, this, this, and this. To comply with the law, we are providing you a checklist.

[Seth Mandel]

You.

[Jon Podhoretz]

We check off the checklist and we no longer have a problem with you. That's how you resolve. You go to somebody and say, here's what you have to do to get yourself right. We're going to freeze money until you do it, and then when you do it, will unfreeze the money because the money was already appropriated or whatever. But they're not doing that. They're doing the. We hate Harvard, Trump said Harvard is stupid and evil. And so, yes, we're punishing Harvard, Trump said last night, effectively. Now, as I say, far be it for me to oppose the punishment of a school that didn't let me off the waiting list. But that's not the point. I. We all enjoy a good revenge.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, it's one of the points.

[Jon Podhoretz]

It is one of the points. But we all. Look, everybody enjoys a good revenge plot, right? We all love it. It's like, you know, dude, they went after us, we're going to go after them. You know, they brought a nut. Chicago rules, right? They bring a knife, you bring a gun. That's David Mamet in the Untouchables. But no, like, I don't want to start sounding like, you know, I don't know who. Like, like the bulwark. But, you know, no, the executive branch can't just go around telling people to do things or it's going to pour poison in its water supply. That is not right. And it is bad. And it's bad for the future of the country, because, as I think a lot of people are saying, many people are saying Trump people aren't going to be in power forever. And you create precedents for going at your enemies.

[Abe Greenwald]

So, you know what, Can I mention another problem with Trump, The Trump people not being in power. I mean, not the problem with Trump people not being in power forever. But you know what I mean? That line of thinking is that someone else can also restore funding. And, you know, if you're going, if you're not going to go through the, the clear, established legal process where you have this legal trail that says, like, it would violate. Like, we have things in, you know, in American law that say if you call something a coup, you can't give that government money, right? If you officially recognize that they, that, that it's a coup. So we call it, you know, all sorts of other euphemisms or whatever. If you, if you lay it down in a way that says it's not legal to give Harvard, all this money right now, and a judge will agree, that's one thing. But what they're doing is they're basically just, I think, giving them space to hold their breath. I think if he wants long lasting changes, then he should be giving them lists of things. Again, Colombia is a reasonable example of this. He should be giving them a list of things that they can and should do, that those are changes that Colombia will make to its own system, to its own rules and regulations and going forward, that's the new status quo at Colombia if they want to keep their funding. And what he's doing now, I think, is the, you know, this sort of standoff, which is, it'll hurt them for a few years, but they have the chance of forgetting that this ever happened in three and a half years, which.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Is the other forget, and they won't want to forget. For them, this is the other thing that Trump doesn't understand about the power of liberal culture. My entire life, liberals in the left have had nostalgia for and a deep longing for the McCarthy era, by which I mean that was a moment of choosing when people were either cowardly or they name names. And, you know, the people who, who, according to this incredible mythology where people who refused to name names before the House UN American Activities Committee were largely defending the worst regime in the history of the planet Earth and supporting, you know, a regime that murdered 60 million people and consigned 12 million to an icy Gulag. Nonetheless, they did this terrible thing and they blacklisted people. And it's awful. And, you know, that was a moment everyone, the atmosphere of fear, the salt of the federal government on free speech and on and on people who just wanted good things for other people and all of that. And so the Martyrology of the McCarthy era has been a touchstone for the liberal elite or the leftist elite. I was born in 1961. It was started even then, and it's now, you know, six decades later, and they're getting it back. This is the war. Eisgruber of Princeton said this is the biggest threat since the McCarthy era. Everywhere you turn, it's the McCarthy era, it's the McCarthy era, It's the McCarthy era. Carthage wasn't so bad for campuses. That's a lot of nonsense. I mean, it was bad in Hollywood. It was bad in some of the professions, particularly the legal profession. But I don't, don't give me, don't, don't hand me this line that it was bad for the universities. But that is the mythology and liberal culture is very Strong. It's very unified, and it knows how to unify behind things. And we are entering a second McCarthy era here, and it'll be their rallying cry. We can say, as Irving Kristol said in 1952, that the American people are much closer to McCarthy and his view of the Communist infiltration of the United States than they were to liberals screaming about how terrible McCarthy was. But in the end, Irving was wrong, because the enduring cultural effect of the McCarthy era was to create the term the McCarthy era. Right? No one's. Very few people on the right are like, what we really need is the McCarthy era. Like, everybody's like, we can't go back to the McCarthy era. And the McCarthy era is the worst moment in American history. And here we are in the middle of it, and it is being constructed right before our eyes, including by people who are sensible about campus excesses, like Larry Summers, former president guy president of Harvard, Drummed out of Harvard for saying sensible things about, you know, gender and stuff like that. Drummed out of the presidency of Harvard, has been stalwart in his opposition to the way the campus and the. And the culture at Harvard behaved after October 7th. And he's like, I'm all in with Harvard now. You know, I am no longer, you know, a dissident on the fringes. Like, we have all. It's now all hands on deck to save. To save universities from the depredations of this government. So in that sense, it's not that you've awakened a sleeping giant, it's that Trump has actually now decided to fight a battle that he can lose. I know people on our side don't think he can lose it because everybody hates the universities and everybody hates what's going on and all of that, but, yeah, I just don't think that's. That's right, culturally. Hey, everybody. Vacation season is upon us. Spring has hit New York. Got some warm weather, got some rain. But it's just making me think about the summer and the fun that I can have, fun my wife and I can have. We got a trip planned for Wisconsin in July. Other stuff we're going to do with our family later in August. And this year, I'm going to treat myself to the looks upgrades I deserve with Quince's high quality travel essentials at fair prices. And the premium luggage options and stylish tote bags they offer are perfect ways to carry all of my Quince goods. My sweaters, my polo shirts that I just got from Quince and those, like everything else you get there priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. How? By partnering directly with top factories, Quince cuts out the cost of the middleman and passes the savings on to us. And Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. So for your next trip, treat yourself to the looks upgrades you deserve from quints. Go to quints.com commentary for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary hi everyone, it's Abe.

[Seth Mandel]

Just as people declutter their homes this time of year, it's also a great time to refresh your nutrition and daily habits. Feeling refreshed and ready starts in your gut and the Pre Probiotics in AG1 help to support digestion. I replaced all the supplements cluttering my medicine cabinet with the foundational nutritional supplement AG1 Daylight Savings has taken effect, so now with more sunlight, it's a great time to optimize your morning routine. I drink AG1 every day and it tastes great. So it sets the tone for a longer, more productive day. Just this one simple daily habit. And it's a habit that sticks because you really feel the benefits. More energy, improved immune health, clearer skin. I'm about three months in and all of the pluses are just increasing. And if you want to travel or go out into the nicer weather, AG1's travel packs make it easy to stay consistent wherever you go. Unlike other supplements that make big claims without the research, AG1's formula is based on the latest science in nutrition and wellness. It's made with high quality ingredients and no artificial junk, and it's tested for over 500 herbicides and pesticides. Which is why I'm proud that AG1 is a sponsor of the Commentary Magazine podcast. When it comes to my health, I want something I can trust. And that's why I choose AG1. With science backed ingredients and the real benefits I can feel, AG1 makes it easy to support overall wellness every day. And that's why I've been partnering with AG1 for so long. And AG1 is offering new subscribers a free $76 gift. When you sign up, you'll get a welcome kit, a bottle of D3K2 and five free travel packs in your first box. So make sure to check out drink ag1.com/complyarity to get this offer. That's drink ag1.com/compyclone to start your new year on a healthier note.

[Eliana Johnson]

Counterpoint. Sure, he can, he can lose it, but I do think he's succeeded in, I mean, the groundwork was laid. Biden administration laid the groundwork by being totally feckless on this issue. The House Education Committee during the administration succeeded in making this a polarizing political issue and putting college presidents under the kliegites. But this is now an issue that it's not like they just need to survive the three years of the Trump administration. I'm not so sure it's great politics for Democrats to come in and say, hey, here's your $9 billion back, Harvard. It's a great day. I don't know that it's going to work that way. And even if it does, universities may confront a world in which this money turns on and off. You know, like Republicans turn it off, Democrats turn it off. We don't, you know, we don't know what this world is going to look like. There's a lot of uncertainty for these schools. I don't think it's just survived three years. And I don't think the politics for Democrats are so simple for the reasons that you point out, which is that the American people are not sympathetic. They're not following the fine print here about, well, this bullet point said viewpoint, viewpoint diversity in the English department. They don't understand why Harvard University and Columbia University and Princeton University should be getting billions of dollars from the federal government. They are not sympathetic victims here.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Look, I don't understand either. That's how we ended the show yesterday was $9 billion. Harvard gets $9 billion from the federal government. When did this happen? Like, how did this happen? Under my nose. I mean, we've been publishing stuff about the universities, as have you, right. Over the last two years, kind of obsessively about their misbehavior, the overstaffing of their administrative departments, all of that. But the degree to which there is this government academic industrial complex that is a pass through from government to these institutions. Given the scope of these institutions. They have medical schools, they have all sorts of other stuff, research projects. But I mean, Harvard, the government has a relationship with the richest nonprofit institution in the United States to the tune of a cash flow, a net cash flow out of $9.2 billion. Yeah, that's a really good populist issue for Trump. But, and I think you're right that Democrats are going to woe betide them if they like jump in and say we're here to protect Harvard against you. Know, against you, J.D. vance's mother. But that doesn't mean they can't make the case in a different way. They don't make the case like, we need our money. Give us our money. You're taking our money away. The answer is we are under assault by the government. The government is assaulting free inquiry and the idea of free inquiry as established over eight centuries, you know, with the creation of the idea of academic freedom in the, in the Middle Ages in England at, you know, Oxford and Cambridge. So we, we are, you know, they are coming at us, and it's, it's kind of like the reverse image, which is Trump saying, you know, if you come after me, they're going to come after you too. The universities are going to say, if they're going to come after us talking this way, who's to say they won't come after you later talking some other way?

[Seth Mandel]

And they're doing this exact same thing on the deportations. If they can go after, as Seth said yesterday, a Maryland man, excuse me, you know, an illegal alien. Well, don't forget, Trump is already floating trial balloons about deporting, sending what he calls homegrown American criminals to Salvadoran prisons as well. So if they can come after him, how do any of us know that we are safe? So you're right, they're making that argument across the board.

[Abe Greenwald]

I think that Trump is expecting them to make the, to not make that argument. I think that Trump is. He saw the reaction to Mahmoud Khalil, where the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democratic side of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweets, free Mahmoud. And I think he's expecting them to play into the worst arguments, which is something that they do from time to time. Not exactly unheard of. You know, watching, you know, some of their Bernie acolytes, Bernie Sanders acolytes, have huge fundraising terms, suggests that they really are being pulled in two different directions on messaging and stuff. But I think he's expecting them to say, like, you know, as I mentioned yesterday, I, I genuinely resent being told that you can't take Harvard's funding away for civil rights violations because cancer patients will die. I genuinely resent what I feel is the extortionate attitude toward the funding. Once you give us the funding, you can't take it away because we do good things with that funding, and how can you be so cruel? And I think that he's expecting them to play into that.

[Jon Podhoretz]

More very important in the zero sum game question of how things get funded, which is we have these foundations in The United States, the gates foundation has $100 billion, I believe something like that. There are foundations, liberal foundations, money generated over the last 40 to 50 years by these, particularly Silicon Valley. But other, you know, compute whatever high tech things. They are wealthy beyond the fantasies of people in the history of mankind. And what do they mostly do with that money? They have funded NGOs, they have funded all sorts of projects abroad. One of the benefits of what Trump may be doing here is causing the zero sum game question, which is, okay, you want to go around and say you're curing malaria in Africa. Bill Gates. That's wonderful. You know who really needs your money? Harvard. Harvard needs your money to save dying cancer patients and to help the planet. Maybe you should repurpose some of that money from the Gates foundation and send it to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, places like that to replace the government money that a lot of us think shouldn't have been flowing there in the first place. But it's not as though that money doesn't exist. It's that it's been funding Black Lives Matter instead of a cancer program at Johns Hopkins. And you know why? Because Johns Hopkins gets the money from the federal government. So it doesn't have to come to you with its cap in hand and ask you for money. Unless maybe it wants a new building with a, you know, special soundproof lab or something to test something. Well, good. So this thing, I think, goes to Eliana's point, which is, is it really the case that elected Democrats in Washington are going to want to be the like, are going to want to carry the banner for the funding of the Ivies as opposed to, you know, tax cuts for the poor? I mean, I don't know. You know, in the end, everybody thinks government money is fungible. And if you are, if you can cut it off, then let's have the left have a fight among itself about its own money. They're very rich. They're very. And a lot of the money that they should have been spending on their own charitable interests has instead been sent through the federal government's coffers.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, and they're.

[Jon Podhoretz]

And their money don't expect it.

[Abe Greenwald]

And their money has been causing, in a lot of cases, or contributing to what's happening on campus.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

In other words, the liberal donor donors, the money trickling down to some of these groups trickles down eventually to, you know, Students for Justice in Palestine and whatever, and these other things cause causing the problem that has them now facing the question of whether that government funding will continue in the first place. They're the, they're the problem and the solution. Look at that.

[Jon Podhoretz]

So, Eliana, again, the work that the Free Beacon has done to expose the corruption rot on campuses is, you know, it has just been, you know, stalwart and deeply important and all of that. So we've moved into a phase in which the President, United States has joined the fight and like is committing the resources of the, of the executive branch to this fight. And so this then raises the question, are we now, are we looking at this and saying, you know, we really are thrilled that this fight is happening, but this isn't the way to fight this. Like, it turns out, maybe your tactics, the overall strategy, which is to cause pressure on these schools to stop doing the evil that they're doing, but that the tactics are maybe self defeating or going to have bad consequences.

[Eliana Johnson]

I think it's way too early to say that. I mean, there's a lot of good in their demands and I certainly think the message has been communicated to them that the nation is paying attention and the government's paying attention if you allow the harassment of Jewish students on your campus. And some of these demands are totally righteous and the federal government will be able to point out if they don't accede to any of these demands. One of them was the expulsion of two students at Harvard who are facing criminal prosecution. I mean, the criminal proceedings are ongoing for the assault of an Israeli business school student at Harvard that was captured on video. Everybody can see it. And Harvard.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Can you talk about the essay? You have a piece today about the drippily sentimental, nauseating essay being written by, that, it was published yesterday or something by one of these two students.

[Eliana Johnson]

Yes. And meanwhile, Harvard Law School has featured on its website the reminiscences of one of these students, again facing criminal charges in Boston, who recalls the wonderful education he received at Harvard Law School, particularly his participation in an immigration clinic featured with a portrait of him makes no mention of the criminal charges that he's facing for his behavior in one of these anti Israel protests. And so you can see the school's posture, which is still fetting these students who participated in these protests, who were assaulting their classmates during these protests. I mean, the school has not moved on any of these issues. Even if we think some of the demands are not workable or feasible or not appropriate for the federal government to make, they're not moving on any of them.

[Jon Podhoretz]

They claim they do. Right? I mean, that's part of Alan Garber, the interim president of Harvard's letter has this Whiny quality to it, which is we did some of it right. You know, what we said, okay, we're not gonna let stuff like this happen anymore. And still you're coming after us. I think you're acting in bad faith.

[Eliana Johnson]

You know, in journalism, we say show, don't tell.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Eliana Johnson]

So, you know, the students are still students at Harvard. This student is slated to graduate this spring from Harvard Law School. Yes. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. The other one is Elam. Teddy Tamaklo is a graduate student in the School of Religion. They're both slated to graduate this year. And not only that, they're being featured on the website as, you know, prizes of the institution. So that's really all you need to know about it. I think about the school's posture.

[Jon Podhoretz]

So, okay, so it's too early to tell they're being faced with a Hobson's Choice, but there's a lot of good.

[Eliana Johnson]

In what they've done.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Okay, so imagine this as a. You can't. Wouldn't happen, because I think it's too clever. And they're, They're, They're, they're, they're doing, like, you know, their version of surgery to save the patient is to take an ax with that anesthesia and to cut off an arm like they're on this Civil War battlefield. But suppose they go back to Harvard after Alan Garber's letter and say, okay, look, we want to talk. We understand you. You. You're saying you're going to resist us, but. Okay, so you know what? Let's. Let's dial it back. Why don't you do this, this, this, and this, and then we'll enter into negotiations. Okay, we hear you. We hear you. Maybe we went. Maybe we went a little too far. So let's just cover the anti Semitism stuff and then we'll talk. And then Garber has to respond to that like, okay, Harvard, I like to make deals. We love deal. We love making deals. Look, we're negotiating with Iran and the Houthis and Hamas, so we'll negotiate with you, too.

[Abe Greenwald]

So how about we'll send Steve Witkoff to Cambridge.

[Jon Podhoretz]

There you go. Right, But I mean, so how about you do five things instead of the 14 things we laid out, and then see how they respond. But you know they're not going to do that, right?

[Eliana Johnson]

Okay, I'm not on the edge of my seat waiting for them to pare back their demands here. It's not really how they work.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Okay, well, you meant.

[Eliana Johnson]

I just sent you guys in the chat, a tweet from Trump that concludes Harvard is a joke. Capital J, O, K, E. Teaches hate and stupidity and should no longer receive federal funds. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Exclamation point. And he, he refers to Claudine Gay as he says, he says Harvard has been hiring almost all woke radical left idiots and bird brains who are only capable of teaching failure to students and so called future leaders.

[Jon Podhoretz]

He didn't even mention that she was a plagiarist. At least the plagiarism stuff. Oh, he did.

[Eliana Johnson]

Okay, just look to the recent past at their plagiarizing president who so greatly embarrassed Harvard before the United States Congress.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Okay, well, and one more thing. Yeah. By the way, so Seth mentioned Voldemort, so we now have to. He mentioned he must not be mentioned. So let's go to Steve Witkoff for a minute. Very important. You know, it's very hard to podcast in the morning. We podcast in the morning by 11:00. You know, we put up the podcast around 10, let's say Eastern time. By 11:00. A lot of what we talked about, it's being completely vitiated by news developments because everything happens so fast. So of course we did this whole podcast on Steve Witkoff's abominable negotiating with Iran, you know, saying, no, no, Iran just has to dial back the level of its enrichment of uranium and, and that it had given up on that the administration had given up on the posture that what we need is the elimination of, of Iran's nuclear program, you know, root to stem. And then Wyckoff came out yesterday after we finished podcasting, but before you could hear this and say, no, no, no, that's not, you know, sort of like proof rock. That's not what I meant at all actually. No nuclear program. We don't want a nuclear program. No nuclear program.

[Abe Greenwald]

Did I say 3.67%? I meant zero percent.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Zero. Yeah. Minus 3.67%. I got that. I forgot the negative number. So, Elliot, what do you make, what do you make of Steve Witkoff's, you know, like, look, this is why you're not supposed to have somebody who doesn't know anything be your negotiator. Like, we have been talking about this enrichment number for 12 years since the start of the Iran talks. And again, if he like read the newspaper, maybe he would know, have known some of this 10 years ago, but apparently he never read a newspaper either. So Eli Lake, our friend Elliot Abrams, my brother in law, had a piece on his blog you know, saying Wyckoff is just negotiating like John Kerry. And I guess that got to the administration and they said, no, don't negotiate like John Kerry. Please stop negotiating like John Kerry did.

[Eliana Johnson]

What do I make of it? I make that, you know, 3.67% is, was the JCPOA number beyond which Iran was not allowed to enrich at the outset. And I make of it that somebody, I mean, it was all over Twitter when Wyckoff said it on or Oliver X when Wyckoff said this on Fox News on Monday night. And I make of it that somebody pulled him aside and said, I don't think that Trump is going to sign on to the deal that he got that he took himself out of in the first administration. That doesn't seem very likely, especially when people start referring to it as the Obama 2.0 deal. I just don't think that's very likely. So you may want to like, do your little cleanup sooner rather than later.

[Seth Mandel]

It could be that. But I have to say, John, I don't even think we're in a bad position in terms of podcasting in the morning because of the walk backs and zigzags because there's no reason to think that the recent Witkoff walk back is like the last position he's going to hold on this.

[Jon Podhoretz]

I do note. Yeah, Wyckoff is going to negotiate because, you know, he can negotiate anything. Apparently it's going to negotiate over Ukraine, but this time Rubio is going with him. So something is happening where Rubio has been cut out as the Secretary of State of negotiating with foreign leaders because Trump doesn't want whatever. And now I think the idea is maybe somebody else needs to be in the room with Witkoff to make sure that Witkoff doesn't, you know, crap the bed. Basically. Who knows what Witkoff is saying to whom. And he clearly, you know, just revealed that he didn't know what he was doing with the Iranians and who knows if he knows what he's doing with Putin and there needs to be another ear in the room or another voice in the room or something like that. That would be my hope.

[Seth Mandel]

Yeah.

[Jon Podhoretz]

At least I don't know if that's true. But.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, there's also, there's also, you know, the personnel shake up stuff. I mean, there's been a couple people fired from the administration, from the State Department yesterday. Yesterday was the guy who basically cleared out usaid, wasn't it?

[Jon Podhoretz]

Yeah, they know Friday they frog marched out the guy who had cleared out usaid, whose name I don't remember. But yesterday was very interesting because yesterday placed on administrative leave for, for as a result of a leak investigation was one Dan Caldwell. And that is very interesting because to analogize this, imagine a world in which Seth Mandel or Abe Greenwald went into the administration as an intellectual who had gone in to be part of the system at Defense or State, that is Dan, get. Dan Caldwell is a defense intellectual of the, of the, of the Koch restrainer, right, who was brought in to sort of do daily briefings and to be part of the intellectual firepower team for Pete Hegseth at Defense. And apparently, you know, despite years of the hatred of the deep state, leaking to people, leaked to somebody, something or other and was frog marched out of the Pentagon. And I think this is pretty important because this means that those, those people do not have some kind of special defense because they are part of The Elbridge Colby, J.D. vance, Tucker Carlson wing of the party that if they, you know, leak to somebody and God knows who he leaked to, maybe we'll find out at some point, he's, he's toast and could even be prosecuted.

[Eliana Johnson]

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going cha ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling today. This episode is brought to you by Enterprise Mobility. From fleet management to flexible truck rentals to technology solutions, Enterprise Mobility helps businesses find the right mobility solutions so they can find new opportunities. Because if your business is on the road, they want to make sure it's on the road to success. Enterprise Mobility moving you moves the world. Find your road. @enterprise mobility.com There was also a sec. I was just trying to look for it. There's a second guy who came from Koch World who was at the Pentagon, who was also put on leave in the context of this investigation. Caldwell is the more senior of the two, but there was another one as well. Let me just pull up his name.

[Jon Podhoretz]

But again, Eli Lake. Not to. We're invoking Eli Lake. You know, this is the week of Eli Lake, but actually wrote a piece about Dan Caldwell for the Free Press, I think a couple months ago in which he explained that Dan Caldwell's appointment was a very clear sign that the administration was going to lean very heavily into the. What, what, what are called the restrainers which I will just call them, you know, pacifist apologists for totalitarian tyrannies who want to invade Ukraine and Taiwan and pretend that they don't want that. But that would be the way I would phrase it. But restrainer is the more polite term anyway. That was very meaningful that he had been, he had been appointed and therefore of course, his departure is meaningful as well.

[Eliana Johnson]

So, so here's the thing, and you know, I'd rather not have him at the Pentagon than have him at the Pentagon, but it seemed to me that it seems pretty clear that foreign policy in this administration is being made out of the White House and that the reason that these restrainers are there is because there's, you know, a restrainer streak in Trump, but there's also a very aggressive streak in Trump. He's got both in him. And so in a certain sense, like, I don't actually think they matter that much like Trump is making the decisions here. And so it's good that the same rules apply to them. Better that they're not there than that they're there. But Trump's making the decisions here at the end of the day on all the big important issues. This is a White House in which power is very centralized. And you know, you can liken it to the Obama administration, I think where like those decisions came from the White House, they were a product of Obama.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Well, the answer to that is that it doesn't necessarily matter on the most top line issues, like the most, the ones that are the most contra, the most focused on right, like Iran, Israel and Ukraine. But when you have your own in house think tank and there are 200 other countries in the world and things come before it that don't necessarily rise to the level immediately of the White House's decision making. How, how the administration responds at the secondary level is very important. And how it transmits its wishes and wants to countries that aren't the main actors can be very important. And that's why it's actually better in my view, to have them staffed by people who are not apologists for totalitarian regimes that want to swallow up other countries. Because then maybe when they say no, America doesn't like it. If you do that, people will listen as opposed to saying, no, no, it's fine, do whatever you want, we don't care.

[Abe Greenwald]

It also matters with hiring. They're going to staff, they're going to staff these departments. If they're going to be able to staff these departments with people who think like them, then, you know, in the future, it will bleed into the bigger decisions. Also, just because there's, you know, there's really.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Eliana's right. You're obviously right, that on the matter of major policy, the inconstancy and inability of us to get a handle on what on earth the administration wants day to day or week to week from these, in these conflicts and the role that we're going to play, that confusion, which some people may want to fantasize, is tactical, but I don't think it's tactical at all. That is all emerging from the West Wing, like all of it, without, without issue. And so, yeah, in that sense, as the fact that Marco Rubio seems to be sidelined, our secretary of State has been sidelined in the negotiations over how we're going to resolve matters like the war in the war between Hamas and Israel is, is, is problematic because he's the one who was confirmed by the Senate at least to be our chief negotiator on the planet, and he's not being given that responsibility.

[Seth Mandel]

And look, there's J.D. vance as the vice president, who is the most articulate of the restrainers and who pushes the restrainer line, as we saw, aggressively when he has any opportunity. And, you know, he's, he's, he's butterfingers.

[Jon Podhoretz]

The man is a butterfinger. Yeah, I saw what happened. Took the Ohio State trophy, dropped it and smashed it. I don't think that's a very good augur. There were two things in the last week for 2028 auguries that are very, are very disturbing if you believe in, in signs and wonders. Like, one was Gretchen Whitmer showing up in the White House and literally hiding her face from the official photo by putting her, what was it? With like a notebook in front of her face.

[Eliana Johnson]

Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

Binder or something.

[Jon Podhoretz]

A binder so that you, so that her picture couldn't be taken. So because she knew, like, that would be really bad to have her picture with Trump if she was going to run in 2028. So instead she'll have a binder in front of her face. As Maureen Dowd told Tarpaul Mary yesterday, that image is going to stick because it's, it's the first time you've ever seen that image. And so that's that the novelty of the image of this is Gretchen Whitmer and it's just this, like, blue file folder in front of her face is, is, is going to be very damaging to her in, in anti propaganda. And the other is J.D. vance smashing the championship trophy of Ohio State Dropping it like Bill de Blasio dropped the groundhog on Groundhog Day and killed the groundhog in his first couple of months in office, thus auguring the horrors of his mayoralty.

[Abe Greenwald]

But if you're from Michigan, it was a very positive augering.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Right? Oh, Eliana, here's another thing that we need to talk about because we're talking about what's good and bad for the Democrats. So if you want little bit pieces of, you know, so Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders have been going out on this, you know, tour, right? This kind of trying to figure out where Democrats should be tour. They're drawing very large crowds. And Ocasio Cortez emerged with a first quarter fundraising number the likes of which I'm not sure any House, any person who has ever not been in leadership in the House has ever demonstrated by a factor of two. She raised $9 million in the first quarter of two of 2025. If I'm a Democrat thinking of running for office like Rahma, what are these moderates? Or Gretchen or notebook face Gretchen Whitmer, I'm looking at the number and going, oh, man, something's going on here and I'm scared. Am I right to be scared?

[Eliana Johnson]

They. They should be. And I'm not seeing any. The party's a mess. Also, we should mention the New York Times report this morning that member of the Democratic National Committee, David Hogg, has raised $20 million to unseat, to fund primaries, to unseat moderate Democrats from the left. So he's going to go around causing problems for them in primaries. I just am not seeing any sort of organizing from Democrats from the center. Right. To push back on this. And if I had to take bets, you know, if I right now, I would say it's AOC 2028.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Right. Okay. So. So the classic game of, you know, what Mark Halperin calls The gang of 500 would say the following. Here are the leading candidates in 2028 from the gang from the perspective of conventional wisdom. Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro. Right. That would be popular Democrats, Democrats in states Michigan and Pennsylvania, not California, but Michigan, Pennsylvania that are purple states in which you have Democrats who score outsized victories in the gubernatorial races, thus showing that they have some crossover appeal. They're mo. They're relatively moderate in terms of where their parties are, though we may look at them and think they're not particularly moderate. And what happened to Josh Shapiro on the first night of Passover? Crazy person climbed over the fence of his mansion, threw two Molotov cocktails into the house and nearly burned him to death and said he was doing it for Palestine. Now, let me just ask you a question here about this because we could talk about what this means, but why isn't this a bigger story? I'm actually baffled. It is almost as though, because it's clearly an attack on Passover on a Democratic politician, a Jewish Democratic politician of faith who was hosting a Seder in the very room that this guy threw the Molotov cocktails in. Why aren't 150 Democrats denouncing, like, why haven't, I mean, people have denounced it, like, piecemeal? Is it because they, they reckoned they figured out that he was doing this because of Palestine and therefore they didn't want to make a big deal out of it because they didn't want to be accused of Islamophobia or because since Josh Shapiro is a moderate, the, the, the, the emotional core of the party is not invested in him anymore, or if it ever was.

[Abe Greenwald]

I think that if it was a right winger who said, you know, Josh Shapiro's position on immigration is the same as George Soros and they're going to bring in, you know, the Soros cadre is going to bring in all these people to replace the native population, you would never hear the end of it from Chris Murphy. He would cancel his trip to El Salvador or whatever, you know, and just literally talk about it all the time. So I think that, I think that it's, it's completely political and I think that it shows. They don't know how to respond. On the Palestine stuff. It's not even, it's a, it's the same sort of confusion that we saw last year during the protests, which is they're unsteady. They don't want to be the champion necessarily of this stuff. They don't want it to go too far, but they don't know how to talk about it because there's nothing good. Right. The pro Hamas people are making no good arguments. These are bad people, people who are pro Hamas who are holding American Americans hostage right now. This, this is America's enemy. And so they don't really have an argument to make. They're just scared of the playing field.

[Seth Mandel]

But, and also, you know, the story suffers from the fact that, right. Media isn't covering it to the extent that it would because Shapiro's Democrat, who was somewhat close to the Kamala camp as well. So you have, like, there's a kind of hands off aspect from, from on both ends.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Oh, I think it's even weirdly worse than that because who responded appropriately in his first major act as director of the FBI? Kash Patel. Right. Cash Patel. It's evil. He shouldn't be the FBI director. What the hell is going on? He's ridiculous. He's a clown. And then Kash Patel said, this is an act of domestic terrorism. We commit all resources of the FBI to find out what's going on here and to prevent it and to nip it in the bud and all of that. And Shapiro thanked Cash Patel. And maybe by thanking Kash Patel, the story somehow died because right wing media does want to defend Shapiro and left wing media doesn't want to be on the same side as, as Kash Patel. But let's just make sure that we understand what happened here. The elected governor of the state of Pennsylvania, who is a Sabbath keeping Jew, who sends his kids to a day school in the governor's mansion, was nearly burned to death in the middle of the night by an anti Semitic. Along with his family cocktail, along with his wife and children. Now it's a very big mansion, it turns out, so maybe it wouldn't have gotten to him. Doesn't matter. Did you see the pictures of. If you haven't seen the pictures of what the house looked like in the aftermath of the. This is no joke. It's not like somebody set the curtains on fire. The house looks like it nearly went up entirely in flames. And the Jewish governor on the first night of Passover after a Seder. We're in a lot of trouble here. Like if he's focused, by the way.

[Abe Greenwald]

People, in terms of looking at the photos. People should look it up because there are photos of the burned pages of the Haggadah.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Right. The Haggadah is, the book is the, is essentially the guides to the Seder that Jews have been reading to accompany the Seder for 1500 years or a thousand years. I don't know, something like that. Anyway, it's a kind of prayer book.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yeah, it's like seeing a burned prayer book at the scene of a Jewish holiday celebration.

[Jon Podhoretz]

And I mean, it's weird because after October 7, this should be the biggest story in the world. Maybe it's because it's after October 7th, all of this has now become thinkable to people. So they're like, well, of course he's a Jewish governor. Someone tried to firebomb his house. Hate. And we, it's, there's, this is. There's no place for hate. I was driving through, I was in Illinois, you know, this weekend and stuff. And you go around the Chicago suburbs and there's all that kind of like signs on these churches that say things like, hate has no home here. Or schools where it says, hate has no home here. And I keep thinking, you know what I bet? I bet you inside this building there is more hate than on buildings where it says, hate has no home home here.

[Abe Greenwald]

One of my rules of American politics is that the more hate has no home here signs you see, the quicker you as a Jew gotta get out of that neighborhood.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Eliana, anything we should be reading in the Free Beacon?

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, you mentioned a piece this morning about the Harvard law student fetid on the Harvard Law School website. And I would also point to one of the topics we didn't get to, which was Joe Biden's triumphant shuffle back onto the national stage last night in a speech to. I mean, you can't make it up. A speech to disability rights activists. So go check it out.

[Jon Podhoretz]

I do want to point out, very importantly, that Joe Biden, in the course of this speech, referred to, you know, how when he was growing up, he just didn't see a lot of colored people in Scranton, which he did say.

[Seth Mandel]

That they were called that then.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Okay.

[Seth Mandel]

I mean, it was, it was. But I mean, it wasn't like he was saying it exactly.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Okay, fair enough. I don't know why I have to be there.

[Seth Mandel]

I mean, I mean, look, if.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Would he be fair? Anyone. Mitt Romney wanted to put everybody back in chains, as I recall, back in 2012.

[Seth Mandel]

Anyone at the top of their game wouldn't have uttered the word period.

[Jon Podhoretz]

Bottom of their game. I don't know where he is on his game. He's. He's like. He's not only been, you know, sent down to the minors, he's like in the sandlot league. Like, you know, never. Never to be, never to be seen again. My favorite thing is, you know, he engaged, I think WME or one of the agencies in Hollywood to, you know, to sort of represent him CAA after, you know, after his presidency. And I'm sure, I'm sure they're really booking a lot of speeches for that guy.

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, they did this one. I think he. The New York Times indicates that he was paid for this. And, And Hunter's legal filing suggests that he, he needs financial support.

[Abe Greenwald]

He should do cameo.

[Eliana Johnson]

He.

[Jon Podhoretz]

He should go to. He should go to. Go back to gutter gutters. Got an open pocketbook. I don't know. Good. Hunter. Hunter is. I'm so sad Like Hunter's art business is, you know, taking a real hit. Look, a lot of things have taken a hit. You know, it's a change of, you know, tariffs. Hunter's paintings are obviously painted in China so therefore, I mean, I'm sure it's costs 125% to just bring in a Hunter painting from China to sell with Hunter's name at the bottom. I don't know. All right, I'm gonna make one recommendation then we're gonna go for complicated. For no reason whatsoever. I started watching a show that I'd never heard of that ran for five years on AMC 15 years ago called Hell on Wheels. Never heard of it, ran for five years. This is what television had become, had already become like 15 years ago. It is about the construction of the Union Pacific Railway in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War and about this town, this sort of jury rigged town that moves as they, as they build the railway. The town which is a sort of tent city moves along with the railway. And our hero is a former Confederate soldier who is hunting down, using this cover of the railway construction to hunt down and kill the, the Union soldiers who murdered his wife during Sherman's March. And it's very, made very clear that he freed his slaves, that his wife was a, like a, was a, was a Unionist and so her treatment was particularly awful. Anyway. Anson Mount plays the lead is incredibly charismatic. Dominic McElligott who is queen Maeve on the Boys plays his love interest. And Col Meanie who is this great Irish actor whom you would recognize plays the head of the Union Pacific Railroad. And Common, the rapper turned actor is a black freedman who you know, works on the railroad. And it's very compelling. It's very much like that show American Primeval about the Mormon Massacre of 1857. It's very muddy, a lot of mud, people falling in the mud, having bare knuckle fist fights, Native Americans scalping people. So it's very violent but it's incredibly compelling and you can watch it on Paramount plus. So that's Hell on Wheels for all of you who are looking for something sort of like American Primeval plus Deadwood, something like that. Okay. Eliana Johnson, thank you so much for joining us.

[Eliana Johnson]

Thank you.

[Jon Podhoretz]

And of course everybody should subscribe to Ink Stained Wretches on Nebulous Media co hosted by the inestimable Chris Starwalt. And for Seth and Abe, I'm John Pot. Horace, keep the candle burning.