Mailbag: Why Do We Think You Listen?

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast Episode: Mailbag: Why Do We Think You Listen? Release Date: August 11, 2025

---

Overview

In this engaging mailbag episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast, host John Podhoretz, along with executive editor Abe Greenwald and contributors Christine Rosen and Matthew Continetti, delve into listeners' questions on topics ranging from the terminology surrounding Zionism to recommendations for those transitioning from Democratic to conservative ideologies. The episode balances thoughtful analysis with personable banter, providing listeners with insightful perspectives anchored in a conservative framework.

---

Featured Questions and Discussions

1. The Use of the Term "Zionist"

Timestamp: [05:04]

Listener: Jonathan raises a thought-provoking question about the continued use of the term "Zionist." He expresses discomfort with the term, likening its usage to derogatory labels that undermine the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

John Podhoretz:

"People in America call themselves Zionist as a shorthand to say that they are supporters of the State of Israel and sort of passionate towards the State of Israel because they believe in the mission of the State of Israel and its purpose as the homeland..."
[06:00]

The panelists explore the historical context of Zionism, emphasizing its foundational role in the establishment and support of Israel. Abe Greenwald underscores the persistent existential threats faced by Israel, reinforcing the necessity of the term within the contemporary discourse.

Abe Greenwald:

"The state of Israel is in question... advocating for a binational state would destroy it as a Jewish state. So I agree it's that 'Zionist' has these roots, very particular roots."
[07:54]

Matthew Continetti adds depth by highlighting the multifaceted nature of Zionism and the importance of reclaiming the term to combat its misuse by anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Matthew Continetti:

"Maybe it's double down on the term itself because it does have this deeply important historical meaning."
[09:59]

Christine Rosen reflects on the complexities of the term, agreeing that while alternative terminology might offer some respite, the enduring threats justify its continued use.

Christine Rosen:

"I suppose you could say I'm a supporter of Israel the way you say I'm a supporter of Ukraine or something like that."
[10:18]

The discussion culminates with an acknowledgment of Zionism's intricate role in Jewish identity and geopolitical stability, affirming its relevance in modern dialogue.

---

2. Appeal to a Non-Jewish British Listener

Timestamp: [19:00]

Listener: David Platt, a non-Jewish Brit who has never been to the US, inquires about the podcast's broad appeal beyond its immediate cultural and religious audience.

John Podhoretz:

"It is almost as if you became family as we went through the trauma of everything that happened during that mad period."
[20:48]

Abe Greenwald attributes the podcast's success to its blend of personalities and a shared conservative sensibility that resonates with a diverse audience. Matthew Continetti emphasizes the podcast's authentic, unscripted nature, which fosters a sense of genuine conversation and intellectual satisfaction.

Matthew Continetti:

"We bicker in a way that I hope is intellectually satisfying for listeners in the sense that we don't all agree on all points of fact."
[22:17]

Christine Rosen adds that the conversational and casual tone creates an "eavesdropping effect," making listeners feel as though they're part of an intimate discussion.

Christine Rosen:

"We have different personalities and that looseness almost creates, like, an eavesdropping effect."
[23:33]

This segment highlights the podcast's ability to connect with listeners through relatable discourse and a shared framework of conservative values, transcending specific cultural or religious backgrounds.

---

3. Funding Research Amid Anti-Semitic Protests

Timestamp: [26:53]

Listener: Ryan Leib presents a challenging issue regarding the ethical implications of imposing financial penalties on research universities experiencing anti-Semitic protests. He questions whether it's just to punish researchers indirectly and the economic ramifications of such measures.

Matthew Continetti:

"If you really believe that, you know, you want to defend the university's payments to your particular kind of research, then maybe defend the students who are being driven off of campus because of anti-Semitism."
[28:02]

Abe Greenwald supports targeting university administrations responsible for permitting anti-Semitic behavior, arguing that the broader higher education system suffers when such environments are allowed to persist.

Abe Greenwald:

"If you take federal money, you have to follow federal law... since October 7, it has become hostile to Jewish students in particular."
[34:55]

John Podhoretz critiques the inefficiencies within research university funding, highlighting excessive administrative costs and the misuse of taxpayer dollars. He underscores the need for financial accountability to prevent the exploitation of public funds.

John Podhoretz:

"Universities are scamming the American taxpayer. Every light bulb might be purchased 80 times. And that's wrong."
[30:00]

The discussion concludes with a consensus that while the approach may be blunt, targeting administrative culpability is a necessary measure to address the root causes of anti-Semitism in academic settings without unduly harming innocent researchers.

---

4. Book Recommendations for Transitioning from Democrat to Conservative

Timestamp: [35:19]

Listener: Jeff Muffson, a former Democrat, seeks guidance on literature to help navigate his ideological shift towards conservatism.

Abe Greenwald:

"I would recommend Things that Matter by Charles Krauthammer... People who are familiar with Krauthammer know that even if you were opposed to him, you still considered his arguments serious."
[35:24]

John Podhoretz suggests Whitaker Chambers' Witness as a seminal work that chronicles the author's journey from communism to conservative Christianity, offering profound insights into the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism.

John Podhoretz:

"It is one of the most beautifully written American books... a foundational work of why what it is to be a person with a non-progressive sensibility after having had one."
[37:09]

Matthew Continetti adds Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences to the recommendations, noting its enduring relevance and its role in shaping contemporary conservative thought.

Matthew Continetti:

"It's also for someone who's sort of coming to conservative ideas... you're getting a really interesting glimpse of... origin stories of conservatism."
[40:27]

These recommendations provide a robust foundation for individuals seeking to understand and embrace conservative philosophies, emphasizing critical perspectives on modern societal trends and intellectual traditions.

---

Conclusion

The episode wraps up with the hosts reflecting on the nature of their discussions and listener engagement. They acknowledge the diverse viewpoints within their audience and express appreciation for the thoughtful questions posed. The conversational and unscripted format remains a hallmark of the podcast, fostering an environment where complex issues can be explored freely and authentically.

John Podhoretz:

"Keep the candle burning."
[47:46]

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• John Podhoretz on Zionism's Purpose:
  "People in America call themselves Zionist as a shorthand to say that they are supporters of the State of Israel..."
  [06:00]

• Abe Greenwald on Institutional Accountability:
  "If you take federal money, you have to follow federal law... since October 7, it has become hostile to Jewish students in particular."
  [34:55]

• Matthew Continetti on Conservatism Origins:
  "You're getting a really interesting glimpse of... origin stories of conservatism."
  [40:27]

---

Final Thoughts

The Commentary Magazine Podcast successfully navigates intricate and sensitive topics through informed discussion and diverse perspectives. This mailbag episode exemplifies the podcast's commitment to addressing its audience's concerns with depth and integrity, reinforcing its role as a pivotal voice in conservative discourse.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Hey, it's John. I want to talk to you about Shopify. A lot of people talk to me about starting podcasts. This podcast is 10 years old. It's in a different place from a lot of podcasts because we're obviously part of a nonprofit institution and it's not a way that we are seeking to earn our livelihoods. But a lot of people look at this and say, this is something I can really do to create a business and run the business and do it in a really comfortable, practical and serious way. Gotta wear a lot of different hats when you start your own business. Can be very intimidating. But one of the things that I know from a lot of people is that if your to do list is growing and growing and growing and that list starts to overrun your life, you need a tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything that can be a game changer for millions of businesses. That tool is Shopify, the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names to brands. Just getting started. You get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. You can accelerate your content creation because it's packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. You get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Turn your big business idea into kaching. With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling [e-mail] commentary. Go to shopify.com commentary. That's shopify.com commentary. Hope for the take a worse Some.

[Unknown]

Preacher pain Some die of thirst no way of knowing this way it's going Hope for the best expect the worst.

[John Podhoretz]

Hi, it's John. I got a quick note. The episode you're about to hear is a mailbag episode that we recorded for release of on Friday, August 8th. And then there was too much news and we decided we had to do a podcast that day. And so when you listen to this, we may make reference to the week before August 8th and might make reference to that Friday. And I'm just telling you this now to make it clear that you should Note that this was recorded during the week of August 5th and you're gonna hear it today, which is actually August 11th. And, and, and following. Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. This is a mailbag episode. We're gonna respond to your questions. I am only noting this so that if we get confused by talking about today, yesterday and tomorrow on this, on this episode, you'll know not to pay any attention to whatever this is. Timeless and eternal. I'm John Pod Hortz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

Social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi Christine.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi, Matt.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi, John. I would just like to begin today's episode by congratulating our audience. I checked our YouTube subscriptions just this morning and found that we are at 19,000 subscriptions on YouTube. Remember, our goal is 20,000 by Labor Day. So we have a few more weeks here of summer before, you know, school starts everywhere and people end vacations until the end of the year and such. So I want to just urge everyone to keep it up. Keep asking people to like and subscribe our videos on the YouTube channel. They don't have to watch the videos, they just have to like and subscribe. Amazon delivery men, you know, they come to your door, door dashers, they come to, you know, part of the tip, just say, hey, can you just go to YouTube, your YouTube app really quickly and you take care of that and, and that's just another way that we can boost our subscriptions to get to our goal by the end of the summer.

[John Podhoretz]

Thank you for that. And so we will begin today's mailbag episode with a question from Jonathan, no last name, just Jonathan, who makes a fascinating point. Why do we still use the word Zionist? He asks. The Zionist movement happened over a century ago, actually about 125. Almost 130 years ago was the publication of Herzl's the Jewish State and led to the formation of a country that now exists like any other country. Schools, roads. I've always felt like the word Zionism belongs in history books, not in day to day conversation. I don't call myself a revolutionary anti monarchist because I support America. Using the word Zionist always feels to me like we're exceeding to the idea that Israel's very existence is in question unlike any other country on earth. I always feel icky when I say it. Kind of like how I feel when I use CIS to describe normal people, thereby giving the trans movement undeserved import. And power CIS puts us normies on the back foot. Zionist serves the same function. The linguistic sophistry of our enemies has been one of the most maddening aspects of the turbocharged war on Jews of the last two years. I don't hate Jews, I just hate Zion, etc. But we all know Zionist is just a way to say dirty Jew without social penalty. Quite the opposite, actually. So why do we still use the word? And is there a better word we can introduce? I did, very literally. 15 seconds. People in America call themselves Zionist as a shorthand to say that they are supporters of, of the State of Israel and sort of passionate towards the State of Israel because they believe in the mission of the State of Israel and its purpose as the homeland, the return from exile and a refuge against the world's hatred and hostility to Jews, having had its expression over the previous 2,000 years since the expulsion from Jerusalem. And, and so it was shorthand in a world in which one could expect that people were more likely than not to be supporters. And among Jews, it was a way of making sure that Jews understood that Jews should support the state of Israel by supporting the Zionist mission, which was not ending. Remember Israel's 80 years old, but like when I was a kid, it wasn't 80 years old, it was 30 years old, it was 25 years old and it was much more unstable. You know, it's possible possibilities of its, of its ending, its existence were not entirely irrational anyway.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, you know, and I think that's kind of the key. I mean, the very good letter writer says that, you know, using the term Zionist assumes that the state of Israel is in question, unlike every other state on earth. And the state of Israel is in question. There, there are powers in the world at work devoted to destroying the state of Israel externally. But there are also advocates of binationalism which would destroy the state of Israel as a Jewish state. And so I agree it's that Zionist has these roots, very particular roots. But you say you're a Zionist because you believe that Jews have a right to their national home and you believe in the creation of that national home as a Jewish state. And I can't really think of a better term.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, I mean, Zion is a place. I mean, it's the hill in Jerusalem. It's an actual physical place. And I think I always read, I mean, of course I came from a Christian tradition. We always understood it to mean the historical home of the Jew, not just since the State of Israel was created, but this is their land, this is Their place. That's what we were taught. And the word itself has that meaning, has a very different meaning in Christian. It can be used to mean heaven. It can be used to mean all kinds of other things in the. In a Protestant tradition. But that's where I think to push back a little bit on the question. If you. If there isn't an obvious alternative term, as Matt says, maybe the thing to do is to reclaim what Zionism means and continue to use it as it has been in the past and to push back on. Anyone who has this double meaning uses it as a cover for their own antisemitism. I mean, I've many times had that conversation and argument with people I know about whether calling yourself a Zionist versus or I'm a Zionist, but kind of thing is even appropriate. Maybe it's double down on the term itself because it does have this deeply important historical meaning.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, it's a very complicated question because it is true that if we're still calling ourselves Zionists, there's a sort of. Or if anyone's calling anyone a Zionist, there's this sort of supposition built in.

[John Podhoretz]

That.

[Christine Rosen]

Zionism hasn't achieved its goal yet. And then you could say, well, so as long as someone wants to destroy.

[John Podhoretz]

Israel.

[Christine Rosen]

It will not have achieved its goal. That's not actually true. So I have a lot of sympathy for the question. I suppose you could say I'm a supporter of Israel the way you say I'm a supporter of Ukraine or something like that. The only thing is that now.

[Abe Greenwald]

I.

[Christine Rosen]

Would never want to grant satisfaction to anti Zionists by giving off the appearance of a retreat from the term. Now I would like to sort of stand on it more firmly in some sense, like neocon.

[Abe Greenwald]

That's what happened when people began calling the editors of Commentary neoconservatives. They used it as an insult. But yeah, John's dad and Irving Crystal said, you know what? That's what we are.

[John Podhoretz]

Fine countries do cease to exist. They come into existence and cease to exist. Certainly that's a story of the 20th century when comp. Countries that never existed before were incepted into existence. Particularly after the First World War when the European powers redrew the map of Europe and invented nations, shoved two peoples together and made Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia or places that hadn't been countries before as we understand them. And a great many of the battles and wars of the 20th century have been fought on the basis of what happens when new countries have to actually come into existence and make their way. India and Pakistan being another you know, sort of notable example of a partition that happened that ended up not happening in the Middle east where there was supposed to be a partition between the Arabs and the Jews, each of whom was supposed to get their own state. And the Jews said great. And the Arabs said no, we want everything. And then tried to destroy the Jewish state. So could, could and Israel disappear. Yes. And it's one of the reasons that Israel had to. Stateless people who had, who abhorred serving in militaries often because they were used as cannon fodder, sort of like in the Russian army or were conscripted forever, had built exile societies based on powerlessness. So that I'm alone among the peoples of the earth. Like the people who. There was no ruler, there was no Jewish ruler. And the people who ended up kind of like ruling the roost in Jewish societies were the intellectuals, not the strong men, were not the people who could like beat other people in battle, but were the people who knew the most and read the most and had the most to say about how to organize your life in this condition of statelessness. And then they come into this land in which they have to defend themselves. And as the great Kabbalistic scholar Gershom Scholem once said in my, at my dinner table when I was a kid, and I'll never forget it, he was a friend of my, my parents. He said the Jews are a talented people and when they need to surface a talent, they surface the talent for martial power that no one would ever have expected that they would have. How would, why would the Arabs think that Israel could survive in 1948, 49. Who were these people? They were kind of little terrorists. They, they blew up with, did this, they did that. They blew up some, some British installations or they, we had skirmishes with them, but eh, please, like who the hell are they? And then they showed that they could stand and survive. There was a country we. Israel just took out and America just took out its nuclear program. The purpose of that nuclear program was to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. And that was not an unreasonable, it's an unreasonable ambition. It was not an unachievable ambition, you know, if you really wanted to go all the way with it. So I'm not sure that what we could say is Israel is now eternal and Prep will be here forever. Israel certainly can't conduct itself as though it believes that of itself. It has to believe that it is under existential threat in order to maintain the stance, the vigilance that it needs to protect itself. As the world is growing increasingly more hostile to it. By the way, I think in the long run, Israel's existence and strength will turn the tide so that this will no longer be a millennial ambition of people. But yeah, I think you're surrendering if you, if you surrender the word Zionist. I mean, you know, maybe.

[Matthew Continetti]

Great question, though. It is a really great question.

[John Podhoretz]

Great. It's a great. And by the way, the other problem is that Zionists aren't sure what Zionism means. I mean, because you do have in Israel, people say, I'm part of the religious Zionists or I'm part of the. I'm a Labor Zionist cultural Zionism. Yeah, hardly anybody is a Labor Zionist anymore. But I'm. I'm a revisionist Revisionism. The revisionist Zion revisionist Zionism is 100 years old. That's how revisionists.

[Abe Greenwald]

Isn't there like a neo revisionism now?

[John Podhoretz]

I'm sure there's everything. Because the idea is that defining what it means to live as a Jew in a Jewish state has many flavors. Like you can say that it's how you could restore the temple and bring about the Jewish kingdom of ancient times, or that it's the one place on earth in which you can be a Jew and not even have to think about being a Jewish because you live in the one place on earth where Jews maintain and function as the largest majority in the population. And therefore you can go through your entire life not worrying that other people are looking at you and saying, who is that Jew on the block? That argument I was introduced to, oddly enough, in one of the novels by Harry Kemelman, the Rabbi mystery novels. I think it was the Monday or Tuesday novel, which is set in Israel and where Rabbi Small goes to Israel and says, you know, I don't even have to be religious here anymore. I don't have to be a practicing religious person because I don't need to separate myself from the rest of the population. Part of the purpose of Judaism is separateness and maintaining separateness and continuity and peoplehood. And if I live here, don't really have to do that because it's just a fact of life here. And that book was written in the late 60s. So it's a fascinating and unanswerable question, which is always a good question for us.

[Christine Rosen]

Hey, everyone, Abe here. Have you heard of Kara Luma? It's an edible cactus that grows in India and it's a natural appetite suppressant. Karaaluma is just one of the natural ingredients doctors added to a remarkable weight loss supplement called Lean. If you have a bold summer weight loss goal, but injections aren't for you, here's what the doctors who formulated Lean said. They said this supplement is as close as we've come to the benefits of those popular injections. Like injections, Lean was created to help maintain healthy blood sugar and help control appetite and cravings. But the rare ingredients in Lean are also designed to help burn fat by converting fat into energy. And the best part? No needles, just real results. Doctors created a healthier way to lose weight by capturing the power of natural ingredients like Carilluma. It's just smart. Let's get you started with 20% off, just use code commentary20akelean.com that's code commentary20akelean.com these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease and is not a substitute or alternative for care from a healthcare provider.

[John Podhoretz]

Hey John here talk to you about one of my favorites. You know it? You've heard me talk about it. It's Quince. Why drop a fortune on basics when you don't have to? Quince has the good stuff. High quality fabrics, classic fits and lightweight layers for warm weather, all at prices that make sense. Everything I've ordered from Quince has been nothing but solid. I got a whole bunch of new polo shirts that I really, really enjoy that I've been wearing this summer. Quint has closet staples you'll want to reach for over and over, like cozy cashmere and cotton sweaters from just 50 bucks, breathable flow knit polos, the ones I just mentioned, and comfortable, lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. And the best part? Everything with Quints is half the cost of similar brands. By working with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markup. And Quint only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing processes and premium fabrics and finishes. So keep it classic and cool with long lasting staples. From quint. Go to quint.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com commentary okay, let me move on to David Platt, a barrister in Britain who writes why do you think that someone like me, a non Jewish Brit who has never been to the US follows your podcast every day? What do you think are the elements that make your podcast so appealing?

[Matthew Continetti]

Masochist oh, sorry.

[John Podhoretz]

Thank you. Thank you so much for calling us appealing and successful. I personally felt a sense of belonging to Commentary after Covid and the introduction of the daily podcast. It is almost as if you became family as we went through the trauma of everything that happened during that mad period. It is perhaps also because each of you have interesting idiosyncrasies and quirky personality traits that interconnect and produce a much greater whole. This is nothing explicitly to do with Judaism, although I have learned much about it and perhaps more to do with a shared conservative temperament. So thank you, David, for your kind words. And this is something I puzzle over every single day, and I honestly do, but I will. Why do you guys think people want to listen to us? It's an interesting question because a lot of people come up to me and.

[Abe Greenwald]

Say, clearly they find something they like in the product. But don't you think that's kind of particular to each audience member? I think the letter writers. I think David's note of a shared conservative sensibility is maybe what is the glue that binds us and our audience together that you probably have, if not similar views, then kind of a similar framework or cultural bent that makes you interested in the podcast?

[Matthew Continetti]

I think some of it's. The temperamental aspect of it is important because I don't think any of us are trying to proselytize our political views, our religious views, any views, and we bicker in a way that I hope is intellectually satisfying for listeners in the sense that we don't all agree on all points of fact. We have some principles that I think we all share. But a lot of the political podcasting world, I think, has become performative in a way that I don't think we're quite capable of. I mean, we. We all have lots of skills, but I don't think we could actually put on that kind of performance that many people enjoy consuming because it just reaffirms what they already believe. So hopefully, I mean, what I hear from listeners is that, oh, wow, I was shocked to hear, you know, Abe say he believes that because I thought he might have assumed this. And so I think that we work things out in real time. We certainly did that during COVID I mean, it was. It was our daily zoom sort of therapy session where we're all like, is the world going crazy? Am I crazy? What's happening here? And I feel like we try to do that with these political questions, too. And to really. For me, it's also keeping it all deeply grounded in questions about what it means to be a human being and human nature and how that plays out in the realm of politics in particular.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Christine Rosen]

I mean, what I hear from people is that they like the blend of personalities and that we're different. And the looseness of it is. Almost creates, like, an eavesdropping effect, you know, like you're listening in on. On something that's just conversational and casual and very clearly not scripted. And I think that that's. That. That that's appealing, I hope.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, there is something to the fact that we're not scripted. And when I say we're not scripted, I mean, we are really not scripted. People would. You would be astonished. And people who do this as we do are often astonished to hear that we get on this zoom about 30 seconds or sometimes a minute before we start, and we're like, well, here are the three things maybe we should talk about. And sometimes we don't get to them. And sometimes as I start speaking, my brain goes somewhere else and I start bringing up something else.

[Abe Greenwald]

Sometimes we spend an hour on Howard Stern.

[John Podhoretz]

Exactly. Which people were, by the way. So that happened earlier this week where we did a show on Howard Stern, and some people were pretty disgusted with us, I have to say. I got. Got some emails, particularly people disappointed, I have to say, in my good friend Abe Greenwald, a person of high sensibility and humor and honor. Saying anything nice about somebody is disgusting. As Howard Stern said. Several people who wrote us emails, and I.

[Christine Rosen]

Too bad.

[Abe Greenwald]

And yet they always want Abe to speak more.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. Everyone wants aid to. Finally. He did.

[Abe Greenwald]

He was. The words poured forth for the first time in the two years I've been on this podcast. And look. Look at how he's treated.

[John Podhoretz]

Were you.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, it's just. It's Howard Stern.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. I mean, I think we were talking about Stern as a. As a cultural figure. It wasn't like a fan. It wasn't like a sort of like, you know, we were doing the.

[Christine Rosen]

I am not backing off.

[Abe Greenwald]

He's gonna dig deeper now.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Christine Rosen]

I was a huge fan.

[John Podhoretz]

Never back off.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

And also, he states now.

[Christine Rosen]

But he was.

[John Podhoretz]

We were young. Like, we were young people. And yes, we enjoy soft. You know, when you're close to being a sophomore, it's okay to enjoy sophomore humor. That's why it's called. He is the king of sophomore humor. No one has ever made more hay off sophomore humor than Howard Stern. But it is interesting that we are. That we are going through that kind of skepticism about our own idiosyncratic yes. So what else do we have here that I can, that I can bring up?

[Abe Greenwald]

Lots of letters?

[John Podhoretz]

No, got a lot of letters and I'm looking for a good one. Oh, here's one that I think is an interesting. Okay, so this is a tough one for us. Ryan Leib, the Commentary podcast speakers are fervent advocates for Jewish students and exhibit similar enthusiasm for drastic cuts to scientific and biomedical funding as a financial penalty levied on research universities. While anti Semitic protests and research may coincide at the same school, the two activities are both practically and morally distinct. Further, federally funded university research has fueled our technology sector for decades and those researchers graduate prepared to fill the org charts of the most dynamic companies driving our economy. Two questions then. Is it just to collaterally punish researchers for being adjacent to protesters? And even if you find it morally justified, is it wise, given the economic toll these massive cuts to early stage research will have on the most productive centers of the American economy versus other possible means of punishment?

[Matthew Continetti]

Christine, what other, what other possible means of punishment? These research facilities on many of these universities are cash cows. I mean they bring, they are what the universities built infrastructure for, spend a lot of money on. And when you have administrators and, and university presidents who refuse to enforce civil rights law on their campuses and allow for year over year, this isn't recent year over year basically disobeying federal law, civil rights law, and obviously not stopping the anti Semitism of late, then that is the one stick. That's the one thing that will actually cause them to feel some pain. So are innocent researchers who are not anti Semites going to be harmed? Yes. But you know what? Our entire higher education system is harmed by allowing that to flourish on any college campus. So I, it sounds, it sounds like a very blunt instrument and there obviously are going to be downstream effects for researchers, but the people they should be angry with aren't the ones enforcing the law. It's the administrators and leaders of their campuses who allow this terrible behavior to flourish and have allowed it. So in that sense, I feel like it's not, you can't really separate what they're doing. I also, by the way, haven't seen a lot of those researchers going out and counter protesting against the, you know, pro Palestinian, pro Hamas student group. So if you really believe that, you know, you want to defend the university's payments to your particular kind of research, then maybe defend the students who are being driven off of campus because of anti Semitism or maybe stand up in a hiring committee and say, you know what, I don't think these DEI policies are constantly constitutional. So there's a kind of, there's a kind of late to the late to the fight here tone to that letter, that although I am sympathetic to people losing funding for important scientific research, the problem isn't the, isn't isn't what's going on now. It's what's been happening for decades on campuses.

[Abe Greenwald]

I'm snapping my fingers along with Christina.

[Matthew Continetti]

I get that.

[John Podhoretz]

I will just quickly say that one of the things that I learned, not really as a result of doge, but maybe kind of as a result of Doge, just in general, as that first six weeks were unfolding of the Trump administration and its decision to break with precedent and custom and ritual and say that, you know, all, all bets are off and everything is open to examination, was the uncovering of the fact that research universities are scamming the American taxpayer. That the amount, and I speak again, and I've said this before, so Mr. Lieb can understand this, the amount of money that goes to support the coffers of the university rather than the research vastly outweighs the amount of money that goes to the research. That in the formulation that I've, I've heard you buy the same light bulb 80 times. So universities understandably take a certain amount of the money from research grants to support keeping the lights on, right? Keeping the electricity going in the lab, janitors who have to clean the building, all of that stuff, the administrative costs of running an expensive research facility. But there are hundreds of grants that go to X Research University, and every one of those grants has something between 50 and 80% of its money taken off the top by the university for administrative costs, which means that again, every light bulb might be purchased 80 times. And that's wrong. That's, this is not something they, that is something that they get through the COVID of saying we are doing important research. That is not something that I, that you, that anybody should be paying for. And it happens to dovetail with the fact that these institutions, feeling themselves impregnable from public opinion, from being held to, to a realistic financial standard by the grant givers, none of whom have any sense of the, the importance of their stewardship of this public trust of tax dollars. They don't care. The people who give the grants don't care. The people who receive the grants don't care. The universities don't. Nobody cares about the taxpayer. It's okay for them to rip off the taxpayer. I don't think it's okay because they have looks at veritas on their logo from 1622. That is of no meaning or moment to me. And I also happen to know, just to finish up here with a bow, that, yes, very important biomedical research goes on. There's also a lot of crap research, huge amounts of crap research that goes on that are given money and get grant money, either tax free, nonprofit money, or directly from the taxpayer. And you shouldn't just assume that that money is being given in good faith, that it is being spent on projects that aren't injurious to the American experiment and to American society, because a lot of it is. And ultimately, though, it gets back to what Christine says, which is these schools have systematically meant the ones that are really being punished here, by the way, have systematically been violating the civil rights of students and employees who are of a specific minority. That, yes, we have a particular connection to, and certainly I have a connection.

[Abe Greenwald]

To if you take federal money, you have to follow federal law. And that progressives spent 90 years building up the system and that system became corrupted. And since October 7, it has become hostile to Jewish students in particular. So there's every justification, in my view, for the Trump administration to say, if you're going to follow federal law, then you get your money. And by the way, this has produced results because we have the deal with the University of Pennsylvania, we have the deal with Columbia University, we are probably going to get a deal with Harvard. If you have leverage, you should use it. And I think that in this case, the Trump administration is using its leverage for the good.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so I think I got one more here. Here's something. As a disaffected Democrat who is moving to the right, Jeff Muffson asks, I was wondering if you could make some suggestions for books to serve as a primer on conservative thought or policy. I ordered the Twilight Struggle per Matthew Continental recommendation, and I'm excited to dive into the 900 page tome that just.

[Abe Greenwald]

Just read the beginning and the end. You don't have to unless you're really interested. It's a long one.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, that is. That is a book about. About US Policy toward Nicaragua by Robert Kagan anyway, but a primer in conservative thought. And there are many sort of obvious choices. You know, there's.

[Matthew Continetti]

Matt's book is a good start.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, that's. Yeah, that's not what I was going to recommend. Especially for someone who has been a Democrat for much of their life and is becoming disillusioned with the social, cultural, economic and foreign policies of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, I would recommend Things that Matter by Charles Krauthammer. Because Charles Krauthammer himself was someone who was part of the left for many years. On foreign policy, he began to be disillusioned by the Democrats in the early 1980s. And then on domestic policy, he really began disillusionment during the 1990s. But he's a. Also the best, I think, arguer, if that's a word. I'm making it up for someone who comes from a left standpoint. People who are familiar with the career of Charles Krauthammer in his writings and speeches, they know that what was interesting about Krauthammer was even if you were opposed to him, you still had to reckon with him. You still considered his arguments serious. And so that, I think, is a great gateway for people who are kind of on a journey to the right.

[John Podhoretz]

I would go in a slightly more impressionistic direction and suggest the book that I think more than any other from people that I know of an intellectual bent have found descriptive in what changed them. And that is witnessed by Whitaker Chambers. Whitaker Chambers, who was. Who became famous in the late 1940s. He was an editor of Time magazine who now. Who went to the House in America, where the Senate actually and said that it was the House, I'm sorry. A leading figure in the Democratic foreign policy establishment. Alger Hiss had, like him, been a Soviet agent in Washington in the 1930s. And his sued him for libel. And in the course of. And his was an agent we now know with unmistakably, he appears the Venona Papers as Ales. Ales is his was his name. He was. And he was our. The person who set up the American side of the Alta conference that helped divide up Europe after World War II. So Stalin had an agent on the inside setting up the conference that changed the face of the world. But this book is a memoir, and it is a memoir of what it is that drove somebody like Chambers to become a communist and what happened to disillusion him about Communism. It is one of the most beautifully written American books. Nobody really knew that Chambers had this in him when he published it in 1952. It was an enormous bestseller. But the people who've kept it alive in the 80 years since its publication, or 70 years since its. Its publication are young people who come to it and discover this personal account of what it was to learn that you were part of a civil. That. That the civilization that you were part of, that there was some perverse incentive or drive in the west to want to take down the world that had you had grown up in where that come from, what the impulse was and then what ordinary things in life. And of course in Chambers case, it's this remarkable passage describing his discovery of his infant daughter's ear, where he looked at his infant daughter's ear and said this cannot have happened by accident. This thing that is sticking out of her head that makes it possible for her to, to hear that has this strange shape that this, this was not an accident. And that moment is what took him down this road. He did become a religious, Christian, conservative. He's very complicated person. It is one of the great American books and it is a foundational work of why what, what it is to be a person with a non progressive sensibility after having had one.

[Matthew Continetti]

And can we add, because it came out around the same time and still gets much debated among conservatives. Richard Weaver's ideas have consequences, which is another sort of attempt at a philosophical 30,000 foot level to say what's happening to Western civilization, what. And it was one of the earliest and most profound critiques of moral relativism. But the reason it's so interesting and worth reading still is that it continues to provoke arguments among conservatives about what was he right, what which strains have, you know, of his predictions have proven true and which have not. So it's also for someone who's sort of coming to conservative ideas, it's maybe a. I would say if you read those two in conjunction, you're getting a really interesting glimpse of sort of mid 20th century origin stories of conservatism.

[Oliver Darcy]

I'm Oliver Darcy.

[John Passantino]

And I'm John Passantino.

[Oliver Darcy]

We have spent years covering the inner workings of the news media, tech, politics, Hollywood and power now through our nightly newsletter, Status.

[John Passantino]

And we're bringing that same reporting and sharp analysis to a new podcast, Power Lines.

[Oliver Darcy]

Every Friday, we're breaking down the biggest stories shaping the industry, explaining why they matter and saying the things most people are thinking but too timid to say out loud.

[John Passantino]

No spin, no fluff, just sharp analysis that isn't afraid to call it like it's. We also pull back the curtain via our exclusive reporting to take you behind the scenes.

[Oliver Darcy]

My understanding, having reported this, is that the Pentagon protested to CNN and tried to effectively exile the CNN producer. And when the moment calls for it, we've got some hot takes. I just think Brad Pitt, honestly, he kind of seems a little washed up.

[John Passantino]

Oh my God. That's Power Lines presented by Status. Follow Power Lines and listen on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music or your favorite podcast app.

[Unknown]

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

[Christine Rosen]

I would add in light of everything that's been exposed about the universities now closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom from 1987 and Bloom captures. I mean, things have gone so far past what he was talking about, but this was the sort of inception of what we're seeing today on campus. And he lays it all out fantastically. It gets quite abstruse as it goes on, but hang in for as long as you can.

[John Podhoretz]

I love the abstruse. So do I close in the American Mind actually, because, you know, there is a kind of, you know, generalized critique of young people in colleges that is the thing that, that made that juiced it and goosed it. And he is describing the people who have now, a lot of them who have come along to make things much worse in America after having gotten elite educations that he is, is, is describing. But his, his history of how ideas ended filtering down to college campuses through the 20th century that ended up creating this toxic philistine, anti intellectual, barbaric stew is very compelling and it's a great.

[Abe Greenwald]

Way to read an, in an intelligible and accessible version of the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Right, that's what I found in that middle. But he's essentially channeling everything he learned from his teacher, Leo Strauss. Yeah, but he is more direct, let us say, than Strauss ever is.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes. Okay, so there are so many others and, but we're, we're, we're, we're out of time. Time. We'll, we'll, we'll keep doing these when we can. Thank you to everybody who wrote in. There were a lot of great questions and, and we're just too, you know, someone just wrote in and said we should have a lightning round, like at the end of the McLaughlin Group, at the end of every. Every show, which I think is actually sort of like. So the polar opposite of what. What we are, which is discursive and rambling and unorganized, disorganized. That. That I don't think we could really work. Work that out. But, you know, like, I don't have a prediction. I have friends. You probably have this Matt too, every now and then, people, you. You go on. I don't even. I don't really watch it much anymore. But the Brett Baier show would have, you know, be like, you're supposed to come bring a prediction. And then you would get this panic call from, does anybody have a prediction? I need a predictor. Like something. What's going to happen?

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, that was. That comes from the McLaughlin.

[John Podhoretz]

That's the McLaughlin Trump.

[Abe Greenwald]

But then all those predictions were fed to the panelists on the McLaughlin Group. You know, I mean, like Fred Barnes or Pat Buchanan or Novak or Eleanor Cliff. They all. All their sources, whether that was Democrats and Cliff's case or Republicans and Fred and Buchanan's case would tell them on Thursday, hey, say this.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, Right. Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

That would. So for us to have predictions means we'd have to do more work. We'd have to actually do more reporting. And I just can't. I don't know if I can shoulder that burden.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. Also, also people forget what you predicted, and now no one forgets anything. And everything you ever say is recorded and can be thrown back in your face. So I predict nothing.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah. Who don't you have to sing if we reach 20,000, you know, nothing or something. Didn't you promise? I did promise.

[John Podhoretz]

I would think so. I don't know what you're gonna. So we could. We could bring that up. Okay. If we reach 20,000 subscribers, aren't we.

[Abe Greenwald]

Making the new T shirt?

[John Podhoretz]

Look at. Look at. We're gonna make a new T shirt. I will. I did say I would sing a song. If you want to write to podcastocommentary.org and ask what song it is that I should sing or suggest a song that I should sing.

[Matthew Continetti]

This could get very unfriendly quickly from.

[John Podhoretz]

The great American yes song or not gonna do rapper's delight that you can watch the old lady and the wedding singer who does.

[Abe Greenwald]

Since you've been gone.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, I'm not doing. Since you've. I'm not doing. I'm not doing milkshake. I'm not doing driver's license.

[Matthew Continetti]

Milkshake.

[Abe Greenwald]

This is turning into a commentary after dark.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes, it is. Okay, so thanks very much. We will be back in due course. Where Matt, Abe and Christine. I'm John Podhoritz. Keep the candle burning.