One Big Beautiful America

Summary

Summary of “One Big Beautiful America” – Commentary Magazine Podcast (July 3, 2025)

Introduction and Context

Hosted by John Podhoretz, the “One Big Beautiful America” episode brings together key figures from Commentary Magazine, including Executive Editor Abe Greenwald, Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti, and Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. The primary focus centers on the passage of a significant legislative package referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and its implications for conservatism and American politics.

Passage of the "One Big Beautiful Bill"

John Podhoretz opens the discussion by highlighting the successful passage of the bill after a long House session. He references his colleague Matt Continetti’s podcast with Jonah Goldberg on the history of conservatism, setting the stage for a deeper dive into the bill's conservative credentials.

"Does it matter as a practical, philosophical or even political matter that it would not be precise to describe it as a conservative piece of legislation?"
— John Podhoretz [00:49]

Conservative Elements and Policy Analysis

Matthew Continetti analyzes the bill, acknowledging that while it may not be entirely conservative, it contains several components that align with longstanding conservative policies. He emphasizes the permanence of the Trump tax cuts as a key conservative achievement.

"The Trump tax cut of 2017 permanent… conservatives oppose carve outs and special interest deductions in the tax code as a rule."
— Matthew Continetti [04:05]

Tax Policy and Economic Implications

Continetti contrasts the current bill with previous tax policies, noting that the permanence of these tax cuts prevents Democrats from easily raising taxes on higher earners. He critiques provisions like the removal of taxes on tips and overtime, arguing they are more populist than conservative.

"No tax on tips, no tax on overtime. These would not be conservative provisions. They're certainly more populist working-class ones."
— Matthew Continetti [04:05]

Immigration Provisions

The discussion shifts to immigration, where Continetti supports the bill’s stricter border security measures, aligning them with conservative priorities on rule of law and citizenship. However, he acknowledges internal tensions within conservatism regarding these provisions.

"These immigration provisions advance conservative aims about the importance of border security, about the importance of the rule of law, the importance of citizenship."
— Matthew Continetti [06:08]

Welfare and Medicaid Reform

Continetti delves into the bill’s impact on Medicaid, portraying it as welfare reform aimed at limiting benefits to those truly in need. He criticizes the expansion of Medicaid under previous administrations and supports the bill’s efforts to constrain its growth.

"Medicaid should be a targeted program for the elderly in nursing homes and for the working poor… it has become an entitlement program."
— Matthew Continetti [07:27]

Abe Greenwald adds that the bill reflects a shifting Republican coalition increasingly composed of working-class voters, necessitating compromises on traditional conservative principles.

"This bill represents… the very rapidly shifting coalition of voters towards the Republican Party who are more working class… reflected in some of the not traditionally conservative principles of this bill."
— Abe Greenwald [06:08]

Political Strategy and Messaging

Christine Rosen raises concerns about whether the bill aligns with a larger conservative project or if it’s merely a collection of political wins influenced by the MAGA movement. She warns against conflating political victories with genuine conservative philosophy.

"The project seems to be advancing MAGA, which has woven through it all sorts of conservative elements and some very elements that are antithetical to conservatism as well."
— Christine Rosen [09:13]

Podhoretz responds by distinguishing between philosophical conservatism and practical political maneuvers, emphasizing the necessity for political parties to secure victories to maintain relevance and support.

"The conservative party to a different philosophical standard… both parties want to score wins."
— John Podhoretz [10:25]

Praise for Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

A significant portion of the discussion lauds Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, for his effective leadership in passing the bill despite low recognition prior to his tenure. Podhoretz and Greenwald commend his composed and principled approach, contrasting him with previous speakers.

"Mike Johnson sort of seems to have this preternatural ability… I think it's an extraordinary accomplishment."
— Matthew Continetti [35:21]

Greenwald highlights Johnson’s integrity and steady presence as crucial for navigating the narrow Republican majority and complex legislative challenges.

"He is not using Congress as a platform to make himself famous… he is doing what I think the role calls for."
— John Podhoretz [39:26]

Patriotism and America's Identity

The conversation transitions to a broader reflection on American patriotism, especially in light of the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The panelists discuss the importance of fostering national pride and countering narratives that undermine America’s foundational values.

"Love of country is a normal thing… that somehow the liberals and Democrats have completely lost that thread."
— John Podhoretz [52:42]

Christine Rosen and Continetti emphasize the need for a balanced view that respects both the creedal and cultural aspects of American identity, advocating for a renewed celebration of national values.

"We are the oldest, we have survived, and yet we are still the youngest. We are still the most experimental."
— John Podhoretz [34:51]

Future Political Landscape

Continetti and Greenwald explore the potential political gains from the bill, suggesting it positions Republicans favorably for upcoming elections by addressing key issues like taxation, border security, and Medicaid reform. They also speculate on how leaders like J.D. Vance might shape the party’s future stance on patriotism and national identity.

"The Republican Party's coalition is in flux… need to reaffirm the classic patriotism."
— Abe Greenwald [57:27]

Conclusion and Final Remarks

As the episode wraps up, Podhoretz reflects on the significance of the bill’s passage for the Republican Party and American conservatism. He underscores the importance of maintaining national pride and implementing policies that resonate with the evolving voter base.

"Happy 249th birthday of America. And let's all join together in celebrating this march, this on Russian March toward the 250th and with hopes that it will be a transcendent and powerfully meaningful event for this country."
— John Podhoretz [59:42]

Key Takeaways

• The “One Big Beautiful Bill” incorporates both conservative and populist elements, reflecting a shifting Republican coalition.
• Permanent tax cuts and stricter immigration controls are seen as significant conservative victories.
• Medicaid reform is portrayed as necessary welfare reform to prevent misuse of benefits.
• Speaker Mike Johnson receives high praise for his leadership and effective passage of legislation.
• The panel emphasizes the importance of fostering American patriotism in anticipation of the 250th anniversary.
• The bill’s passage is positioned as a strategic advantage for the Republican Party in future elections.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• "Does it matter as a practical, philosophical or even political matter that it would not be precise to describe it as a conservative piece of legislation?"
  — John Podhoretz [00:49]

• "Medicaid should be a targeted program for the elderly in nursing homes and for the working poor… it has become an entitlement program."
  — Matthew Continetti [07:27]

• "The project seems to be advancing MAGA, which has woven through it all sorts of conservative elements and some very elements that are antithetical to conservatism as well."
  — Christine Rosen [09:13]

• "Mike Johnson sort of seems to have this preternatural ability… I think it's an extraordinary accomplishment."
  — Matthew Continetti [35:21]

• "Love of country is a normal thing… that somehow the liberals and Democrats have completely lost that thread."
  — John Podhoretz [52:42]

• "Happy 249th birthday of America. And let's all join together in celebrating this march, this on Russian March toward the 250th and with hopes that it will be a transcendent and powerfully meaningful event for this country."
  — John Podhoretz [59:42]

Conclusion

The episode “One Big Beautiful America” offers a comprehensive analysis of the newly passed legislative package, exploring its alignment with conservative principles amidst a changing political landscape. Through insightful discussions, the panel underscores the importance of strategic policy-making, effective leadership, and national pride in shaping the future of American conservatism.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Unknown]

Some preach and pain Some die of thirst the way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best, Expect.

[John Podhoretz]

The worst, hope for the best welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Thursday, July 3, 2020. I am John Podhoritz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, Executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi Matt.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

And social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi John.

[John Podhoretz]

The Big Beautiful bill pass one procedural vote after an all night session in the House should pass some final vote later. Maybe it will already have been passed by the time you're hearing me say this and will be signed into law, I guess in some fashion or other tomorrow, which is what Trump wanted on July 4th. So I was listening to our own Matt Continetti's really brilliant podcast with Jonah Goldberg, which I think was released yesterday or the day before yesterday on Conservatism William F. Buckley, Jr. The History of Conservatism. Unbelievably informative. And so it led me to want to ask this question about this bill and about bills in general. We constantly have these conversations on the right about is this conservative or is this not conservative? Is it conservative to want this or is it conservative to want that? So this is a piece of legislation, gigantic piece of legislation that has many factors and many features to it. Does it matter as a practical, philosophical or even political matter that it would not be precise to describe it as a conservative piece of legislation? Is that a disqualifying factor for people who are intellectually committed to conservatism? Or is that category a bad way to understand what happens in practical terms when a political party with a very tiny majority has to get something done in this case, has to pass a budget bill of some sort and has to retain the tax cuts that were set to expire at the end of this year? Or is what matters under these circumstances that it happens or it doesn't happen? Is it disqualifying, in other words, that if I say to you, of course it's not, it's not a conservative bill and therefore it shouldn't pass, or are other matters more important in considering the real world implications of political action?

[Matthew Continetti]

I think you have to step back and you have to look at the content of the bill. It might be hard to describe the entirety of the One Big Beautiful Bill act as landmark conservative legislation, but there are many components inside of it that I think advance long standing conservative policy aims. And so with conservatism in politics, as opposed to conservatism in theory, you're always dealing with the problem of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And when we look at this bill, I think we see a bill that first makes the Trump tax cut of 2017 permanent, which means this is not the Bush tax cut. The Bush tax cut sunset. That's when we had the fiscal cliff.

[John Podhoretz]

That's when 2011. Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

2011. Obama was able to allow the tax rates on upper income earners to increase automatically. Right now, if Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone, they're going to have to actually pass a tax hike. Right. So the tax cuts are permanent. And while even the tax provisions of this bill are so complicated that you have to go one by one, is the no tax on tips a conservative policy victory? I would say not. I would say that long standing conservative principle moves us to the position that the tax, the ideal tax code has very low rates on a very broad base. And so conservatives oppose carve outs and special interest deductions in the tax code as a rule. So no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. This would not be conservative provisions. They're certainly more populist working class ones. It's part of this kind of cake that Trump has made and that Speaker Johnson is going to take out of the oven in a couple of hours, it seems to me. So we have to just go one by one. I would say there's going to be arguments on the conservative side about the immigration provisions. In my view. I'm a hawk on immigration, have been for about 20 years now. These immigration provisions advance conservative aims about the importance of border security, about the importance of the rule of law, the importance of citizenship. There will be other more libertarian minded conservatives who say this is not conservative. So you not only have this kind of tension between principle and politics, you also have the inner tensions about what it means to be an American conservative. All of this plays out when you evaluate the bill.

[Abe Greenwald]

I think There are also two 30,000 foot themes at work here that this bill represents. One is, as Matt alluded to, with the, with the no tax on tips bit of the legislation, the very rapidly shifting coalition of voters towards the Republican Party who are more working class, who are not all white, and the absolute stasis of the Democratic Party in that regard, that they're gaining more white, well educated, wealthy voters. And those coalition shifts are reflected in some of the not traditionally conservative principles of this bill. The other thing is, I think we have to give credit to a kind of restoration effort on behalf of the Trump administration and Speaker Johnson in saying there were a lot of mistakes made in the last four years under Biden and we have to reverse those mistakes and then get back to a level where the country is sort of more on board. And I think immigration policy is the perfect example of that. There really needed to be a much stricter effort to control the border and to deal with our immigration problem. That was created in large part exacerbated, I should say, by the Biden administration. So in that sense, maybe the more draconian efforts might not seem perfectly conservative, but they are trying to get us back to some sort of equilibrium from which hopefully some reform can be done of immigration.

[Matthew Continetti]

If I, if I can just add on to that, we also have to think about the welfare provisions. So the most controversial aspect of the bill are the changes to Medicaid, which Democrats describe as Medicaid cuts and the CBO projects will lead to people losing health insurance provided through Medicaid. As a limited government conservative, I believe there is something wrong with the way that we fund Medicaid. Medicaid should be a targeted program for the elderly in nursing homes and for the working poor who simply do not make the threshold allowing them either regular Obamacare or employment based health insurance. Instead, it has become an entitlement program where able bodied males are using Medicaid funds to get health insurance benefits. And so the reforms to Medicaid in this bill, which were strengthened by the Senate, not weakened, strengthened by the Senate, were those two, in my view, advance conservative policy aims. So there's all these different parts of the bill that I think go toward the larger conservative project over many decades, even if you also have elements that kind of either recognize the changing partisan coalition of the Republican Party or as in the case of a lot of the green energy provisions, we haven't fully clawed those back. Again, that's not perfect, but it's, I think, acceptable within the context of this legislation.

[Christine Rosen]

I think there's a broader question this raises, which is to what extent is there a larger conservative project in active politics now? The project seems to be advancing maga, which has woven through it all sorts of conservative elements and some very, some elements that are antithetical to conservatism as well. It can be a kind of slippery slope to champion administration advances. Setting aside conservatism, which is not. We're not doing that here. I mean, I think Matt's making a good case for conservative aspects of the big beautiful bill, but there is a kind of, the project seems to be to get wins. And those wins contain some conservative pieces, and sometimes they don't.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, okay, so that's what I mean when I say I wanted to talk about the philosophical conservative project versus the practical American political project. Because getting wins is what it means to be a political majority or the person who is governing, no matter whether you're on the left, on the right, local, federal, state, urban, whatever, like you're a political player, you're there to advance and an agenda that will make you look good, that will please voters, that will advance the interests of your party, and eventually maybe lead to your reelection, that is constant throughout electoral history in any way, shape or form. And so the idea of holding the conservative party to a different philosophical standard, since it tends to not to believe in legislation as the be all and end all of saving people and helping people and all of that, nonetheless, they have to do something. They have to act. You can't just, you know, you could be. You could elect a libertarian government, I suppose, that decides that its action will be to do nothing. But we don't do that. So the both parties want to score wins. So when Biden's in power, he wants to score wins for green energy and higher taxes and more regulation. And the, and when the, when the non. Biden, when the non Democratic party is in, it tilts in the other direction, as in the case of this, of what Matt is talking about, about Medicaid, because Medicaid is the hue. Is the biggest switcheroo gambit in American politics. Because it's called Meda. Mm. Right. So there's Medicare is Right. Which is, which is the universal medical support for, for the elderly that is extremely popular and that has, that nobody wants to cut. I mean, people say we need to slow its growth or whatever. But you. No one, no one, there's no, there's no, There literally is no political will to do anything about that. Medicaid is a different program, and it's the ultimate switch rule because a, it is half federal and half state, or it's supposed to be half federal and half state. So the federal government is supposed to contribute 50%. The state contributes 50% to this, to the spending on this, which involves the, as you say, the very poor and specifically the elderly and their housing in facilities where they can no longer live at home. And over time. And what happened in 2022, 23, was that Democrats are constantly pushing to expand Medicaid to make it bigger, to raise the amount of. To raise the level at which people can get Medicare so that it's not just for the very, very poor, but you can start increasing it so people fall under its umbrella and so that they can get it. Meanwhile, states can lower their burden. So the federal government says, okay, we're going to make it so that 10 million more people or 15 more million more people nationally can get Medicaid. But that would mean that the states in which people get Medicaid suddenly get a much bigger bill. Ah, but then they're allowed to levy taxes on health care providers in their states to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid, lowering the amount of money that the states have to give and essentially imposing this new tax on the very people who are providing the service that you want them to provide. So it's a big. The whole program is a kind of shell game. And this will make it a little more honest, number one. And number two, when you're talking about Medicaid, you're talking about reducing the expansion of Medicaid back kind of to the level it was before Biden drastically expanded it. You're not talking about cutting Medicaid, which is what, which is what you said. But Democrats, because they know that the phrase med is incredibly popular, are now going to spend 16, 17 months until November 2026, when they have to, when the, when the midterm elections happen, trying to confuse people. I mean, they're deep believers in Medicaid expansion. So I'm not saying that they're, they're trying to trick people, but what they want calling people to think. You go ahead. Sorry.

[Abe Greenwald]

That it's cuts. Right. They use the word cuts.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. They use the word cuts.

[Abe Greenwald]

Republicans should use the words reform, restoration to like something that isn't cuts. Because in a way that it is. You're absolutely correct that it's just again, rolling back some of the excesses of the previous administration's.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah, I think that the Democrats plans here are not as solid as they believe. There's one thing about universal entitlements that voters respond to. So you mentioned there's no political will to do anything about Medicare. That was tested in the 2000 and tens when Paul Ryan released his Roadmap for America's Future, which would have reformed Medicare, put it in a better place, and actually got the House to pass it as part of the budget, the Tea Party budget, but it didn't pass the Senate. And Ryan, when he was nominated to be the vice president with Mitt Romney, that ticket lost. And then Trump, the next presidential nominee of the Republican Party, campaigned on no cuts to Social Security. Or Medicare. Well, Social Security and Medicare, like you say, are universal entitlements. And the playbook has always been, once you have a universal entitlement, if Republicans try to do something about it, Democrats say, oh, they're trying to take away your benefits and it hurts them. In 2018, the Universal Entitlement was the pre existing condition part of the Obamacare legislation. Because the Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare in Trump's first year in office in 2017 and failed. The Democrats then campaigned in 2018 on the Republican efforts to strip away people's rights to health insurance with pre existing conditions. That was always the most popular part of Obamacare, and it was effective. And when Nancy Pelosi gave her first post midterm press conference, she made it very clear it wasn't Trump hatred that drove the remarkable democratic gains in 2018. It was campaigning on, as she put it, preexisting. Preexisting. Preexisting. Well, I just think that this year is going to be a little bit different. Medicaid is not a universal entitlement. The middle class will not see changes to its health insurance. And the projections of the effects of this bill on Medicaid enrollment, I think are ridiculous. I think they're ridiculous. The estimates you find in the media, millions upon millions of people will not have their health insurance as a result of this bill. Our academic projections based on an institution, the Congressional Budget Office, which routinely gets things wrong, routinely. They misjudged the impact of the tax bill in 2017. They thought the Inflation Reduction act would reduce the deficit. Instead, it led to an explosion in green energy subsidies. And now we're supposed to take them at face value when they say this is going to ruin American health care for millions of people. So, one, there's the fact that it's not a universal entitlement. Two, there's the fact that these predictions are being, I think, hyped by the media and the Democrats.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

Three, just finally, I was listening to NPR yesterday and they put on Julie Rovner, who's a friend of mine and a very good reporter, specializes in healthcare. And they asked me, well, Julie, how is this going to cut Medicaid? And she said, well, you know, technically it doesn't actually cut Medicaid. What it does. What it does is give Medicaid recipients more paperwork to fill out. Paperwork to fill out. And this is remarkable to me because for the first time in my lifetime, I know I'm only in my 40s, but for the first time in my lifetime, the Democrats are against more paperwork. Okay, this is the party that they are happy to give more paperwork to everyone else except apparently the able bodied working age men get the Medicaid benefit and then spend their time, according to research produced by my institution, the American Enterprise Institute, playing video games and consuming pornography.

[John Podhoretz]

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

[Abe Greenwald]

They're Medicaid kings, like the welfare queens. Right. But there's no slightly similar image of in the public's mind that this is actually an abuse of a system rather.

[Matthew Continetti]

Than I have to tell you, I think there are many people in America who do know Medicaid kings and don't like it.

[John Podhoretz]

Right? Here's, here's my which is the paperwork is there so that the people who receive Medicaid, almost like welfare reform, almost exactly have to demonstrate a need for Medicare. They can't Medicaid, they can't just claim it. They have to put down so that someone can examine it their financial condition, the condit, how many weeks they've been looking for work and this and all sorts of other things that they may not be willing to fill out and will be therefore ceasing. It's not exactly that they're defrauding the program if what they're doing is legal under the law now, but if the law changes and they have to demonstrate a need for Medicare in which they do not have a disability, they do not have something that is preventing them from doing work or something like that. They got to go to work and get themselves a job where they can get their health care covered. And that's just the way it is. And again, so perception versus reality. That's why I say the word Medicaid is an incredibly potent bit of sleight of hand because it sounds like Medicare. And so if you can convince people that what's being cut or being reformed or changed is Medicare, then they're gonna go, I don't like these Republicans. Look what they're doing.

[Abe Greenwald]

But there's.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, go ahead.

[Abe Greenwald]

There's a broader messaging issue which I think speaks to your initial question about conservative philosophy generally. And, you know, I think George W. Bush fell into it a little bit with the compassionate conservative messaging, which was an attempt to say we're not all terrible and mean. But that accepts the premise that conservatives generally want to slash Grandma's, you know, Social Security check and do terrible things to the American people. This is actually an opportunity. And I, I doubt Trump himself is the messenger, but there are Republicans in Congress who could think about how they're going to sell this to the American people and they're going to have to sell it with elections coming up and that that message could be, I don't know, there's a number of things you could think of that these people who are abusing the system are sort of robbing future generations of the possibility of even having it of, you know, an out of control debt is actually a threat to our stability. I mean, there are lots of ways that don't accept the Democratic premise that Republicans are terrible rich meanies who want to steal grandma's Social Security check. We need to get away from that way of discussing things. But Republicans themselves often find themselves saying.

[Matthew Continetti]

I think even more important than a kind of a defensive rebuttal because you never want to be on defense in politics. And health care traditionally is the Republicans worst issue. So if they spend the next year and a half basically arguing over what we did to Medicaid, Republicans are not going to be in a good position. This bill, however, provides plenty of ways that Republicans can go on offense against the Democrats. The Democrats have voted for one of the largest tax increases in American history. That that is the reason we have this bill against border security and against border security and against all the interesting changes to the tax code that are part of this bill, whether it's the child tax credit, whether it's changes to HSAs and 529 programs that, you know, a lot of parents speaking from self interest here enjoy and like. Right. So there's plenty of stuff in there that Republicans will say, this is what we did. And Democrats, you're against this. Right. The energy for the communities that matter, that that's a particular concern. So that's kind of what will be playing out. I also Think we, I think a lot of things about this legislation. One of them, one of the things is that it's so early.

[John Podhoretz]

We just.

[Matthew Continetti]

Let's take a step back and recognize. Trump said July 4th. Just because Trump likes July 4th and wants to have the signing ceremony with the fireworks.

[John Podhoretz]

There's no other reason.

[Matthew Continetti]

The debt ceiling we'd approach probably later in the summer. This includes a debt ceiling increase, by the way. So it kicks. That can.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. So there's. Yes. So there's going to be no budgetary crisis later.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah. This year.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

With the, with the Obamacare fight in 2017. That was after July 4, when John McCain put his thumbs and killed efforts to repeal Obamacare. And the tax cut, the Trump tax cut wasn't passed into law until December of 2017. So this was remarkably early. It means that not only will the Trump agenda go into effect previous, you know, prior to what many people expected, giving it a longer Runway, it also means we're probably going to be arguing about a whole different set of issues come next year.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, that's my question, because I think what now happens is this is now, as we say, this is now Trump's economy. So what that means is he's not going to stand and fall over Medicaid cuts. He's not going to stand and fall over whether people say Medicaid cuts were this or they're not cuts or they're cuts. He's going to stand and fall on the overall economic performance of the United States and how people feel in November 2026 or say October 2026, when early voting starts, Are they going to feel like they're better off than they felt under Biden? Are they going to feel like they're better off over the last two years than they felt before? And I would say that the early signs for that for Republicans, and this is not conservative or liberal or anything like that, it is simply partisan. Now, since there won't be a single Democratic vote for any of this in the Senate or in the House, the early signs are modestly encouraging. Stock market is at record highs so far. Whatever is going on with the tariffs have not caused a worldwide trade war. Now, maybe things are going to get worse. I believe that the assertion of American power in the form of the Iran strike is going to have complex positive effects on America's ability to make deals abroad, number one, and on the American psyche, number two, that people are always poorly understood. But the idea that America went to a country that has been an enemy of this country for 46 years and said, you are not getting a nuclear weapon. We have been developing military capacities and capabilities to be the strongest nation in the world for 50 years and we are using them here. And we did it in one night and we got out of there and they're done. That is a matter of national pride, no matter whether Democrats want to claim it is or not and will make Americans feel good. And, and this is where I wanted to move to next 2026, if done right is going to make Americans feel good about America in a way that they have not for the last 15 years. I was thinking about this because our friends Abe wants to I just want to say because our friends two former Roasties Commentary Roastees and remember that Commentary Roast is coming up October 19th. Cliff Asness. Go to commentary.org roast to learn about our 15th or 16th annual commentary roast. The greatest event in American history, aside from the 250th anniversary of America. Our friend Barry Weiss at the Free Press and our friend Jonah Goldberg at the Dispatch, they have both announced projects they're calling essentially Project250, which by the.

[Abe Greenwald]

Way, it's a total knockoff of one long standing 250 project that's been going on at the American Enterprise Institute headed by Yuval Evans Group and Adam White and others, which is about to wrap up.

[Matthew Continetti]

Actually, the timing is pretty good. Yuval got his started early and first and now Barry and Jonah are following on.

[John Podhoretz]

So it's good.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's a rolling. Yeah, it's a relay race.

[Abe Greenwald]

More the merrier.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes.

[John Podhoretz]

But okay, so these two new media institutions that are among the most exciting creations of modern media in our time, the Free Press and the Dispatch, are going to devote themselves over the next year to essentially an ideological assault on the counter history that was created, let's say not created, but personified or whatever you want to call it, exemplified by the 1619 Project. To say we're hitting the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The greatest moment in human history. Signing the greatest moment in human history. The creation of a new understanding of freedom, of the role and place of the individual. A new society borning that is now, I think with the exception of Switzerland, the oldest continuous government that has on the planet Earth and that may never have existed on the planet Earth under the same governing document. Right. In that time, England has gone through all these revisions and changes in the way it functions. It doesn't have a constitution. France has had eight constitutions. All these other countries that we are still functioning under the same governing document and principles that we've had. We are the oldest, we have survived, and yet we are still the youngest. We are still the most experimental. We are still the one that is most adaptable to change and repair and all of that. And we have this entire intellectual, ideological and partisan structure counter to us that treats this legacy birthright and ongoing privilege like it's garbage. And if that can be harnessed the way in 1976, I am old enough to remember how potent the bicentennial was. The bicentennial happened, remember a year after we, the helicopters pulled off the roof of the embassy in Saigon, after we had lost the first war America had ever lost and in which we were in. We were in terrible national shape. And the outlines, the broad chalk outlines of what came to be the Reagan revolution were present on July 4, 1976.

[Matthew Continetti]

He was running for the president that year as well. Yeah, he was going to win, but.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, tall ships in New York harbor, fireworks display, all this. People wanted to feel good about the country again. People in America want to feel good about America. Democrats don't want to feel good about America. Remember, 36% of Democrats say they feel pride in being American. So how do you guys pull? Yeah, go ahead.

[Matthew Continetti]

Before that, my esteemed panelists answer your question. Can I make one final point about the one big, beautiful bill?

[John Podhoretz]

Sorry.

[Matthew Continetti]

Okay. Because I love the big, beautiful bill. I'm sorry. I'm not like Elon Musk. Mike Johnson has a claim to be the greatest Republican speaker of the House in the last century. He's only been in the position for two years. Not even two years, but his ability to jump over these hurdles and remain calm during the Perils of Pauline, Congressional coverage that we receive from our political media and convince this rowdy Republican conference in the House with the narrowest, historic, historically narrow majorities to get these bills across the finish line with no change. By the way, if the House, as we fully expect, passes the bill today, as we're recording this podcast, or soon after, it will be the Senate bill, it will be that. It will be no change from the Senate bill. That is an incredible accomplishment. I cannot think now, remember, there were 40 years where there were. There was no Republican speaker of the House from 1954 to 1994. But then you think of the speakers since 1994. You know, Newt Gingrich is a brilliant political operative. Not the most effective speaker. He was turned out in a couple of years. Dennis Hastrid, as we often say, he's in prison for child molestation. You had after that. Boehner, you know, Boehner, I think people found him, you know, appealing in some ways, humorous. But he clearly hated his job. Paul Ryan hated his job. Kevin McCarthy was the first speaker in history to be turned out the window by his own conference. And here you have this guy, Mike Johnson, who no one had even heard of prior to the fall of 2023. And yet he is doing an extraordinary job. So I just wanted to say that I think it's Trump's victory for sure, but this is also Mike Johnson's victory.

[John Podhoretz]

I want to say one other thing about Mike Johnson and then move on, because I feel it's important to say this on this podcast to our audience. When there was the rally on the Mall for Israel after October 7th, 300,000Americans turned out. I was going to say 300,000 Jews, but I don't know, they were all Jews. Huge rally to support Israel. And it was Mike Johnson's first public appearance in a role in which he was not simply being the speaker of the House in that sense. You know, he wasn't just talking about legislation or what he was going to do or being, you know, being his preternaturally calm self on talk shows and stuff like that. And he gave a beautiful, calm Zionist speech that was heartening and thrilling to hear. We didn't know anything about where he would come down on these matters or how or how he might sound. I mean, obviously he was going to nominally speak supportive words, but to say that I, from that moment onward, have wished him nothing but well. And I'm not talking in this case about, you know, how he would do and getting things passed so that it would help Trump or help the Republican Party or anything like that. I mean, as a matter of soul and spirit, it was. He was the first major American politician of unknown origin who came out and said, this is where we stand. This is how, where America, America stands with this, our suffering people here in the United States and with this suffering.

[Abe Greenwald]

Nation that shouldn't be, that didn't used to be as exceptional as it is. And I agree with you, he is a type of American man who. And there are female versions of this, too, but there is a kind of man who gives public service. I'm thinking of the. Who's the Delta Force guy, who's the Internet meme, this very unassuming looking military guy who was actually a cold blooded, effective strategist and killer. And so Mike Johnson sort of seems very unassuming, and he just goes about his work. He is not A grandstander. He doesn't engage in the moral grandstanding that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle do to the detriment of our politics. And in that sense, he's exactly the kind of person we should praise, regardless of whether we agree with him on the details of how he does his job, because he is doing what I think the role calls for. And it's been, it's been a while since we've had someone in public life do that so effectively.

[John Podhoretz]

And to use Yuval Levin's formative concept. Right. He is somebody who has been molded into leadership by the position that he holds in Congress and by his experience in Congress. He is not using Congress as a platform to make himself famous. He does not seek credit. He is not seeking Matt saying he is the greatest speaker in 100 years. That is not on his. That's not part of his agenda. His agenda is I've got this incredibly difficult challenge and we have this incredibly difficult set of circumstances. I am going to sit here as calmly as possible and try to see the path forward. And I will use any mean. I will use any means aside from gangsterism. Now, he's got the gangster in the Oval Office behind him to help him. You know, he's got Tony Soprano behind him.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's a big help too.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Abe Greenwald]

Till 1am last night.

[John Podhoretz]

Evidently, he's not the one who has to be the disciplinarian. But Paul Ryan didn't figure out. Paul Ryan didn't figure that out with Trump. Right. And Kevin McCarthy didn't. Kevin McCarthy wasn't in the majority. Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

McCarthy is like, kind of like Gingrich. He was excellent at operations. He, he understood how we get a majority. He did it twice. You know, it's remarkable political mind.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Matthew Continetti]

But when it actually comes to being the speaker, it's a very difficult job. And Johnson just seemed to have this preternatural ability. And I agree completely. Having Trump in the White House has been critical to this. But let's not forget Johnson got some difficult legislation passed, including the foreign aid bill when Trump was not in office.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. You know, I have to say, you.

[Christine Rosen]

Know, when we talk about Johnson's virtues and abilities, because I'll never forget this, when he first became speaker, the press assault.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah.

[Christine Rosen]

And the characterization. They got it. So it was such a failed attack. Right.

[John Podhoretz]

The idea that Christian nationalists.

[Christine Rosen]

He was a religious fanatic.

[Matthew Continetti]

Try to raise questions about his family life. Yeah. It's just very typical. Drive by.

[John Podhoretz]

Yep. Yeah. And it didn't. And it not only and that's the thing is he seems imperturbable. No human being is imperturbable. But he has managed in some fashion to construct this public. I don't think he's necessarily constructing Persona. People are.

[Abe Greenwald]

He knows who he is and he's behaving like a grown man. It's just rare to see that in national politics right now.

[John Podhoretz]

It's good.

[Matthew Continetti]

And he also does have a deep religious faith.

[Abe Greenwald]

Yes, he does.

[Matthew Continetti]

Which I think plays a part that.

[Abe Greenwald]

Obviously steadying presence when he's in. Yes.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes. Okay. So now that we've had our.

[Matthew Continetti]

Sorry for that digression.

[John Podhoretz]

Now that we have sung our hymn of praise to speak him of praise to America.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes, America.

[John Podhoretz]

Abe. So this project. 250, let's say, or this whole question of how we're going to spend the next year building up to the. Is it bi. Sesquicentennial. I don't even know what the, what the word is for 250. Sesquicentennial. 150, I believe.

[Matthew Continetti]

Oh, that's 150.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, maybe I'm wrong anyway, but I. This seems to me to be a colossal opportunity for Republicans in the right because we are semi quincentennial.

[Abe Greenwald]

Sorry, it's.

[John Podhoretz]

Thank you. Semi quintetal. Thank you. Go ahead. We're. There is going to be no pushback on who owns the celebration of the 250 years of the American experiment. They don't like the American experiment. They think it's failed. They think we're the bad guys. Ellie Mistol of the Nation made this viral video the other day in which he said America's the bad guy on the planet Earth. Like, you know what that could be worth? $100 million the Republican Party handled correctly. And think about our, our new hero or anti hero of the moment. Zoran Mamdani. He doesn't like capitalism. He doesn't like America. He doesn't like them. He doesn't like democratic countries. He's a socialist. He wants, you know, he wants to, he wants government to control everything. I mean, it's like a kind of potential political ideological bonanza in which the right can reintroduce itself to America. In a funny way, I would say.

[Christine Rosen]

I think the, the left is going to double down on that. You know, as, as we go into it. Supposedly Trump said that it was providential that he wasn't reelected in 2020 and instead got into office in 2024 so that he would be here to coincide with the celebration. And so he is certainly going to embrace, John, what you're talking about here. And that in and of itself will mean that the left has to be against it.

[Unknown]

Hi, everyone. I'm Matt Ebert, CEO and founder of Crash Champions. Welcome to Pod Crash. On Pod Crash, we'll dive deep with industry leaders and game changers because we want to uncover their secrets to success. We're going to explore everything from building trust, building a rock solid team, to champion blue collar work. And we also want to talk about creating explosive growth, 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 one 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.

[F]

Hey, this is Donny Deutch. I host the podcast On Brand that comes twice a week. We give you two for the price of one. One day a week, we do our big interviews with our big personalities, some of the biggest names in politics, entertainment, culture and business. And on the second wave, we do what we call our brands of the week. These are the brands that are shaping the zeitgeist. Who's up, who's down, and you can really enjoy both of them. So tune in twice a week to On Brand. You can get them anywhere. You get podcasts, Spotify, Apple, anyplace else. We look forward to seeing you and hearing from you.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, it is their deepest. As I say, that Gallup poll tells the story. 36% of Democrats say they are proud to be Americans. So it's the way Democrats only make up 30% of the country's population. That means there are 70% otherwise, Republicans, 90% proud to be Americans, independent, somewhere in the 50 to 60 range. That number can be raised by a year of national celebration.

[Abe Greenwald]

Done well, but there. But I think the challenge, and I think what Abe is pointing to, even though it's a pessimistic prediction, I think it's probably correct. Because remember, the 1619 project grew out of decades of effort on the part of the cultural left, particularly the academic left, to say not that they hate America, that was sort of the subrosa thing going on, but that America hadn't lived up to its promise. So it was this real, real America has never really been tried. And now we're in an era where it's like, well, America's terrible. Let's try socialism instead. And that is, that is a significant shift because I think they're now saying the quiet part out loud and out loud and proudly. And that is new because I think the. I think there is a contingent of people on the center left and maybe a little further to the left who do see America as a very good and promising ideal that we just continue to try to live up to. And to them that's constantly expanding freedom. And it looks very different from, I think, what the founders ideal of this country was. I think that conflict has been a hallmark of America's political and cultural history since its founding. But it's curdled somehow in recent years in a way that I think is quite negative.

[Christine Rosen]

It's funny, I remember when Colin Kaepernick started kneeling, taking a knee for the national anthem, and he said, and his defenders said that this was because he loved the country and that this was a form of, you know, loving, you know, wanting to make a more perfect America and so on. And then a few years passed and he came out with it on some one of these July 4ths that America was a terrible place. Well, and he changed his tune.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Abe Greenwald]

Biden was the perfect president because remember, all the American people could do was disappoint Joe Biden and his administration.

[Matthew Continetti]

I have a great compromise. The great compromiser, Matt Continetti here, 2026. Let all the pro America people celebrate our 250th anniversary. And the left can watch the World cup and that will be. That will be the division. And we'll have civil peace. And the World cup will be in America too. So they will find a piece of America that they like, soccer. And then all of the pro American people can go to the parades and they can national heroes.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes. And they can wait till September when the actual American sport begins in earnest. Correct? Correct.

[Matthew Continetti]

Yes, the actual national sport.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. But to get back to Matt, to your conversation with Jonah, which again I really do have to highlight on the. On the Remnant, you go into detail about things that are familiar to us but probably really not familiar to a lot of people about the origins of the modern conservative movement and particularly a figure named Frank Meyer, who, as you say, there is a new biography coming out by Daniel Flynn, published by ISI Books that I'm looking forward to reading. And Meyer was an interesting figure because he made the point, and you go into great detail about this, about how there is a tension in the American Political experiment. Christine alluded to this. She said what liberals are for is for expanding freedom. I don't. Meyer wouldn't call what liberals want the expansion of freedom. Right. He would have called it the expansion of license. His point is that there is a. There is a. There was a constant tension on the right and in the American experiment between the dictates of individual freedom and the responsibilities for any civil society to promote order. And. And that order and freedom are in some tension, obviously, because you need non democratic, non libertarian organizations, some of the mediating and not governmental, but some of them meet governmental, like police forces and armies and things like that to maintain order so that within an ordered society, people are free to, you know, pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And it. And so ordered liberty is conservatism or American conservatism. It's not really necessarily non American conservatism, which is more about order than it is about liberty.

[Matthew Continetti]

Anglo American conservatism.

[John Podhoretz]

Ordered liberal work. Yeah, that's right. So. So the great. The great ordered liberty philosopher was Edmund Burke, who was, of course, a British parliamentarian who supported the American Revolution because he saw in it the future of civil society. But I only bring this up because there is. There's so much fertile field here in terms of the continuing push to defund the police or to talk about problems with our legal system and that and structural racism and things like that. And it's all soft ground in a. In this ongoing partisan political fight that we're having with negative polarization and the fact that nobody can agree on anything. That assuming that Trump, and I would also say J.D. vance and his people don't get in the way by muddying some of these distinctions. That is just a colossal political opportunity for people who are not part of the liberal camp, which is to say to the American people, it is okay to love your country. It is okay to believe that your country is the best country on earth. Not only because most people believe that their countries are the best countries on Earth. Right. George Orwell said that love of country is very nearly the only organic emotion that I feel, and that he expected that Germans felt the same way while he was. While they were trying to kill him and he wanted his country to kill them. So love of country is a normal thing. That's a patriotism or national whatever is a completely normal emotion, but that somehow the liberals and Democrats and leftists have completely lost that thread. And one of the objections that I had to Trump in 2016 and that others did was that he seemed to be adopting anti American rhetoric and ideas about the United States and grafting them onto conservatism as opposed to the warning shots that we all fire about the dangers of, you know, excessive secular. There are all kinds of critiques about America that we engage in constantly while understanding that, you know, that we're still living in the freest and best and, you know, and most remarkable country that the world has ever seen.

[Matthew Continetti]

You know, all I'd add is Vance is an interesting person to watch this next year because he's on the record as someone who supports the view that America is not an idea or not just an idea. Right. So the cliche is America is an idea of, you know, equal freedom sourced in the Declaration of Independence, whose birthday we'll celebrate tomorrow and then a year from now will be 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. Whereas Vance's speeches often de. Emphasize that kind of creedal component. Right. Of American life in order to prioritize the cultural component, or at least as Vance sees the cultural component kind of as a homeland, a very old homeland. His family having roots in Appalachia going back centuries. He's someone who. He's the front runner for the Republican nomination in 2028. A high possibility he'll be our next president. How does he approach the 250th anniversary? Will he give a speech about the Declaration of Independence and its importance? I think that would be an extremely encouraging sign if he were to do that and to show that there's some room in his concept of this nation for the creedal component. The creedal aspect of American identity, which has been, to kind of use a phrase associated with Meyer, fused with the culture. Right. It's not. You can't separate the two. This is kind of the point of Samuel Huntington's very controversial book who Are we? About some 20 years ago. They have to go hand in hand. They're equally important. And I agree that progressives over emphasize the creedal part, or at least their understanding of the creedal part, in order to get rid of national borders, in order to kind of change national culture into a multi multicultural, anti American ideology. But you need both. And I hope that Vance will seize this opportunity to show that he understands.

[John Podhoretz]

We need both as well.

[Abe Greenwald]

Well, and it's a really important moment for him to do that again because the Republican Party's coalition is in flux. There are a lot of sort of new members of that coalition who I think need to have reaffirmed the. The classic patriotism that we're talking about as opposed to what I feel like Vance's patriotism, I don't question his patriotism, but it's a very reactionary way of understanding the United States role in the world and its obligations to its own citizens. So that reactionary patriotism is still a form of patriotism. And I worry that its appeal is not good long term because I think, I think we want to get back to the kind of love of country that I hope our founders encoded in these documents and, and to keep coming back to those principles, even as we understand politics, to cite Matt's earlier observation, is often, you know, the perfect can't be the enemy of the good. But when it comes to how we feel about our country, we do need to avoid the reactionary response.

[Christine Rosen]

I mean, I, I think there is an element missing in this administration and in the Republican Party at large right now as we approach July 4th. Where is the beacon of liberty aspect of the US which is pretty gigantic piece of the puzzle. That's just not in there. No, and that's unfortunate.

[Matthew Continetti]

And we should also just say too, to get a little on news. You know, that point is especially pertinent, Abe, because we're receiving this information that America is withholding promised munitions to Ukraine. And this is a very bad sign.

[John Podhoretz]

Something weird is happening here. This story is very odd. We got this story that essentially was kind of like on the, I was going to say launching pad, but that's on the Runway, and that it was reversed. Like it was about to take off to fly off to Ukraine and the flights were halted effectively. And we are told that this is the work.

[Christine Rosen]

Some of it is abroad.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, fair enough.

[Abe Greenwald]

That's in Poland already. And it's been, it's been. Congress has actually authorized a lot of this stuff already, too.

[John Podhoretz]

And that, and that the person who has held it up, which is very, which is sort of startlingly unusual, is a second level Pentagon official known to us very well, Elbridge Colby, a kind of intellectual restrainer who is now the head of policy planning at the Defense Department. He is the person who has been sort of like mentioned as the person who stopped this. It would not ordinarily be the place of the Assistant Secretary of State for policy planning to stop a military transfer of material. Trump. Donald Trump is. They announced this morning that Donald Trump will be having a phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelinsky tomorrow on this issue. I don't think that this story is over yet. It's possible that. I agree that he basically tried to pull a fast one on Trump on Trump or like to create a fact on the ground. The fact that you want to create this fact on the ground is bad enough. I am holding out hope and that wouldn't ordinarily be something you would expect, but I'm holding out hope that this will not stand precisely because something, like I say, very odd has gone on here. Matt, you've got a heart out and you've got to go. So I just want to wish everyone a wonderful Fourth of July weekend. I'm excited because I am 64 years old. I'm as it happens, going to be in the small, smallish resort town of Eagle River, Wisconsin tomorrow on July 4th. And I will be attending the first ever small town 4th of July parade that I have ever been, will ever have been.

[Abe Greenwald]

They are awesome. You're gonna have so much fun.

[John Podhoretz]

They're the best. That's why I'm so excited and you know, because I am the classic urban cosmopolite who was never anywhere near a small town on July 4th as it happens, just for whatever reason. And so I am really thrilled to participate in this in a representative purple state. You know that that isn't, you know, that is, that is neither though it is, I think, the conservative part of the state nonetheless. So I will be at that parade. I don't know where you guys are going to be, but for everybody in the ambit of my voice, Happy 249th birthday of America. And let's all join together in celebrating this march, this on Russian March toward the 250th and with hopes that it will be a transcendent and powerfully meaningful event for this country which has been struggling with its self definition now for so long. So for Abe and Matt and Christine, I'm John Podwortz. Keep the camel bur.