Loading summary
Transcript172 lines
- [00:04]
John Podhoretz
Hope for the best Expect the worst.
- [00:11]
Matthew Continetti
Some preach and pain Some die of.
- [00:14]
Carl
Thirst the way of knowing which way.
- [00:18]
John Podhoretz
It'S going Hope for the best Expect.
- [00:21]
Abe Greenwald
The worst Hope for the best welcome.
- [00:25]
John Podhoretz
To the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. Today is Tuesday, July 8, 2025. I'm John Pothoricz, the editor of Commentary magazine. Yes, once again reminding you to go to our YouTube channel and please subscribe. Our numbers are growing by the day, and it is incredibly helpful in getting YouTube viewers to sample our wares. The more subscribers and the more likes we have, people in our general ideological orbit will be exposed by the algorithm to our content. A word I despise, but nonetheless, there it is. And, and, and will allow us to get into the more general conversation on some of the matters we'll be talking about today that are, you know, very populist in. In nature, but really grateful that everybody has followed Matt Continetti's lead in, In. In. In. In subscribing and liking. And, and this has been a really great thing for us. And so if you haven't done it yet, just give it a shot, then you might even want to give it a shot watching. I don't know if you're listening to the podcast. It's obviously something that you do because you're in the car. You're not going to watch it while you're in the car or something like that. But nonetheless, it would be a great, great thing if you did that for us. And by us, I mean small house. Today we got executive editor A. Greenwald. Hi, Abe.
- [02:01]
Abe Greenwald
Hi, John.
- [02:02]
John Podhoretz
And the aforementioned Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Conetti. Hi, Matt.
- [02:06]
Matthew Continetti
Hi, John. I just checked our YouTube page. We're at 16,900, which means if we're lucky, we'll cross 17,000 subscribers to our YouTube channel today. And remember, I set out the goal for 20,000 by Labor Day. I think, I think we can do it. It's feeling good if we maintain, you know, some of our shows are getting multiple thousand views. Yeah, and it's, it's really exciting because who wouldn't want to watch us for an hour and be able to identify the strange noises that often hear in the background?
- [02:44]
John Podhoretz
I want to talk very briefly about the strange. We keep getting emails about the strange noises. And apparently in the Spotify group that follows, there is some kind of commentary group on Spotify. People who follow keep saying, what are those strange noises? Well, some of them. And I'm now in a different location because of this. Some of them are because there's construction outside the window of Our office that even though we do this very early in the morning, has been starting very early in the morning. So, like, yesterday, you heard a lot of street noise at the end of the podcast. That was annoying. In podcasting, just to let you know, we have this program and you can mute your mic. You can. You can. When you're not speaking, you can hit mute. But sometimes when we have guests, they don't know this. And so you'll get some coughing and you'll get some breathing, and then often you'll get somebody multitasking where you'll start hearing keystrokes from a computer or, you know, or somebody's sipping coffee. Yeah. Sipping, slurping coffee stuff.
- [03:48]
Matthew Continetti
Dog sparking.
- [03:49]
John Podhoretz
Yeah. And so I would say. Yeah, I would just say the word.
- [03:54]
Matthew Continetti
The worst offender. And it wasn't his fault. But I remember a podcast, maybe in the past year or two years ago, even, where our friend Jim Meggs was recording from the back porch of his. Of his home, his beautiful home, when someone started up the leaf blower. You know, you don't want to record a podcast with the leaf blower.
- [04:14]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, without leaf blower. That's right. And so anyway, those are the strange noises. And the strange noises are the result of the fact that we can even do this the way we do this, which is that we're not in the same room, we're not in the same place. We're not in a. In a. In an airtight studio with sound baffles and things like that. And so ambient noise comes in. But I do agree that there are times when, you know, like a snort or, you know, somebody kind of making sort of breathing is a little. Is a little. Is a little disturbing. So that. That's the noise story. And yes, I don't know if you'll be able to. You would be able to identify the noises on the YouTube, but I have to watch myself, you know, carefully to see the extent to which those are somehow exposed by the.
- [05:04]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah.
- [05:05]
John Podhoretz
By what you can see visually. But anyway, that's the noise story. I'm in a very good mood today. I'm in a good mood about those YouTube numbers. And I'm in a good mood today because of yesterday at the White House. Yesterday at the White House was good Trump Day. Very good Trump Day. Very solid. Very happy with what's going on. And I got three things. One, very quickly, Trump, yet again revealing, or the administration revealing, that the revolution in tariffing is more notional than actual, probably. And that it's not going to be this worldwide Disruption, I don't believe based on what we're seeing, the worldwide disruption, I think a lot of us were worried was going to happen in February and March, so we could talk about that later or not. But more important was the meeting dinner, the working dinner with a lot of people around the table. So it wasn't much of a working dinner last night at the White House with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his team and Donald Trump and his team included, obviously, negotiator Witkoff, Marco Rubio, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Secretary of Defense Hegseth. Very prominent by his lack of presence seemed to be Vice President advance did not seem to be.
- [06:35]
Matthew Continetti
I figured out where he was, by the way, where he was on the west coast giving a speech to the Claremont Institute. Ah, well, he's headed back and apparently.
- [06:46]
John Podhoretz
Later meeting with him today. Right. But this meeting, according to readouts after the meeting was over, which I which came from a senior Israeli official and some people can guess who that senior Israeli official was, if, you know, in my, my estimation who it likely was. They're going very far now into the weeds on what a ceasefire and future for Gaza will look like, which includes a partial version of the Trump a lago plan or Gaza lago or whatever we want to call it. What do a Mara Gaza.
- [07:32]
Matthew Continetti
Mara, Gaza.
- [07:33]
John Podhoretz
Mara Gaza. Okay. Which is that. Which is that the population of Gaza is likely to be moved into one area of Gaza which will be secured and redeveloped so that Israel can hold and complete its task of eliminating Hamas as a political, military and indeed even presence in Gaza and prevent them from coming back. Where that's going to be exactly is not clear. It's a, it's a relatively radical step. Although to be fair, over the past six, seven months, or at least when the fighting was fighting was at its height, Israel was in telling Gazans that they needed to move around the Strip in order to avoid being in the middle of a military conflict. And they did. So remember the famous. It was going to take. What did Kamala Harris say it would take two months for Gazans to move from the south and Rafa north.
- [08:44]
Matthew Continetti
She studied the maps.
- [08:46]
John Podhoretz
The map said two months. And like it took them, I don't know, 96 hours, something like that. Sort of like it was like, what happens if there's a hurricane in Florida and, you know, million and a half people actually do manage to get out of southern Florida and get on the road and go somewhere else. And this is a lot closer, you know, getting from Rafah to, you know, Gaza City or Khan Yunus is a lot shorter. You know, it's kind of like the different distance between, you know, Key west, and it's not even the distance between Key west and Miami. It's more like this between Miami and Aventura or something like that. So, so it's, it's, it's a kind of radical thing. And it sounds very, it sounds bad, right? Like massive population relocation does not sound good in the world of how things sound. But basically, it now appears that the Trump administration is all in on its own proposal to say not only can't Hamas remain in power, but the lives of Gazans are going to be changed in order for Israel to achieve the security that it needs. And that change may be semi permanent or permanent, depending on how pacified Gaza is. So any these ideas that we've had over the last three months, that Trump might cave, he was going to give in, he wants a peace prize. He wants that, you know, from Iran to Gaza. Trump is toughening his stance, hardening his views. And we can talk about other ways in which that seems to be happening too.
- [10:28]
Matthew Continetti
I mean, I think Trump is the.
- [10:30]
John Podhoretz
Key figure here, the only figure, right.
- [10:34]
Matthew Continetti
BB BB Is a big figure too.
- [10:35]
John Podhoretz
No, no, but I mean in American politics. I mean, American response.
- [10:39]
Matthew Continetti
What I wanted to describe was BB has visited the White House now three times in six months. That's more trips than any other world leader. He's the only world leader to be invited more than once in this period. Throughout that time prior to America's Operation Midnight Hammer, when we joined Operation Rising lion to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Each trip Bibi took to the United States was followed by a flurry of leaks suggesting that there was tension between the US Israel relationship, that President Trump was angry at Bibi or frustrated with Bibi over the lack of progress toward a ceasefire in Gaza. And in retrospect, we can now see that those leaks were put into the press by anti Israel restrainers within the administration. Now, maybe some of the leaks were purposeful in order to set a ruse for the Iranians to let down their guard ahead of what happened during the 12 Day War. But we know that there are people who are hostile to the Trump foreign policy working inside the Trump administration. So the first lesson is be wary of any leaks that are generated after this meeting. The series of meetings Netanyahu with the president yesterday, he's going to be on Capitol Hill today. I think he's not returning to Israel until Thursday. So there may be even additional meetings on Wednesday. The second conclusion is the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu is similar to the relationship between Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher or even FDR and Winston Churchill. It is a extremely tight relationship. They seem to have not only genuine affection, but similar worldviews with one another. And that was best represented by the moment when Netanyahu presented President Trump with the letter he had sent to the Nobel Prize Committee nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. And President Trump, uncharacteristically, was a few words in response. He seemed genuinely kind of surprised and touched. Now, as an aside, the likelihood that the Nobel Committee is going to take Bibi Netanyahu's nomination seriously is very low, considering they're all a bunch of Euro weenie peaceniks who are anti Semites and anti Zionists and should all just go on a ferry to Greenland or something where we can supervise them once we take it over. Nevertheless, it was, I think, a signal moment in that relationship and a sign of how closely the two sides are working. I will just put it out there, though. You know, I think there are two tracks here. There's what's happening in D.C. and the conversations you described, John. But then there's also what's going on in Doha, where the Israeli team is apparently on a hotel floor above the Hamas team, and Wyckoff is set to go to the region later this week as well. And it's just unclear to me what Hamas will accept or what Israel will accept, because there are certain things Israel cannot accept that Hamas is demanding, including giving up a corridor that would be crucial to creating the safe zone you describe, as well as a commitment or even a guarantee by the United States that at the end of the 60 day ceasefire, the war would end permanently. Israel can't agree to either of those titles.
- [14:31]
John Podhoretz
I just, I just.
- [14:32]
Abe Greenwald
Before we get there, I just want to make one more point about this close relationship between the two. There's also something extraordinary happening within the Israeli population, which is that if you see interviews with those Israelis who want an end to the war and the hostage family coalitions who are very interested in ending and winding the war down and getting the hostages back, they all are singing Trump's praises too. They speak as if he. They say he is the only man who has and can get our people back, there's an incredible groundswell of affection for Trump there as well.
- [15:19]
John Podhoretz
It's even. It's more interesting. I mean, it's more complicated than that, because not ordinarily one would expect that the people who are holding these views in Israel and the view in Israel effectively is we should end the war tomorrow where things stand in exchange for all the hostages being being brought home at once. So stop it. Tell Hamas we're done in exchange for all the hostages coming back on mass. So this is an almost impossible demand inside is just as a simple logistical matter of where you want to be when the war is over, where you want to be even if you have a ceasef. And a lot of that is just the is based in this pretty sick but pretty seriously held concept on the part of pretty large number of Israelis that Bibi wishes to perpetuate the war for his own to keep his own political power or to hold his coalition together or something like that. This is a slanderous and pretty awful thing to say. Even if you don't like Bibi and think he's a snake and you don't like his judicial reforms and stuff like that, to accuse him of wanting the hostages to remain in captivity for his own naked political reasons is a vicious slander. And they're now effectively because of the strike on Iran, having changed the entire dynamic, entire political system in Israel being supportive of the idea that Iran could never get a nuclear weapon. And now an extraordinary set of measures have been taken to advance that goal. Somebody's got to get credit for it. And Trump was already very popular in Israel and now he is universally popular in Israel because they're giving him credit for the Iran strike and they're giving him credit for helping get hostages out and they'll give giving him credit for the, you know, the dew in the morning and this and the sunset at night so they can avoid the fact that their hatred of Netanyahu has led has nonetheless been he has refused to cow tower, cave to them, ended up getting America's role in the Iran mission that is the universally popular in Israel and is pretty close to securing Israel's national aim in Gaza. And so there's a churlishness here. Trump's popularity is therefore part of the increasingly insane Israeli domestic stance toward Bibi. Logically to be said about we published very serious criticisms of what happened before October 7th in the Israeli government that he led and over the years that he was prime minister and all of that. So we're I'm not this is not the Bibi fan club we're talking about here. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And if you want to look at this Trump, this position that Trump is in that is unique practically in the annals of anything, as far as I can tell in Israel with, like a 95% approval rating, something like that. You know, you have to look at it through the lens of Israel's own domestic politics. Now, in terms of our domestic politics and what's going on there, I just think it's very interesting that what everyone says is, Bibi, now he wants a ceasefire. I mean, Trump wants a ceasefire, but how do we know? I mean, he says, I'm hoping we're going to announce a ceasefire. I want to see a ceasefire. It's not that he doesn't say it himself, but the lot. The way people think that is, or say what that means is concede to Hamas, give Hamas stuff that Hamas wants, negotiate with Hamas, figure out where that goes. Any failure to secure a ceasefire is going to be Israel's fault because it's not giving Hamas enough of what it wants. And Trump will be angry at Israel for not doing what he wants it to do. And I think that that is. Now, that's been a kind of low thrum during all of these conversations. Sort of like the way Matt talked about the leaks, about Trump being angry and Witkoff waking Bibi up out of his bed on Shabbat and all that. That's not what Trump means. Trump clearly wants Hamas defeated. He also now views this war as kind of an ancillary war for the United States. And Israel's victory over Hamas, he will view as an American victory over Hamas. And so the ceasefire would be the ceasefire that helps Israel and not that helps Hamas.
- [20:50]
Matthew Continetti
I also think it doesn't quite understand how Trump talks. I mean, when Trump talks, he's always saying that he wants peace. He's always saying, I want to have a ceasefire. It doesn't matter what conflict you're talking about. Even in the meeting yesterday with Netanyahu at the White House, the subject of Iran came up and Trump was like, we want to have peace with Iran. They want a meeting. We're going to talk to them next week. When asked if he would hit the Iranian nuclear facilities again, Trump said, I hope it doesn't come to that. I don't think they would want that. I don't want that. But of course, the subtext is, of course he'll hit them again. Of course he'll let Israel hit them again.
- [21:35]
Abe Greenwald
He said as much.
- [21:36]
Matthew Continetti
I mean, he said as much multiple times. But rhetorically, when he's confronting the outside world and war zones, he's always presenting this picture of, yes, I want peace, I want us to get all along, let's make a deal. It's transactional. Politics. Well, the reality is he will come again and again to the point where he says, well, this isn't working, I can't make a deal, I have to do something else. It's what he's done in the past when attempted ceasefire proposals in Gaza don't go anywhere, right, or Hamas rejects them. Trump has said, look, Hamas is rejected. We can't do it. Israel's got to do what it wants to do. It's what happened with Iran. We're up to the gosh, the almost the night before the B2 hit for now, and the other two facilities, Trump was saying, I don't know, maybe we can make a deal. I hope we can do this peacefully and of course we'll talk about this later in the show. But he's also been saying the same thing about Ukraine and Russia, always saying, we want a deal, we want to want a deal. Now he's changing his his policy or really not change. He's making an affirmative step on his policy by announcing the delivery of defensive systems to Ukraine.
- [22:54]
John Podhoretz
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 product's 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/commerce 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 trend setter, 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. Their 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 quints 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. Go to quints.com commentary for free shipping on your order and and 365 day returns. That's Q U Y N C E.com commentary to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com/complyment this is where Trump is not a revolutionary figure in foreign policy terms, but maybe even an evolutionary figure or a throwback figure, by which I mean what was, what was the strike on Iran? Was it, was it different in kind or degree or whatever from say Reagan strikes on Libya? I don't think so. Reagan's invasion of Grenada, the tanker war under Reagan war. Right. So Reagan had this used to recite this line which is from the 5th century Roman Renatus, you know, which is Siwis pakam parabellum. If you want to make peace, prepare for war. This war in Israel, the set, the seven front war is defensive in the sense that the whole purpose of this is to reestablish deterrence. Israel is seeking to re establish meaning. Stop saying you want to destroy us by the end of this war. If you came to us to destroy us, we're going to ruin you Hamas. But we're not looking to overthrow and take over the countries that attacked us or whatever we disengaged from Gaza. We are looking to reestablish deterrence. We are making war to make peace. And if you want to make peace, prepare for war. And so the problem with the you want to make peace, prepare for war, which is what Trump learned with Iran, is that you prepare for war to make peace, and then if it's clear that the belligerent on the other side has no interest in standing down because of your preparations, you either have to act or look impotent. So, you know, you're left with few options. And, you know, I don't want to now say that Trump is, in foreign policy terms, a neocon, because calling him a neocon or calling anybody, calling, assuming that there's a logical consistency to Trump's foreign policy views even now would be problematic, because obviously he's.
- [28:32]
Matthew Continetti
May I?
- [28:33]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, okay.
- [28:33]
Matthew Continetti
If you want.
- [28:34]
John Podhoretz
Just to finish. Yeah. But he is following the Reagan. Yeah, that's what I want to pick policy, which is. And Reagan only once failed to live up to his own approach and, by the way, led to 40 years of horror. And that was when he did not strike after the blowing up of the Marine barracks in. In Lebanon in 1983 by the nascent group Hezbollah.
- [29:05]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah.
- [29:05]
John Podhoretz
And Casper Weinberg, his defense secretary, effectively figured out a way to prevent him from doing that. And again, you sort of, look, we're on a counter history, and if America had bombed Hezbollah in 1983, Hezbollah might not have survived that incursion, that effort, and we would be looking at a very different Middle east today.
- [29:29]
Matthew Continetti
And I'll say, actually, that example is interesting because under the emerging Trump doctrine, the one tenet is if you kill an American, then we are sure to retaliate. Whereas with Reagan, in response to the Marine barracks bombing, he withdrew. It was a horrible event. But, yes, that was a signal event. I want to dwell on this for a second, because I think you mentioned neocon, Then we mentioned Reagan. I do think there was a slight misunderstanding of Reagan's foreign policy back in the 1990s, when people in our orbit were talking about a neo Reaganite foreign policy. Because what neo Reaganite was, was Reaganite in the sense that Reagan was always talking about the importance of democracy. He was always using human rights as a wedge against the Soviets. He truly believed in American exceptionalism and American ideals. That was part of his rhetoric. It was part of his diplomacy. It was baked in the cake. And we don't see that with Donald Trump. Right. Trump is much more of a realist in his rhetoric. However, operationally, when it came to the military, Reagan was extremely reluctant to deploy U.S. forces. He.
- [30:55]
John Podhoretz
His foreign.
- [30:55]
Matthew Continetti
His actual military policy was the military policy of the punitive strike or the. The raid. Right. And that's what we saw Whether it was in Libya or Iran or with Grenada, you know, it was Grenada. It was kind of, kind of a pushover. You know, that was some. He was very reluctant to deploy massive ground forces, however, in the 1990s. Massive ground deployments in order to secure stability. Stability and reassurance or ultimately to change regimes. That became, I think tied into the idea of neo Reaganism. But in fact, what a true neo Reaganism would be. Idealistic rhetoric and diplomacy and aware awareness that America can use our ideological weapon, our, Our uniqueness, our, Our ideals, our principles in the global arena. We're being very. Where. While also being very wary of putting American troops at risk, but open to using the Air force, the navy, our special forces.
- [32:10]
Abe Greenwald
But you know what's interesting though, Trump does make a kind of alternate idealistic promise rhetorically when he's talking about making peace or waging war with all these countries, regions. It's not about freedom, democracy. It's about greatness, peace and prosperity, Money.
- [32:34]
John Podhoretz
Right.
- [32:35]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah.
- [32:35]
Abe Greenwald
And trade. Right. An opportunity. We can, you know, we can make Iran great again, know, as he said, and, and give, give Syria a shot at greatness. You know, like he has.
- [32:48]
Matthew Continetti
They call us, they call us utopian.
- [32:50]
Abe Greenwald
Exactly, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But he does have this, this line that is very different obviously.
- [32:57]
John Podhoretz
But I mean it is really interesting because human rights also during Reagan's time was a cudgel. I mean, also in Carter's time. I mean, it's complicated story, too deep to get into that. It was almost an afterthought of the effort to make detente with the Soviet Union that there was language inserted in the so called Helsinki Accords in 1975 that essentially created the human rights movement inside the Soviet Union that helped lead to its downfall. That it was something the Soviets did not understand what they were doing when they agreed to this language in the Helsinki Accords. But human rights was then. And promoting human rights and saying we would support, you know, democratic movements and stuff like that, maybe with COVID money and maybe not, was a way of not engaging militarily. It was a way of saying we are going to fight the bad guys with our rhetoric, with our sort of civil society moves and organizations that could help you write a constitution if you got a new government or help you set up appropriate civil society institutions that would, you know, help liberate people and all of that. It was something to do that did not involve the use of military power or covert action or something like that. It was a third, it was another front that was demilitarized. Interestingly. George H.W. bush, the weenie. He was a wimp, the wimp factor. People said this in 1988, he comes into power, he and his Secretary of state were weirdly skeptical about the human rights agenda being much more. And Brent Scowcroft is now infamously so.
- [34:59]
Matthew Continetti
In the case of Tiananmen Square.
- [35:01]
John Podhoretz
Tiananmen Square, and, and, and, and Ukraine, by the way. Yeah, Chicken Kiev, Chicken Kiev speech. But Bush, a veteran, right, a war hero, 58 combat missions, crashed his plane into the ocean, had to be, had to be saved from, you know, from the Pacific Ocean. He was, he did not hesitate, went to war in Panama and then he went to war and you know, he went to war and obviously in Kuwait and Iraq and then took military action in Somalia at the very tail end of his administration. So he was the wimpy guy who didn't care about human rights and was very, not very fashion forward and all that, but had no problem with the, and, and literally said at some point, I don't remember if it was, if it was Iraq or if it was Panama, when he said, by golly, we've beaten this Vietnam syndrome. Meaning America had lost its taste for military action because of the loss in Vietnam and that he had overcome it or that America had overcome it in these two victories. So Trump doesn't, isn't interested in human rights. Very clear. He doesn't care about human rights. But the other parts of this Reagan are very resonant with him and I think resonant with the vast majority of the American people in the sense that does anybody really care now that we did a 37 hour flight mission where we had planes flying at 30,000ft dropping bunker busters on Iran, does that seem excessively militaristic? Did the predictions of the Tucker Carlson Wing that it would lead to thousands of deaths and a multi front war in the Middle east pan out? No. It seems to be almost the perfect application of overwhelming military force when you have the largest and the most powerful military in the world that you can do things in one day that it would take another military two years to achieve and accomplish on the ground. That's why we have built up the military that we built up and he's willing to use it. And, and the other country in the world that is willing to use military force to advance its aims and protect itself is the state of Israel. So there we have a total confluence, a meeting of the minds. Because Bibi's not sitting around going, I really need to figure out how to bring democracy to the Palestinians. I really want, when I go to Gaza, you know, it's important the day after we have to figure out how to make elections, that we'll build a civil society. He's like, you know what? We're done with all of that. You came, you attacked us. We're destroying your, this group that has been governing the Gaza strip now for 18 years. And you know what? We'll move you around, we'll figure out in order to keep ourselves, and then you then will provide food and stuff like that. But you figure it out. The hell with you. Like, we're not, we're not, we're not building your civil society anymore. We gave you a shot. We gave you our greenhouses, you burned them down, you threw them away, and then you started an 18 year war against us and we're done. And no wonder Trump, like, hears resonances of his own heart in Bibi's approach. Because Bibi is unsentimental. He's uninterested in, you know, he's uninterested in playing the internationalist game. Right? He's willing to suffer the slings and arrows of worldwide hatred of himself and his opinions and the people that he represents in Israel, because in the end, what matters is what the results are on the ground and how safe, how much safer Israel is when he's done. And that's Trump to a T. We.
- [39:09]
Matthew Continetti
Should, of course, we were talking about states that use military power. I also thought of Russia, right? And that's. Vladimir Putin does have that sense of his national interests.
- [39:22]
John Podhoretz
I meant Western democracy.
- [39:24]
Matthew Continetti
Yes, no, but you're right, but that is kind of, you know, there are very few powers in the world left that use military power to advance their national interests. And of course, Russia's national interests are revanches and imperialist. And in fact, it's not actually in the Russian national interest to start all these wars. But nonetheless, that's what Putin does. And the other big news that came out of the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump didn't have anything to do with the Middle east where all this action is occurring. It has to do with the Russia Ukraine war, which began a year, almost two years before the October 7th war in February of 22. And that was Trump's announcement that the United States would be sending defensive weapons to Ukraine, overturning the decision reported last week of Trump's Pentagon, a policy initiated by the Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby and signed off by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, to pause weapon shipments to Ukraine in order to preserve our stockpiles. In a call earlier this week with Volodymyr Zelensky, the Prime Minister, the President of Ukraine, Trump told Zelensky that he had not been informed of this decision, that he was very displeased with it. And that of course, as we have all become aware over the past week, he is increasingly displeased and skeptical of Vladimir Putin. So this was huge news last week, rather, last night. The Pentagon announced in a release this morning that the shipments were resuming and that will help save lives in Ukraine, because since Trump administration has distanced itself from Ukraine, Putin has only increased the scale and for ferocity of his drone and missile assaults on the Ukraine civilian population. And many, many have died. And so this, this weapons aid will help save Ukrainian lives. And it could even be the beginning of a larger shift in Trump policy, applying pressure to Putin. Unlike the past six months where much of Trump's efforts have been in getting Zelensky to accept the notion of a aspirational ceasefire, and we should say that.
- [42:02]
Abe Greenwald
All the reports of his conversation with Zelensky, there's, it's unlike the past, it's all flowers and rainbows and both parties are pleased. And Trump is continuing, the administration is continuing to put pressure on Europe to cough up missile defense.
- [42:22]
John Podhoretz
For Zelensky, in an eerie echo of what Trump said about the 2019 conversation that led to his first impeachment, said, this was the best phone conversation I've ever had.
- [42:37]
Matthew Continetti
Perfect call.
- [42:37]
John Podhoretz
It was a perfect phone call because obviously he has lived in this state of high anxiety. And particularly after the ambush in the Oval Office by JD Vance, Zelensky has found himself in a very weird position in relation to Trump, trying to make sure that he maintains open lines of communication with the hostility, very open hostility shown to him by parts of the administration. All the question, as with, let's go back to Reagan, right? So the Reagan line by the, by the most ideological parts of the Republican or the right wing coalition was let Reagan be Reagan, meaning if Reagan had his way, the State Department would be closed. If Reagan had his way, we would bomb Russia in five minutes. And Reagan had his way. But the deep, what we didn't even think of as the deep state, the deep state, the Washington consensus, the media, whatever, are stopping him from being himself. This, of course, was a preposterous fiction. Reagan's views and how he conducted himself and where are consistent from the time he became governor of California. He's much more pragmatic, as all successful politicians are, much more pragmatic. Much more situational figure, did what he could do to advance his interests when.
- [44:02]
Matthew Continetti
He could do it. I do blame Nancy. I think Nancy told him at night, ronnie, don't go all conservative on me and say, ok, you know, but that's.
- [44:12]
John Podhoretz
Also letting Reagan be Reagan.
- [44:14]
Matthew Continetti
Right. That's him. President.
- [44:16]
John Podhoretz
Without Nancy saying to him, you can be president, United States. I don't think it, you know, he. But what I mean by this is we have now, we have been assuming that. And so has the maga, right. That letting Trump be Trump meant isolationism, you know, tariffs, all of this. And this just may have been a grotesque misunderstanding. Well, what it means to let Trump. First of all, Trump, no one's not letting Trump be Trump. Except last week when Bridge Colby, without telling him, or he and Hegseth decided on their own because Trump had said, yeah, let's review the arms that we're sending to Ukraine in order to make sure that our stockpiles aren't, you know, being overly depleted since we've had to send so much stuff to Israel. So we'll do a review. And they're like, great, let's do a review. We're gonna stop everything. And then he's like, I didn't say that. Who the hell are you people? He's attacking his own people, saying, I didn't know anything about this to a foreign leader.
- [45:24]
Matthew Continetti
Well, that's similar to his treatment of Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, who's also part of that restrainer clique inside the administration. Yeah, let Trump be Trump is not the same as Let Trump be Bannon. They're two very different people.
- [45:40]
John Podhoretz
They want Trump to be banned. Tucker wants. So Tucker Carlson, I think, has figured out that, that this is. He has figured out Trump and that's why he is now establishing himself as the fixed point on the, the anti mog, the anti maga fixed point on the right. Pro Tucker antima, which is leading anti American podcaster. Yeah, I'm going to go interview the president of Iran and give him like two hours of propaganda time because that's where this is headed. Trump thinks that it's a good idea for Tucker Carlson to spend two hours with the president of Iran. Oh, I'm sure giving him, you know, it's like, you know, you're declaring war on me, I'm declaring war on you. Good luck. I'm just saying that, you know, this is a very.
- [46:33]
Matthew Continetti
And they're saying kind words about Mamdani, by the way, Tucker and Marjorie Taylor Greene in a Podcast list last week said that Mamdani gets it. Bannon, in an interview with the FT over the weekend, said Mamdani is the future because he's a left wing populist. Whereas Trump last night had a great, great comments on Mamdani, in my humble opinion, where he called him a communist and he hates Israel and I'm not going to let it happen. I'm not going to, I'm going to stop him. And in interesting contrast, Netanyahu was like, I can handle this guy, which I also like.
- [47:14]
John Podhoretz
What are you going to do about New York? Right? He said, Mamdani said he'll arrest you if you come to New York. And Bibi said I could handle it. And Trump said, I'll get you out. They arrest you, I'll get you out anyway. I just think that letting Trump be Trump, we are now, we now have seven months of evidence in this second, in this second first term that he is a much more shaded figure in terms of the expression of American power and authority than we had any right to expect, even given the way he was talking during the campaign and from his first term. But before I'm just going to finish this and then I'm going to mute myself. The one through line in foreign policy from 2017 to 2025 is steadfast support for Israel. He's changing on NATO, he's bounced all around on China, he's bounced all around on North Korea, he's bounced all around on Iran, he's bounced all around on Russia and on Ukraine. 2017 onward, you know, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, pulling out of the jcpoa, recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the Abraham Accords, and now everything that's happened since January 20th. This is an Israel first foreign policy. Tucker Carlson and suck on it, buddy.
- [48:58]
Matthew Continetti
Here's, here's one, here's, here's one point of danger for Trump and that is immigration. I think the Israel foreign policy piece he's been very consistent on. I read Christopher Caldwell piece on in compact yesterday that I had missed prior to Operation Midnight Hammer where he said that no one's in Trump's base had voted for a war with Iran. I think that was a terrible misstatement because what people had voted for if they supported Trump was preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which as we see, does not mean a quote unquote, war with Iran. It meant a nuclear strike, rather not a nuclear strike, a strike on nuclear facilities.
- [49:48]
John Podhoretz
Want to make myself clear, that was.
- [49:51]
Matthew Continetti
A Reaganite moment on my part. As part of Israel's 12 day campaign.
- [49:57]
John Podhoretz
Right.
- [49:57]
Matthew Continetti
So that it is in line with what Trump has been saying for a decade. On immigration, Trump has also always been clear. And right now, if you listen to MAGA folks, there is a great deal of worry over some type of immigration reform that will legalize the status of whether it's migrant workers and kind of processing workers like the meat packers and such, the canners and or other parts of the, the illegal population in the United States. If that were to happen, I do think the chances of a ultra MAGA primary challenger in 2028 increase exponentially right now. On the foreign policy, it's foreign policy. There's a lot of room here. You saw with the one big beautiful bill. Of course it alienated Elon Musk. There are people who will be annoyed with deficits and debt if they continue to rise. Though we should say that in the past six months, the government has taken in $100 billion in tariff funds, which is pretty extraordinary when you think about it. So that there are revenues other than the tax increases that so many people on the left and on the new right want is my point. You do have. On immigration, if there's some reform there, if there's like some attempt to legalize the dreamers, say down the road, you would get, I think, a challenger to the mainstream MAGA candidate, J.D. vance, that that could complicate things in the 2028 Republican primary. And I think that's why, among other reasons, including just belief, Vance has always been careful to position himself on the kind of rightmost edge of the Trump coalition because he too is looking over his shoulder. He needs Trump's endorsement, but he also needs to clear a path to that 2028 nomination.
- [52:08]
John Podhoretz
You know, I think, excuse me, to.
- [52:10]
Abe Greenwald
Be honest, the way that we've been talking about how there is this segment of MAGA that takes what Trump has done, makes something else out of it, opposes it, I think no matter what, there's going to be some sort of MAGA plus challenge to MAGA in the.
- [52:31]
John Podhoretz
Future.
- [52:34]
Abe Greenwald
Whether or not there's reform on his immigration approach or not.
- [52:40]
John Podhoretz
What if everything you've been taught about happiness is wrong? We chase careers, approval, more stuff hoping it'll finally make us feel feel fulfilled, but it never sticks. What if happiness isn't out there but already inside you, just waiting to be unlocked? Discover the book, the Happiness Experiment.
- [52:57]
Matthew Continetti
Every person has a unique happiness type.
- [53:00]
John Podhoretz
And when you understand yours, everything shifts.
- [53:03]
Matthew Continetti
You'll stop chasing and start creating joy.
- [53:05]
John Podhoretz
On your own terms. Discover your happiness Type with a free happiness type assessment. Go to myhappinesstype.com that's my happinesstype.com it takes just a minute and it might change your life. Then grab your copy of the Happiness.
- [53:21]
Matthew Continetti
Experiment at Books a Million.
- [53:23]
John Podhoretz
This isn't just a book. It's a practical framework, a journey inward. It's a tool to help you reconnect.
- [53:28]
Matthew Continetti
With the happiness that's been waiting inside you all along.
- [53:31]
John Podhoretz
Pick up the Happiness Experiment and start your happiness experiment today. Hey, it's John here. I want to talk to you today about our friends at Boland Branch. You know it's a time of truth telling. We all are sick of lies and myths like myths like cold weather can give you a cold. We only use 10% of our brains. You know what else is a myth? Thread count. You've heard about thread count and sheets and how you need a high thread count in order to have a nice sheet. This is a huge myth. Many people believe it, but it is a myth. It is simply a measure of fabric density. It is not a good indicator of quality. If you want to great sheets, you need to look at thread quality, not count. And you know who uses the highest quality cotton threads for long lasting sheets that get softer over time? Bowl and branch. I know because I got bowl and branch sheets. I use them. They're fantastic. They feel different the minute you open them and put them on your bed. They feel different every time you wash them. They get softer. You sink into the sheets. You feel a difference in the way you sleep. You feel yourself not being too hot, too cold. You feel them making your evening and your night better. So they're made with the finest 100% organic cotton and a soft, breathable, durable weave. And these products have a quality you can feel immediately. It come with a 30 night worry free guarantee. You know what that means? That means if you don't like them, you send them back. Get the best savings of the season. During Boland Branch's annual summer event. Get 20% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bolandbranch.com commentary that's B O L L A N D B R- A N C-H.com commentary to save 20% and unlock free shipping, limited time only exclusions apply. I completely agree with you. I mean I think, you know, it's funny be talking about this so early but obviously you know Vance is not going to walk into the nomination. We are. We already know that. Because even if he's anointed by Trump, the political dynamic in the United States does not permit such things to happen. Bernie Sanders nearly got the nomination away both from Biden and from Hillary Clinton in 20 when Hillary, the hands were laid on Hillary and it was like, no, no, nobody's laying hands on anybody. This is an American. This is a choice of the, of the, you know, of this primary choice for, you know, 35 million people or however many people voted in the Democratic primary. You're not telling us he's not going to walk in. So the obvious thing is going to be whether there's a fight for that lane between say, him and Rubio or him and somebody, you know, somebody else who distinguishes himself in this administration and they can have differing views on how to pursue the future. And then one of these figures for whom Trump, you know, who want to jump leapfrog Trumpism, you know, into stark nationalism or stark isolationism or something like that. You know, we're gonna have some, we're gonna have some prior indications of that next year in the senatorial elections. We have a very interesting situation going on in Texas where John Cornyn, who ought to be popular among Texans, is losing in these primary polls to the very radical Attorney General Ken Paxton. So much so that there's a, some kind of weird Machiavellian thing going on where somebody else may jump in to the race to dilute Paxton to get Cornyn through a sort of another more MAGA type who will then obviously would be in the race as a spoiler for Patterson because there's no reason for Corner to lose. If that doesn't work, which it probably won't, then you'll have this. John Cornyn is a hundred percent with Trump voter does everything he's supposed to and all of that, but he's not good enough. And so if as goes Texas, so goes the rest of the Republican Party, maybe, who knows? I mean, I don't know. So there are going to be some, we're going to get some forensic.
- [58:26]
Matthew Continetti
I think the question is, is it a Bernie Sanders level challenge or is it A Pat Robertson versus George H.W. bush in 1988 challenge? And I'll just say if you think about the three two term Republican, Republican and Democratic presidencies in the last 70 years. You know, Eisenhower, Vice President Richard Nixon got the nomination in 1960. I don't know who, if he was challenged. I'm sure there was some primary. It wasn't a modern primary system, but Nixon got it. Reagan's Vice President George H.W. bush gets the nomination. 88. He had a few challengers but he got the nomination. I mean, and Al Gore, Clinton's two term vice president, gets the nomination in 2000 after kind of an ineffectual primary campaign by Senator Bill Bradley. So weirdly, since 2000 we haven't had that because Dick Cheney didn't want to be president. And then Obama probably foolishly decided that Biden's time was done and Hillary Clinton had to be the nominee. So I think we're on track for a similar thing at the end of this term. Whereas the vice president is kind of the establishment figure though in an anti establishment party, by the way. Maybe that won't be, maybe that won't mean much. I don't know.
- [59:50]
John Podhoretz
And by the way, as you point out, I mean, since you mentioned, you know, Pat Robertson in and Pat Buchanan and others in, in 88, Bush lost Iowa.
- [60:06]
Matthew Continetti
Oh yeah. No, they'll always.
- [60:08]
John Podhoretz
In 92, you know, Bush was, this wasn't a reelection Bush, what was his reelection? Got 38% against Bush in New Hampshire. In 96. The. All the anointed, all the people who were supposed to win. Walk into nominations. Never walk into nominations.
- [60:28]
Matthew Continetti
Well, there's a great old line I learned from Fred Barnes, which is the Republican Party always nominates the front runner, but not before humiliating him first.
- [60:38]
John Podhoretz
Right.
- [60:38]
Matthew Continetti
And that was, that was, that was kind of, kind of true. In 16 though, it was because it turned out that the, even though Jeb went in ahead in the polls and with all this money, the actual front runner, it was clear by August was Trump. But yeah, but we might be in store for that again in 28.
- [60:58]
John Podhoretz
Right. And so, so the Vance thing is interesting. Again, he wasn't sitting at the table, so he had something else to do, which he certainly could have canceled if he thought it was really important for him to be present. I mean, granted, you obviously need the endorsement of the Claremont Institute in order to become president. That's a famous, you know, very, very important for the future.
- [61:21]
Matthew Continetti
It does connect with what we've just been talking about.
- [61:23]
John Podhoretz
It very much does.
- [61:24]
Matthew Continetti
And that's keeping that flank happy.
- [61:26]
John Podhoretz
That is, that's too, too, too deep to go into. But the Ukraine stuff, just to get back to it, what Trump said, again, showing that he's a more flavored figure than I certainly would have given him credit and I think wasn't in the first term and that we're learning things about him every day in the second term is he's mad at Putin. It's like he thinks he's given Putin every opportunity and figures Putin should Just take his wins. Whatever territory he's gotten, stop and move on. And Putin's not doing it. And he. It took him until this week, maybe, and maybe he'll change his tune next week. So maybe I'm wrong to say he's not negotiating in good faith. I just realized something. I'm not on my mic. I've been talking through the.
- [62:31]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah, you haven't heard it because you're not in the right.
- [62:36]
John Podhoretz
It's my mic, and I've been, like, talking into it the whole time, and I'm using my Mac.
- [62:40]
Matthew Continetti
We've known. Abe and I have been able to tell. But the truth is, since you're not in the office, it's fine. We can't hear the air condition and the construction crew and the emergency vehicles.
- [62:52]
John Podhoretz
And the pedestrian traffic should be better. I know. Anyway, I'm sorry. I just thought it was funny that I've been sitting here talking into a dead mic anyway. But I just think that the situation that he is in is that he's like, well, again, like, the hell with you. I've spent six months kind of. Kind of advancing your interest, like saying, I figure, you know, you know what? I'm going to let you have what you took in Ukraine. That's my part of the peace deal, is I'm going to affirm that you can have what you've taken.
- [63:25]
Abe Greenwald
I still think what is off the table, though, forever, is helping Ukraine win. I don't think that's in Trump's Trump administration's future plans.
- [63:36]
John Podhoretz
I. Look, I think we knew that last year.
- [63:41]
Matthew Continetti
Well, I think. I think it. I think it depends on the meaning of win. Not to sound too Clintonian, but, you know, the situation on the ground in Ukraine is very complex. Russia has been making gains, but the gains are tactical. They're not strategic. It's been more than a year since Ukraine, since Russia has taken a major city or provincial capital. So even though Russia's been gaining on the ground, Ukraine is so vast that it would, you know, it's like this. It's like a glacial movement. Right. At the same time, if Ukraine can hold out, I think, for. For a year or so more, the. The capacity of the Russian economy and the Russian military begins to slightly break down. And so, you know, does this mean that Ukraine is going to recover all of its lost territory going back to 2014? No. But I do think with additional support and with the. I. I'm hoping part of this change in direction includes adopting the Graham Blumenthal sanctions bill. That's in the Senate and could come up for a vote this week. When you combine that with increased European aid, we're trying to get the Europeans to use the frozen assets in order to spend on Ukrainian drone and other defensive capabilities. I do think there's still the potential for some, some type of result that will leave the majority of Ukraine in a pro Western democratic state. It will look like the Korean peninsula, but it will still be better than the worst outcome, which would be regime change in Ukraine and a Russia that now feels empowered to move to other targets in Europe.
- [65:42]
John Podhoretz
I mean, I think that's a very measured, long term thing thought process here that, you know, basically would mean that when this is all over the world, historical mistake that Putin made in doing this in the first place will have been revealed. It will be impossible not for, for the world and for Russia and everybody else, no matter what the propaganda is inside Russia, not to see that Putin's effort to reintegrate the source of the Rus and Russian Novo Russia and all of that, that it failed and that he didn't get what he wanted at the, at a cost of unbelievable manpower and expense and weaponry and all of that. And that it won't be a defeat for Ukraine per se. And what's more, I mean, not to get sort of like weirdly future thinking, but you know, you've got, you've got the Donbas and you've got Crimea in Russian hands, but they're not, they're not going to be pacified. That's not going to be or, and whatever chunk of, you know, the, the, you know, the, the shoreline there is beyond the land bridge, they're not going to just sit there and allow themselves to be integrated into Russia. They'll be a gorilla. It'll be a perpetual guerrilla war against a Soviet military that will have had its heart and soul punched out of it. You think they're going to want to face down these nationalist guerrilla forces in the Donbas and in Crimea, which will probably in this scenario be getting all kinds of logistical and quiet support from Kiev and even maybe from Europe. You know, it's not, not, but it is not the victory. It is not what I think Trump will get from Israel, which is that Trump will get from Israel a transformative victory that, that will put his, his stamp as well as Bibi stamp on the 21st century. He could have that, he could have had that. He doesn't want it. It's, that's not in his wheelhouse to want and that's unfortunate, but it, but this turn we Just can't overestimate, I think, the significance of what happened yesterday. It is a, it is a pretty decisive defeat for the, I think what I consider the worst elements inside the Trump administration. You know, at least they've been on.
- [68:34]
Abe Greenwald
A spiral for a while now. Yeah, those, those elements. I mean, I think you mentioned Tulsi briefly before, where she been, you know, after he said she's wrong and I.
- [68:48]
John Podhoretz
Don'T care what she thinks.
- [68:49]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah, yeah, but you know, I don't care what she thinks.
- [68:53]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, she's, she's draining the swamp.
- [68:55]
Matthew Continetti
She's, she's, she's getting those intelligence.
- [68:57]
John Podhoretz
Okay, we've been, we've gone on too long, but we need spend three minutes on, on. We, we, we were talking before about the, the fact that Don Bond, that the FBI has now. The FBI under Cash Patel and Don Bongino have now. Dan Bongino, excuse me, have now released a statement saying that based on all available evidence that they've been able to review, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell. There was no client list that Epstein was holding. That was a blackmail list. And, and this line of blackmail, no blackmail. This line of thinking that Bon Chino and Patel had themselves been retailing on podcasts and things for years was an error. And basically the response of the world from which they come is sorrow and heartbreak. I don't know how to describe worse.
- [70:11]
Matthew Continetti
Than that feeling of betrayal and deep skepticism, the belief that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino are lying, that they've been co opted by the deep state, that they're hiding the facts behind Jeffrey Epstein's death. This is widespread on X and among people who believe in the conspiracy accounts of Jeffrey Epstein, his demise and his operations. And it's, I think part of what Abe was just saying about how a certain part of the MAGA coalition has been kind of feeling discombobulated in recent weeks between Iran, the Ukraine announcement, now this. I find it interesting as someone who doesn't, hasn't really paid much attention to the story over the years, how visceral the feelings generated by the Jeffrey Epstein case are. And in fact there's of course a whole industry that's kind of grown up around Epstein and his criminality and ultimately his demise. Whether that can be actualized into a voting bloc, I'm deeply skeptical. That is an interesting insight into the social media heart of maga.
- [71:42]
Abe Greenwald
Yeah, that alone can't be turned into a political movement. But I think along with everything we've been talking about actually this whole time, where there is this Inchoate, I want to coin a phrase. You know, they talk about zombie Reaganism. There's like a Frankenstein MAGA now happening, right? Like a sort of his, his creation has gotten out of, out of his, leapt from his lab and is out there, you know, doing all these other things.
- [72:21]
John Podhoretz
I'm going to be in a weird position of defending. I, I'm not a conspiracy theory. I'm going to defend the notion that something untoward and inexplicable went on here for this reason, this reason only. By the way, there's now the thing that will make this continue forever, which is there seems to be a one minute glitch in the video footage that was released yesterday of the nine hours of Epstein's last hours. Apparently there's one minute. It's the time clock has a. So this is the 18 1/2 minute gap. It's the 1 minute gap. People are going to be talking about it forever who have these conspiracies.
- [73:03]
Matthew Continetti
One minute is all a ninja would need fairly see to infiltrate this side.
- [73:09]
John Podhoretz
I just have this to say. If anything deserves a conspiracy theory to have arisen around it, it is the Jeffrey Epstein story. And there are just two data points in relation to it. Aside from the fact that we now know from Melinda Gates that Bill Gates, that her divorce from Bill Gates was about his refusal to stop hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. She's now basically said this, she said it yesterday and it's sort of shot through her book in hinting ways. So Bill Gates, second or third richest man in the world, palling around with Jeffrey Epstein. What the hell is going on there? And then these two data points. One is Les Wexner, head of the Limited, the guy who found the Limited. And all of this very close to Epstein, gives him a hat, gives him a $70 million house just hands handed over to him. Here, here's a house for you. I'm giving it to you. New York Townhouse. And Leon Black, the co founder of Apollo, one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, pays him $158 million for tax advice. So I asked a couple of people who do this for a living and it's like, what, what kind of commission when you ordinarily pay to somebody who give, who provides you with an interesting tax method to avoid something or other. And they said, I don't know, around one and a half to 2% of the overall savings. So what would 2%, what would $158 million. I'm not going to play commentary math games here, but it's in the tens of billions of dollars. That 2% is 100, is $158 million. And, and, and, and Black had to step down from Apollo when this was revealed. Bad. He was up to very bad.
- [75:04]
Matthew Continetti
Something bad was going on.
- [75:05]
John Podhoretz
And there's no question. And that people were involved and that they were paying him remarkably illegitimate sums of money for whatever it was he was doing. And so I am weirdly in sympathy with the idea.
- [75:21]
Matthew Continetti
Sure.
- [75:22]
John Podhoretz
But on the other hand, that he killed himself in his cell also makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't he?
- [75:27]
Matthew Continetti
Two points on this is, you know, never underestimate government failure. It could just be the government just can't figure out what happened or what was going on. And that's what Patel and Bongino are saying, is we just can't find the evidence. That doesn't mean that there's no evidence out there. Right. And the truth, you're absolutely right.
- [75:48]
John Podhoretz
The evidence is he hanged himself.
- [75:49]
Matthew Continetti
Well, I mean about the blackmail. I mean more about the Black, because there's all the different types of things. And.
- [75:55]
John Podhoretz
Well, if you were. If.
- [75:56]
Matthew Continetti
And people will be talking about it like the Kennedy assassination, which we're still talking about now some 62 years after it happened. And this will be the same with this case. I just want to talk about the political dimension because even though, like we were saying, there's no real campaign effects on this issue. Pam Bondi has been embarrassed by the Attorney General, the Attorney General of the United States, because she went on Fox earlier, early in the term and was asked about whether the administration would release the Epstein list. And she said in her inimitable way, it's on my desk. Now, the administration yesterday, through Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, said that what she meant was orders surrounding the investigation were on her desk, not the actual list.
- [76:50]
John Podhoretz
Right.
- [76:50]
Matthew Continetti
But when you com. When you add her comment to this kind of social media spectacle that happened in the White House early in the spring, where they had influencers come in and look at binders filled with Epstein related material that turned out to be stuff they already knew. The way in which the administration has handled this investigation, let us just not say, has been a bright spot in it. And you would, you would add to that that Bondi's days or her. Her position might be in trouble. To which I respond, that might be the case if she were actually the Attorney General in anything more than name. I mean, I think we've learned that the real power center in this administration is the White House, especially when it comes to DOJ and dhs, where the guy running the show is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, Stephen Miller. So I think that likely the Trump administration will just kind of soldier on through this episode. And as the saying goes, the. The dogs will bark, but the caravan will move on.
- [78:02]
John Podhoretz
Okay, very quickly, I want to make a recommendation that Matt made last year and I am now. I'm now making a second recommendation of. This has happened a couple of times. But the problem is I now need to look up the name of the author of the book that I. He has.
- [78:22]
Matthew Continetti
He has a complicated name.
- [78:23]
John Podhoretz
Has a complicated three name.
- [78:24]
Matthew Continetti
He's a three named person.
- [78:25]
John Podhoretz
Yes. So this is a book called Astounding.
- [78:31]
Matthew Continetti
It is a. Alec Navila Lee or something.
- [78:34]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, yeah. His. So the book is called Astounding Alec? Yes. Navala Lee with a hyphen. It is the story of the birth of the world of American science fiction in the 20th century through the person of an editor named John Campbell, who as a young man, through very odd circumstances, ended up the editor of the first really successful science fiction publication, which was called Astounding, published by the pulp publisher street and Smith. And this is one of the best books, one of the best cultural histories I've ever read. It's the story of how this little world of people who wrote these crazy stories, these crazy little stories are influenced by H.G. wells and Jules Verne and stuff like that at the. In the 1920s and early 1930s, at the dawn of the sort of modern technological age, grew from this tiny group of fans meeting in rooms in Queens and Brooklyn, publication ended up starting to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. And the world of people who are known as science fiction writers really emerged from this, as did eventually Star Trek, Star wars, the entire science fiction world. And even more interestingly, the fact that so many people who went on to go into tech, to go into science and revolutionize American science from the 1970s onward began as readers of science fiction from this world that John Campbell incepted. And he takes two major figures as his. As his disciples and the people who were. He was most closely involved with, which is where the book gets totally head spinning. One is the most decorated science fiction writer of his time, Robert Heinlein, who wrote the Moon as a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land at Starship Troopers and was politically a very interesting cultural figure because he was the dominating figure in science fiction. And he was a very right. He was very right wing. So this alone among the cultural tastes of America in the. In the 20th century, this was the one realm in which he and Campbell and others were actually conservatives before there were conservatives, in a funny way. And then L. Ron Hubbard. L. Ron Hubbard, who of course became the founder of Scientology, and this, you know, intensely controversial figure who began as a science fiction writer under Campbell's tutelage, and then Campbell became sort of a wacko freak, also interested in the world of cleansing and cleaning and making it, looking into your past lives and all of that stuff. But what's amazing about the book from my perspective, is that it is the story of a successful editorship, because Campbell wrote one very famous short story, but wrote nothing else of consequence. Wrote a story called who Goes There? Which is the source of the two movies that are known as the Thing. But what he was, was an editor. And he had very clear ideas about how what kind of story should publish, where science fiction should go, how trends should change, what it was readers wanted to read, what would advance the form and all of that. And he used his editorship to cultivate writers, to create writers, to create famous writers and to, you know. And then his last great triumph as an editor was the publication of Dune, which is a book that came in over the transom from a. From a, you know, sort of technical science writer in Oregon, and that he.
- [82:44]
Matthew Continetti
Himself, a man of very weird politics.
- [82:46]
John Podhoretz
Very weird.
- [82:47]
Matthew Continetti
Strangely right wing, but also kind of hippie in a way.
- [82:50]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, yeah. Anyway, it is a fantastic book. And I say that, you know, ordinarily I wouldn't sort of like, I'm not part of the science fiction contingent on this podcast, which I mostly leave to Matt and Christine. Christine and her taste for. That's Japanese science fiction, the dystopian science fiction. But again, as a cultural history of the United states in the 20th century and the emergence of this, what has now become sort of like the omniculture. Out of literally 12 people fighting each other in a hotel room over nothing, the Queens contingent and the Brooklyn contingent getting angry at each other in 1932, emerges the world of the Marvel fandom.
- [83:43]
Matthew Continetti
If I can just add on that there is, of course, the great man theory of history, to which I'm sympathetic in a lot of ways. I think history is decided by individual agency and decision. But I've also kind of come to adopt the coterie theory of history, which is that a lot of history just develops, especially cultural history, though political as well, by just groups, small groups of like minded people who begin thinking along similar lines and sharing ideas. And this, whether it's the, you know, the early Bolsheviks or whether it's the founders of the United States or whether it's the Renaissance right in. In Italy, or whether it's the Elizabethan playwrights in England. Our coterie, cultural coterie in the United States was this group of writers, kind of outcasts and misfits in the 1930s who were just really jazzed by Jules Verne and H.G. wells. And as John just mentioned, they essentially, through no fault of their own, established the dominant culture of the United States really up until we may be reaching actually the kind of the apex of it. When you look at some of the superhero stuff that's coming out, and I guess the Dune movies are relatively successful, but for a long time that they. They set the pattern for what we would consume as culture, as Americans.
- [85:17]
John Podhoretz
Yeah, these are people who made $20.
- [85:20]
Matthew Continetti
Oh, they were popular. They lived poor. I mean, some of them made pretty good livings eventually down the road, eventually.
- [85:28]
John Podhoretz
But.
- [85:28]
Matthew Continetti
Yeah, but they were part of.
- [85:29]
John Podhoretz
Part of a literal subculture. A subculture of a subculture, Right. Fiction writers who wrote. Who wrote fiction that was not literary fiction and was intended for a mass audience that we would now think of as, you know, that literate people had contempt for, even though there was millions of readers of it anyway. Alex Navalolo, Lee, Astounding, A book that I read because it came across my Kindle Unlimited, and I remembered Matt talking about it, and then I started reading it, and it really is just a dazzling piece of work. So until tomorrow, we will let you go, because we've been talking for an hour and 20 minutes. Go. And peace. Peace. And. And prepare for war. So for Matt and Abe, I'm John Pooretz. Keep the candle burning.
- [86:38]
Donnie
I'm so excited to talk to you, Carl. Talk to me, a guy who's had this illustrious business career. What made you decide to write a book on happiness? You could have gone in some of the other directions.
- [86:47]
Carl
Well, actually, I didn't, Donnie. I didn't decide to write a book. Something happened. This happiness experiment happened in real life, in real terms. I had no idea about writing a book, but I saw it working. The experiment was working. My. My friends and family were getting happier. They're increasing their happiness. And I saw it, so I thought, I need to write about this. And so that's when I got into writing the book.
- [87:10]
Donnie
And talk to me about prequesting. Talk to me what it's about and how it's the foundation of things.
- [87:15]
Carl
Well, it came about through three major things that happened in life. One, I almost died in a plane crash. If you Read the book. You'll find out whether I survived or not. The other thing that happened was I got a call from my sister in England. She told me her husband was dying. He had six months to live. So I flew to England and she was in my will. And I said, janet, you're in my will as a. As a bequest. But that's something you need right now. So I'm going to make it a prequest. I'm going to bring that bequest forward and pay it to you now. Well, you can enjoy it and your husband can fulfill his last wishes. She was overjoyed, burst into tears, of course, and said, oh, this is great. My brother was there at the same time. I said, barry, since I've done this to, for my sister, I'm going to bring your bequest forward, make it a prequest. And he said, oh, that's fabulous. Thank you very much. You're very generous. His wife went ballistic. She said, this is too much money. It's wrong. I don't want anything to do with it, and stormed out of the room. So that was a real surprise. Anyhow, she got over it. And the next thing that happened is I look at my, my investments. I got a lot of money sitting. Investments, not doing anything wasn't working for me, wasn't working for my friends. So I said, why don't I use this money for my own success and happiness and also for my friends, the people that helped me get to be wealthy and successful. That's what I did.
- [88:33]
Donnie
So it's not a one time thing. This is kind of a lifetime experiment, if you will.
- [88:39]
Carl
Yeah, it turned out that way because I didn't want to just give people money and say, you know, be happy. I said, I want this to enrich your life. Be something special. So I'd like you to think about it, plan something, write a happiness plan. They asked, what's a happiness plan? I said, when I get that, I'll give you all the money and let's see how it works out.
- [89:00]
Donnie
So you talk about coaching and grants to reshape and change lives, which is timely given what's going on in the world today.
- [89:09]
Carl
Yeah, and, and the thing is that it wasn't just about the money, Donnie. The money's important. We love money. It's good to have it. But what really worked with these people was the planning with a happiness coach. They. They thought about carefully what they wanted to do that's gonna enrich their life, make them happier, what things they love, things that they were fascinated with. And they wrote all that down with a happiness coach. They had a plan. And as soon as I got the plan, I said, here's the money, all of it, it's all yours. You don't owe me anything, no strings attached. And they went off and started becoming happier.
- [89:44]
Donnie
It's incredible. So the inspiration for this was just your, your, your near death experience?
- [89:50]
Carl
Well, that, that was part of it, but it was, it was a number of things that happened. First of, I was very, very grateful for the people that helped me to become successful. And I want it. Being grateful is terrific. Okay. You will love that. You talk about gratitude and gratitude, journaling, all those sort of things. But the real thing is, is expressing the gratitude, telling somebody how much you care about them, appreciating what they did for you, writing a letter. It doesn't have to be about money. It can be possessions, it can be money, it can be attention, could be time, can be knowledge, your wisdom that you share with younger people. But it's what you're doing while you're still alive that counts. When you're dead, it's over.
- [90:28]
Donnie
It's such a great, such a simple but brilliant point. And how do you think, let's say, play this out, that people kind of really buy into this intentional happiness and prequesting, how does the world become a better place? Let's take this up 10,000ft.
- [90:40]
Carl
Well, it would be great. The reason I wrote the book is I want this idea to get into the world so that certainly the wealthy people, they can do the pre questing, make themselves and their friends and family happier right now while they're still alive. The other thing, I want the book to show how these people planned, thought about their happiness, created a happiness plan and then worked it, and to become happier. And others can learn from their experiences reading their plans and then doing the same thing. And in the back of my book, there's a workbook which goes through that step by step, and a plan to increase your happiness.
- [91:17]
Donnie
How do we get this into the workplace, into schools, and kind of really, to your point, get this in there.
- [91:22]
Carl
You know, that would be lovely if it went into the schools. And I think in, in high schools, this would be a really good subject to put on the curriculum. How do you. What is happiness? How do you achieve happiness? What's it all about?
- [91:34]
Donnie
What is happiness?
- [91:35]
Carl
It's a great question. You have to read my book. But in short, in short, emotion. We all know what happiness is. It's feeling good, it's joyful, it's exhilaration. It's loving life. Is that so? It is a feeling, but it's also a mindset. You have to think that I deserve happiness. I want to be happy. I'm taking my happiness seriously. So it's heart and mind, not just one or the other. So it's that combination. But really, I give but a whole chapter in the book on what is happiness. And it's a, it's a, it's a great chapter. You'll love the book.
- [92:08]
Donnie
Now, a lot of people, I, I can't, cannot, cannot wait to read it. I, I'm so excited. I'm like, just turned on listening to you. A lot of people equate happiness to financial success and things. And what am I going to learn in the book about that?
- [92:21]
Carl
Well, happy money is important. Okay, let's, let's get that off the table. But it's not going to buy you happiness. The good use of money is really important how you do it, but it's, it's, it's the mindset, it's the pursuit of happiness that counts. Taking your happiness seriously, wanting what you want. And what you want is important. Your dreams, your purposes in life, what you want to achieve in your career, what you want to. With your family, what you want to achieve. The purpose is all around what you value. Are you pursuing those values? Are you living those values? This is what it's all about. Money helps, but it's all those other spiritual things, if you like, psychological things that are really the root of happiness. And as we all know, some people are very rich and they're very unhappy.
- [93:10]
Donnie
And this, yes, a lot of people.
- [93:11]
Carl
People are really happy.
- [93:13]
Donnie
I would say money can solve problems, but it can't buy you happiness. But you certainly can throw it at problems. But that's about the, the extent of it. So let's play this out. How is the. Right now, the world could use this more than ever. So how does. Let's say if, if I just did this fantasy and said, okay, everybody's gonna, everybody's gonna do this prequest. Everybody's gonna do the happiness planning.
- [93:35]
John Podhoretz
What is the.
- [93:35]
Donnie
How does the world look different?
- [93:37]
Carl
Well, as you know, Donnie, when you're happy, your family tends to be happy, your friends are happier, and happiness ripples, it spreads. And if this idea gets into the world, which I'm, I'm working very hard to do, get it into the world talking to you, because you're going to buy lots of these books and you're going to tell all your friends about it, right?
- [93:55]
Donnie
Yes, I am. Yes, I am.
- [93:56]
Carl
If this goes, it spreads, it ripples. It doesn't stay just with you. It goes down to your family, to your friends and to your community. And if a lot of wealthy people did this, and it's not just about wealth, it's possessions, it's time, it's love, it's wisdom that we can share with others while we're still alive here and now. And if that gets into the world and there's a lot of people start doing this, then this, that the happiness level in the world will increase little by little. And I'd be very happy about that.
- [94:25]
Donnie
Mr. Barney, it's been inspirational talking to you. I am going to get this book immediately. I could recommend it just based on what we've talked about to anybody because we all could use a little happiness. I appreciate, appreciate you taking the time.
- [94:36]
Carl
Happy to be here. Thanks, Donnie.