← The Monocle Daily
The Monocle Daily
Gaza ceasefire negotiations begin in Egypt and France looks for a new prime minister once again
00:36:06
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
John Everard
You are listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 6th of October, 2025 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:07]
Andrew Muller
After nearly two years is the war in Gaza at the beginning of its end. France's prime minister quits after just two and a bit. Scaramucci's or about half a tross. And what would you like your last words to be other than, obviously, I'll miss the Monocle Daily? I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts now.
- [00:27]
Erin O'Halloran
Foreign.
- [00:38]
Andrew Muller
Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily, coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Erin o' Halloran and John Everard will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear from the author Sam Kelly about his new book explaining how much of human history has been steered by people in no fit state to drive a car. Stay tuned. All that and and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Erin o', Halloran, historian at Cambridge University and the author, most recently of east of Empire, and John Everard, former British Ambassador to Belarus, Uruguay and North Korea. Hello to you both.
- [01:22]
John Everard
Hello there.
- [01:23]
Andrew Muller
Hello, Erin, you're back. You did the show once and decided to return, which is, which is unusual, actually.
- [01:29]
Erin O'Halloran
Disappointed that there's no owl costume.
- [01:31]
Andrew Muller
There is no owl costume the second time around. You can, however, give your book another plug, though. Go on.
- [01:37]
Erin O'Halloran
East of Empire, Egypt, India and the World between the wars is about the 20 years leading up to the partitions of India, Pakistan and Palestine, Israel. And it's available wherever good books are.
- [01:49]
Andrew Muller
Sold and does contain some historical background to a topic we will be getting to shortly. But to recover, to get away from it all. After your first appearance on this, the Monocle Daily, you went to an infamous party island.
- [02:03]
Erin O'Halloran
I went to Mallorca, the younger sister of Ibiza or the big sister of Minorca, depending on how you wanna. How you wanna think about it.
- [02:11]
Andrew Muller
Was it loud and deafening and all the other things I imagine it's going to be, which is why I've never been.
- [02:16]
Erin O'Halloran
Do you know, it was occasionally, but it was more quiet and the weather is surprisingly excellent at this time of year and mercifully free of tourists, so.
- [02:27]
Andrew Muller
And John, you have recently been visiting one of the places in which, well, you've nearly served as a diplomat. You were serving as a diplomat in the country over the fence. You've been to Seoul.
- [02:38]
John Everard
I've been to Seoul, attending a big conference organized by the New government all about North Korea. Lots and lots of anxiety. Lots of people fretting over coffee about what Trump might do or might not do next. And a lot of concern that the new government, which of course has come in following a government that declared martial law and who's foreign president is in jail, so not really a hard act to follow, is not doing great over North Korea. A lot of their policy is all over the place and deeply wishing that North Korea were other than it is constant outreach asking the north to talk. And the north keeps putting up two fingers and using words I would not repeat on a sedate show like the Monocle Daily to say no.
- [03:19]
Andrew Muller
Just briefly, John, at the risk of deviating from our scheduled agenda, does the new government of South Korea have any bright ideas or bright new ideas about North Korea? Or do they just kind of hope it'll go away, which obviously it won't.
- [03:34]
John Everard
They keep hoping that they can talk to it, which is not a new idea. I mean, various previous administrations have done this, but beyond that, no, there's not a lot of new thinking going on. The minister of unification was talking the other day about building golf courses in North Korea, which is sort of getting vaguely Trumpian and distinctly misty. Not exactly new ideas, more kind of. What have you been smoking?
- [03:56]
Andrew Muller
Well, on the subject of distinctly difficult negotiations with a Trumpian subtext, we will start in Sharma Al Sheikh, which will now or now about begin hosting negotiators from Israel and Hamas for the beginning of indirect talks which may portend an end to two years, less one day of war since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. Before anyone writes in, yes, we are aware that there are several decades or indeed centuries or millennia of wider historical context, but we don't have all evening and so forth. On the table is a peace plan proposed by US President Donald Trump to which neither Hamas nor Israel. Yes, exactly. But to which neither Hamas nor Israel have said no entirely. Erin, is this, do we think, the beginning of the end?
- [04:45]
Erin O'Halloran
Oh, inshallah. I mean, let's start with, you know, the hope, of course, that from a humanitarian perspective, this can all come to an end as quickly as humanly possible. But that being said, we've been close to a deal seven times before, and I don't see a lot of reason for Netanyahu in particular to cede ground at the moment. I don't really understand why either side would agree to this deal other than potentially to please Donald Trump. And given his attention span, I doubt that it's going to last long enough on this issue for them to make real progress. So I'm not optimistic. But that's not the same thing to say. You know, I'm hopeful, I'm not optimistic.
- [05:36]
Andrew Muller
Let's say, John, with your former diplomat's hat on and with your experience of negotiations between people who do not much care for each other, how do you read this? Do you think this is going anywhere?
- [05:48]
John Everard
No. I mean, do you want that to expand on that, if you could? Okay. I mean, in diplomacy, I've often seen treaties that were clearly crafted so as never to be signable. This is one of them. This isn't about peace. We're being had. Donald Trump doesn't care for a moment about what happened to the Palestinians or for that matter to the Israelis, very much. What, he wants a Nobel Peace Prize based on that? The Israelis have played him along beautifully. Netanyahu has no interest in ending this war. He has signed up cheerfully to a 20 point proposal that he knows Hamas cannot in a million years sign, so that at the end of the day, Hamas have to turn it down. Netanyahu then goes on television, wrings his hat and says, I really didn't want to do this everybody but. And the tanks roll and there he gets his way. He overruns Gaza and achieves what his right wing's been pressing him to do for weeks.
- [06:38]
Andrew Muller
Do you think Hamas has figured that much out though, Erin? Because they have sounded, and I put sounded in inverted commas, relatively cooperative. But it might be the relatively cooperativeness of people who realize that they are fast running out of options.
- [06:55]
Erin O'Halloran
I mean, I think that actually, if you look at the history of the negotiations, Hamas has been more willing to come to the table, more in interested in a deal than Netanyahu has or his side of the negotiating table. They certainly have more to gain from a ceasefire. They desperately want one. And they have much to lose in terms of their population and their territory by the continuation of this decimation and what is increasingly being recognized as a genocide in Gaza. So I do think that actually if there's one party that is more likely to be interested in a good faith negotiation, it may be them. But that being said, as John has pointed out, this deal has been designed to be unacceptable from a Palestinian perspective. Not just a Hamas perspective, but a Palestinian perspective, full stop.
- [07:46]
Andrew Muller
But John, do we think Hamas have entirely internalized the idea that they are out of business? Because this has been certainly a recurring theme of Israel for the last two years, and certainly from most of Israel's allies, but also from quite a lot of The Arab governments which once indulged, tolerated or even encouraged and funded Hamas, nobody is saying out loud, yes, we think they still have a role to play.
- [08:12]
John Everard
There's a very big difference between being out of business and being dead. And I suspect the Hamas have worked out that they can only hang on for as long as this war continues. The moment there's a ceasefire, the moment particularly that they're forced to withdraw from government, they walk in fear of their lives and. And the not so brightly don't want that.
- [08:33]
Andrew Muller
Therefore, Erin, are we not perhaps at the beginning of the end, Is this going to be perhaps just at best for the long suffering people of Gaza at this point, a couple of weeks of relative ebbing of violence and danger before it continues?
- [08:51]
Erin O'Halloran
Honestly, I think it's very difficult to imagine the violence ending in any short to medium term. I really hope I'm wrong. But that being said, this is a war that benefits Netanyahu personally and benefits his cabinet and his administration by its continuance. And I think they will drag it out as long as they possibly can.
- [09:17]
Andrew Muller
John, what do you think? I mean, is there again, if you were given the ghastly job of attempting to broker some sort of ceasefire or agreement here, is there a, is there, do you think, any case that can be put to both Hamas and Israel right now, and this is not addressing necessarily who is right and who is wrong, but is there a scenario that you can put to them and saying this does work for everybody, or at least it works better for everybody than what you've been doing?
- [09:44]
John Everard
No, there isn't. Successful negotiations depend on some kind of overlap between two positions. You might have to push the positions hard. The overlap may be narrow, but it's got to be there to provide a kind of landing zone for the negotiations. These two sets of people are way, way apart. There is no such overlap. There is no such middle ground. There is no achievable compromise. No, it's not going to work.
- [10:06]
Andrew Muller
Well, to France now, which is once again advertising for a Prime Minister, the most recent occupant of what is rapidly becoming the political equivalent of Spinal Tap's drumstool, Sebastian LeCorgnou has jacked it in. After 26 days in office and less than 24 hours after unveiling his doubtless somewhat bewildered Cabinet, Leconn said that the conditions were not fulfilled for him to continue in the job, which translates broadly from political euphemism, as the current national assembly makes any given sackful of ferrets resemble the Athenian ecclesia and Life's too short. Said national assembly had given every indication that it intended to defenestrate lecorgnu, much as it had his predecessors, in a bid to compel President Emmanuel Macron to call fresh elections. Erin, first of all, you tempted to write off for the job yourself?
- [10:56]
Erin O'Halloran
Oh, yes, that sounds like a lot of fun.
- [11:00]
Andrew Muller
How hard can it be, right?
- [11:03]
Erin O'Halloran
I mean, I think that the missing piece in this story is recognizing that of all of the various pretenders to the job that Macron has appointed, none of them have come from the left who were the winners of the election last June. And there's a real attempt to avoid the elephant in the room, that in order to govern, he might have a joke.
- [11:26]
Andrew Muller
The elephant could be the next Prime.
- [11:27]
Erin O'Halloran
Minister might do a better job, but it would certainly be more interesting in the photo ops than the candidates that we've seen. But I do think that there has been sort of a really willful rejection of reality going on at the Elysees, in the sense that the French coalition pulled together to prevent Marine Le Pen from winning last year. They did so successfully, they should be commended for it. And instead they have been iced out more or less entirely and not even considered for the prime Prime Ministerial role.
- [12:02]
Andrew Muller
John, I am not a French constitutional export expert, but by golly, I have been swatting up all afternoon. As I understand it, President Macron now has three options. He can find some other mug who wants to have a go at being Prime Minister. He can call fresh parliamentary elections for all the good that is likely to do him, or he can quit. Which of those seems to you the.
- [12:23]
John Everard
More likely, or the fourth is to persuade Le Cornue to withdraw his resignation?
- [12:27]
Andrew Muller
Well, there is some talk that he's managed to strong arm Lecornu into at least trying until Wednesday.
- [12:33]
John Everard
Yes, that might be his least bad option. I mean, none of the options are any good to him. To take the one that Marina Penki is calling for fresh parliamentary elections. French polls are no more reliable than anybody else's polls. But assuming they're somewhere near accurate, fresh elections would simply produce the same three way split as we're seeing in the Assemblie Nacional at the moment, and further political paralysis. Le Cornou said something to his resignation speech very apt. He said that the problem is that all the parties involved are acting as if they have a majority in Parliament. None of them do. They're all acting as if they are the sole bearers of the truth. No compromise, no negotiation, no nothing. If he is going to stay in office until Wednesday, that might give him time. Well, he has to rethink his cabinet quite clearly, but perhaps even to reach out to the left, as Aaron rightly said, that is the big problem. Outside observers tend to focus on, on some of the wild eccentricities of Marine Le Pen. And yes, they are very wild and they're very eccentric, but some of the policies of the French left are equally bewildering. You do understand Macron's hesitations, but at the same time, these guys have a solid democratic mandate and it has to be respected.
- [13:42]
Andrew Muller
The latest news, Erin, that I am hearing in my ear is that the National Rally, Marine Le Pen's far right party, unsurprisingly, have said that they will vote down whoever or whatever else President Macron tries to appoint prime minister. And Macron is saying that if something is not, or some sort of agreement is not reached by Wednesday, he will, and I quote, take responsibility. He has not been entirely clear what he means by that. But the ultimate aim, clearly, I think, of the people who keep wrecking his governments is to force him to quit early, which he is not constitutionally obliged to do. That much I have understood. But can he really go on like this for another two years? I mean, everybody in France is going to get a go at being Prime Minister.
- [14:27]
Erin O'Halloran
It's a wonderful question and it really is up to him, and I do think that he's perfectly capable of continuing this charade. But the problem is that in the meantime, he's eroding the legitimacy of the democratic process and he's eroding the legitimacy of the state institutions. And this is all going to benefit Marine Le Pen in the next election. So I think that there is a responsible thing that can be done and I think there's a less responsible, but let's say more likely from the record possibility. And the more likely possibility is that he does try and continue. If he steps down and calls fresh elections, we're right back where we were last summer. But I don't know that you're going to see the same coalition from the left trying to pull together in the same way. I don't know whether they'll pull it off again.
- [15:20]
Andrew Muller
It is readily imaginable. I think, John, that what is going on in President Macron's head now, it's one of those things where you, I mean, it's obviously self serving, but you depict it to yourself as sort of heroic and self sacrificing that he will be thinking or may shortly tell the nation it would be irresponsible of him to quit because of the high likelihood that in the event of an early presidential election, which under the French system would be necessitated, it will be won by either Marine Le Pen or whichever National Rally proxy, or a relatively counterbalancing yahoo from the far left.
- [15:57]
John Everard
Yes, all that is true. I mean, this is one of many's main considerations. There's another twist to this. Firstly, a bit of background. I mean, we're talking here about a political crisis, but it's worse than that. It's a systemic failure by the French political system to confront the enormity of its fiscal crisis. Remember that Ballier was trying to save 44 billion euros in cuts in welfare reforms and so on, and nobody's prepared to vote for that. One of the more scurrilous French left wing papers, to which I confess I occasionally skim, has suggested the solution quite clearly is Macron appoints Marine Le Pen as Prime Minister. She can't really refuse. She then has to go to the Assembly Nationale and explain how she's going to balance the budget. And of course she has no answers. That would effectively blow the rassemblement out of the water. And then elections might make sense. Watch this space.
- [16:53]
Andrew Muller
I mean, just finally on this, Erin, that would be a bold move, and it must be tempting to him, because it would be. That case of it is in many respects the most dreadful punishment you can impose upon the pestilential revolutionary gadfly. You say to them, all right, you govern. You get the bins collected and the potholes filled and see how much fun you have doing it.
- [17:15]
Erin O'Halloran
Yeah, I actually can think of so many examples from history of. They're flashing before my eyes, sort of like an end of life montage of all of the wonderful opposition leaders and activists who then find themselves in the position of governing and really struggle to do so and become themselves exactly the sorts of bureaucrats that they were long railing against. So I think that there is in fact some crazy wisdom in this suggestion from whichever left wing rag John was referring to, and that, you know, we are in a phase where we've got institutions that were built for a. A sort of stable center that no longer seems to exist. So we need to get creative and who knows, maybe some of these solutions, as wild or potentially irresponsible as they might seem, they hold within them at least the benefit of being new and interesting.
- [18:11]
Andrew Muller
Well, sticking with the subject of experiments in government by people who can't, to the United States, where a legal obstacle has been strewn in the path of the National Guard troops that President Donald Trump wished to dispatch to Portland a federal judge, one appointed, amusingly, by President Trump, has blocked the plan to send the National Guards of Texas and California to Portland to quell the riotous disturbances which have rendered Portland indistinguishable from Port au Prince on the grounds that there aren't any. And it isn't. This will doubtless come as a relief to the troops concerned, whose nightmares prior to deployment to Portland will have been haunted by terrifying apparitions with nose rings and man buns playing Guns n Roses songs on ukuleles. John, is this going to merely delay the deployment, or might this be an end to Donald Trump's dreams of conquering Oregon?
- [19:03]
John Everard
It's going to be a very tough judgment to overturn. You can see that the White House and all its spokespeople are screaming in protest. A great breach of the Constitution, they're claiming, which of course it isn't. It's an entirely sober judgment and a reminder that even Trump appointed judges aren't always going to follow Trump's line. Very hard to see where Trump goes from here. The judgment didn't just exclude National Guardsmen from those particular states. It decreed that in fact, the situation does not warrant the deployment of the National Guard at all. So standing in his steps, I suspect that he will try and appeal it, try and take it to a higher court. And doubtless in the way that the United States works, this will eventually end in the Supreme Court. But again, Trump tends to assume that people here points, and of course we have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court right now, are going to see things his way. I'm not so sure. It'd be interesting to follow the proof process.
- [19:54]
Andrew Muller
Is it clear, Erin, why he has such a bee in his bonnet about Portland? I grant that it is quite a while since I was last there, but I was not in any meaningful danger except perhaps from catching a stray hacky sack in the eye. It's, it's a perfectly pleasant if, if, if somewhat insufferably whimsical city. Ironically, you do frequently meet people that make you wonder if a few years in the military mightn't be the worst things for them. But it's, it's, it doesn't really require the deployment of the Army.
- [20:25]
Erin O'Halloran
So I saw something on NPR over the weekend that an interview that explained essentially that this seemed to be the deployment of the National Guard was apparently in response to something he had watched on television. And this is unfortunately a bit of a pattern and it says a lot.
- [20:45]
Andrew Muller
About see also the reopening of Alcatraz.
- [20:47]
Erin O'Halloran
Right. And the problem is that the media landscape in the United States is increasingly becoming hyperbolic and, and I mean, we all recognize how divided it is and deeply partisan. But that is unfortunately being amplified by the fact that the commander in chief pays an awful lot of attention to what he watches on TV and tends to act quite rashly on the basis of whatever it is he happened to have on at 2 in the morning. So the concern is, you know, that it's not just this one incident of Oregon or this calling out of the National Guard, it's the reflexive watch. Something on television took action immediately without checking other sources, and this is likely to continue. The other thing that's very concerning about it from my perspective, is that he has a very, very strong track record of vendettas and revenge against anybody who's crossed him, anybody who's humiliated him. And so this judge I'm now very concerned about, actually Trump appointee or not, I'd be very worried to kind of follow her trajectory over the next however many months or years and see what happens.
- [22:00]
Andrew Muller
John, easy though it always is to point and laugh where President Trump is concerned, which is why we've just been doing it. Is there something to the more lurid worries people have raised about his rhetoric towards America's cities? And it is large. Well, it's almost exclusively Democrat run cities and the fact that at least twice in the last couple of weeks he has given speeches to large gatherings of military people in which he has witted about the enemy within and talked about the Democratic Party and Democrats as something that must be destroyed or expunged.
- [22:34]
John Everard
Yes, this is deeply worrying. I've heard various senior military commentators from the US Saying, no, this is not American, it's not constitutional, and two things. Firstly, if he actually gets away with this, I mean, he's up there with the great repressive regimes of the authoritarian world, which is not where America wants to be. Secondly, it puts the ordinary foot soldier in a terrible position. At what point do you judge that you are being asked to follow an unconstitutional order and refuse to do so with consequences in the military that are probably going to be quite difficult to swallow? I think there's probably a lot of agonizing going on now, not just the National Guard, but also the hard bitten, experienced senior officers who are summoned to that bizarre meeting in Virginia where in nearly an hour's speech only wanted to say anything new and for the rest of the time just ran. Granted, no one's still quite sure what.
- [23:32]
Andrew Muller
That was all about, well, to something completely different. Anybody who blows out 90 candles probably understands that if there is anything they especially want to say, now is probably a good time. It turns out that Dame Jane Goodall, who died last week, age 91, had taken this precaution. Netflix has revealed that she was interviewed for a new series called Famous Last Words, which is pretty much exactly that, on condition that it not be broadcast until she was no longer with us. Stimulated by a glass of whiskey, Dame Jane checks out with a homily of both humility and hope to the effect that while any one of us is only a small part of something much bigger, etc. It doesn't mean we don't matter and so forth. I did have, Aaron, the the pleasure and indeed privilege of interviewing Dame Jane Goodall a few years ago. She was delightful, but it wasn't at the point where I felt like I needed to ask if there's anything urgent you want to leave us with. But what does it tell us that when people have pre prepared last words, as she always said, it's always about generosity and selflessness and hard work and doing the right thing. Nobody ever says, I've had my fun, to hell with you all and good riddance.
- [24:41]
Erin O'Halloran
Well, they haven't interviewed Trump for this show yet, as far as we know, so it's entirely possible he doesn't think.
- [24:47]
Andrew Muller
He'S ever going to die.
- [24:48]
Erin O'Halloran
I think that you just hit the nail on the head. I think that's the whole point is precisely the sort of person who has made peace with their own demise as the sort of person who can talk about generosity and compassion and service to others and, you know, the beautiful and intricate way that we're all woven into the tapestry of life, et cetera. Whereas people who are, you know, small minded and mean are usually people who have not faced their own mortality in any kind of meaningful way.
- [25:18]
Andrew Muller
In much the same way, I think, John, that people tend to make God in their own image. It's when you meet people who fear a vindictive, petty and mean spirited God, they tend to walk towards those qualities themselves and vice versa. I did want to broaden it out to ask you both if you have any particular favourite last words of your own from history or personal experience. I wanted to bring my own two favourites. One, those attributed to General John Sedgwick, a Union army general at the Battle of Spotsylvania courthouse in 1864, who, trying to rally and encourage his men, said they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist. And also attributed to George Black, the father of the Canadian media magnate Conrad Black. These words, I confess, moved me so much that a friend of mine had them emblazoned on a cushion, which I still have on a couch in my house. These were George Black's last words to his son John, and they were, life is hell, most people are bastards and everything is bullshit.
- [26:16]
John Everard
That's a hard one to beat. I think the best is my own last words. I mean, the life I've led. On a few occasions, I've actually. Haven't actually been killed yet. You may have noticed this clearly.
- [26:30]
Andrew Muller
Clearly.
- [26:31]
Erin O'Halloran
Are you reaching us from the afterlife?
- [26:33]
John Everard
Yes, that's right. You didn't expect this on Monocle Radio, did you?
- [26:36]
Andrew Muller
They're doing wonderful things with AI these days.
- [26:39]
John Everard
Yes. No, but the last time I was almost killed, I hit a Mercedes on my bicycle, was spinning in the air, and the last words that I uttered before I hit the ground was, I'm about to hit something. And for days afterwards, I went to thinking, if those had been my last words, they'd be pretty hollow. I could have done better than that. So I think I need to work up something more thoughtful.
- [27:02]
Andrew Muller
I do think, Erin, a lot of people's actual last words are probably going to be quite banal. They will be along the lines of oh, bloody hell, something like that, or argh. Do you have any particular favorites that have resonated with you or have you rehearsed any of your own?
- [27:19]
Erin O'Halloran
Well, it's interesting. So I actually was raised Buddhist and my. My mother has a habit of, you know, if there's a sharp halt in the car, let's say, or something exciting is happening out the window, she will reflexively recite a mantra. And I picked up the habit from her. I do the same thing. The mantra is nam myoho renge kyo, and I blurt it out at any moment of shock or surprise. So it's almost certainly going to be my last words. But I was actually once on an airplane. It was Toronto, London, Beirut, Khartoum, and on the London to Beirut leg of the plane, we had a fire in the hold and had to make an emergency landing in Bucharest, and they needed to announce this very quickly. And then the plane sort of pointed towards the ground immediately and everybody on the plane started to pray. So it was quite an interesting experience because, of course, we had Lebanese Christians, we had lots of Muslims on the plane. I started chanting my mantra, nam myoho renge kyo, over and over, and lots of atheists found something from their childhood to recite but it was a really incredible experience to hear the whole plane going with all of these different prayers at once. And then once we made it safely onto the ground, there was an imam who was two seats over from me who reached over, grabbed my hand and he said, I heard you were praying too. You did this as well. You know, Allah did this and you did this, and everybody on this plane did it together. And it was so beautiful. So that's always kind of what I think about when I think about my last words.
- [28:52]
Andrew Muller
And the second everybody stepped off the plane, did they all just ascend once again into sectarian rancour?
- [28:58]
Erin O'Halloran
100% amazing.
- [29:00]
Andrew Muller
Well, on that insight into the human condition, Erin o' Halloran and John Everard, thanks both for joining us. Finally, on today's show, probably most listeners have at some point or another contemplated a current or historical event, noted that the thoughts and actions of the people at the centre of it made little apparent sense, and wondered half sarcastically if they were drunk or if you will, stoned, baked, sloshed, bombed, loaded, plastered, inebriated, tripping or otherwise generally out of their tree. The short answer is yes, they quite possibly were. A longer answer is a new book by Sam Kelly called Human History on an utterly scandalous but entirely Truthful look at History under the Influence. I spoke to Sam earlier and began by asking if there was a case for teaching this sort of history in schools.
- [29:47]
Sam Kelly
Well, there's a big difference between should it be and is it at all feasible for it to be taught in schools? Because I think that the, the way that I've presented it is both very entertaining and also it is entirely true. It is scrupulously researched. I think that it's valuable to know how all these different major historical figures were in fact influenced by their drug use. Unfortunately, not every parent who sends their kids to a public education of learning, or even many private ones necessarily wants their kids to be hearing that their parents favorite historical figures were actually incredibly into drugs. So certainly I think that it would be valuable to have a broader and certainly for older teenagers, I think it would actually be very useful to help them get more interested in history, to show how colorful and fascinating it can be. But I think there would be political headwinds that might stand in the way.
- [30:44]
Andrew Muller
Of that, to say the very least. It is a diverse crew of various notables that you have assembled and a diverse array of substances that they were taking. So it's probably hard to generalize. But where did you come down down on the degree to which their drug consumption actually Made them what they were like. Would some of them actually never have been heard of again if they'd been entirely upstanding and sober citizens?
- [31:10]
Sam Kelly
It really depends a lot on the individual. For some people, it seems like their behavior was influenced a lot by their drug use. A lot of people were much more their output, certainly for a lot of people who were amphetamine or cocaine users, they had much more prodigious output than they might otherwise have been able to do. And some people like. Like Sigmund Freud, who loved cocaine very much, were very confident in some very strange ideas that are now not seen as, you know, accepted by the. The academic mainstream in large part because of his drug use. But at the same time, there's other people who I felt that their drug use sort of almost made them more themselves or just enhanced what their personality traits already were. And I get this sense that plenty of these people would still be notable or accomplished or otherwise significant without the drug use. But the drug use really, it increases the factor.
- [32:12]
Andrew Muller
Do you think, though, even for the ones for whom it was fairly obviously destructive and in some respects inhibiting, were possibly disinhibited by their alcohol abuse in particular enough to get where they were? I mean, there is a recurring theme of alcoholic US Presidents in the book. Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon. And they're not the only ones. Again, do you think at some level their drinking helped them step outside themselves enough to be politicians?
- [32:42]
Sam Kelly
That actually is a great question. And I think for. For some people, like, certainly for Nixon, who's a very. Who was a very awkward, uncomfortable, bitter, resentful, angry man, I think his. His drinking did help serve as a social lubricant to mask the. I mean, the man was pretty much a walking ball of barely constrained resentment for other people. But I think he managed to come off as being, if not outright likable, then I think it did boost his confidence for Nixon to drink. Yet at the same time, I also think that Nixon's drinking led him down some pretty bad roads because it also impaired his judgment. And he didn't have amazing judgment in the first. First place, given his widespread criminal activity. His fighting of the Vietnam War was not popular with the electorate. So when he became very stressed and was under a lot of political pressure, he would drink extremely heavily. He would routinely get blackout drunk, call up his cabinet secretaries, demand that they nuke Cambodia, and then they'd be terrified because he was obviously inebriated and at the same time was the president and Henry Kissinger would have to take, tell them Listen, just wait for the morning. He'll sleep it off and he won't even remember. And sure enough, he'd wake up the next day without any memory that he had asked his people to drop bombs on another nation.
- [34:03]
Andrew Muller
I want to end with a question that you, you've already kind of partially answered and it is that one about peaking interest in history, especially among younger people. And it is the thing that leaps off the page of your book that these are all just tremendously good stories. It's all really good, fun to read. Do you think there is still a reticence to an ext among a certain cast of serious historians that to. To admit that this is all just really good fun and we should actually be enjoying it for the ripping yarn that it is?
- [34:35]
Sam Kelly
Yeah, absolutely. I think that there is definitely within any group of people who want to be taken seriously, there is inevitably going to be a cohort of stop having fun guys who. The kind of people who, they believe that because they take things every extremely seriously, they don't view it as a medium for entertainment. No one should either. And oftentimes these people will blatantly ignore that these things are inherently fascinating. I mean, certainly if you have even in the field of video games, there are people who will be, oh, stop having fun, do everything the way this wants. So certainly in the field of history, which is a much more academic discipline that has a long and storied tradition of people taking themselves too seriously, I think, I think that there are some people who would be opposed to this kind of rollicking, fun telling of the stories, even if it's all true and real, because it might make their own work look kind of dry and bland by comparison.
- [35:35]
Andrew Muller
That was Sam Kelly speaking to me earlier. Sam's book, Human History on Drugs, an utterly scandalous but entirely truthful look at history under the influence, is available now. And that is all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Ern o' Halloran and John Everard. The show was produced by Carlotta Rebelo and researched by Joanna Moser. Our sound engineer was Steph Chungu. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.