The Meaning of Norman Podhoretz

Summary

---

The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: The Meaning of Norman Podhoretz

Date: December 17, 2025
Host: Commentary Magazine (Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, Eliana Johnson, John Podhoretz)

---

Episode Overview

This emotionally significant episode honors the life and legacy of Norman Podhoretz, the seminal editor of Commentary Magazine from 1960-1995 and a towering figure in American intellectual and Jewish life, who passed away at age 95. The co-hosts share personal reflections and professional appraisals of Podhoretz’s influence, both in their own lives and across the broader landscape of American political and cultural thought. Subsequent segments pivot to current news, including the Brown University shooting investigation and a Vanity Fair profile of Susie Wiles, providing Commentary’s trademark incisive and candid analysis.

---

Remembering Norman Podhoretz (00:49–18:08)

The Scope of Podhoretz's Impact

• Christine Rosen opens with a tribute, recognizing Norman Podhoretz as a “giant…at the center” of pivotal American intellectual movements:

  • New York intellectuals
  • The Jewish contribution to American life
  • Neoconservatism

• Core Courage: Rosen highlights Podhoretz’s reputation for challenging poor reasoning and motives—even among ideological allies.

  “He was my first exposure to neoconservatism… I would have to hide Norman’s brilliant writing from my liberal and leftist colleagues… He’s known for so many things, but…his framing of the post 9/11 world and what it meant for America had such an impact on me.” (04:20–06:17)

  • Cites his “World War Four” framing (West vs. Islamism post-9/11) as prescient.

Personal Memories and Intellectual Legacy

• Eliana Johnson recalls encountering Podhoretz’s work in graduate school, noting:

  • His exceptional writing skill compared to peers
  • Underrated talents as a critic (both literary and cultural)
  • Contrast between his pugnacious prose and "warm, gentle, hilariously funny" personality

  “His love of this country was so strong and so enthusiastic and so hopeful, even in times of great stress…he always spoke of ‘we’.” (07:30–09:09)

• The discussion underscores Podhoretz’s patriotism and insistence on collective national identity—not the polarized "us vs. them" that dominates today.

The Craft of Editing

• John Podhoretz explores his father’s editorial philosophy:

  • Commentary as an “editor’s magazine,” not a mere platform for writers.

  “The editor strives to make the article better and to reflect what the writer really wanted to say.” (10:35–11:13)

  • Heavy, transformative editing cited in landmark articles (e.g., Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Daniel Moynihan’s “The United States in Opposition”), which affected the course of US policy and history.

  • Willingness to labor anonymously so others receive credit.

  “To be willing and able to do work for which someone else will get the credit…was a true contribution to American history.” (13:15–13:53)

  • Podhoretz’s candor and honesty, particularly in his memoir Making It (1967), which scandalized contemporaries by pulling back the curtain on ambition in New York intellectual life.

The Arc of Opportunity

• Christine Rosen recalls Podhoretz’s oft-told story from his Yiddish-speaking Brooklyn childhood:

  “Where are you going, little boy?” ... “I’m going up the stairs”… “His life is all about ascendancy… using the opportunities granted in this country.” (15:22–16:41)

  • This anecdote becomes a metaphor for Podhoretz’s own rise—and the immigrant striving embodied in his work.

• Collective closing sentiment:
  The hosts express heartfelt condolences to the Podhoretz family and urge listeners to read current and classic Podhoretz essays to appreciate the full impact of his legacy.

---

Brown University Shooting Investigation & Institutional Trust (21:12–29:57)

Summary of Events & Response

• Latest Updates: New images and videos of the suspect were released, showing a masked, heavyset figure on campus from 2pm onward.

• Controversy: Brown University removed online content (writings/images) of a left-wing Palestinian student matching the suspect’s vague description, sparking suspicion.

  • Authorities and university defend this as “protecting an individual’s safety,” but the hosts criticize the move as drawing more attention and breeding mistrust.

  “My thought when I saw this from Brown… I never heard this person’s name or saw his images until Brown started pulling the web pages down. So that seemed entirely Brown University's doing and totally strange.” – John Podhoretz (22:45–23:53)

• Investigation Critique:

  • Arrest of a person whose name and image were publicized without explanation
  • Authorities offer little information on motive, targeting, or why certain actions were taken

  “It is one of those perfect storms... This is why people don’t trust institutions… The FBI has completely bungled this. Another investigation they’ve bungled.” – Eliana Johnson (25:14–26:05)

• Broader Implications:
  The incident illustrates the ongoing erosion of trust in institutions, fueled by inconsistent transparency and perceived political motivations in high-profile cases.

• Culture of Political Violence:
  Discussion connects this environment to “a new age of assassination,” with growing numbers of targeted attacks against leaders, students, professors, and corporate figures.

  “We have disturbing polls… increasing acceptance and tolerance and approval of political violence, particularly among younger Americans. That’s a change from previous generations.” – Eliana Johnson (28:06–29:07)

  • Lax institutional integrity and systemic failures contribute to this dangerous trend.

---

Media & Political Culture: Vanity Fair's Susie Wiles Profile (29:57–44:57)

The Wiles Profile and Its Fallout

• Vanity Fair Profile:
  The coverage of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles generated substantial intrigue for its candor and the exclusive access she granted.

  • Eliana Johnson takes exception to Donald Trump's response to the Rob Reiner murder, calling his comments "abhorrent" and beneath the office, finding solace that even MAGA loyalists objected. (30:04–31:38)

• Key Profile Revelations:
  Wiles granted 11 interviews, making unflattering or blunt observations:

  • On Trump: He “has the personality of an alcoholic.”
  • On J.D. Vance: A “conspiracy theorist… his support for Trump was for political convenience.”
  • On Elon Musk: “An avowed ketamine user and odd duck.”
  • On Pam Bondi: “Completely whiffed” on Epstein files.
  • On Russ Vogt: “A right-wing, absolute zealot.”

  “Did the President want her to do this? Like, are we dumb and not understanding that there’s something intentional happening here?” – John Podhoretz (35:40–36:05)

• Analysis of Intent:
  The hosts debate whether Wiles’ remarks were accidental, strategic, or a form of controlled candor.

  • Wiles is known for discretion and savvy. Some speculate deliberate signaling or inoculation against future criticisms (“getting ahead of what any disgruntled liberal reporter would write…” – Eliana Johnson, 36:38–38:10)

  “Coming in and winning in the second term meant there really were no rules or guardrails for Trump… He just does exactly what he wants. There are no limits for him.” – Eliana Johnson dispelling Wiles's remarks (38:40–39:35)

• Reinforcing—or Undermining?—the Administration's Public Image:

  • The hosts debate whether such frankness helps or hurts (41:17–42:54)
  • Wiles did not comment on Trump administration graft or financial dealings, focusing mainly on personalities.

  “Her transparency and her candor…are her superpower. When she walks in a room and Trump isn’t in that room, everyone knows she speaks for him.” – Christine Rosen (43:16–44:08)

  • On factual precision: The hosts clarify they rely on news aggregations and not all have read the Vanity Fair article due to paywall constraints; some advice on workarounds offered.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “He [Norman Podhoretz] wrote sort of page turners of ideas, which is not easy…an athletic prose style that you just…couldn’t put one of his books down.” – Christine Rosen, on Podhoretz’s writing (14:49–15:22)

• “This is why people don't trust institutions…The FBI has completely bungled this.” – Eliana Johnson, on the Brown investigation (25:14–26:05)

• “Coming in and winning in the second term meant there really were no rules or guardrails for Trump…He just doesn’t think there are rules for him.” – Eliana Johnson (38:40–39:35)

• “Her transparency and her candor, as you say…are her superpower.” – Christine Rosen (43:16–44:08)

• Final note: The episode closes with a recommendation for Norman Podhoretz's My Love Affair With America, especially poignant in the current climate, and a final expression of sympathy to the Podhoretz family (45:17).

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• Norman Podhoretz Tribute: 00:49–18:08
• Brown University Shooting & Institutional Trust: 21:12–29:57
• Vanity Fair’s Susie Wiles Profile: 29:57–44:57
• Episode Wrap-up and Recommendations: 45:17–End

---

Tone & Takeaways

The episode balances deep reverence for Norman Podhoretz—intellectually rigorous, pugnacious yet personally warm—with the panel’s customary directness and skepticism when analyzing news cycles. The hosts express concern about eroding civic trust and political norms, ultimately reinforcing Commentary’s commitment to honest, patriotic, and unapologetically critical discussion.

---

For further insight:

• Read John Podhoretz’s just-published tribute on commentarymagazine.com
• Recommended: Making It, My Love Affair With America by Norman Podhoretz

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Eliana Johnson]

Des de jugetes de moda hasta caveteras espresso revol esto lugar para encontra regal que sor prenden por mucho menos a si es como funciona todos los dias rebel lanza miles de productos nuevos en el citio con esta un se tenta porciento de descuento es una yuvia constante de ofertas incre ibles de marcas top como even flow Graco, Britax, Breville, Nespresso, Kitchenaid, le cruschette y muchas mas perotines que to ar rapido porquecada oferta e sunica sives algo que te encanta agregalo. Tulista de regalosa or Rosen from revelpunto com SOS from erebele.com.

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Christine Rosen]

Some drink champagne some die of thirst the way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best Expect the worst Hope for the best welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Wednesday, December 17, 2025. I'm Abe Gre Greenwald, the executive editor of Commentary. Joining me today is Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine.

[Eliana Johnson]

Hi, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

And Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.

[John Podhoretz]

Hi, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

So John is out today because, as you've likely heard or seen or read by now, his father, Norman Podharetz, who has who edited commentary between 1960 and 1995 and whose appearance in the magazine predated that, and whose impact on American life and international affairs and Western civilization itself in our time was immense, has passed away yesterday at the age of 95. So first off, I want to extend our love and condolences to John and Naomi and Ruthie and all of Norman's grandchildren. There's so much to say Norman was a giant. I don't want to. I don't want to say it all. I think that's for John to do. When he gets back to us, he will have a great deal to say. But I think we have to make some acknowledgment here about just what a giant Norman was. And for me personally and American Jewish life and intellectual life, when you speak of the New York intellectuals or the Jewish contribution to intellectual life in America, or neoconservatism, these dominating concepts in our national life and institution, they wouldn't be what they are were Norman not there at the center of them. I think he's really most famous for having the courage and the wisdom to challenge Bad thinking and, and bad motives on his own side. And he's done that on when he was on each side, ideologically speaking. And, you know, he was my. Norman was my friend. First exposure to neoconservatism entirely. I'll just tell this story. Around 9 11, I was in educational publishing and I was trying to figure out what was going on in the world. I didn't know a whole lot about international affairs and terrorism and all the rest of it. And so I started reading voraciously and somehow someone directed me to Commentary, which at the time then had a very early, early kind of primitive website. And. I was reading Norman's essays about what he called World War four, which was the. The West's war against Islamism and his framing. World War three was the Cold War. And the educational publishing house I was working at was extraordinarily liberal place. And I would download and print these articles and sneak them into the bathroom to read them and was just blown away. And it had such a direct impact on my thinking that there's no question it led me directly here. I would have to hide that, hide Norman's brilliant writing from my liberal and leftist colleagues there. And I just want to say he's known for so many things, but. But that in particular his framing of the post 911 world and what it meant for America had such an impact on me. And I also think if you look at the state of the world today and everything we're dealing with and these terrorist attacks and rise of Islamism again, boy, was he right that this was and is World War four. What do you guys have to say? What are your thoughts?

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, obviously thinking a lot about all the family, the grandchildren and great grandchildren. You had many great grandchildren as well. It's funny, I was trying to remember my first, first time I met Norman and how I got to know his work. And I, I actually got to know his work before I met him. When I was a grad student, we had an American intellectual history seminar and we, for one week we covered the New York intellectuals. And I. What I remember so vividly about the reading that we did that week, which was just, you know, excerpts of a lot of their work, was how amazing a writer Norman was compared to so many of the others. John has an excellent piece up on, on Commentary's website today that focuses on that he really was an extraordinarily literate writer. He was a wonderful critic too. Not a literary critic and a cultural critic, which I think he doesn't. He never really got enough credit and Praise for. Because his political arguments were always sort of at the forefront. I met him actually through Midge Dector, his wife, John's mother, who I knew first. And I was always struck after that first meeting and then all the times I saw them after that. He was always so pugnacious in writing and so gentle and wonderful and hilariously funny and interesting in person. Just a really warm person, one on one and in small groups, that was quite different from his swashbuckling. Everyone called him pugnacious, you know, literary personality. But thinking about it a lot last night and this morning, I was trying to think if there was one particular theme that I think always struck me about his work. And it actually is both about his work and about conversation. If you've ever had a conver, we're lucky enough to have a conversation with him, it came out then, and that's that his love of this country was so strong and so enthusiastic and so hopeful, even in times of great stress for our country's ideals and security and national interest. And I think that's why he fought so hard against the people who he sensed didn't have that love. And, and that it's what made him such a powerful voice, such a powerful intellectual. And it really was combined, that pugnacious, deep rooted love was combined with a lot of rationality about how much one can do for one's country. And he did hold politicians and intellectuals to a very high standard. And that's because he cared. And every time he talked about this country, he used the word we. We do this or we do that. And it struck me that recently, way too many of our intellectual political leaders use the word I, I think we should do this. The us. Them, Us, them. Norman always spoke of we. And I think that came from his deep patriotism, his deep love for this country, and his deep sense that he wanted to make sure that each rising generation understood why that sort of devotion to one's nation was necessary. And. But again, I just, I just come back to his smile and his thoughtfulness. And he just, he was a wonderful person to have an extended conversation with, and he'll. He'll just be very deeply missed.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, it's such a good point. He defended the goodness of this country at every turn. That was the, you know, he believed in it. Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

You know, my thoughts are really about the craft of writing and editing and the way he did it. And I don't think, you know, in the wake of his death, there's a substitute for know going and either watching him talk about it or, you know, reading what he said. And so, you know, I'll say a few things, but I really recommend to our listeners to go and read John's conversation with his father in 2020 about editing commentary. It's. It's really wonderful and filled with anecdotes that reveal Norman's approach to editing the magazine that was, I think, passed along to Neil Kazadoy and to John. And they talk about their similarities and differences. And also to read the short but legendary book Making it that Norman wrote in, I think, 1967. But, you know, he notes in this conversation with John that some magazines are writers magazines where the writer submits something and basically it's printed. You know, they correct typos and that's what goes on the page. And he says Commentary was never like that. Commentary is an editor's magazine where the editors. Editor strives to make the article better and to reflect what the writer really wanted to say. And he says, basically, like, this started out of necessity because we had a lot of writers who. A lot of German writers where English wasn't their first language. And so we had to get in there and do heavy editing. And what struck me when he said that is like, well, you know, there are a lot of writers for whom English is their first language and they still can't write. And he obliquely makes this point where he says. He talks about Gene Kirkpatrick's article Dictatorships and Double Standards. And he. He literally says, Jean's 100 page article was unreadable. It was full of jargon, illusions that were not explained so that most lay readers would be unable to follow it. Follow it. And essentially he talks about laboring over this piece to turn it into the masterpiece that was published that led to her nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. And he also talks about the heavy, heavy editing he did on Daniel Patrick Moynihan's piece the United States in Opposition that led to his nomination to be the UN Ambassador. For different reasons, he said Moynihan was a sloppy writer, but the care and the labor he took editing these pieces that ended up literally changing the course of American history. And, you know, that is a real talent to be willing and able to. And Norman always joked about his ego, but to be willing and able to do work for which someone else will get the credit. And he jokes about Gene never forgiving him. She would always say he butchered that piece is really special and in this case was a true contribution to American history. And then in making it the book is so wonderful and like he was an artifact of American history in that, in the book he writes about like his own unabashed pursuit of success. Oh yeah, in a way that, that like pulled back the curtain on New York intellectual life. Like, it's very Tom Wolfian.

[Christine Rosen]

It scandalized everyone.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, it scandalized everyone at the time. Now when you read it, like, it doesn't read scandalous at all, but for, for the, the son of poor immigrants from Brooklyn who to write about, you know, his own ambition and pursuit of status, success, money in like this honest way is just so wonderful and true. Honest.

[John Passantino]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

And, and fantastic.

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, I think his honesty about that is why he was so clear eyed in noting the false modesty among his peer group and the sort of, you know, the idea that they've just risen to the top because they're brilliant. And he absolute, absolutely puncture that bubble constantly, which I think is a public service. If you, if you work in the, in the world of ideas. We need more of those people. I mean, that's actually. It was a, it was a true service of its own.

[Christine Rosen]

Such, such good points. Yeah, there's a, there's a anecdote. It comes up certainly in making it, and it comes up in My Love Affair with America, which is another great book of his. You know, I just want to say. I'll get to the anecdote in a second, but you're right about, you know, what an incredible stylist he was. He wrote sort of page turners of ideas, which is not easy. You know, it's kind of athletic prose style that you just, you know, you absolutely couldn't put one of his books down. He was sort of always on a roll. But there's this anecdote that appears over and over about his growing up. He grew up in a largely Yiddish speaking household in Brownsville, Brooklyn. And as a kid he had a strong Yiddish accent, even though he was born in this country and he was at school. And his teacher said to him, where are you going, little boy? And as he wrote, as he tried to translate his Yiddish accent on the page, he said, I'm going up the stairs. I'm reputed to have replied, is what he wrote. And this teacher, who he often refers to as Ms. K or Mrs. K, immediately put him in remedial English class. And he's forever thankful for that. That was, that she. That was the beginning of Americanizing him in a way that opened the world to him. And there's also a point in that anecdote that I don't know if he ever dwelled on it, but it struck me last night when I was thinking about it as very cosmically poignant. And I love that the thing that he said that was overheard, that triggered her snatching him and cleaning him up, as it were, is that I'm going up the stairs. Because this gets to another theme. His life is all about ascendancy. That's what making it is about. It's all about using the opportunities granted in this country and unabashedly using your talent and ability and working hard and rising. So that's, you know, it's the most incredible story. And like I said, John will be back with us at some point and he will of course have so much to say. And yes, everyone should read what's up on the website now what he wrote yesterday. Beautiful piece about his father. And our hearts are with you, John. And may your father's memory be for a blessing.

[John Passantino]

Hey, John, here. Okay, no gift cards this year. I'll tell you why. Don't give a gift card as a present because you can give an aura frame. An aura frame. I got one sitting right in front of me. They're amazing. It's like having a high definition screen showing your life in photographs, so easily downloaded from your photo app into the aura app. Showing you videos, photos organized however you want to organize them from the moment that you have a digital photo. Go back 30, 40 years. If you have them scanned, scanned up to the present, you can figure out how much time each photo spends on the screen before it moves on to the next one. Unlimited numbers. You can actually preload the photos before it ships by downloading the app. And they'll put it on there so that when you send it to your relative or to your loved one, the photos are there just when they plug it in. And you can personalize your gift by adding a message before it arrives. You can't wrap togetherness, but you can frame it and for a limited time, save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com that's a U R A frames.com to get $35 off Aura's best selling carver mat frames named number one by Wirecutter by using promo code commentary at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code commentary. This deal is exclusive to listeners and frames sell out fast, so order yours now to get it in time for the holidays. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. It's very easy to do an ad for something when you're sitting as you're recording the ad wearing the product that you are supposed to endorse. And in my case that is a Quince Mongolian cashmere sweater. That's what I am wearing at this moment. And at Quint's you can pick one up for 50 bucks when you'd normally drop $200 or more on the same thing. Plus wool coats that actually hold up to daily wear and still look good. I myself have a quince puffer that I'm wearing over the sweater when I go out on these cold November days. By partnering directly with trusted factories that maintain high standards for craftsmanship and ethical practices, Quince cuts out the middleman and markups. That means premium quality at half the cost of other high end brands so you can give luxury pieces without the luxury price tag. So get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with quints. Don't wait. Go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com commentary free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/complyment.

[Eliana Johnson]

Eliana and I are obsessed with the Brown University shooting investigation or lack thereof. So I wouldn't mind discussing that if that's on everyone's mind.

[Christine Rosen]

So, so what's, what's, what is the latest here? There's, there's new images.

[John Podhoretz]

So the authorities released a series of new images of the suspect as well as video that showed him from 2pm on the day of the shooting throughout the day pacing around the campus wearing a mask. But you can see his, you know, skin and sort of his he seems to be a heavyset type of person. The university folks noticed proceeded to scrub their website of the writings and images of a left wing Palestinian student and his left wing writings. And when folks noticed this, they found it suspicious because it is strange that in the middle of a of an investigation the university would be taking web pages down without explanation. The authorities in turn lashed out at reporters and others calling attention to this and said that and the university. By the way, Brown University said they issued a statement on the quote doxing of a community member and said it is not unusual to take steps to protect and protect an individual's safety in regards to their online presence. In the aftermath of the shooting, we've seen harmful doxing activity directed toward at least one member of the Brown University community. It's important to make clear that targeting individuals could do irrevocable harm. Okay, sure, but my thought when I saw this from Brown. And then the authorities lashed out at reporters asking questions about this, saying that it was dangerous to be asking questions about this. Was that the reason? I never heard this person's name or saw his images until Brown started pulling the web pages down. So that seemed entirely Brown University's doing and totally strange.

[Christine Rosen]

It should be said that, you know, in the vague images of the person of interest walking around the streets in the block, from what you can see of that person, you could imagine the student whose image they were scrubbing. They look similar. That's all I'm saying.

[John Podhoretz]

There is a resemblance. And what Brown hasn't answered is why they felt the need to protect this person's safety, pulling down all these web pages and then in doing so, they drew an enormous amount of attention to him. It's insane.

[Christine Rosen]

Now, is there any reason.

[John Podhoretz]

Meanwhile, the authorities arrested a person, released his name and his photographs, and have done zero explaining as to why that person was arrested, why they were interested in him. They seem to have have evinced no concern about putting that person in the public spotlight in connection with this investigation thus far. And so I'm left, you know, somebody interested in this following this, just baffled by the conduct of both the university and the authorities thus far.

[Eliana Johnson]

It is one of those perfect storms. We've talked about this on the podcast many times over the years, particularly during COVID But this is why people don't trust institutions. It's why people have the erosion of authority of even the people who are supposedly the authorities. The FBI has completely bungled this. Another investigation they've bungled. And I mean, what President Trump was railing about how they should have had more security cameras. But there are a lot of strange questions here that also aren't going answered. What did the gunman shout? Because something was shouted when he entered the classroom. Were the people who were killed actually targeted for their beliefs, for their background, for their. We have no idea. And they. The insistence on we have no clue about a motive or also strikes me as being said every time something comes up. And we've seen in previous investigations of shooters who did have very clear motives in a long social media trail, the.

[John Podhoretz]

Motive is politically inconvenient to the left. If that's a white nationalist or whatever, then we know the motive right away. That's fine, we can talk about that.

[Eliana Johnson]

Or even if it's not in Heather Cox Richardson declares the shoot the assassin of Charlie Kirk a white nationalist. So there is this. All these questions are what lead people to become not only Deeply suspicious and conspiratorial about these things, but also, again, the erosion of trust. There's no excuse for this sort of bungling of a major investigation. And at the same time, there was the killing, obviously a targeted killing of a nuclear scientist near campus at MIT in his home. Another, you know, sort of unnerving thing for anyone living in that area. You've got one, possibly two assassins just wandered around, you know, on grainy video.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, this, this, you know, we've, we've been saying that for a few years or about a year. I mean, we're definitely in this new age of assassination. And the targets are, the types of targets are spreading now. Right. You know, I'm thinking back to.

[John Podhoretz]

A.

[Christine Rosen]

Year ago when the UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Thank you. Brian Thompson was shot. CEOs, ideological leaders and influencers. Charlie Cook, obviously, Donald Trump. There was intent to two attempted assassinations on Donald Trump. And now we have students and professors. So the wheels are coming off sociologically here, culturally, unbelievably unnerving. We don't know any details about the MIT story as of this point, right?

[Eliana Johnson]

No, and it tracks that. The reason it's unnerving is that we also have sort of really disturbing polls and surveys that show an increasing acceptance and tolerance and approval of political violence, particularly among younger Americans. And that is a change from previous generations that they say, you know, sometimes it's okay to kill your enemy. This is a new thing in, you know, the last 50 years of our history. And it is worrisome. It's, it's one of those trends that act that we really ought to pay very close attention to and to figure out how these kids are coming to this view of the world. And I do think it is linked to their experience of lack of institutional integrity and the fact that they've grown up in a world where they feel like all the systems that should work don't or have collapsed. I mean, these are, a lot of them are sort of COVID era kids. So. But that, that trend actually worries me because it suggests that this might only be the beginning of this sort of targeted violent era. And that's really something to be concerned about.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah. And the number of violent, I've mentioned this before, the number of violent ideologies is, is exploding and growing too. You know, everything from obviously anti Israel maniacs and left wing radicals to, to quote rationalists who, who are anti AI or you know, anti corporate violence. So it's, it's, there's sort of any, any excuse that that that can be mustered, can be turned into an ideology now. Violent ideology now.

[Eliana Johnson]

What else do you think the other thing that. I'm sorry, that we're turning the podcast into things that Eliana and I are obsessed with.

[Christine Rosen]

No, that's good.

[Eliana Johnson]

The Vanity Fair profile of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is certainly making the rounds. In fact, even the New York Times wrote a story about the story which tells you that it's the thing that everybody, certainly in the cultural and media sphere is discussing. And there are a number of things that we should get into that seem revelatory about some of the things she told this reporter. But we didn't get to it the other day and it has been bugging me. And I, our listeners are nice to indulge my coffee fueled rants, but I did want to state for the record my absolute appalling sense, sense of disappointment and the despicable nature of Donald Trump's tweet in the wake of Rob Reiner and his wife's murder. I found that to be abhorrent beneath the dignity of the office. I think it's actually, it was heartening to see that even on his own truth social posts among people who call themselves maga, hardcore believers even, they said, take this down. He didn't. He doubled down on it when asked about it. And I do think it's just the absolute vile narcissism revealed in that tweet suggests he probably does need. Maybe Susie Wiles should be exercising a firmer hand on his social media use. But it was really disappointing and I think it does not at all reflect how anyone on the conservative or even MAGA right feel about how the leader of our country should behave at a moment like that. So I just needed to get that off my chest.

[Christine Rosen]

No, it was, I mean, it's hard to even say this, but it was a low for him, you know, in terms of conduct.

[Eliana Johnson]

I think it was.

[Christine Rosen]

And so much so that it seemed that in the wake of it, people on the right went out of their way to pay tribute to Reiner without any mention of politics or ideology, to make a special point of it as a sort of correction for this horrific mistake. Yeah. So Susie Wiles, so she says Donald Trump has the personality of an alcoholic.

[John Podhoretz]

I have a maybe brief and uninteresting take on this. I talked to quite a few people, you know, in and around the White House yesterday and was asking, like, what exactly happened here? Because Susie Wiles, like, we don't hear a lot from her. You know, she's the White House chief of staff. She's incredibly highly regarded. She's very careful. And you know, our listeners may recall when Trump won in 2024, he, he, he called up Chris La Civita and Susie Wiles, his campaign managers, and he wanted them to come up to the podium. And La Civita may have come up, but Susie Wiles, like she, she didn't want to come up before the cameras and she is not a spotlight seeking person. And so I think it came as a real surprise to people to learn that she had sat for 11 interviews with Chris Whipple is the, I wouldn't really call him a journalist, but he's certainly a chronicler of the lives of White House chiefs of staff and he's written books about White House chiefs of staff. And then the, you know, several members of the administration posed for a sort of glamorous photograph with Vanity Fair. And so I do think it came as a surprise, certainly came as a surprise to me that she was talking to somebody who, you know, I would say is not aligned or friendly necessarily to the administration. But then I read what she said and she said Trump has an alcoholic's personality. She said JD Vance has been a conspiracy theorist for a decade and that his support for Trump was basically, you know, done a, was sort of political, done out of political convenience. Whereas whiles is Susie Wiles is a Floridian. She's known Marco Rubio for a long time. And she essentially said, you know, I think this was hard for Rubio and he ideologically had to kind of get himself there. She suggested that his conversion was a bit more genuine. She said that Elon Musk is an avowed ketamine user and he's an odd, odd duck. She talked about Russ Vogt, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and she described him as a right wing, absolute zealot. And she said that Pam Bondi completely whiffed, quote, completely whiffed in her handling of the Epstein files. And when, when I read all this, I kind of wondered. I don't think Trump would care about absolutely any of these things that she said. I think he would agree with most of them. I don't really think he would be bothered by it. And I think the White House's response to this suggests that this is all gonna blow over. Don't think it will matter. Certainly don't think the President was bothered. And so the question, to me, Wiles came out with a statement that said her quotes were taken out of context, she was misled. So the question I'm left with here is sort of what actually happened. Was she misled? Were her quotes mischaracterized? But I don't actually think that Susie Wiles is in any trouble here. And I don't think that the. Oh, and the thing I was actually left wondering was, is she speaking for the President? Did the President want her to do this? Like, are we dumb? Are we dumb and not understanding that there's something intentional happening here? Or did she actually, you know, make a mistake? Were her comments mischaracterized? That's what I'm left wondering.

[Christine Rosen]

I was had a similar question, broader, which is that, you know, because the thing Susie Wiles is known for is being so savvy, running such a tight ship, you know, not making mistakes, being the voice of sanity and reason. And you would just sort of have to think that one would think that she just, there's no way she would be blindsided by a hit job in this way. So was this all intentional in some sense? Yeah, I don't know.

[Eliana Johnson]

I think she knew exactly what she was doing. And the sort of feeble pushback on social media yesterday, once the story hit was just to calm the more crazed MAGA people who are like, how dare they, you know, put words in her mouth. She can't possibly believe this. I, the sense I got from the story was that she, you know, if you meet someone and you. Something's a little off about them and they're telling their stories and then they claim to reveal to you something like, oh, well, you know, I might have fibbed about this and it was just this little fib and they deliberately tell you that they told you an untruth, that's minor. And then you think, oh, now they're being honest with me. But there's a whole lot worse lying and other stuff they were doing behind the, the scenes. I feel like she was getting ahead of what any, you know, sort of disgruntled liberal reporter would write about this White House. Hence the posing with Stephen Miller and everybody, like, looking, you know, glamorous but also a little menacing because she, I'm sure she knew Vanity Fair would not give the Karine Jean Pierre glamour shot. It was going to be the close up of Carolyn Levitt's face. That poor woman never let these people do the close up. I mean, that's what they did it to Hillary once too in the New York Times. So I guess it's bipartisan. But I definitely got the sense that the line that struck me was when she sort of matter of factly stated two things. One, that coming in and winning in the second term meant that there really were no rules or guardrails for Trump and that everybody who works for him is absolutely on board with whatever he decides day to day to do. And she had a. I think it was, I might be botching the actual quote, but she said something to the effect of, you know, he just does exactly. He just doesn't think there are rules for him. He just does exactly what he wants. There's no limit. There's no limits for him. Like, he really does see himself as this person beyond the reach of norms or rules. And that is really shouldn't be something that's said matter of factly because he represents an institution. And I. The other stories that were, I was getting from friends because they care deeply about this stuff. And as someone who's lived in D.C. for more than 30 years, I do as well. You know, he's being sued by the Historic Preservation Trust and other places because he's starting to treat the federal government and the federal actual infrastructure, buildings and whatnot as his own personal empire. And we've, you know, alluded to this here and there, but he wants to repaint the, the Eisenhower Building. He wants, you know, obviously the ballroom and all this. But that, that sensibility finally clicked for me when I read those words that she told the reporter. I was like, oh, I get it. Like, he's like, there are no rules. I won again. I can do whatever I want. And that is going to affect his popularity with voters. It already is. The tariff stuff she pushed back on, which I thought was interesting. She and several other administration officials told him, you know, you need to cool it with the tariffs because people are feeling a lot of uncertainty and the economy is not where we want it to be. He just ignored them. So she was like, okay, so she's his enabler, which is actually what the White House chief of staff job sort of is that and keeping, you know, all the kids in, in line. But I was struck by how matter of fact she stated for the record that he just doesn't think the rules apply to him. I'm Oliver Darcy. And I'm John Passantino. We have spent years covering the inner workings of the news media, tech, politics, Hollywood and power. Now, through our nightly newsletter status.

[Christine Rosen]

And we're bringing that same reporting and.

[Eliana Johnson]

Sharp analysis to a new podcast, Powerlines. 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, no spin, no fluff, just sharp analysis that isn't afraid to call it like it is. We also pull back the curtain via our exclusive reporting to take you behind the scenes. 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 help. Hot takes. I just think Brad Pitt, honestly, he kind of seems a little washed up. 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.

[Christine Rosen]

I guess, I guess what I'm still wondering though is, is if she knew exactly what she was doing with this and, you know, and she wasn't blindsided, what is the purpose then of coming out and saying, J.D. vance has been a conspiracy theorist for years, Elon Musk is ketamine fueled and the President has the personality of an alcoholic. What purpose was this serving?

[Eliana Johnson]

We already knew this though. I mean, those of us who watch it, it's great. None of this is breaking news for.

[John Podhoretz]

One of the things I heard was, you know, her strength is that she's extremely candid and the people who work for her do absolutely love her and respect her. And it is in part, I think, because she's very candid and it appears she was actually pretty candid in these, in this interview. And I saw somebody say, you know, this may have been a signal to Pam Bondi to like, hey, you know, maybe think it's time to move on. I don't know whether that's true, but in terms of the purpose of the comments, like that's one of them, you know, saying Elon's an odd duck. I'm not sure that every comment had a purpose. That just seems like a truism, like that's their perception. You know, he does some weird stuff. And it seems like something Elon would probably acknowledge. Like the guys, you know, he's, he's, he can be an odd duck. And I'm not, I'm not sure about them, not sure every comment had a purpose, but some of them appear to. You know, you could argue that there.

[Eliana Johnson]

Was a purpose, but I mean, even take.

[Christine Rosen]

But in. Taken, you know, like in totality, the, the you. You're left with a portrait of a pretty wild administration. I mean, that, you know, that's, that.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, what else is new under the sun, you know, But.

[Christine Rosen]

Exactly. So then why. But that's what I'm saying. So why. What would be the purpose in reinforcing this impression that could only that can't help.

[Eliana Johnson]

Well, they didn't ask anything about, you know, the kind of the grift part of the Trump administration. I mean, I was, I found that notable that there was not any talk about the, you know, the coin bitcoin stuff and all the deal making. And there's a whole lot of stuff going on behind the scenes in terms of private public money and what I think an investigation might yield later on and certainly historians will uncover this in years to come about just general graft. She was asked about the January 6th pardons. I did think her answer to that is notable as well. That was another disagreement she had with Trump where she said, you know, we should have vetted that. I thought, you know, I told him that. So her, her transparency and her candor, as you say, Eliana is her superpower. And the other part of that piece is that when she walks in a room and Trump isn't in that room, everyone knows that she speaks for him. And so I think maybe showing that they don't agree 100% on everything, but she's 100. But the entire rest of the White House staff knows she does speak for him if he's not in the room. Shows his trust in her. And, but I did, I did think it was interesting that she, she's pointed out in very specific cases the pardons and the tariffs in particular, where she had disagreements with his decisions.

[John Podhoretz]

I should also note, I have not actually read the two Vanity Fair pieces because I freaking refuse to subscribe to pay for.

[Eliana Johnson]

Oh, I have a workaround. There's a workaround for the paywall.

[John Podhoretz]

So I should, everyone should know that I'm taking what Susie Wiles described as out of context quotes and reading them, pulled out of their context in the New York Times and then commenting on them. So take that for what you will.

[Eliana Johnson]

Peter Baker's summary in the New York Times was actually a fair, a pretty fair rendering of both parts of the Vanity Fair piece.

[Christine Rosen]

So, but it's not as if she's added context to what she says was taken out of context. Right.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, and that's what made me think.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah.

[John Podhoretz]

Also it's all on tape.

[Christine Rosen]

Right.

[John Podhoretz]

Baker does indicate in the New York Times that she denied saying that Elon Musk is on kind of mean. Look, I can't keep track of all the stuff that I've, you know, all the little comments I make either. But then that they, they, that Whipple actually played the tape where she can be heard saying that. So I assume that like they've got their seats on this stuff.

[Christine Rosen]

Well, I think that's. I think we're just going to have a short show today, considering. And again, hearts go out to, to John and his family and all Norman's grandkids, and, as Christine noted, all his great grandchildren. And for recommendation, I would say at this moment, I think it's important to read Norman Podhoritz's My Love Affair With America, actually, because I was actually rereading it last night, and it's, it's a sentiment that I need reinforced every now and then, and especially at the moment, and no one can reinforce it like he could. So I think that's it. So. So for Christine and Eliana and the absent John, Keep the candle burning.