We're Opening the Mailbag

Summary

The Commentary Magazine Podcast: "We're Opening the Mailbag" – Detailed Summary

Release Date: July 25, 2025
Host: John Podhoretz
Participants:

• Abe Greenwald – Executive Editor
• Christine Rosen – Social Commentary Columnist
• Seth Mandel – Senior Editor
• Matthew Continetti – Washington Commentary Columnist

---

1. Introduction and Addressing Listener Concerns (00:04 - 03:54)

Host John Podhoretz opens the episode by acknowledging it as a special "Mailbag" edition intended to answer listener letters. The conversation swiftly moves to addressing a letter from Tom Shattuck of Boston, Massachusetts, critiquing Podhoretz for frequent mistakes on the show.

Key Points:

• Tom Shattuck accuses Podhoretz of making recurrent errors, such as misnaming individuals (e.g., "Harvey Fierstein" instead of "Harvey Weinstein") and historical inaccuracies.
• Seth Mandel humorously defends Podhoretz, highlighting his excellence and charisma despite the mistakes:

  “Can I just say, this guy… is at the top of his game… I can't keep up.” [02:13]

• Matthew Continetti suggests that familiarity among the hosts allows them to overlook minor errors, as listeners can infer the intended meaning through context clues:

  “We just assume and fill in the gaps…” [02:33]

• Christine Rosen concurs, admitting she rarely catches these mistakes and emphasizes the podcast's casual and engaging nature as appreciated by listeners.

---

2. Discussion on American Liberalism and Its Challenges (05:31 - 12:31)

A letter from John Amrane, a second-grade teacher and print subscriber, raises concerns about American liberalism's current trajectory compared to its historical roots.

Key Points:

• Amrane's Inquiry: He contrasts past American progressivism, which aimed to realize America's potential, with today's liberalism, which he perceives as focusing on mitigating the country's evils without inspiring a positive vision.

  “I think of liberals in this day and age… They love the idea of what they think America could be instead of what it is.” [08:17]

• Matthew Continetti responds by acknowledging the difficulty in connecting with the populace and suggests building on existing cultural appreciations to bridge gaps.

  “Pointing out that those cultural things are only to be found in our democratic, free, capitalist culture…” [09:15]

• Christine Rosen adds that convincing others to change their viewpoints is inherently challenging but essential for leaving a lasting record and influencing future minds.

  “There must be a record that there were people who said, this is wrong or this is right…” [09:18]

• Podhoretz elaborates on the disconnect, emphasizing that many Americans do not recognize the privileges of living in the U.S. and may harbor deep-seated dissatisfaction despite the nation's advantages.

  “There are people who live here by the tens of millions… they don't think that they live in the greatest country on Earth.” [10:47]

---

3. Entitlement Programs and Political Reluctance to Reform (14:42 - 17:48)

Listener Katie Hacker poses a challenging question regarding why former President Donald Trump has not reformed entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, especially given his inability to run for a third term.

Key Points:

• Matthew Continetti asserts that Trump fundamentally does not believe in reforming these programs, aligning more closely with Democratic ideals on the issue:

  “He doesn't believe in it. He's a Democrat at heart on that stuff.” [14:42]

• Unnamed Speaker (potentially Seth Mandel) attributes Trump's inaction to political strategy, noting the potential backlash from attempting entitlement reforms:

  “He's behind Republican success in fundraising ahead of those midterms…” [15:28]

• The discussion highlights that Trump may perceive entitlement reform as politically risky, preferring to focus on other strategies like gerrymandering to secure Republican advantages:

  “Talking up entitlement reform would just be handing Democrats a weapon…” [16:40]

---

4. Gerrymandering and Its Political Implications (18:50 - 33:02)

The podcast delves into a listener's question about the historical backlash (or lack thereof) to gerrymandering and its influence on modern American politics.

Key Points:

• John Podhoretz outlines the persistence of gerrymandering, citing its historical context and the Supreme Court's stance on political versus racial gerrymandering:

  “… Supreme Court said it did not have a right to intrude on this matter.” [21:10]

• Unnamed Speaker reminds listeners of past gerrymandering instances, referencing Texas and Tom DeLay's influence:

  “It happened a generation ago, it's happening again.” [21:10]

• Christine Rosen and Podhoretz discuss the evolving nature of gerrymandering, especially in light of demographic shifts, such as increasing minority populations aligning more with the Republican Party:

  “He’s now reached near parity with Hispanics and… doubled the black vote for Republicans.” [26:31]

• Podhoretz further explains how racial gerrymandering has contributed to political polarization by entrenching minority voters into specific districts, reducing their influence on broader electoral outcomes:

  “Stuffing minority voters into vast majority districts… increasing polarization.” [24:11]

• Christine Rosen comments on the future implications as demographic changes continue to shape the political landscape, questioning how Democrats will address gerrymandering amid shifting alliances.

  “As minorities are continuing to sort over to the right, I’m curious to see what a big deal gerrymandering is to Democrats…” [25:33]

---

5. American Foreign Policy in Latin America: Then and Now (33:02 - 36:50)

A listener question touches on the decline of American interest in Latin America post-Cold War, prompting a discussion on historical involvement and current focus areas.

Key Points:

• Unnamed Speaker attributes the reduced focus on Latin America to the collapse of the Soviet Union, leading to diminished global leftist movements in the Western Hemisphere:

  “The Soviet Union collapsed… global left was no longer interested in fomenting socialist revolution in the western hemisphere.” [34:16]

• Matthew Continetti emphasizes the importance of historical context in understanding past American interventions and critiques how modern narratives often portray America negatively without acknowledging the strategic motivations during the Cold War:

  “History is often taught in a way that casts America as a villain…” [36:09]

• Podhoretz reflects on the shift in focus towards Middle Eastern issues and the rise of China, highlighting the changing priorities in American foreign policy post-Cold War:

  “Now we have a very different set of issues… the Middle East and East Asia with the rise of China.” [34:17]

---

6. Closing Remarks and Special Messages (36:50 - End)

The episode concludes with light-hearted banter about invasive species like lanternflies, a humorous exchange correcting misstatements, and a heartwarming acknowledgment from Christine Rosen addressing non-Jewish listeners who support Jewish people and Israel.

Key Points:

• Lanternflies Discussion:

  “Lanternflies are an invasive species… they’re like moths or butterflies and don't hurt you.” [38:52]
  The hosts discuss the ecological impact of lanternflies, comparing them to other invasive species and their unnoticed proliferation.

• Personal Anecdotes and Humor:
  Podhoretz and Mandel engage in playful corrections and jokes about misconceptions, such as mistaking lanternflies for "lantern squirrels."
• Christine Rosen's Special Message:

  “I just want to give like a blanket. Thank you so much. It is received and felt…” [43:36]
  She expresses gratitude to non-Jewish supporters of Jewish people and Israel, noting the volume of such messages they receive.

• Final Thoughts by Podhoretz:
  He wraps up by thanking listeners, acknowledging the valuable letters, and expressing excitement for future Mailbag episodes:

  “Thank you to everybody who writes in and thanks to everybody whose letters we read today.” [44:53]

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

1. Seth Mandel on Podhoretz's Excellence:

   “We go jogging in the morning and I can't keep up.” [02:13]

2. Matthew Continetti on Assumptions in Conversations:

   “We just assume and fill in the gaps in the same way that people do when they see something in a word is missing and their brain fills it in.” [02:33]

3. Christine Rosen on Convincing Others:

   “There must be a record that there were people who said, this is wrong or this is right, despite the majority.” [09:18]

4. Podhoretz on American Dissatisfaction:

   “There are people who live here by the tens of millions… they don't think that they live in the greatest country on Earth.” [10:47]

5. Unnamed Speaker on Gerrymandering's Future Impact:

   “Justice Thomas has been very clear over the years that the Court needs to revisit this.” [22:49]

6. Christine Rosen's Acknowledgment:

   “We stand with you. We actually get a lot of those.” [43:36]

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Commentary Magazine Podcast provides an insightful exploration into listener concerns ranging from host accuracy, the current state of American liberalism, entitlement program reforms, the enduring issue of gerrymandering, and shifts in American foreign policy focus. The hosts engage thoughtfully with each topic, blending expertise with approachable dialogue. Notably, they address both political strategy and ideological shifts, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of the complexities facing contemporary American politics. The episode concludes on a personal note, reinforcing community bonds and acknowledging diverse support for Jewish ethics and Israel.

Transcript

[John Podhoretz]

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

[Abe Greenwald]

Some preach and pain Some die of thirst no way of knowing which way it's going Hope for the best, Expect.

[Christine Rosen]

The worst, Hope for the best.

[John Podhoretz]

Welcome to the Commentary Magazine daily podcast. This podcast is for Friday, July 25, 2025. We are recording it Wednesday night, the 23rd. I'm only telling you that so you understand if we make weird references to days that don't seem to make any sense. Special episode that we are doing, we're going to answer some reader mail. And by we, I mean Executive Editor Abe Greenwald. Hi.

[Christine Rosen]

Hi, John. And I suspect our date mistakes will be the least of our factual errors.

[John Podhoretz]

Many mistakes. Yes. Okay, I'm going to get to that with not only you, but senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.

[Seth Mandel]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

Social Commentary columnist Christine Rosen. Hi, Christine.

[Matthew Continetti]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

And Washington Commentary columnist Matthew Continetti. Hi, Matt.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Hi, John.

[John Podhoretz]

So I'm going to begin with a letter from Tom Shattuck of Boston, Massachusetts. I love the show and have listened since day one, but I've always been perplexed by something. When J. Pod makes a mistake about once every other show, no one ever corrects him. Are you all afraid of John? It goes something like this. He'll say Harvey Fierstein when he means Harvey Weinstein and not a peep from the others. He'll say he saw the tall ships for the bicentennial in 1776, and you all let it go. He often gets things wrong and none of you speaks up. Do you fear him? Or is it you're trying to avoid showcasing his many blunders?

[Seth Mandel]

Can I just say, this guy, I don't know who writes this stuff, but this guy is at the top of his game. We go jogging in the morning and I can't keep up.

[John Podhoretz]

Thank you so much. Yes, I am the Joe Biden of the show.

[Seth Mandel]

Sound like Korean GPR enough.

[John Podhoretz]

That was so good. Yes. So I just.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I correct you sometimes.

[John Podhoretz]

I correct you, you correct me. And if I said Harvey Fierstein instead of Harvey Weinstein, that's pretty funny, actually.

[Matthew Continetti]

I mean, but I like. I like the idea that this is a fear based podcast that we all kind of like, you know, cower in fear of what. Of what you might do to us if we correct you. I think think part of this is just context clues when you know someone for a really long time and you have these daily conversations. We knew you didn't mean 1776, and we knew you didn't mean Harvey Fierstein. Although who among us has not you know, confused Weinstein and Firestein. So I do think that, that we just assume and fill in the gaps in the same way that people do when they see something in a word is missing and their brain fills it in. So.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Matthew Continetti]

That's my explanation.

[John Podhoretz]

Thank you. Okay, well, I'm going to raise.

[Christine Rosen]

I have a similar explanation. 99% of the time I don't catch the mistake. Okay. That, that, that's for sure. And when I do, I figure, and I think this is something that I have heard from listeners. They like when our dogs bark. They like, they, they're interested in what the weird sounds are outside. They like the general looseness of the discussion. And if there is a slight audio version of a typo in the production, so be it.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, well, I'm going to give you another one here. This is Andrew C. Stevens, not the, I assume not the actor director of B movies Andrew Stevens. A small comment on Wednesday's podcast. Henry VIII was the one famous for eating huge turkey legs. Although there is no portrait of him with a turkey leg, he probably did enjoy a good turkey from time to time. In the days of Henry ii, however, there weren't any turkeys in Europe. Now this is because I made a joke about how Henry II said who will rid me of this meddlesome priest? And then left the throne room and then maybe ate a giant turkey leg. I did not mean that Henry ii, King of England, actually ate a giant turkey leg. I was. In fact, the idea that Henry VIII ate a giant turkey leg comes entirely from a movie made in 1932 called the the the Secret Life of Henry VIII starring the Academy Award winning Charles Lawton, who looking like a sybaritic slob, was caught on camera holding a big turkey leg and chomping down on it, thus creating forever the indelible image of the king of excess eating turkey legs. That was a joke. A lot of the emails that we get about errors that we have made, I am afraid, often kind of have a literal quality. That is what I think is interesting.

[Unnamed Speaker]

About that one is it puts more weight on the turkey leg eating than on one of the more famous quotes in history and literature.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. Because, because I got that one wrong.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Henry II and Thomas Becket, we all know, I mean, that's right. But then the turkey leg story, I had no, I had no knowledge of. I just assumed that's very important to this listener.

[Matthew Continetti]

It's like the Renaissance fair version of the question.

[John Podhoretz]

Because, you know, I mean, I didn't even know there were turkeys in Europe. During the Tudor period. Where did they come from?

[Matthew Continetti]

Learning from our listeners. There we go.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. Thank you very much. Okay, well, John Amrane and very important, he points out he is a print subscriber, as you should all be, by going to commentary.org and subscribing to our magazine, which you will get in your mailbox every month, as well as paying for the daily actions of our podcast and reading Seth Mandel's brilliant insights on our blog to your heart's content and going through our 80 years of archives. He says, I love the podcast. I teach second grade and listen every day during my planning period, which is great because that means that he's using Commentary to help him plan second grade instruction, which I'm very excited by. When I was getting married, the best advice I got was to make sure you love your partner for who they are and not what you think they can be someday. I think of liberals in this day and age and would like to give them this advice. They love the idea of what they think America could be instead of what it is. How would you counsel liberals to find and more importantly, publicly share what they love about our amazing country? I think that's a very profound way to point out a problem with American progressivism at present, which is that American progressivism in prior eras was America's great, but it can be greater. It can be so much greater and we can fulfill our promise if we do X, Y and Z. You think we're good now. You have no idea idea how good we can be. And American progressivism now is we need to ameliorate the evils of our country and then maybe we won't be damned forever to the hellfires of eternity and the melting by global warming and whatever. So does this strike you as a fair estimation of the problem with American liberalism and why it seems to be having a difficulty connecting with the American people in a way that it did not used to?

[Unnamed Speaker]

I think it does. And I think it also helps explain why we find so many on the left saying that they're not proud to be Americans or not very proud to be Americans that we've commented on in the podcast before. Finding ways to give advice to liberals or progressives is not really my specialty, but I guess you would try to build upon what, you know, your friends on the left already like about America. And there probably are things, probably mainly cultural things that they like, and pointing out that those cultural things are only to be found in our democratic, free, capitalist culture, maybe a way to nudge them a bit in the right direction, even if not ultimately successful.

[Matthew Continetti]

I would add that. Oh, go ahead, Abe.

[Christine Rosen]

I just want to say, when it comes to this business of convincing other people that they're wrong and I'm right or we're right, I am very humbled because I don't know that I've ever successfully done that. There are reasons to argue for what you believe in, whether or not they will change another person's mind after hearing them. One is that there must be a record that there were people who said, this is wrong or this is right, despite the majority. That's important. But the other is that minds change in very mysterious ways and not in real time. So when you leave behind a marker that makes a decent case that you believe in earnest, it's there for someone and could have an effect on an unintended reader or listener at a later date. And I think that's all you can really hope to do.

[John Podhoretz]

I have one. I think it's very hard for people who love this country to believe in earnest that there are people who are living in America with all the benefits of being an American, who don't. And that if only they would take off their performative garb, they'd be able to say, I'm so lucky that I was born here, that I have all these rights, that I have the freedoms that I have, that no one else in the world really has, and that they really know that, but that they don't want to say it for some reason. And the thing that I've learned in the course of my life is that that's not true. There are people who live here by the tens of millions, maybe even who don't. And there are many reasons why they don't. They might not love their families either. They might not love, you know, they may hate their lives, they may whatever, but they. They don't think that they live in the greatest country on Earth. I don't. It's very hard to understand if you think you live in the greatest country of Earth, why somebody else would think otherwise. You know, you often have that thing where you say, if only they could just, like, be transported somewhere for a day to live in North Korea, they would. They would see what it was like not to live here or something. But it's a real thing. You know, it's just like you're supposed to love the people, the person you marry, for who they are, not who you would wish them to be. But what if you don't love them? But a lot of people don't love.

[Matthew Continetti]

America, I'm going to interject, because that's too dark. One thing to the the question asked, how do you actually broach it with someone who is on the opposite side of the political aisle? I will say I've had success with one thing with my contemporary liberal friends, and that's that. And I do think most of them love this country. Their, their disappointment in the country and in half of the American people overwhelms their ability to acknowledge that they do love the country at times, but they care a lot about expertise. And the honest ones among them understand that people don't trust the experts anymore. And some of the conversations I've had in the last few years with my liberal friends have been most successful. When I asked them, okay, so how do we restore that trust in experts? Because they were wrong about this, they were wrong about this, we were lied to about that. The mistrust is actually the rational response right now. How do you restore trust in all of these institutions and all of these experts who you believe can guide this country in the right direction if you think it's going the wrong one? And that often produces very fruitful discussions that get down in the sort of into the weeds, but in a productive way about whether it's academia or whether it's Congress or whether it's, you know, sort of corporate America. And I don't always agree with the solutions they come up with, but it gets them away from tribal, political, emotional overreactive responses to kind of traditional ways of discussing left and right.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, so here's a question that's extremely difficult to answer in very short form, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway because it's an interesting question and maybe we can, like, answer it and then solve America's problems in one go. Katie Hacker of Evington, Virginia. Every time I hear talk about entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicare and Social Security, I wonder what is keeping Donald Trump from reforming these programs? He has a second term president, he can't run again. So what is there for him to lose? Why not tackle the really big and ugly? Eventually somebody will have to. Why not fall on the sword and just do it? Or did I just answer my own question? So this is the $64 trillion question, almost literally someone's gonna have to do it.

[Matthew Continetti]

He doesn't believe in it. He's a Democrat at heart on that stuff. I mean, he's never had that impulse.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I think it's politics. I think it's politics. I think he looked at the Paul Ryan plan and Mitt Romney choosing Paul Ryan to be his running mate in 2012 and that ticket going down. And since then, Trump has thought that entitlement reform is a political loser. And one thing we know about Trump is we know a lot, but one thing we know is he's taking an early and active interest in the 2026 midterms and he is behind the Republican success in fundraising ahead of those midterms. He is behind some of the recruitment wins that Republicans have been making. For example, the day that we recorded this podcast, Congressman Mike Lawler said he was not going to run for governor of New York next year. That basically solidifies Elise Stefanik's path to the nomination. Bill Huzenga of Michigan said he was not going to run for Senate in Michigan. That basically solidifies Mike Rogers campaign in Michigan next year. Mike Rogers barely lost two years ago. You see Trump advocating this mid decade gerrymander in Texas, which he believes will net the Republicans up to seven House seats to give them a buffer. So I think from his point of view, talking up entitlement reform would just be handing Democrats a weapon when at the moment they're sharpest knife in the arsenal is the Epstein files. I wouldn't be surprised actually if, if Trump gets through the midterms, he does think about ways to address Social Security and Medicare to make them viable in the long run.

[Christine Rosen]

Hey everyone, this is Abe. Are you a yo yo dieter? You diet, lose weight, but gain it all back plus a few extra pounds. Then later you lose it and regain it again and again. It's dangerous. Studies show that can increase your risk of heart attack, stroke, type 2 diabetes and other health problems. Breaking free of your yo yo diet pattern is a main reason doctors created Lean. Lean is a supplement, not an injection. And you don't need a prescription. The science behind Lean is impressive. It studied natural ingredients target weight loss in three powerful ways. Lean helps maintain healthy blood sugar. It helps control appetite and cravings. And it helps burn fat by converting fat into energy. Listen, if you're tired of losing weight and gaining it back, if you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace, Lean was created for you. Let me get you started with 20% off when you enter [e-mail] that's code commentary20akelean.com.

[John Podhoretz]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN. You try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply. Okay, so let me move on to something else because you raised the mid decade gerrymander question Jackson Cho, who says he's been listening to the podcast since 2016 and as many fond memories of having it on in his college dorm room while playing video games. Christine, in case you were wondering whether you could play video games and be edified by our podcast, just wanted to offer a little anti Luddism. There.

[Seth Mandel]

Was the video game diplomacy or was the video game Mario Kart that.

[John Podhoretz]

Also Is there a diplomacy video game?

[Seth Mandel]

Yes, sure.

[John Podhoretz]

Game diplomacy. The same game like the pre1914 game where you like your turkey or your.

[Seth Mandel]

Germany or digitize everything so like you can play Risk now.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, fair enough. I didn't know that. I don't play. So I'm not a Luddite, but I don't play video games. Anyway, with a fight over gerrymandering and the great screaming about how undemocratic it is and that it will generate backlash, do you guys recall if there has historically been any real backlash to gerrymandering? Or is it something parties have no incentive not to do? And I was sort of racking my brain and there are many controversies involving gerrymandering. And there was a hunting tens involved, a very serious constitutional argument about something that they called political that was being called political gerrymandering, which is to say illicit the making of campaign maps for the benefit of one political party or the other, that it had already been decided that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional, so political gerrymandering should be unconstitutional. That of course, was something that was being argued by Democrats pretty much in Wisconsin because they didn't like the way the state was gerrymandered after the 2010 census by a Republican legislature and a Republican governor. That argument did not prevail before the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court said it did not have a right to intrude on this matter. But I don't remember gerrymandering becoming a an active political issue anywhere. And what's happening now is interesting because something relatively unprecedented, I think, is being considered here in Texas, which is to rebalance the districts in Texas.

[Unnamed Speaker]

It's not unprecedented. It happened in Texas 20 years ago. I remember we covered it.

[John Podhoretz]

Tom DeLay. Right.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I think that then. Yeah. And it got Martin Frost out. And Democrats, remember, they ended up in Oklahoma at one point to determine.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah. In order. Yeah. So this isn't.

[Unnamed Speaker]

This happened a generation ago, it's happening again.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. Okay. But obviously, therefore, the answer is no, because there may be.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I'm. I'm racking my brain here. And, you know, if we had access to Michael Barone, we could.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah.

[Seth Mandel]

You're missing the real gerrymandering scandal hiding in plain sight, which is that Elbridge Gary pronounced his name with a hard G. Yeah. And the word is really gerrymandering.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. But it's not as. It's just.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Well, the real scandal. The real scandal is the racial gerrymander, John. Which the Supreme Court demands.

[John Podhoretz]

Right.

[Unnamed Speaker]

I mean, the interpretation of the Voting Rights act that the Court has stuck to for years, in which Congress did basically legitimize in its update to the Civil Rights act in the early 1980s, demands these racial gerrymanders, which create bizarre districts and which essentially have guaranteed the Democrats certain number of seats. And Justice Thomas has been very clear over the years that the Court needs to revisit this because it's not. It is a racial test. It's not treating us all equally. And it creates the incentives for the states where it applies for these bizarrely drawn out districts.

[John Podhoretz]

Right. And the racial gerrymander is a. The idea was when the racial gerrymandering was created, it was to ensure that because of the legacy of past discrimination and the behavior of state legislatures in Southern states, efforts would be made, using the usual traditional politics of the gerrymander, to create as few opportunities for black politicians to get elected as possible in these states with. And yet they had the perverse quality, therefore, of stuffing minority voters into vast majority districts, which has had the effect of increasing polarization in the United States Congress. How. Because if you have a. If you can shove black people into one district in a state and then to make sure two or three black districts in a state, the Republicans who would win in that state have no incentive whatever to have to practice a politics of racial coalition. And nor do black politicians who win in these districts have an incentive to practice the politics of racial coalition and.

[Seth Mandel]

So creates rotten boroughs, which is. So.

[John Podhoretz]

Which is problems. But I think a lot of what we see in American polarization is that people used to be. Were not as. Were much more uncleanly distributed around the country, and districts had weird characters in which a very conservative politician might nonetheless have to do X, Y or Z to satisfy a certain constituency within his district because they live there for a long Time and give them something or conservative district.

[Christine Rosen]

I think it's a very interesting time to bring up the issue because of the demographic reshuffling politically of the American electorate right now. Right. As minorities are continuing to sort of drain over to the right. I'm curious to see what a big deal gerrymandering is to Democrats in the future and sort of how they frame it and conceive it going forward. Well, there is, we're in a different place.

[John Podhoretz]

Well, I think what you're, what you're referring to is the fact that, you know, we have the weird fact that Zora Mamdani in New York City was not, this is not a gerrymandering issue because it doesn't have to do with Congress wins, claiming to be a representative of minority voices, but basically wins this primary within the Democratic Party by winning white voters who are interested in advancing socialist ideas that minority voters don't like, that Hispanic and black voters who went for Andrew Cuomo don't like. And so he looks like he's the candidate of the minorities, but is in fact candidate of liberal whites and actual multi ethnic people in New York City, from Jews to blacks to Hispanics, didn't vote for him.

[Christine Rosen]

But I'm also talking about nationally what Trump has picked up.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, but that's what I'm right. Hispanics. Right. He's now reached near parity with Hispanics and you know, has doubled the black vote for Republicans. I mean, it's still overwhelmingly Democratic. But yeah, sure, if these are, if these are generational trend lines that we're seeing moving, then gerrymandering is going to mean something very different in the future than it has in the past. Okay, so here's a question from David Siegel. Some say that stronger parties, big issue. Right. That the parties are weak, have been weak since campaign finance reform, rules and various other things basically took all the power of fundraising away from the centralized parties and put it in the hands of PACs and others and basically made sure that there were no centralized, there was no centralized way to keep the parties within the 40 yard lines of American politics. So he says supposedly this would put control on the extreme left and extreme right. But who's to say the smoke filled rooms today won't just be, wouldn't just be controlled by these same people with these same results? And I think this is an interesting point because this notion that, you know, we can achieve political sanity again by going back in time to what Christine would say, it's not the rule of the experts, but it's Institutional rule by the parties as institutions. But the parties lost some of their power as institutions not just because of Supreme Court decisions, but because they lost touch with voters.

[Matthew Continetti]

Well, they, they also, more importantly, I think one of the reasons they lost control of voters, they lost control of controlling information about the process. You don't need the, the parties weren't just power brokers. They were information brokers about voters to the people who might be running for office and to, you know, the other way around. And I think that's actually part of the story where you cannot go back to that old way of doing, doing things in the same way that, you know, as we discussed on earlier podcasts, that Trump is struggling with controlling information in the same way, even though he was kind of a master of this new sort of populist information ecosystem. So what a party could do, I mean, they can still raise money, they can still, you know, what, throw a convention. But what a modern party can do in terms of controlling candidate, they can reform the primary process if they really wanted to. And that would actually help with some of the polarization challenges. But what would be the incentive for them to do that?

[Seth Mandel]

I mean, the truth is that the answer to the question is in the question, which is that the point of parties having a certain amount of control was to not was to prevent the situation we're in now. And you can't go back like in other words, once you have a situation in which Donald Trump and I don't know, Marjorie Taylor Greene and whoever else, you know, Bernie, maybe Bernie Sanders on left, once you, once you have a situation in which they get through the door, right, and don't have to be a team player to get what they want, they will be the people in the smoke filled rooms. If you go back to the smoke filled rooms, as, as he says in, as, as is said in the letter, I mean, that's really, that's really the issue is that this was a, this was about being able to keep in line a system that was in place and they were outsiders threatening that system. And the Supreme Court decision was so effect had such an impact on it precisely because it loosened the hold to protect that system. And it was a situation in which you can't then go back. Once you let them in the door, it was supposed to pull up the ladder or put up guardrails, whatever you want to use. And anything that weakened that you can't really go back to. Once, once you have new people in.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Charge, I just think there's a great desire to have structural fixes to clean up whatever messes you identify in American politics. But I think history teaches that you're just going to create a different mess and so just work within what you have now. It's much, I think it's much simpler.

[John Podhoretz]

I mean, there's a pattern in political life and particularly in democracies and in republics. And America is very complicated since it has local, state and federal politics. And these things can happen at the same time or they can happen in different places, radically on different schedules. But there is a constant battle between institutionalist entropy and reformist zeal. And the thing is that the reformists, often because the entropy is degrades the institutions, the reformists jump on that and say, this isn't working anymore. We need to fix it and make the system better. And then when they come in, they make all kinds of changes that make everything different, but not really better. It turns out that they're not necessarily better. They have different incentive structures. The incentive structures change and the incentives, what the corruption is that people in power tend toward turns to be a different thing. Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's power, sometimes it's, you know, ethnic supremacy, sometimes it's other stuff. But the incentive to misuse power is always there, even if you're a reformer, you know, and that's.

[Christine Rosen]

Yeah, I mean, I just want to add, you know, Seth's talking about the Republicans, but I mean, if you look, if you look at the Democrats who are the party masters that, that, that people are supposed to bow down to, I mean, this is, this is an open mystery. This is, you know, what, what would even constitute the guardrail builders, you know.

[Seth Mandel]

Colbert until a couple nights ago.

[John Podhoretz]

Fair enough. Okay, here's the last question. Which, which, which I like because it's like we're, we're an oldies station on Sirius xm. We get to play the oldies. And this is kind of an oldie here. During my college days, the hot topics among my lefty and anti American friends concerned American involvement in Latin America during the late stages of the Cold War. This is an area of American foreign policy about which I know nearly nothing and no one seems to be interested in at all anymore. What happened down there and what are the sources of this change in our interest in our hemisphere?

[Unnamed Speaker]

Well, the source of the change is the easy part, and that is the Soviet Union collapsed and the global left was no longer in interested in fomenting socialist revolution in the western hemisphere. Now.

[John Podhoretz]

Except Sean Penn.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Except Sean Penn.

[John Podhoretz]

Except Sean Penn in Venezuela.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Yeah, right. And Castro's apologists just making their. Their pilgrimages to Havana. But the global left now is interested in destroying the state of Israel. And so that's, that's, that's where all the attention is.

[John Podhoretz]

Right?

[Christine Rosen]

That's right.

[Unnamed Speaker]

In the 1980s, in the debates over American aid to the Contras fighting the Sandinistas or American aid to the government of El Salvador fighting the communist militias there, that was the front. That was front and center, along with issues like the nuclear freeze and support for the mujahideen and Star Wars. No more Soviet Union. So we have a very different set of issues and different geographic interest, not so much in our hemisphere, but whether it's the Middle east, of course, and now East Asia with the rise of China.

[Matthew Continetti]

But I would argue that one part of the question that is worth considering going forward is that how that history is taught now on college campuses and even K12 to each new generation of Americans cast America as a villain. That was because the Cold War narrative is fading in memory and certainly was never existent in ideological terms for the people often teaching this stuff. I have heard from my son's peer group things like, I don't know why we were down there backing this terrible regime when, you know, really we should have just let the people. This was a populist movement and we backed this terrible regime. And I will try to explain exactly as Matt just did very well. Well, this was a broader question of the Cold War in the Soviet Union and we were countering their power. So yes, we sometimes had to put our effort and might behind people who were not super salubrious. But that this was all strategy. They don't see it that way because they don't really have that concept of history. And it might be important to. For someone, for some young historian of a more conservative bent to retell that story in a way that places that in context because it's often.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Do I have the book for you? You may have forgotten. A Twilight Struggle by Robert Kagan. 800 pages. 800 pages of American involvement in Nicaragua. And you can also use it to.

[John Podhoretz]

Beat back home invaders if they cross your threshold. This book also could serve as a home protection device.

[Seth Mandel]

Lantern flies. Lantern flies.

[John Podhoretz]

But you're right, since Bob wrote that.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Book in 1996, I think he came.

[Matthew Continetti]

Five or six kids were born.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, that was his thesis that it.

[Unnamed Speaker]

Turned into a book that I don't think anyone has really treated that from the. From a more conservative point of view.

[Abe Greenwald]

Hi, everyone, I'm Matt Ebert, CEO and founder of Crash Champions. Welcome to Pod Crash On Pod Crash, we'll dive deep with industry leaders and game changers because we want to uncover their secrets to success.

[John Podhoretz]

Success.

[Abe Greenwald]

We're going to explore everything from building trust, building a rock solid team, to champion blue collar work. And we also want to talk about creating explosive growth in your business. You'll hear actionable advice, real leadership and business lessons along with what's worked for these incredible people throughout their career. We're even going to go in depth into what I call a champions mindset. This is the very philosophy that I use to champion people and take Crash Champions from a single shop to over 650 locations today. And now, now I want to share that information with you. Watch or listen to pod crash on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.

[G]

I'm Mark Halpern. I want to let you know that Two Way Tonight, the destination for the best political news and analysis anywhere, is now available as an audio podcast. Each weekday I'll be joined by special guests from the worlds of news, politics and the media, along with members of the two Way community for conversations like no other. It's the best way to stay informed at the end of your day or first thing in the morning every weekday. It's a show like no other because we involve the community. We hear from people from around the country, around the world. They're part of a conversation. There is no other platform like this, and I hope you will find it to be not only different than everything else, but more meaningful as you become part of a special community around the program. So listen and follow two Way Tonight with Mark Alpern on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any other major streaming platform.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay, I want to conclude on this very important point. Lanternflies. When did this happen? They're everywhere. I don't remember lanternflies when I was a kid. Like, I was. There are lanternflies on my block. I was out at the beach this weekend. Lanternflies Seth there in Maryland talking about lanternflies. What the hell is going on? Is this some kind of a china?

[Seth Mandel]

Lanternflies are an invasive species and unlike murder hornets, you wouldn't necessarily know it by the name. Right. It was very easy to rally people against murder hornets, but lanternflies are actually quite beautiful. They look like moths or butterfly.

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, they look like.

[Seth Mandel]

Right?

[John Podhoretz]

Yeah, Right.

[Seth Mandel]

And when they're younger, they're not. They're, you know, black and white or whatever without the red in it. So they look like moths or whatever, but they don't look like something that you would be afraid of. And they don't hurt you. A murder hornet is something that's going to hurt you. So the lantern flies, they get in by being, you know, unthreatening to the humans, and that's really that matters. But they're socialism bad for certain clans and certain trees and therefore will enable certain other trees that in lots of areas of America are themselves invasive species. And so the concern is that the lanternfly continues a cycle of changing an ecosystem. A bit like when the British first aristocrats first started importing American gray squirrels as pets to put in cages and, you know, to show off their wealth. And then it turned out that the American gray squirrel has a much hardier system, immune system that and is able to eat nuts that are not quite soft yet. And the, the English red squirrel began dying out in massive numbers. And that's why they hunt the gray squirrels. So you never know. And this all, of course, brings us back to Michael Crichton.

[John Podhoretz]

I would just like to say that Seth's body of knowledge. Seth has the most interesting body of knowledge. Every now and then he comes out with, I no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure it's absolutely true and it's kind of fascinating. And how you know that, I don't know. It's all because I just said lantern squirrel. Lanternfly.

[Christine Rosen]

Oh my God.

[John Podhoretz]

Why didn't we all get into correction, corrected merchandise. We just corrected him. The lantern squirrel. That's right. You did correct me. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you very. But there are all these things, right? And then we could, we can close on this like that. Just there was. Nobody had a gluten allergy when I was younger, right? Nobody was lactose intolerant. I don't know when all these things happened. Half the people you know are lactose intolerant. They have celiac disease. They, they have that. And I, I grew up. There were people in America when I grew up. It was not that long ago. I don't like milk. I don't think that means I'm lactose intolerant. But am I wrong or no?

[Matthew Continetti]

I think a lot of. I think a lot of people could not metabolize some of these things back then. But they weren't diagnosed. We didn't have this sense of it being a problem. And they just suffered in silence. I mean, I went to school with a girl. We had to drink milk every lunch. And she would drink the milk and then like throw up and they were like, you have to drink your milk. She was probably lactose intolerant.

[John Podhoretz]

Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Right. But I'm just saying that many things that did that, that I'm just not old enough, you know, it's not like I'm talking about, oh, there were, there were, you know, there were, there were. You people used to make buggy whips and now they don't make buggy whips anymore. I'm still, you know, measles is coming.

[Matthew Continetti]

Back, so, like, we're getting a little retro, you know, return of some of the things.

[John Podhoretz]

Yes, that's, that's really, it's like, talk about an invasive species that really is being imported here by a rich family lunatic from a dominant elite family who is, you know, trying to get everybody sick with measles and has been given control of the health bureaucracy in the United States. That's a really great thing that's happened, in case you're wondering whether there are weird conspiracies that we should look into that people who are conspiracists themselves somehow end up gaining the court, running the quarters of power. Okay, I don't know where I'm going with that. It's very late. We're going to stop here. Hope you have a wonderful weekend. Thanks for all that. We got many wonderful letters. I'm sorry we didn't get to all of them. And we'll, they were really great.

[Christine Rosen]

And can I, can I just add, like a special addendum here? I've noticed this over the past few years and especially since October 7, 2023, we actually get a lot of letters from people saying something along the lines of, I am not Jewish, but I really support the Jewish people. I have always been in line with the, the, the, with supporters of Israel. And I've been awed by what, what brief exposure I've had to Jewish ethics and Jewish life. And I just want you to know that we stand with you. We actually get a lot of those. A lot of those, yeah. Like so many that I can't really respond to the, all of them. And I'm sure John can't respond to all them. So I, I, I, I just want to give like a blanket. Thank you so much. It is received and felt in precisely the way that you would want it to be felt.

[John Podhoretz]

It is. We got a great many questions of this sort, but some, they were very broad. A lot of them were sort of like, what can I say to my friends who don't like Israel about why they should like Israel? And the answer, you know, we were, we were trying to run through questions, not get, you know, locked in a Talmudic debate for hours on one. But thank you. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you to everybody who writes in. We'll be doing more of these. We keep meaning to do more of them and then we get waylaid by by news events. But they're always exciting and wonderful shows. And so thanks to everybody who wrote in and thanks to everybody whose letters we read today. We'll be back on Monday. So for Abe, Christine, Matt and Seth, I'm John Pot Horitz. Keep the candle party.