Shadi Hamid: The Left Should Learn to Love American Power

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Gist

Episode: Shadi Hamid: The Left Should Learn to Love American Power
Date: December 12, 2025
Host: Mike Pesca
Guest: Shadi Hamid, Washington Post columnist and senior fellow at Georgetown University, author of The Case for American Power

---

Overview

This episode centers on Shadi Hamid’s provocative argument that the American left should reconsider its profound skepticism of American power. Hamid, himself a progressive and critic of U.S. foreign policy, outlines why he believes that, despite America's deeply flawed record, American power remains a moral necessity in a dangerous world. The conversation alternates between the theoretical—what power means to the left, the roots of American self-doubt—and contemporary flashpoints like Gaza, Iraq, and the Arab Spring.

This summary highlights the most important threads, including pivotal moments and memorable quotes, with timestamps for key segments.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Crisis of Faith on the American Left

[12:02 - 14:08]

• Hamid observes that many on the left, especially post-‘Trump II’, are intensely skeptical—even cynical—about America’s ideals and power.
• Reasons for this skepticism include the “forever wars” (Afghanistan, Iraq), and more recently, the U.S. role (or lack thereof) in the Gaza conflict.
  • Quote (Shadi Hamid, 12:27):
    “We’re in a moment of self-doubt, a crisis of self-confidence…progressives have been very disillusioned by what they saw as the Biden administration’s complicity—and then the Trump administration’s complicity—in allowing [Gaza] to happen.”
• Hamid’s case: If progressives want a more moral world, “the only way to do that is through American power... meld[ing] together the power that we have and the moral purpose we should have but don’t always practice.”

2. Why Is 'American Power' So Unpalatable?

[14:08 - 16:34]

• Host and guest debate whether “American” or “Power” is more toxic to many on the left.
• Hamid notes the left’s willingness to rationalize or excuse Russian and Chinese expansionism, but sees unique discomfort with American power, often rooted in U.S. historical sins.
• For some, “acts of evil...in America's founding...makes us irredeemable.”
• There’s an ideal of moral purity: “it’s better to be morally righteous than to be compromised by power.”

3. Declining Pride in America

[17:01 - 18:58]

• Stark data point:
  • In early 2000s, 85% of Democrats felt “extremely or very proud” to be American; now it’s 36%.
  • Quote (Shadi Hamid, 17:14):
    “There’s been a free fall over the last 25 years, and it is concentrated among Democrats and progressives. They’re the ones who have lost faith in America.”
• Hamid’s own journey: Once “blamed America first,” idolized Chomsky, came to see realities weren’t so simple.

4. When Has American Power Done Good?

[19:24 - 23:07]

• Hamid lists positive interventions:
  • U.S. interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, Gulf War freeing Kuwait, and supporting democratization in Latin America and Eastern Europe post-Cold War.
  • Quote (Hamid, 19:40):
    “There are examples we can point to and say America actually did the right thing…but I wish there were more.”
• Iraq remains “one of the greatest blunders.” But intent wasn’t always malign. Policymakers genuinely wanted to help, yet failed catastrophically.

5. The Flawed Alternatives to U.S. Power

[23:07 - 28:07]

• Critics seem to imagine a “giant human rights organization” America—“like a big NGO.”
• Hamid counters that “the world is full of evil...someone needs to fight them.”
  • When U.S. retreats, “other people step into the void, and those people…are usually worse.”
  • Quote (Pesca, 26:03):
    “What do we do about Boko Haram? What’s their answer to what would ISIS be...their answer would be, ‘Oh yeah, ISIS probably would take over,’ but who’s really at fault for ISIS? And…in this worldview, it all comes down to colonialism and imperialism.”
• While grievances fuel extremism, some actors (ISIS, Taliban) are ideologically committed, and “sometimes violence is the only option.” (Hamid, 27:48)

6. The Gaza Dilemma and the Boundaries of Pragmatism

[36:07 - 42:07]

• Hamid discusses personal and communal pain around Gaza, especially in Arab and Muslim American circles.
  • Being seen as a “sellout” for defending American power, but believes “America is the last best hope or the least bad option.”
  • U.S. could have used power to pressure Israel for a quicker ceasefire: thousands of lives could have been saved, even if it wasn’t a total fix.
  • Quote (Hamid, 39:26):
    “I think that having, you know, three or four less months of war would be preferable, and that would actually save a certain number of lives. Is that, would that have been the best option? No...but in the real world where there’s tradeoffs, we can’t always get what we want.”
• Progressive refusal to accept tradeoffs—or “less bad” outcomes—is a hurdle for pragmatic arguments about American power.

7. Democracy, Tradeoffs, and Activism

[42:07 - 44:55]

• Hamid: Realism and democracy are key:
  • “If you don’t like what the U.S. did in Gaza...organize, participate, and advocate and try to elect leaders who are more sympathetic...We get the government we deserve.”
  • On the “Abandon Kamala” movement: protest is legitimate, but ultimately you have to vote for the better option, however flawed.
  • “America is morally superior to the alternatives. It comes back to the fact that our support for Israel is not some built-in structural reality that will always be there. It can change.”

8. The Arab Spring, Egypt, and Democracy

[44:55 - 48:40]

• Hamid’s doctrine: Respect democratic outcomes, even if you don’t like them.
  • “Democracy is the right to make the wrong choice.” [46:41]
  • Criticizes the U.S. for abandoning the Arab Spring, defaulting to old autocratic allies.
  • Regarding groups like the Muslim Brotherhood: there was risk, but America should have let Egyptians decide.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Shadi Hamid [17:14]:
  “There’s been a free fall over the last 25 years…concentrated among Democrats and progressives. They’re the ones who have lost faith in America.”
• Shadi Hamid [28:07]:
  “The only option with [ISIS] is to defeat them. This fantasy that we can talk to them or negotiate with them, I think is a foolhardy one…sometimes violence is the only option. And that’s a really hard thing for some progressives to hear.”
• Shadi Hamid [36:07]:
  “I don’t want people to think that in writing this book I’m kind of giving cover to the U.S.…I talk about Gaza very openly, especially in the introduction…how do I make sense of Gaza? Can you still be angry at America and still think America is the last, best hope?”
• Shadi Hamid [42:07]:
  “If you don’t like what the U.S. did in Gaza…organize and try to elect leaders who are more sympathetic to Palestinians. That’s the only way this is going to change.”
• Shadi Hamid [46:41]:
  “Democracy is the right to make the wrong choice.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Time | Segment | |----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 11:08 | Shadi Hamid introduced; book’s intended audience: the American left | | 12:02 | Why the left is skeptical of America and American power | | 14:08 | Is the left more allergic to “power” or “American” in “American power”? | | 17:01 | Dramatic decline in Democratic pride in America | | 19:24 | Positive cases for U.S. power in history | | 23:07 | Alternatives to American power and their weaknesses | | 26:47 | Root causes of extremism, but why some groups cannot be reasoned with | | 36:07 | Gaza, American leverage, and tradeoffs as a realist’s argument | | 42:07 | Democracy as a corrective, organizing for change, “we get the leaders we deserve” | | 44:55 | The Arab Spring and standing by democracy, even when the choice is hard | | 46:41 | “Democracy is the right to make the wrong choice.” |

---

Conclusion and Tone

Shadi Hamid’s argument is measured, at times anguished, and rooted in his own evolution from “blaming America first” to reluctant defender of American power. Both he and Pesca acknowledge the messiness, tradeoffs, and moral compromises of real-world politics. Hamid doesn’t shy from the left’s legitimate anger over interventions and U.S. complicity, but insists that “moral clarity” cannot substitute for the messy work of wielding power for better outcomes, however imperfect.

Memorable closing line:
“Democracy is the right to make the wrong choice.” [46:41]

---

Summary prepared for those who want substance, nuance, and a brisk walk through the thickets of liberal self-doubt and world affairs, without the pod’s ads and digressions.

Transcript

[A]

The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R I K.com It's Friday, December 12, 2025 from Peach Fish Productions, it's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca and I have one plea for the upcoming Sunday to be aired this Sunday. I don't know who the guest list is. I could find out, but that would ruin the thrill of a man my age. The frison of excitement. Chris Matthews once described it as the chill running up and down his leg. When I see who the guests are on the Sunday show, sometimes even mix up the panelist who is Donna Brazile going to give her gumbo recipe to? Or make an analogy about how the cockerels in her gumbo recipe represent, I don't know, maybe the forgotten Oregonian working class. So here is my play. I don't know if Scott Besson, treasury secretary, is going to be on Fox News Sunday or cnn, State of the Union or this week. This week. I do know that in the last couple weeks he has been on the other two Sunday shows that I have not mentioned, Face the Nation, Meet the Press. And in both those cases, we heard a variation of the same question, the same answer. And this is what I don't need. I don't need another one of these. It's not just Bessant who gets these questions. It's people who are doing the interviewing, asking the so called tough question on behalf of the so called people about the price of, I don't know, coffee, bananas, Tonka trucks. Here's Margaret Brennan who I very much like doing one version, the toy version of this question to Besant. Well, the maker of tonka trucks, their CEO said it's going to cost 40.

[B]

Bucks for their toys right now because of tariffs and inflation.

[A]

It was 30 bucks the year before that, 25. Prices in the toy space are accelerating and people are feeling that. Well, Margaret, you know, inflation's A composite number. And it's roughly the same year over year. And if we were to look at all imported goods. Imported goods. Inflation is below the inflation number. See, it's a composite number. Not going to break apart not just every component of the economy, but every brand and tell you if prices are up or prices are down, it's a composite number. And furthermore, it matters. Inflation certainly matters, but it really matters in relationship to rising wages, how much you can afford the things we don't really want. Deflation. It's an exceedingly stupid way to have an interview. Wait a minute. You're the Treasury Secretary. People can't afford things. What do you say about cheesesteaks? All right, moving on. What do you say about corrugated cardboard? So cardboard corrugated. I hope so. What do you say about plywood? All right, how about two by fours? How about four by fours? We'll do all the pieces of lumber if they've gone up. Here was Scott Besant. He's trying. He's really trying. And I don't. I don't think he has a good hand to play. In fact, his hand has gone down by 17% since 2024. He's asked by the Meet the Press hosts Kristen Welker about a couple of things.

[B]

Well, and banana prices are up almost 7%. Coffee prices up nearly 19%. Isn't the fact that you're rolling back tariffs in admission that ultimately they do drive up prices for consumers?

[A]

Chris, how much does your arm weigh?

[B]

That I do.

[A]

Not exactly. But you know how much you weigh. You get on the scale every morning.

[B]

Inflation is a composite number. And we look at everything.

[A]

See there he's going with the how much do you weigh? You get on the scale every morning. And we were all a little distracted by saying, you're talking to a woman about her weight. But really what he was talking about was again, inflation being a composite number because it is because the individual price of the individual thing. How much is ketchup in a packet? In a jar? Hunts. Heinz box of. Heinz box of Hunts Hunts ketchup at the Safeway, Hunts ketchup at the Key. Food doesn't work, doesn't get us anywhere, is my plea, is my hope. Don't know if he will be asked to either Meet the Press or Face the Nation again, but if he is asked to comment on either the State of the Union or this week. This week, just don't go through. How about this? Just film a segment with him walking up and down the aisle of a supermarket, just pointing to everything, and then he give the same answer every time and we the people will be the better off for it on the show today. Now, if those were bad questions, I do think I've asked some good questions to my guest, who is not a phrase. I love a man of good faith, which is to say he's a man of the left, but he very much wants to write a book so that the left likes America a little more. Because you know, you do live in America and if you're, if all you're doing is undermining America or making the case that America should not be doing what it's doing, whatever it is doing, I don't know, maybe we're not getting to the best collective future. Shadi Hamid is the author. The name of the book is the Case for American Power. I don't want to give away the answer, but we do have a democracy and it's good for world power to operate under that system, a real democracy. So just based on this alone, Shadi looks at the entire situation, all the alternatives, a little bit of history, and says let's go with this. Shadi Hamid. Up next, Confidence shouldn't be complicated. Through hims, you could skip the guesswork and the hoping and the waiting and also just the idea that you're not sure if you can going to get access to care that fits your lifestyle. Straightforward, stress free and designed around you. So you deserve less stress, you deserve more confidence. I say this because I'm seeing through the podcast and I'm seeing you're a good guy, but we know as a guy that, you know, you maybe fall into what the NIH defines as the ED experiencing community of 30 million men. Well, three through HIMSS, get personalized prescription treatment for ED. This includes hard mints and SexRx plus climate control if prescribed. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to feel like yourself. HIMSS brings expert care straight to you. Think of it as your digital front door that gets you back to your old self with simple 100% online access to trusted treatments for ED and more. And as far as cost, some of their offerings are trusted generics that cost 95% less than brand names to hard mints if prescribed. To get simple online access to personalized Affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss and more, visit hims.com the gist that's hims.com the gist for your free online video, visit hims.com the Gist. Actual price will depend on product and subscription plan. Featured products include compounded drug products which the FDA does Not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription requires the website for details, restrictions and important safety information. So I'm in my 50s, let's just say early 50s. We still count it as that. And I can't attribute any changes in mood to any one one chemical. But I do know the power of testosterone and I do know that when I was, I don't know, 28, things were different. I'm talking about diets, I'm talking about workouts, I'm definitely talking about recovery. But no one talks about this stuff, not forthrightly. One day you're crushing it, the other day you are the crushed. So I started taking Mars Men. I have learned along the way that your body makes 10 testosterone, but a lot of it gets locked up, can't be used. And there is a protein called SHBG that basically handcuffs testosterone. This is the enemy, sbhg. Your body's making the testosterone. It's all locked behind bars. Then comes Mars Men, designed to help free lock testosterone so your body can actually use it. Definitely no needles, no synthetics. Real ingredients right there. Very easy to read on the very cool packaging. Stronger physical performance results more consistent. It's not like drinking a cup of coffee, right? It's not like, boom, I feel a little more energy, it's more sustained. And look, I'm not going to bore you with my lifts, but you know, it might be, well, it's a lot bigger than certain local elected officials who couldn't really put up even one set. Not, not shamefully. They're thinking about other things. I should also mention that there is a 90 day money back guarantee. All right? So you use it for a while, let's say just to be safe, that you send the bag in time 73 days and then you gauge this Marsman effect and you get your money back if you don't like it. But I do have to say 91% of users report higher energy levels. For a limited time, just listeners get 60 off for life and two free gifts. When they use code gist@ Mengotomars.com that's Mengotomars.com and use code gist at checkout. After your purchase they will ask where you heard about them. It is incumbent upon you if you have the energy to say the gist, please support our show and tell them our show sent you. And then after you take this, you will have the energy. I'm joined once more by Shadi Hamid, who is, I think the epitome of a good faith interlocutor. Although maybe I'm the interlocutor and he's the interlocutor. He is a columnist for the Washington Post, a senior fellow at Georgetown University center for Muslim Christian Understanding, which is funny since the Jews come up a lot in what he does and has now written a book called the Case for American Power. Shadi, welcome back to the gist.

[B]

Hi, Mike, thanks for having me.

[A]

Is there an asterisk, by the way, with the Muslim Christian understanding? Do they both, do they both say, all right, now maybe we could get together and try to figure out the Jews?

[B]

Well, I mean, I think that just the focus is because, because this is a majority Christian nation post 9 11, a lot of tension. So the focus was mostly around that when the center was, was founded. But I'm not against adding, you know, Jews to the story and like having a three way, you know.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And then the Hindus want in and they should. Okay, so the case for American Power, you are having read the book, you are making the case, I think, to a specific group, and that is the group that you are broadly aligned with, and that is the left. Is that fair?

[B]

That's fair, yeah.

[A]

And so what is the case that. Yeah, I'm not going to ask you what is the case, but why do you feel you have to couch it in this way or frame it in this way?

[B]

Yeah, so I think that a lot of folks on the left who I know and who are friends of mine, they are very skeptical of America and American power, American ideals, the whole list. And I think that's especially intensified after the second election of Donald Trump. I mean, maybe the first time around they could sort of persuade themselves that this was a kind of fluke. But now this is part of who we are. We can't avoid the fact that more Americans voted for Donald Trump fair and square and wanted him to be our president. So I think we're in a moment of self doubt, a crisis of self confidence. But it's not just that. It's really the effect of 20 years plus of forever wars and interventions abroad. So a lot of, I think young progressives and of course, Gaza, I mean, Gaza is the big elephant in the room here. It looms over everything. And progressives have been very disillusioned by what they saw as the Biden administration's complicity and then the Trump administration's complicity in allowing that to happen. So I think that what I'm trying to do with this book is to tell young people, progressives and other skeptics, listen, guys, yes, we've done a lot of bad things. We have a bad record in number of parts of the world during the Cold War, after the Cold War. But America is still worth believing in and fighting for, and they should stay in the game and not exit politics. And if they want a more moral world, that's what progressives say they want. They want the world to be more moral and just. If they want that, then I think the only way to do that is through American power. So my idea here is to kind of meld together the power that we have and the moral purpose I think we should have but don't always practice. And if we can find a way to combine them, then we have a vision that can be appealing of American power.

[A]

Of those two words, which one of them is more objectionable to the people on the left?

[B]

It's an interesting question. It could really be both of them. Well, I think that some, some folks on the far left, they'll look at what Russia and China do abroad and they'll see Russian power or Chinese power, and then they'll apologize for it. They'll find ways to justify what Russia is doing in Ukraine, China's aggression towards Taiwan. So I don't think they're necessarily the.

[A]

Horseshoe Sherry, especially with Russia shows up there, because people on the far right, on the right, they're not as much with China, and that maybe have something to do with the ethnicity of everyone involved.

[B]

But, yeah, true, that could be part of it. Yeah. So I think that there's something about American power in particular that rattles people, that almost as if America is intrinsically bad. Some of that might have to do with the founding of our country and this perception that we were founded on acts of evil and that makes us irredeemable. So I think some people have that kind of propaganda, that kind of propagandized approach to America. They have that in their minds and they can't get past it. And obviously, yes, acts of evil were committed in America's founding, but you'd probably say that for most countries in the world that were founded through war, through acts of violence and so forth. But I think there is also a kind of leftist discomfort with the idea of power. Oftentimes that power corrupts us, that power gets our hands dirty, and that we should be morally pure, and it's better to be morally righteous than to be compromised by power. So I'm also trying to push back against that notion which I think is predominant, although maybe it's changing. I mean, I like the way, for example, that Zoran Mamdani talks about power in his victory speech. He talked about resting power away from the kind of the rich, the billionaires, and so forth. So there are. There are elements of the left that I think can kind of rediscover their appreciation for power when they're the ones holding it. But I think it's still a long way to go on that.

[A]

What percentage? That's going to be hard to answer. How about this? Is that a rising sentiment since you were a college student protesting, holding signs outside the White House? The irredeemability, the inherent intrinsic suspicion of power, maybe when wielded by Americans, but necessarily as when wielded by Americans. Has that grown, do you think?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, the stats are pretty remarkable when it comes to pride in America. And I, you know, I've mentioned this in a couple places, and I love the stat because it's so frightening. So I don't love it exactly. But in the early 2000s, the percentage of America, the percentage of Democrats who were either extremely or very proud to be American, was at around was over 85%. Now that number has dropped to 36%. That is. That is just remarkable to me. It's crazy and it shows. There's been a free fall over the last 25 years, and it is concentrated among Democrats and progressive. They're the ones who have lost faith in America. Conservatives have actually been. And Republicans have been pretty constant at around 90%, give or take, no matter who's really in office. So we have a problem on our side. And, you know, as you mentioned, I was one of those. I mean, I consider myself of the left. I kind of got my political chops in organizing against the Iraq war when I was a college student. That kind of radicalized me a little bit, we might say. And I was one of those people who blamed America first. I thought that America was a font of destruction that wherever it acted, it made things worse. And it took me some time to evolve from that. But I think a lot of us have to evolve from that. We go through that phase in college. We're reading Noam Chomsky and people like that. He was my foreign policy guru for a while. But then you start, you sort of grow out of it, and you have to contend with the world as it actually is instead of having this fantasy idea of an America that will never be. We're never going to be this perfect superpower that people have in their minds.

[A]

So did you, in fact, learn more? You're an expert in the field. Was that part of it? As you learn more about the world. You began collecting instances where actually America did pretty good or given the choices, that was the most moral. Or was it more the case that as you gained expertise, you didn't find that you just kind of oriented yourself about theories of power a little differently?

[B]

Well, I did find that there were occasionally things that America did well and that were net positives. And some of them had to do with, you know, saving Muslim populations in Kosovo and Bosnia in the 1990s during the Bosnian genocide. That would, that would not have ended if it wasn't for US Power or the first Gulf War when Iraq occupied Kuwait. That wouldn't have ended if not for US power. So there are some examples we can point to and say that America actually did the right thing. But also, I think towards the end of the Cold War, we started facilitating democratic transitions in Latin America, Africa, Asia. I mean, granted we had supported right wing dictatorships for a long time, but we realized the error of our ways eventually. And then we started to promote democracy in some of these regions. And eventually, you know, Eastern Europe, Latin America experienced a third, what's so the so called third wave of democratization in the 1990s that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the U.S. so if you look for examples of America doing good things, you can find them. I wish there were more examples. And that's where I think we end up having a bit of a problem in the last 20 years in particular. I mean, I consider the Iraq war to be one of the greatest blunders in American foreign policy. But I also learned through my research, through interviewing people who were in the room with George W. Bush at key decision points or in the room with Barack Obama at key moments, that a lot of American policymaker policymakers, it's not as if they wake up in the morning and think to themselves, we want to hurt Muslims and make their lives miserable. That wasn't what was motivating the Iraq War. I think the Iraq war, at least for some, had well meaning motivations. I mean, George W. Bush himself spoke quite eloquently about the right of Iraqis to live in freedom and democracy. And I think by all accounts he.

[A]

Actually believed that and always emphasized an anti anti Muslim sentiment. He would even go so far as to say, even if you're atheist, he was much more attuned to not being offensive at least. And I thought, I think it's genuine that he very much wanted to make it clear that this was not a war on or against Islam.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

But I mean, then you could say, so what? You know, hundreds of thousands of people died. Do you think? I mean, I've looked at the stats now. I don't know if you could say it's worth it, but the media in Iraqi's life is much better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Right, but you got to take into account all the people who died to get there.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's right. Iraqis are better off now, but I don't think that retroactively justifies the war. The war was waged primarily on false pretenses of WMDs that were never really there. There was a lot of deception involved. And so look, we could in theory just go around toppling dictators through military means, but that's just not a good idea as we've learned because we don't have a good plan for the day after. We can't anticipate how people will respond. We have this idea that people will welcome us with, you know, open arms and it just doesn't turn out to be the case. It's a lot more complicated. So I don't think anything can justify the Iraq war. And I think we're still paying the price for it to this day. And we have a generation, my generation, who was disillusioned because of that. And will we ever fully recover from that disillusion?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I feel bad for your generation. I feel worse for the actual combatants who we'll have to spend trillions of dollars on trying to help psychologically and physically as a result of that war. The cost of US lives, treasure, credibility and. Yeah, and then add the disillusionment of certain cohort of America. But I want to go back to the idea of when the left or anyone fairly criticizes all this US adventurism. You were talking about instances where the US did do well. Is the alternative that they're comparing it to some imagined version of what the Norwegians would do if they were a country of 330 million people? What's the alternative? Non intervention allowing, even if it's not the Soviet Union, other large state actors with multinational interests like China to be the dominant player? How do the people who have valid critiques of, of the actual execution of US foreign policy foresee or see things if the US just had a non interventionist, let's stick to our borders type strategy?

[B]

Well, I think on, on one level a lot of people want an America that is like some giant human rights organization that just goes around promoting human rights and being very peaceful, like a Big NGO or like the UN or something like that. And it's the. It's the military force part that makes them really uncomfortable. And they have. And I think there's this notion that if only the US Decreased its defense budget, paid less attention to its own military, and focused more on diplomacy, that somehow that would be the right approach. They don't understand that the world is full of evil. There are bad actors, and someone needs to fight them. Now the question is, who? Who is going to play that role of fighting back against aggression? And I think sometimes they see China as an alternative Russia, and they're like, oh, could we be. I don't think they're actually saying, could we be more like China, but they have this sense that if we live in a multipolar world where each power has its sphere of influence and we kind of divide up the region so China can play more of a role in Asia, and then we kind of mind our own business closer to home, and it's just a very unrealistic way of looking at international affairs. What would that even look like? This. This notion of you, the U.S. the problem is whenever the U.S. backs away and cedes the initiative, other people step into the void. And those people who step in the void are usually worse than usually.

[A]

Or they're France, or they're France and the Sahel, and they withdraw because they have some of the same impulses and probably a stronger leftist voice saying, get out. So, yeah, I'm not even worried. I am worried about the large powers and Russia rolling into Ukraine. But what we do about Boko Haram, what's their answer to what would ISIS be? I know what their answer would be. Their answer would be, oh, yeah, ISIS probably would take over the areas, but who's really at fault for isis? And you unwind everything back, and in this worldview, it all comes down to colonialism and imperialism of the United States. So, you know, I don't know that there are. Well, you tell me. You know them more. But are there more complicated arguments than that that answer the Boko Haram or ISIS question?

[B]

Well, look, I think there's a legitimate argument to be had that radicals and extremists are radicalized by something. They didn't become extremists overnight. So there were grievances that played some role in pushing them to take up arms. Yeah, that's not for everyone who's an extremist, but at least some of the rank and file who aren't very ideologically motivated, maybe they join because, you know. Yeah, Grievances that like. And, you know, or. Or they need money. And these extremist groups are able to kind of give them a life and meaning and a sense of belonging to. So I think there are a lot of different factors that play into that. But at the end of the day, some extremists cannot. It's not like you can undo their extremism once they've become that way. Especially when it comes to the far right of extremists like isis, who are as radical as you can possibly get. The only option with them is to defeat them. This fantasy that we can talk to them or negotiate with them, I think is a foolhardy one. You can talk to some people some of the time, but sometimes violence is the only option. And that's a really hard thing I think, for some progressives to hear. Even when I'm saying it myself, I feel a little bit uncomfortable. Wait, what? There's gotta be a different way, but sometimes there isn't.

[A]

Yeah, no, I think that's absolutely true. And if you play this out, I understand the comforting ideas that have some truth to them, that there are original sins and something turns radicals radical. But it's not always the actions of, say, the United States or it's not even always actions that are immoral. I think part of why ISIS wants to return the cat to a caliphate of hundreds of years ago is not because of the immoral actions of their oppressors. Right. I mean, the same with the Taliban. You know, yes, there's. We all know the history and all the imperial nations that have been in Afghanistan, but. But then their liberation project presents itself as what the Taliban is. And, you know, it's not. Would the Taliban have been the Taliban if the United States or Russia never were in Afghanistan? I don't know. I think it's quite likely. The answer is yes, it's a tribal system. You know, there are. There are tensions.

[B]

No, I think you're right. Like, the Taliban is a good example in the sense that it's not as if the US pre 911 was occupying Afghanistan. If anything, the US played a positive role in helping the Mujahideen liberate Afghanistan from Soviet rule. So, yes, Bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda, they had grievances about the US Supporting Arab dictators. They had grievances, obviously, about Israel, Palestine. But that can explain everything. That can't. I mean, they did. There are people who want to form caliphates and they're ideologically committed to that, and they want to be brutal in how they implement that. And nothing we say or do differently is going to make them feel different. They've made their decision about what they stand for.

[A]

And we'll be back with a little more of Shadi Hamid in a second.

[B]

Guys, thanks for helping me carry my Christmas tree, Zoe. This thing weighs a ton. Drewski, live with your legs, man. Santa. Santa, did you get my letter?

[A]

He's talking to you, Bridges. I'm not.

[B]

Of course he did.

[A]

Right, Santa, you know my elf Drew Ski here. He handles the nice list. And elf, I'm six three. What everyone wants is iPhone 17 and at T Mobile you can get it on them. That center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies.

[B]

Right, Mrs. Claus? I'm Mrs. Claus much younger sister. And AT T Mobile, there's no trade in needed when you switch. So you can keep your old phone.

[A]

Or give it as a gift.

[B]

And the best part, you can make the switch to T mobile from your phone in just 15 minutes. Nice. My side of the tree is slipping. Kimber. The holidays are better.

[A]

AT T Mobile switch in just 15.

[B]

Minutes and get iPhone 17 on us with no trade in needed.

[A]

And now T Mobile is available in US Cellular with 24 month credits for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge credit send and balance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel Financing Agreement 256 gates. $830 eligible for it in a new line. $100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes fees required. Check out 15 minutes or less per line.

[B]

Visit t mobile.com Ever notice how ads always pop up at the worst moments when the killer's identity is about to be revealed during that perfect meditation flow on Amazon Music, we believe in keeping you in the moment. That's why we've got millions of ad free podcast episodes. So you can stay completely immersed in every story, every reveal, every breath, download the Amazon music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts. Ad free included with Prime.

[A]

We're back with Shadi Hamid as he continues to make the case for American power. Why are you different than say I'm thinking of Samantha Power? Why are you different from someone who was associated with either Clinton or Biden or Obama who was definitely saw themselves as a human rights person. Maybe they get smeared with a label neoliberal, but there is a strong history of especially within Democratic circles. But you know, Scoop Jackson and other Republicans also maybe fit into this category. You know, what is the. What is the shoddy difference from a Samantha Power type?

[B]

Yeah, well, I think it's a Good question. In some ways I probably am similar to Samantha Power. But if we're looking at the Obama administration writ large, Obama's foreign policy motto was don't do stupid shit. He didn't really have an affirmative vision and he was someone who I think actually felt more comfortable restraining American power. We were very close to intervening militarily against the Assad regime in August of 2013 because of the red line that Assad had violated. And Obama backed off at the very last moment. He had this kind of instinctual discomfort. He didn't want America to be throwing around its military force for moral ends. So I think that I'm quite.

[A]

By the way, do you think strategically that was the good decision in Syria? Look at the destruction, look at the hundreds of thousands of migrants. You know, it's kind of the opposite of the Kosovo intervention.

[B]

Yeah, I think that that show us that when the US fails to act, it can be destructive because that led to the rep. If the US had intervened earlier, some of the refugee crisis could have been prevented, but also we could have saved tens of thousands of lives and stopped some of the killing if the US had intervened.

[A]

And an extra 20 years of. Right. An extra 20 years of oppression. Of course your colleague's former cohort on the left would have hated that. Right. And they, they would call Obama, as they still do, just another in a continuation of hawks or a neocon in, you know, cheap clothes.

[B]

Yeah, I think for some people everyone's a hawk if there's any, any kind of, even mild use of American power. I think what also makes me different is, and I say this in the book, that I don't come to my conclusions either easily or enthusiastically. I mean, the book is partly an anguished manifesto. It's part memoir, part foreign policy analysis. But I'm torn by some of my own arguments and I had doubts when I was writing the book. Do I really feel comfortable making these arguments in this kind of full throated way? Am I going to be comfortable with a book that's titled the Case for American Power? Especially, you know, as an Arab and Muslim when so many of, you know, my fellow Arabs and Muslims in the US are so angry at the US over Gaza, what am I supposed to say to them? So I think, I think that, but I think that's also what makes me the right messenger for this argument, that if it was some like normie white guy, people could just be like, oh, it's a normie white guy. What else are they going to say about American power? But it's coming from someone who has a more complicated history and a more complicated background. And I've been an outspoken critic of US Foreign policy myself. I've been very critical of successive administrations on any number of issues. But, but I still came to this conclusion because I think at the end of the day, there is no real alternative to American power.

[A]

So which of the various communities or tribes were you most cautious about? Because I think this is how we work as people. We don't, you know, we operate in the world and we're very communal and tribal. And so you have your familial tribe, the extended network of Arab Americans and Egyptian Americans. There is Washington Post or the intelligentsia, the, your version of it on the left, and then there is Georgetown, right, the university or particular center at the university. I'm just naming different pressure points that you could have gotten guff from. Which ones were you most cautious about?

[B]

Arab and Muslim Americans, for sure. Just because the Gaza war has affected us so intimately. Like everyone knows someone has Palestinian friends whose family have been killed, relatives have been killed. So I think there's a personal element to a lot of this where in our community this is what's discussed on a non stop basis. How could the US Allow this to happen? And I don't want people to think that in writing this book I'm kind of giving cover to the U.S. in fact, I talk about Gaza very openly, especially in the introduction to the book about how that made me question my own arguments and I was wrestling with it and how do I make sense of Gaza? And I'm trying to get the reader to kind of wrestle with me and think about Gaza in this critical way? But can you still criticize and be angry at America for what it did or didn't do in Gaza and still think that America is the last best hope or the least bad option? I think it's possible to hold those two seemingly contradictory messages at the same time. I mean, life is complicated and I think if anything, the US Chose not to use its power with Israel. So that's what I say to these audiences. I say, look, America decided not to put pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire until very late in the game. Under Donald Trump, we could have used our power as leverage and put pressure on Netanyahu to make concessions to stop the killing, to pause the war, but we weren't willing to put that pressure on Israel. So I think there's arguments that I'm able to make when people push me on this, but still it's hard for me Sometimes I don't know how much of a sense you have, Mike, of this, but you can probably guess that in the Arab and Muslim community, this is, you know, I think in some ways the number one issue. It's seen as the moral crisis of our time. And I'm somewhat sympathetic to that. And we talked about that a little bit last time I was on the show. So that's kind of what I have to contend with. And at the end of the day, I'll convince some people, I won't convince others. Some people will look at me as a sellout, but, you know, that's. That's life.

[A]

Yeah, I would say that. And this is reflected in the book. If America had more power, had a sense of its power, if the Biden presidency were more powerful, some of what you're saying might have been able to happen. I mean, we know Netanyahu had his own pressures and his own theories and had opportunities for ceasefire and ending the war sooner that he didn't adhere to. You know, you could say if he was afraid of America because America was so powerful, we would have gotten a few more months of peace. I guess you could also be assailed as, oh, Shadi, what are you doing? You're, you're looking at the 60,000 dead and you're making a case that maybe it would have been 58,000. Is that, is that really your case for American power?

[B]

Yeah, I can see.

[A]

I'm sure you got, I'm sure you got that critique.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And I think, you know, I think that having, you know, three or four less months of war would be preferable and that would actually save a certain number of lives. Is that, would that have been the best option? No, there's other things I would have liked to have seen, but like in the real world where there's trade offs, we can't always get what we want. And we have to also acknowledge that the US Isn't going to cut off Israel entirely. That's probably not realistic. So the most, I think a lot of us can hope for is the US using its power to have a more balanced approach that actually treats Palestinians as equal human beings and expresses sympathy with, with what they've suffered through. I mean, we're not, I don't think a lot. I don't think I'm asking for all that much. But I do think that four or five months less of war, with maybe thousands less killed, and of an averting mass, mass starvation, the crisis that we saw earlier this year, I think that would have, that would have been much better than what we had. And yeah, and I'm willing to say.

[A]

That there is, I don't, I don't know that there is any difference between you and I on this, but my analysis of the left is that it's so what you just articulated was a less bad outcome. And that is, and you also use the word tradeoffs, which I always think about and use. That is reality another word that you used. But it's not the milieu or mindset of the people that you're arguing to maybe some small set of them, you know, your personal friends or the 18 year old, old shoddy who's out there. That guy must exist. But right, but even with serious, with so many of the things we're talking about, I think you're right. If America embraced its power or the non, the non hawkish people who do prioritize human rights but also have a quote, realistic view on this, if they were, if they had more power within America, there would be less suffering in the world, but there wouldn't be no suffering and there still would be some version of the refugee crisis in Syria. And we also can't rewind it and play the experiment again. And I think we all know the Chomsky acolytes would be out on the streets protesting. So, you know, it just tells you what you know, which is that it's an uphill climb given your particular audience for the book and how they look at things, which is not, as I'm going to say, nuanced. Maybe they'd say clear minded.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I think that, yeah, it is an uphill battle. But what I would say to them is I wish there were more Chomsky ites in government exercising power and having to deal with these tradeoffs. And this is part of the message of the book is that I want people. If you don't like what the US did in Gaza, that's 100% fair. But then what are you going to do about it? What you do is you organize, participate and advocate and try to elect leaders who are more sympathetic to Palestinians. That's the only way this is going to change. So this is why another, you know, a reason why I say in the book that America is morally superior to the alternatives. It comes back to the fact that we're a democracy. And because we're a democracy, it means that our support for Israel is not some built in structural reality that will always be there. It can change depending on who our leaders are. So one thing I, you know, I tend to Remind people of is we get the government we deserve, so we only have ourselves to blame if we don't like US Policy. Let's actually get different Democrats in office to exercise power differently.

[A]

Yeah. What did you think of the movement to withhold the vote and support for Kamala Harris in places like Michigan and other people who were driven primarily by the Gaza issue?

[B]

I think it was a good and useful way to put pressure on the campaign to make concessions. They didn't really make any concessions or they didn't show much understanding. So at some level, they just disregarded their base on some of these questions. My view was that at the end of the day, people tried to get Kamala to act differently. They failed. But then you still got to vote for her. You still should vote for her, because she's much better than the alternative. Again, I'm a realist when it comes to these things, and I voted for Kamala. It was hard for me. I had to kind of hold my nose. But at the end of the day, it wasn't just about Gaza. It was also about so many other things. And we're seeing just how destructive Trump is 2.0. It's honestly worse than I thought it would be. I think it's worse than a lot of people thought it would be. And this could have been averted if Kamala was the president. As flawed as she was, I think she was a remarkably flawed candidate. That said, I don't think the Democratic Party should take our votes for granted, and I think it's the way it works in a democracy is that you have to earn people's vote. And if you're not able to present to them an affirmative vision for why they should be inspired and moved by what you have to offer, then maybe you deserve to lose. So I'm kind of torn on that. I go back and forth a little.

[A]

Bit, knowing what you know and making the cases you do for America and American power. What's your analysis? And maybe there's a difference from at the time to, in retrospect for how the Arab Spring played out in Egypt with Hosni Mubarak deposed, and now we have El Sisi. But the Muslim Brotherhood had a time, and man, was the. Was the Obama administration hamstrung during that period. I'm just interested in if your analysis changed and what it is and what it was.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, my view is that you have to respect democratic outcomes, even if you don't like them. So when the Muslim Brotherhood won successive elections in Egypt, we don't have to like the Muslim Brotherhood. But if they won fair and square, that's the result. And that's up to the Egyptian people. And so I've been very critical of how the Obama administration basically backed away from its support for the Arab Spring. And we have this thing where we always fall back on the old pro American dictators, the old way of doing things. And I think that there was a real chance for democracy to take, to take in the Middle East. And when it failed in Egypt and when we didn't stand up for democracy, however flawed it was in Egypt, that was a death knell for the Arab Spring as we know it. And yeah, so my view on the Muslim Brotherhood is sort of my view on Donald Trump. Donald Trump is destructive. He's terrible for this country. He undermines everything that I hold dear. But he deserves to be president. He has his four years in office. If we don't like it, we vote for someone else next time around and we live to fight another day. And I'm really. That's a very strongly held principle of mine, that democracy is the right to make the wrong choice.

[A]

I agree with you, but to me, that is the toughest decision. If we're talking about Nicaragua and there's an actual election and the elected officials are terrible, but then after a dozen years, they refuse to give up power, that becomes an easy decision. Evo Morales on the way in in Bolivia. Okay. And eyebrows raised. But, you know, he's surrounded by mostly democratic leaning governments. Then when he tries to cling on to power, I think without a real claim to democracy, it's pretty easy what these stances are. But in the tinderbox that is the Middle east and with the what the Muslim Brotherhood represents and given the history of organizations in that area, winning an election and then shutting down future elections, I am just saying it's to me the hardest choice.

[B]

Yeah. I don't know if there was a lot of evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood was going to be able to cancel elections. I didn't really see that that was a likely option. The military was also still playing a very important role in Egyptian politics. So I don't think they would have let the Brotherhood cancel elections. So I think you have to let these things play out and there's always a risk. But for democracy to take root, you. You just have to, you have to let the competition go. And is it risky? Yes. But I don't know how else you can have a democracy. I mean, took us a long time and we had a lot of push and pull and also in various parts, as you mentioned, of lat in Latin America. Should we have stopped Evo Morales from taking power? No, because that would have been seen as a coup against democracy.

[A]

Right. And you know, not the first time. Yeah. But then when he tried to cling. Yeah. And I. This is why I advisedly raise all those instances as slight variations on the stark choice.

[B]

It's a dilemma. A lot of these things are dilemmas. And as you know, as you said, tradeoffs are involved. No doubt.

[A]

Shadi Hamid is a columnist at the Washington Post and he is the author most recently of the Case for American Power, which I believe does not have a subtitle.

[B]

It doesn't. Just the Case for American Power. All in.

[A]

That's how stark the case is.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Thank you, Shoddy.

[B]

Thanks so much, Mike, for having me.

[A]

And that's it for today's show. The Gist is produced by Cory Wara, with Leah Yan as our production coordinator and Jeff Craig running our socials and Michelle Pesca as coo umpru gpru. Duparu is how you pronounce it. Thanks for listening.