Can We Build a Durable, Post-Trump Conservative Movement?

Summary

---

The Josh Hammer Show

Episode: Can We Build a Durable, Post-Trump Conservative Movement?
Date: July 24, 2026
Host: Josh Hammer
Main Guests: Henry Olson (Ethics and Public Policy Center)
Additional Guest: Rafael Mangual (Manhattan Institute)

---

Overview

This episode of The Josh Hammer Show examines the trajectory of American conservatism in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidency. Josh Hammer, Senior Editor-at-Large at Newsweek and a prominent voice on the New Right, debates the durability of Trump-era populism and nationalism, the necessary ideological borders within the movement, and the synthesis of new and old right coalitions. In-depth discussions with Henry Olson and Rafael Mangual explore the possibilities for a renewed "fusionist" conservatism, addressing policy, coalition-building, and practical challenges confronting both national and local politics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Future of the Right After Trump ([00:55]–[07:28])

• Trump’s Influence:
  Josh Hammer opens the episode questioning whether Trump-inspired nationalism and populism will fade away or be reabsorbed into a reformed conservative movement post-Trump.
• “Epic idiocy and hyper conspiratorialism”:
  Hammer sharply criticizes fringe figures and conspiratorial elements within the right, especially those, like Tucker Carlson, who he accuses of serving the interests of foreign adversaries rather than America.
  • Quote (Josh Hammer at [02:53]):
    “You have epic idiocy and hyper conspiratorialism that is now in our midst… and a lot of folks who are saying and doing a lot of things that seem to be serving the interests of foreign actors... not … Israel ... places like Iran and Russia and China and North Korea and Cuba... I speak here, of course, about people like Tucker Carlson, who was the leader of this not so merry band of absolute idiots.”
• Debate with Tucker Carlson:
  Hammer plays and analyzes a recent exchange where Carlson praises Qatar, provoking Hammer to challenge Carlson's views, particularly on religious freedoms and foreign policy.

2. Trump’s Policy Shifts and Enduring Impact ([04:40]–[12:41])

• Substantive Nationalism/Populism:
  Hammer commends Trump’s renewed focus on border security, economic nationalism, and a realist approach to foreign policy, moving away from free-trade fundamentalism and multilateral, globalist institutions.
  • Quote (Josh Hammer at [05:36]):
    “Trump bringing into the movement a renewed vigor when it comes to protecting our borders, protecting the sanctity of American citizenship…I think his more populous economic instincts are entirely right.”
• Economic Common Sense:
  Advocates for “two cheers for capitalism, not three," emphasizing economic policy for the median American, not major corporations, and lauding Trump’s direct payments to parents, as well as his tough stance on Big Tech via new antitrust appointments.

3. Ideological "Border Control" Within the Right ([10:56]–[12:41])

• Gatekeeping vs. Coalition-Building:
  Discusses the need for drawing firm ideological borders (“ideological border control” per Ben Shapiro) to keep extremists out, while ensuring the pragmatic, populist, and nationalist aspects of Trumpism persist in a reformed party.
  • Quote (Josh Hammer at [11:28]):
    “Ideological border control is necessary to keep out the cranks, the kooks, and the subversives. But within the tent, it is imperative that these healthy instincts stay.”

---

Interview: Henry Olson and the New Fusionism ([13:57]–[23:48])

1. Reimagining Conservative Fusionism ([14:55]–[17:39])

• Old Fusionism vs. New:
  Olson critiques the old "three-legged stool"—cold warriors, laissez-faire economists, and moral conservatives—describing it as "an article of confederation" united by enemies, not principle.
  • Quote (Henry Olson at [16:35]):
    “What it really was was more of an article of confederation where they agreed on a common enemy rather than agreed on a set of common principles.”
• Principled Membership:
  Calls for a coalition based on shared principles of human dignity and active citizenship, not just shared adversaries.

2. Is Trumpism Here to Stay? ([17:39]–[20:18])

• Durability of Ideas Over Persona:
  Olson argues that populist and nationalist ideas predating Trump have deep resonance and are likely to endure, regardless of Trump’s personal presence.
  • Quote (Henry Olson at [18:41]):
    “My view is that it's always been about the ideas and less about Trump… we see around the world, parties that echo very similar themes are rising virtually everywhere in the Western world.”
• Populism as a Response to “Broken Citizenship”:
  Sees the Trump-era coalition as representing people who feel “treated less well than foreigners,” proposing a conservatism that recognizes and meaningfully addresses these grievances.

3. Lessons for Young and Old Conservatives ([20:18]–[22:31])

• Winning Through Durable Coalitions:
  Stresses the need for continual electoral successes rather than short-term victories—building coalitions that include both populist and establishment conservatives for lasting policy change.
  • Quote (Henry Olson at [20:58]):
    “We are involved in a battle, but we are not involved in a war...The only way to win in a democracy is to win over and over and over again.”
• Pragmatism and Expansion:
  Urges young populists to recognize shared values with establishment conservatives and to build inclusively.

4. Foreign Policy and Alliances ([22:31]–[23:48])

• Balanced Alliances:
  Olson argues for active engagement in global alliances, but only as partnerships among equals—not as “supplicants” or under enforced American primacy.
  • Quote (Henry Olson at [22:40]):
    “Americans… need to recognize that in the modern world, we can't sit behind two oceans...the alliance structure needs to be one based on allies, not on supplicants.”

---

Segment: Rising Antisemitic Violence and NYC Politics ([24:43]–[35:12])

1. Stabbing Incident on the Upper West Side ([24:43]–[31:25])

• Antisemitism Still on the Rise:
  Hammer recounts a recent stabbing during Tisha B’Av in NYC, noting the victims and the echoes of religiously motivated violence, connecting it to a sustained spike in antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023.
• Political Climate and Blame:
  Criticizes Mayor Zoran Mamdani and the activist left for fueling a climate of hate through inflammatory rhetoric against Israel and law enforcement.
• Memorable Quote (Mark Traiger at [28:37]):
  "Fear has become a lived experience for far too many Jewish New Yorkers. That is not normal."

2. "Third Worldism" as a Leftist Ideology ([31:25]–[34:40])

• Critique of DSA and Far-Left:
  Hammer argues that “Third Worldism”—a reflexive defense of the ‘oppressed’ and hostility toward Western civilization—explains the left’s anti-police, anti-prison, pro-open borders, and pro-Palestinian stances.
  • Quote (Josh Hammer at [32:45]):
    “Third Worldism is a dystopian zeal for barbarism over civilization...it’s probably become my preferred catchall term for what we currently see from Mamdani, the DSA and the far left.”

---

Interview: Rafael Mangual on NYC Crime and Policing ([35:12]–[44:58])

1. Mayor Mamdani's Approach to Crime and the NYPD ([36:16]–[40:51])

• Campaign Promises vs. Governance:
  Mangual highlights Mamdani’s radical campaign positions (defund/disband police, abolish gang database, close Rikers) versus his more moderate governance (retaining NYPD Commissioner Tisch, maintaining police tools).

  • Quote (Rafael Mangual at [36:16]):
    “What Mamdani did was commit to Tisch and allow her to kind of do her thing, because I think by committing to Tisch, he sort of gave her leverage… he understands that public safety is a liability, and that's the one thing that he has to get right if his political future is to be long.”

• Crime Statistics Nuance:
  While homicides and shootings are down, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts remain elevated vs. pre-pandemic lows.

2. Tensions Between NYPD and City Hall ([40:51]–[43:42])

• Low Morale and Distrust:
  Mangual compares current relations to the 2014 De Blasio era, suggesting even greater distrust exists between line officers and Mayor Mamdani due to the latter’s open hostility toward law enforcement.

3. Prospects for NYC Public Safety ([43:42]–[44:58])

• Potential Dangers of Leftward Shift:
  Mangual warns that if Mamdani yields to the DSA’s anti-police wing, public safety could quickly deteriorate, especially if hiring freezes and anti-police policies are enacted.
  • Quote (Rafael Mangual at [44:02]):
    “If he capitulates to the anti cop left, it's not going to be good for the median New Yorker...The reason things are know going as well as they are is that the NYPD is continuing to do all of the things that the DSA hates.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Trump bringing into the movement a renewed vigor when it comes to protecting our borders, protecting the sanctity of American citizenship..."
  —Josh Hammer [05:36]
• "What it really was was more of an article of confederation where they agreed on a common enemy rather than agreed on a set of common principles."
  —Henry Olson [16:35]
• "The only way to win in a democracy is to win over and over and over again."
  —Henry Olson [20:58]
• "Third Worldism is a dystopian zeal for barbarism over civilization...it's probably become my preferred catchall term for what we currently see from Mamdani, the DSA and the far left."
  —Josh Hammer [32:45]
• "What Mamdani did was commit to Tisch and allow her to kind of do her thing, because I think by committing to Tisch, he sort of gave her leverage…"
  —Rafael Mangual [36:16]

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:55 — Opening monologue: Can conservatism outlast Trump?
• 03:24 — Tucker Carlson’s Qatar defense; Hammer’s critique.
• 05:36 — The healthiness of Trumpian impulses in economics and foreign policy.
• 10:56 — Ideological border control and policing the right.
• 13:57 — Introduction of Henry Olson and the new fusionism.
• 16:35 — Olson’s critique of old fusionism and new coalition principles.
• 18:41 — Durability of populist ideas beyond Trump.
• 20:58 — Winning through enduring coalitions, lessons for the young right.
• 24:43 — Antisemitic attacks in NY; criticism of leftist mayoral leadership.
• 31:25 — Hammer’s explanation of “Third Worldism.”
• 35:12 — Introduction of Rafael Mangual and NYC crime trends.
• 40:51 — NYPD rank and file’s relationship with City Hall.
• 44:02 — Predictions: What happens if Mamdani caves to the left on policing?

---

Conclusion

This episode interrogates the sustainability of Trump-era populist and nationalist ideological currents within American conservatism. Through incisive interviews with Henry Olson and Rafael Mangual, Josh Hammer explores coalition-building on the right, the limits of old paradigms, and practical policy disputes ranging from economics to law enforcement. The urgent questions facing the right—its identity, its boundaries, and its future—are debated with vigor, yielding both principled insights and pointed critiques of radicalism on both ends of the spectrum.

---

Transcript

[Josh Hammer]

Moto Casino is pure American energy. Born in the USA and with the same 1776 spirit that built this country, Moto America's Social Casino is celebrating that freedom with a 1 million sweeps coin prize giveaway. One lucky American is going to win 1 million sweeps coins. So what are you waiting for? Spin now on Moto Casino. Download the Moto Casino app today. Moto Casino is a social casino. We're prohibited to purchase Necessary. Visit Moto Us for more details. Moto Casino America Social Casino. You may have noticed, but the race for 2028 is very much on. It's happening on the left and it's happening on the right as well. Make no mistake, the shadow primary for president is happening before our eyes. Where will the party go in 2028? Where will the movement go? That's big question. We take it head on. I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer. It's been the big question from my vantage point for the better part of a decade. Will everything that's been happening on the broader right since Donald Trump's ascent down the gilded escalator, will that vanish after President Trump's presidency, as many of the old ancient regime in the pre2016 status quo ante, as many of them hope, or will it continue, albeit under a different banner? Or perhaps most accurately, will it be some combination somewhere in the middle? Sometimes these days it's actually hard to even have this conversation. And let me just personally vent for a second, I find this actually quite frustrating. Why? Because I've spent a lot of time, I have dedicated a lot of airtime, a lot of ink, a lot of speeches, columns, podcasts, whatever, all of it trying to map out a substantive vision, a policy vision and a broader philosophical vision when it comes to what the broader American right, the conservative movements, can and should stand for in the present and perhaps even more important in the future. Sometimes that debate, especially over the past, well, really since October 7th, in the past 2 1/2 ish years, but accelerating even more so since the horrific assassination last September of my friend Charlie Kirk. That conversation, sometimes the substantive ideological conversation that gets me so passionate, that conversation sometimes has tended to fade to the back burner. Why? Because you have epic idiocy and hyper conspiratorialism that is now in our midst. And you have a lot of infiltrators, a lot of goons, a lot of charlatans, a lot of folks who are saying and doing a lot of things that seem to be serving the interests of foreign actors. And no contrary to their own propaganda. Those foreign actors are actually not the state of Israel. Those foreign actors that these people are serving are places like Iran and Russia and China and North Korea and Cuba and on and on and on. I speak here, of course, about people like Tucker Carlson, who was the leader of this not so merry band of absolute idiots. Tucker Carlson was on Stephen A. Smith's show this week. I have no idea what Stephen A. Was doing hosting Tucker on the show. Not my problem, I suppose. And the question of Tucker's favorite Muslim country, Qatar, came up. And it was a somewhat illuminating exchange, albeit a brief one. But I want to go ahead and play it. Here was this exchange between Tuck Carlson, Stephen A. Smith on Stephen A. Smith's podcast earlier this week.

[Tucker Carlson]

Those who would. I mean, I hate defending myself. I mean, it's just they're. I mean, these are people who are taking money and direction from a foreign government accusing me of the same. And the truth is, I don't have a home in Doha. I don't own anything in Doha. I've never taken money from the Qataris or any other government. I don't even have a bank loan. I have no investors. I have no debt. You know, my opinions, you may not like them, but they're mine because I have no control over me at all. And I own my company with my college roommate. So that's the extent of my financial life.

[Narrator/Announcer]

It's.

[Tucker Carlson]

I don't, you know, whatever. But you know what? I would say this. Qatar. I love Qatar. I really like Qatar. And the Israelis like Qatar too. Which is why Benjamin Netanyahu asked the Qatari government to send money to Hamas. I'm not guessing. This is. You can look it up. So it was actually Netanyahu who asked Qatar to send money to Hamas. Now they're like, attacking the Qataris for being a tool of Hamas. The whole thing is so dishonest, I can't deal with it.

[Josh Hammer]

What does Tucker love about Qatar? It's so funny. I love Qatar. Really? What do you love? You call yourself a Christian? Christians cannot even openly publicly worship the very few churches that exist. Can't even have public facing insignia or signage that they are churches. No public crosses or crucifixes or anything. They're all hidden in basements. So what do you. What do you love about it? I find this just so fascinating and so curious. But all of these infiltrators aside, I like to keep the conversation centric, much as I can on the actual substance, because this whole conversation about the nationalist and populist elements of the broader right, many of which were deeply healthy. Donald Trump bringing into the movement a renewed vigor when it comes to protecting our borders, protecting the sanctity of American citizenship, notwithstanding the grievous blow just dealt by the Supreme Court majority In the Trump vs Barbara case on birthright citizenship. That instinct, that impulse on President Trump has been deeply healthy. Very much so. So too, for that matter, has his instinct been healthy on the issue of trade, the era of free trade fundamentalism, to paraphrase the infamous George H.W. bush White House economists who said, ah, potato chips, computer chips, what's the difference? Yes, that was a real quote. Well, there's an obvious difference between potato chips and computer chips. We don't start wars over potato chips. Computer chips. Well, if China invades Taiwan, the United States might get involved. That would have a lot to do with computer chips. So it is past, it was pastime for the era of free trade fundamentalism to end. Indeed, today, actually on Friday, July 24, Donald Trump imposing new double digit tariffs on a slew of countries. So he continues to try to rework the world when it comes to a trade perspective, trying to reshore industries. Your mileage may vary as whether or not you think he's going about it in the right fashion in terms of the means. But the end goal of fundamentally trying to rejigger the world economy to better equip America for this age of nationalism as opposed to the age of globalism that is now in the past, his instinct on that is surely necessary. Indeed, it is overdue as well. All sorts of other issues come to mind as well. Foreign policy. Donald Trump's view of foreign policy, which is a nationalist foreign policy, it is a nationalist realist foreign policy, has also very much been a healthy part of this conversation. Donald Trump, contrary, contrary to a lot of folks out there. A lot of folks think that Donald Trump is just a warmonger. And then some folks say, ah, he's actually in isolation. No, he's really neither. He is an American nationalist in foreign policy. He is someone who believes in alliances. He believes in binational trinational alliances. He doesn't believe in globalism. He doesn't believe in massive transnational, multipolar bodies, in bodies like NATO, bodies like the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, and on

[Henry Olson]

and on and on.

[Josh Hammer]

But he believes in allies. That is a correct view of foreign policy. You know, speaking of Tucker, actually he was among many people that was spreading the blatant misinformation that Section 219 of the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization act that just passed out of the House. He was saying Tucker and others spreading this propaganda from the Iran sympathetic Iran lobby, Quincy Institute, they put out this paper saying that this new part of the NDAA actually merges the American and Israeli militaries. Perhaps you've heard this talking point. It is demonstrably untrue. It is outrageous to even think of the possibility that a military could be merged. And it hasn't happened. It is a totally fabricated manufacturer. Talking about all this part of the bill does is it says that for purposes of sharing military technology and intelligence, etc. That we will start to treat Israel the same way that we treat other traditional allies such as the UK, France, etc. That's all the bill does. Tucker has been saying actually that those who supported this should face Nuremberg style treason charges like the Nuremberg war crimes. What he's really saying here is that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth should be tried for treason in a Nuremberg style trial. Really? That's what he's saying. So again, my focus now is on trying to make sure that this debate stays where I want stay, which is on the substance and the policy. On making sure that our economic thinking is more guided by two cheers for capitalism, not three cheers. Something that our first or two guest day Henry Olson has been one that tips the spear in pushing. Trump has been very good on this front. You might disagree on a certain policy. For instance, I have some quibbles as well when it comes to the government taking direct equity stakes in companies. That's a little too socialisty, frankly, for my druthers. But when it comes to a lot of other things, I think Trump's more populous economic instincts are entirely right. Trump accounts direct payments to parents with children. Fantastic. Donald Trump's new pick, by the way, to be the antitrust the top antitrust division Attorney General. The AAG free antrust at doj. Man by the name of Adam Kandu. Fantastic. I've known Adam for years. He's the brand new nominee to head up the antitrust division at doj. Adam is a vociferous critic of Big Tech, a more populous thinker in many ways when it comes to antitrust more generally. This is the right way to think of antitrust. The old laissez faire fundamentalism has to be done. Conservatism does not exist to serve the Chamber of Commerce. Conservatism exists to secure justice, human flourishing and the common good of the polity of the broader electorate. I feel fairly confident that no matter which way the primaries go in 2028 and beyond that, some of these lessons will stick. To be sure, there definitely are some individuals who would really prefer to forget that any of this happened to go way back to pre June 2015. That was the month that Trump went down the escalator at Trump Tower. I think here about people like my pets, people who would prefer just to forget that this entire decade ever happened, but they're not going to win that because this decade did happen. The only question is where we take these healthy impulses and where we go from here. So it seems to me that the task before us is multifold. One is in actually drawing ideological borders. As Ben Shapiro says, ideological border control. People like Tucker. Well, Tucker's actually taken himself out of the tent. He literally said that he is no longer a Republican. So he's actually voluntarily taken himself out of the tent. But lines are necessary when it comes to the kooks and the cranks and perhaps most accurately, those who are directly aiding, abetting and advancing the interests of America's leading geopolitical adversaries, where those adversaries are in Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, or radical Islamism more generally. So ideological border control is necessary to keep out the cranks, the kooks and the subversives. But within the tents, within the tent, it is imperative, it is imperative that these healthy instincts stay. The party must stand for a more reformed view of economics. Economics is about the median American. It's not about the median hedge funder. That should be obvious. That's not socialism. That's common sense. Foreign policy should be about the American national interests. That's not insert or buzzword choice. That's common sense. Immigration should not be about the foreigner, should not even be about the alien. For the matter. Immigration should be about the citizen. And above all, the health and flourishing of the United States of America ultimately was best for the general welfare and all the various other common good aims enumerated in the preamble to the Constitution. So these are the kind of things that I am thinking about. We are pleased, though, that we're going to have a great guest for you. Our first two guests for today's show, who has done a lot of thinking on these matters, has a brand new essay actually laying out his vision for all these topics. Folks, we're going to go to a quick break. On the other side, Henry Olsen joins us to discuss his new essay, fusionism for the 21st century. We'll be right back with Henry OLSEN

[Narrator/Announcer]

for nearly 3,000 years, Homer's the Odyssey has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature, Homer's epic is more than a mythology. It explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home. In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home. His decision reveals one of the central themes of the Odyssey, that a life of duty, family and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, the Odyssey. Taught by Professor Benedict Whelan. The course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the greatest works of Western literature. Find this free [e-mail] that's charlieforhillsdale.com read the classics, study the west the Odyssey from Hillsdale college. Go to charlieforhillsdale.com

[Josh Hammer]

welcome back. So to continue our conversation about the future of the American right in a post Trump era, we are pleased to bring on a long first time guest and that is Henry Olson. Henry Olson is one of my all around favorite thinkers on the contemporary American right. He's a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He's also the host of both beyond the Polls and the Conservative Crossroads program. And for purposes of today's show, he's also the author of a new essay for national affairs journal, fusionism for the 21st century. So Henry Olson, welcome to the Josh Hammer Show. We really appreciate it. I want to begin by turning the floor over to you. I enjoyed this new essay, very meaty essay that you have out of one of the premier conservative journals talking about a fusionism for the 21st century century. Henry, I think when a lot of folks think of the term fusionism, they think of the 1980s Ronald Reagan and the so called three legged stool which you describe in your essay. Explain to us what is the value of keeping this same paradigm of a conservative fusionism and just readapting it as opposed to starting from scratch.

[Henry Olson]

Well, the fusionism paradigm as I use it is really the idea that we need to build a new political coalition. The political coalition needs to be built on principle and it needs to include the new elements of the right. It can't simply be trying to wish into existence by clicking your heels and going back to Kansas, the three legged stools of the 1980s, that populist conservatives have a dominant role within the new American right, as we can see from primary election after primary election. But they need moderates and existing pre populist, you know, old guard conservatives, if you will. Both sides need each other and that we actually can find a fusion, if you will, a uniting of these factions based on principle. And that's what my essay was meant to introduce. Introduce the concept, provide an idea what the principle is and show some examples how it might work in terms of policy.

[Josh Hammer]

You can follow Henry Olson on X. Henry Olsen, eppc. You know Henry, it's kind of humorous for me because I recall I gave a speech at the National Conservative Conference in Orlando, Florida in 2021 which is very critical of old school fusionism. And humorously in that speech I actually quoted you, I actually quoted an essay that you had written criticizing Frank Meyer, original theorists of fusionism. It was a very powerful essay that you wrote there. It was a few years ago, memory serves. So tell us a little bit more about this new fusionism. What actually is this new Conservative coalition? The three legged school back in the 80s was you had the foreign policy hawks, the cult warriors, you had the libertarians, the laissez faire economics folks, and then the traditional moral conservatives. What is the new fusionism today?

[Henry Olson]

Yeah, I was and remain very critical of the old fusionism, both because it is insufficient to meet our current challenges and because it never fused. What it really was was more of an article of confederation where they agreed on a common enemy rather than agreed on a set of common principles. Ronald Reagan tried to do that, but his heirs actually ignored his advice. The new fusionism is one that is based on the idea of human dignity and expansive citizenship that includes respect for, but not a mindless ideological affection for liberty. And if you put dignity of the individual and an active view of American citizenship that carries duties and responsibilities, including through the use self government, that what we find is that conservatives actually agree on more than they disagree. There'll always be disagreements because human beings are human beings. But we have these common principles that we can share. And by adopting that and acknowledging that we actually can forge a durable super majority in American politics that will change America in our direction.

[Josh Hammer]

And I think that there are a lot of folks, Henry, who I think you and I are probably not among them, who really truly want to go back to a pre2016 pre Trump paradigm after Trump's in office. They essentially want to forget that the entire Trump phenomenon existed. And it's part of this whole debate, Henry, as to whether there actually is such thing as so called Trumpism without Trump. In other words, is this whole nationalist populist momentum that's been very much injected into the bloodstream of the American right for the past decade or so since the descent down the gilded escalator at Trump Tower. Is this here to stay or was this inextricably intertwined with the unique, powerful cult personality that is Donald Trump? I think it's somewhat of an open question to this day. My money personally is on these substantive elements, this injection of populism and nationalism being here to stay, at least to an extent. So can you just kind of respond to what I just said and also just lay out how you see the options for the Republican Party and the movement in 2020. 20. 2020. Excuse me. And beyond.

[Henry Olson]

Yeah, yeah. My view is that it's always been about the ideas and less about Trump that Trump gained his popularity by echo, giving meaning to ideas that were already out there. In 2011, I looked at a Pew survey called Beyond Red and Blue, a typology, and about 10, 12% of Americans were part of a group that believed that foreign trade was bad, that immigration needed to be restricted, that entitlement should be protected, and that forever wars were a bad thing. Does that sound like somebody that we know? Had he used his charisma to back up the old guards orthodoxy, he would never have made it out of the primaries. And we see around the world, and parties that echo very similar themes are rising virtually everywhere in the Western world. So this suggests that it's a durability of ideas that is based on the experiences of certain types of people in a polity, particularly on the right, but also on the old left that will endure. And so what the new fusionism has to do is it needs to accommodate that and say, look, the reason these people are angry is because they've had the ideas of citizenship broken. They are treated less well than foreigners. They want to be treated as equals. They want to be treated as dignified individuals who are equal to the people who have been running the country and running the world since the fall of the Berlin Wall and since the adoption of the World Trade Organization. And that a conservatism that sees, oh yeah, these people are actually our friends is one that can put the left, if not on the dustbin of history, certainly consign it to the back rooms for the better part of half a century now.

[Josh Hammer]

A lot of the older conservatives, I think, have learned from the young conservatives, in part, you've actually helped that in some ways you've reminded us how Ronald Reagan, for instance, who is the singular fixation of a lot of a previous generation, he actually really was not the laissez faire fundamentals idiot a lot of many people think he was. In fact, he actually slapped pretty punitive tariffs on the Japanese auto industry, thereby helping to save Detroit at least until 2008. But that's more complicated part of the story. But I digress. Henry, I want to talk also about, but what can the younger conservatives, those who have really grown up in this Trumpist milieu, in this nationalist populist milieu, what lessons can and should they learn from their forebears who came before them?

[Henry Olson]

I think two things. One is we may be involved in a battle. And I say we because I am on the populist right, although I'm clearly not among the young right. We are involved in a battle, but we are not involved in a war, which is to say that in a war you win by completely eliminating your enemy's abilities to resist. You can't do that in a democracy. We have to win more than one election. The way to change America is to build a durable political coalition around a set of principles that win election after election. That is how the left has changed this country over the better part of a century. And that is how the populist right needs to do so early as well. So that's the first thing, is that this isn't a question of trying to get everything you can in two years because we'll never get another chance. The only way to win in a democracy is to win over and over and over again. And the other thing is to recognize that we actually share principles with people who are in many ways are intraparty adversaries. Yes, if you ask me, would I like to vote for a populist like Vance or Rubio over an old guard representative like Ted Cruz or Glenn Youngkin? I personally would say please sign me up. But on the other hand, we can't win without having them as part of our coalition. We can't win by adding people who might have preferred Kamala Harris to Donald Trump, but who actually dislike the far left more than they are afraid of us. We need to add them to our coalition, think expansively, not narrowly, and we can find that we can actually build this coalition and by doing so change America and make it a juster, fairer, and I may say, more free place.

[Josh Hammer]

And finally, just about a minute left, but I guess I would be remiss if I didn't ask you about foreign policy. How does foreign policy fit into this as one of the most contentious topics of all, frankly, on the right these days?

[Henry Olson]

Yeah, it is. I think that Americans of all stripes need to recognize that in the modern world, we can't sit behind two oceans. We need to be involved in the world and that means having an alliance structure. But the alliance structure need to be one based on allies, not on supplicants. That the old alliance structure had been built on the idea that America. I learned in embassy talks that American leadership meant American doership for most countries. No, if you want to be an ally of America, you need to lift your own weight. And I think that the old right needs to recognize that we have to give up American primacy, the idea of American doership. And the new right needs to understand that alliances actually help us as long as they are alliances of relative equals. And the Israeli American alliance is one that that has its tensions, of course, because two countries will always be in tension, but is a great example for what should be going going forward. The Israelis have a strong military. They're willing to act in their own interests. They're also willing to act in coordinated interests. And if we had that relationship with the rest of our allies, people would not be talking about forever wars and they also would not be talking about imbalanced, unfair alliances.

[Josh Hammer]

Very well said as always, folks. Follow Henry Onx, Henry Olson, eppc. He's a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His new essay for national affairs is titled Fusionism for the 21st cent, available at nationalaffairs.com Henry Great work as always. We appreciate you joining the program. Looking forward to having you again soon.

[Henry Olson]

Thank you for having me on, Josh.

[Josh Hammer]

Folks, we're going to go to a short break. We'll be right back with more on the other side.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog. H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-granger click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Josh Hammer]

Welcome back. So as I mentioned on yesterday's show, I was fasting yesterday because it was the saddest day on the Jewish calendar, the day of Tisha B'Av. No need to revisit what that day entailed. But I say all that because, unfortunately, it was a dark day for the Jewish community and frankly, all the people of New York City, because there was a double stabbing on the Upper west side of Manhattan, which is generally considered to be one of the safest neighborhoods probably in the entirety of New York City. This is not exactly the south side of the Bronx or deep in the heart of Brooklyn and Coney Island. No, this is the Upper west side of Manhattan. And what happened was, was you had a suspect who has now been taken into custody by the nypd, who apparently yelled Al Hu Akbar. And stop me if you know where this is going. Because he then proceeded to stay up two people, one of whom was visibly Jewish. He was leaving synagogue for Tishba services, and the other of whom was Asian. Now, interestingly, this individual has a Hispanic sounding name and does not look particularly Muslim. So we're not really sure yet exactly what's going on here. Maybe he converted to Islam. Maybe he's just a crazy person who just goes on stabbing sprees yelling Allahu Akbar. Because he learns, I can't imagine why he. Or where he learned it, that when you. When you want to stab or shoot someone, you yell Al Hu Akbar. Again, we don't know. But what I do know is that this is really, really sad stuff. Praise be to God. Both of the victims are fully expected to recover from their wounds. One was stabbed in the back, one was stabbed in the chest. Really could have been lethal. And praise be to God, it seems like they're both going to be okay. So there was a press conference this morning where you had a lot of the Jewish community leaders of New York City who congregated and just said, enough is enough. The percentage of religiously motivated hate crimes in New York City that are just against Jews is 55 to 60%, give or take. That is is astonishing. The percentage of anti Semitic crimes in America in general has been utterly skyrocketing, especially since October 7, 2023. We can go back even further, at least to 2019, where there was an infamous machete attack at a Hanukkah party in Muncie, New York. There was a black Hebrew Israelite radical who tried to shoot up a kosher supermarket in New Jersey. That was both in 2019. It's been happening for a long time. The Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, the worst anti Semitic shooting at a synagogue in American history. That was in. Though it's been happening for a while now and yesterday was just the latest example as what is now happening under our noses in New York City. But it's happening also in the unmistakable broader context of the uniquely horrific mayoral tenure and the uniquely horrific individual that is Mayor Zoran Mamdani, because Mamdani stands for a lot of things. He absolutely is a full fledged democrat socialist, frankly, he's just a full fledged Marxist communist who has just a seething, seething hatred, an all consuming hatred, hatred for the state of Israel. That's after all why he went on this, this tell this address that he posted social media the other night explaining that even though he can't arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, because he just can't, he's still a war criminal, says Mamdani. And this post got God knows how much attraction and likes on social media. The algorithms amplify it. But this is a blood libel. This is a blood libel by any definition of the work. And now Mamdani's blood libel has resulted tragically in blood. Who could have seen that coming? Oh yeah, literally everyone could have seen that coming. So let's go ahead and actually play for you a couple of clips from this conference this morning with the Jewish community leaders in New York City. So here was Mark Traitor, the CEO of the Jewish Council in New York, and here's what he had to say.

[Mark Traiger]

Whether or not this attack is ultimately prosecuted as a hate crime, its impact is already being felt in a city where anti Semitism continues to account for the largest share of reported hate crimes year after year, a reality we desperately wish did not exist. Fear has become a lived experience for far too many Jewish New Yorkers that is not normal. Today. Jewish parents are asking whether it is safe for their children to wear a kippah or a mug. And David the in public synagogues preparing for Shabbat are wondering whether they can afford additional security. Camp directors fielding calls from anxious parents whether it's safe to send their kids to camp.

[Josh Hammer]

What is this? What kind of world is this where we're even having this conversation? New York City is home, by the way, to the largest Jewish community of any city in the world. There actually are more Jews in New York City because it's such a big city than even any city in Israel. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, you know, Naaman, and we're talking here about the possibility that you can't look and act Jewish in New York. I mean, we're not talking about Dearborn, Michigan. What is this? George Washington famously promised to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island. In a letter that he wrote in 1790, he famously promised that the children of the stock of Abraham shall forever be welcomed in this land, and may there always be a vine and a fig tree where he will never be afraid. Washington There was quoting the prophet Mike this country has always, always been a wonderful home for the Jews. And I don't know a single Jew in America today who has not asked themselves whether those days are over and what it means. That is the topic conversation on the mind of every single Jew I know, literally bar none. I don't know a single exception to this rule. Here was more from Mark Trader this morning at this conference.

[Mark Traiger]

This attack also reminds us that hatred rarely stops with one community. We stand in solidari with our Asian American neighbors who know all too well the devastating consequences of rhetoric that fueled hatred and violence during the pandemic. Words matter. Leadership matters. The climate we create matters. No elected official is responsible for every act of hate, but every leader is responsible for helping shape the climate in which we all live. At a time when one one of the most common manifestations of anti Semitism is the dangerous practice of holding all Jews collectively responsible for disagreements with the policies of the Israeli government, responsible leadership requires lowering the temperature, not raising it.

[Josh Hammer]

So that's well said by Mark Traeger of the jcrc, the Jewish Community Relations Council. Look, Mamdani has also been deeply in his rhetoric, at least anti cop and anti prison. We're going to bring on Rafael Mangual after our next break to unpack the extent to which that is actually reality. But I do want to tee up our conversation with Rafa Mangual by quoting a little bit from my new column that came out this morning. It's my syndicated columns. It's available everywhere. You get your column talking a little bit about Mamdani and the broader DSA's war against cops and prisons. I wrote, quote, according to recent federal data, 62% of state prisoners were serving time for a violent offense such as homicide, rape or robbery. These people are threats to society and need to be incarcerated. As esteemed criminologist Barry Latzer notes, the average American inmate was arrested a whopping 11 times before getting locked up. And an astonishing 83% of released prisoners are ultimately rearrested, about half in the first year after release. Socialists might think they're helping blacks Amid our post 1619 project racial reckoning, but here they fail too. Nearly 90% of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks. The biggest danger to law abiding blacks in America today is the threat posed by violent blacks out on the streets and not behind bars. There is only one coherent explanation for the DSA's anti cop, anti prison obsession. Naked, raw ideology. And there is a name for that. Third Worldism. It's a dystopian zeal for barbarism over civilization. And these days, it's a name of the game for the activist left. We see it everywhere. Third Worldism explains the activist left's support for the butchers of Hamas over the free people of Israel. Third Worldism explains the activist left's support from punitive environmental regulations that engender economic degrowth. Third Worldism explains why the activist left wants us to have fewer children. Third Worldism explains why the activist left speculates that maybe America actually deserves 9, 11. Third Worldism explains why the activist left wants the anarchy of open borders, not the ordered liberty of the nation state. Third Worldism explains why the activist left sides with illegal aliens and not victims of legal alien crime. And Third Worldism explains why the activist left sides with criminals in general and not victims of criminal crime. Third Worldism is probably because it's probably become my preferred catchall term for what we currently see from Amdani, the DSA and the far left is this belief that white European colonial, oppressive culture, the Brits, the French, the Americans, etc, have been responsible for so many of the world's ills. And therefore, by liberating the oppressed, by liberating the underclasses, everything will magically be bad, better. This is how you arrive at this anti prison sentence, this anti cop sentiment, this anti America, anti Israel sentiment. It's horrible. America is a good place. Perfect, no? But it's good. Dare I say, very good. Hamdani, unfortunately, is an insult to America. It is disgraceful that he is on these shores. Our immigration authorities made a severe mistake in even bringing him here as a citizen in first place. Folks, we can go to one final break. On the other side, Rafa Mangwal joins us to unpack the broader conversation with Mandani. Stay with us for Rafa Mangual.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Grainger knows. When you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something break breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24, 7 support call 1-800-grainger click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Josh Hammer]

Welcome back. So we have another great guest for you on today's show, and that great guest is Rafael Manguel. So Rafael Manguel is a longtime fellow at the Manhattan Institute where he is a contributing editor to their in house publication, the esteemed City Journal. He's also the author of Criminal Injustice justice and an all around upstanding individual. And Mr. Manual joins us right here on the Josh Hammer Show. So Rafael, welcome back to the show. You had a great piece in the New York Post just a handful of days ago about Mayor Mamdani and the issue of crime and how he is not fully given the dsa, fully given the radicals what they want. For instance, he has now famously hung on to Commissioner Tisch, the head of the NYPD from the ancient regime, shall we say, the mayorship of Mayor Eric Adams, on the other hand. And he's really playing it pretty fast and loose when it comes to trying to throw crumbs to people like Jon Stewart. Abolish prisons. Let's have that conversation. So what is your sense as to what is happening at Gracie Mansion when it comes to the broad debate when it comes to public safety? Cops in prisons.

[Rafael Mangual]

Yeah, look, I think Mamdani kind of had to paint himself into a corner on the campaign trail when he realized that the crime issue was the source of a lot of anxiety for voters in New York City. Right. I mean, that is why I think he ultimately decided to pre commit to keeping Commissioner Tisch on as NYP deputy commissioner. I mean, not only was she incredibly popular, but she was also very effective. And she was presiding over the start of what has continued into this year. And that is a crime decline of pretty significant size. And so I think Mamdani very quickly realized that if he was going to get voters who were on the fence about him to move away from Cuomo and toward his campaign, he was going to have to give some signal that he wasn't as radical as he may have seemed as an assemblyman. And the one thing that he was most radical about was policing, was incarceration, was criminal justice.

[Henry Olson]

Right.

[Rafael Mangual]

This was a guy who was not only for defunding the police, but for disbanding them entirely. He signed onto the no New Jails pledge. Right. This was a source of a lot of understandable anxiety. So what Mamdani did was commit to Tish and allow her to kind of do her thing, because I think by committing to Tish, he sort of gave her Leverage. And I think that's been the source of why he hasn't actually followed through on any of his major campaign promises with respect to policing, which I think is kind of the theme of his mayoralty in general for the first half year that he's been in office. But if you think about what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail, he said he was going to abolish the NYPD's gang database. That hasn't happened. He said he was going to ensure that Rikers closed on schedule. That hasn't happened. We are no closer to closing Rikers island, and we have close to 7,000 inmates in the jail system on a given day. The new system, which is supposed to open in October of next year or in August of next year, I'm sorry, is only going to be able to house about half that number. So none of that has happened. The srg, the Strategic Response Group, which he committed to disbanding, is still in existence. The NYPD commissioner still has the authority to discipline officers, which Mamdani campaigned on ripping from the commissioner and giving to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. So what does all of that tell us? It tells us that he understands that public safety is a liability, and that's the one thing that he has to get right if his political future is to be long. And that also explains, I think, why he is kind of playing fast and loose with the crime situation. Because, yes, things are improving. No doubt, a lot of the crime measures are moving in the right direction, save for felony assaults and rapes, which are up slightly year over year. Or actually felony assaults may not be up slightly, but they're not down very much. But homicides and shootings are on track to hit their modern record lows. And this is something that Mamdani just keeps hammering along with his socialist allies. He keeps saying he said it on Pigs 11. In an interview that made a lot of news just last week. He said New York City is nearing all time lows when it comes to crime, especially homicides and shootings. No, no, no, it's not especially homicides and shootings. Homicides and shootings are the only crime categories that are nearing their all time lows. If you break out all of the other major crimes that are tracked by the nypd. Robbery, felony assault, rape, burglary, grand theft auto and grand larceny. All of those crimes are up significantly compared to their pre pandemic lows. And that's still a problem. I mean, if you look at whether it's 2018 or 2019 felony assaults are something like 40% higher. Burglaries are up, I think close to double. Car thefts are up almost 150% over that time. Now those things are moving in the right direction, and that's progress, but we're nowhere near out of the woods, which means that we need Mamdani to kind of stay on this track that he's on, which is a relatively moderate, hands off approach to the nypd. I don't know how much longer he's going to be able to withstand the pressure coming from his left flank. We just saw the sort of first crack in his armor a couple weeks ago when he finalized the New York City budget. One of the big things that was done to that budget in the 11th hour of negotiations was that he took out a line for the hiring of a new NYPD Academy class of 580 officers. You know, I think he understands that officers are crucial to the department being able to pursue its mission effectively. One of the reasons we're seeing crime move in the right direction right now is that The NYPD hired 4,000 new people last year, and Mamdani is kind of benefiting from that, and that gives him a cushion. But if he decides to start kind of flirting with his campaign promises again on the policing front, I do think that New York City could find itself in trouble relatively quickly.

[Josh Hammer]

You can follow Rafael Manguel on X. Rafa Manguel. Rafael, I want to ask you about the relations between the NYPD and City Hall. So I have this image in my head from 10 years ago, more or less. It was a horrific tragedy. I believe it was two NYPD officers who were shot dead in their car. And Mayor de Blasio was mayor at the time, and he was, was, let's say things were tense between him and the nypd. So de Blasio shows up to the cops funeral and there was this famous image where the cops turned their back on the mayor of New York City. Is that dynamic in place today? Is the NYPD the line officers, those who are actually on the patrol in these rough neighborhoods in the Bronx, Brooklyn, et cetera, are they deeply skeptical? Are they outright opposed to Mamdani, or are they more open minded?

[Rafael Mangual]

That's certainly my sense. I mean, I obviously can't speak for every single member of the rank and file, but every police officer I've talked talk to is not a fan. So I would suspect that whatever hostility the rank and file had for the de Blasi administration, you can probably 2x that for Mamdani who has a much more explicit history, if you remember back to that incident with de Blasi, one of the reasons that they decided to turn his back was because of what he had said about having to give his son the talk about the NYPD when he was campaigning for the mayorship. He said that because his son was half black that he felt the need to sit him down and walk him through how to stay safe and how to survive a police encounter. And the implication being that the NYPD was just inherently violent and out of control. And of course the rank and file didn't appreciate that. Zoram Hamdani has said far worse things about the NYPD and has gone much, much further in terms of the policy prescriptions that he has gotten behind during his time in public office. So yeah, my suspicion is that the relationship between the rank and file and City hall is not very good. I think skeptical is probably the mild this word that you could use to describe the feelings of the median cop for New York City's mayor. But the question is how hands off is the mayor gonna continue to be? Right now it's just Katish's show and I think that's how it ought to remain. And if it does, I think we're mostly gonna be okay unless the mayor does something crazy on the criminal justice front in some other realm. But if he lets the NYPD do its thing, I think Jessica Tisch can really lead us to a significantly better place. I just don't know how much longer this. He's clearly getting pressure from his left flank. I mean, both the NYCLU and the Legal Aid Society have written pieces in the past month or two really hitting Mamdani for continuing the NYPD's enforcement campaigns. And so if you look at the first quarter of 2026, enforcement was up, including for low level offenses. And they're not too happy about that. So it's an interesting situation and we've

[Josh Hammer]

been trying to focus with Rafael Monguel. You can follow him again on X. Rafmongwal Raf, just about a minute left or so in our conversation, but let's go ahead and prediction here. You're saying that he's getting a lot of pressure from his left. Will he actually make some changes? And perhaps more importantly, what do those changes actually look like? If he capitulates to the anti cop left, what does it actually mean for the median New Yorker?

[Rafael Mangual]

Yeah, if he capitulates to the anti cop left, it's not going to be good for the median New Yorker. I do think he will start to move back toward his sort of normal sensibilities, his more familiar state on policing. I think it's probably going to happen after the 911 anniversary, which is a really big security risk date. I think if, if he messes with the NYPD before that, when something goes wrong, I don't think that's survivable politically for him and I think he understands that. But once that hurdle is out of the way, we've gotten 250 out of the way and FIFA out of the way. Once the 911 anniversary is out of the way, he may start to experiment more, especially if the crime numbers continue to move in the right direction, because that's going to make him, it's going to give him a false sense of security. So I don't trust him to maintain the course that he's on. So it's going to take a lot of work and a lot of pressure to make sure that people understand that. The reason things are know going as well as they are is that the NYPD is continuing to do all of the things that the DSA hates.

[Josh Hammer]

Rafael Mangual, you are a wellspring of information on these fronts. We appreciate you as always, my friend. Have a good evening. We'll see you again soon, hopefully.

[Rafael Mangual]

Same to you, sir.

[Josh Hammer]

And folks, all of you have a great evening as well. Josh Hammer signing off as always. We will be back on Monday. Have a great weekend. We'll see you then.