Podcast Summary: The Next Level – "JVL Knows This Will Piss People Off | Secret Podcast" (Sept 26, 2025)

Overview

In this intellectually charged episode, hosts Jonathan V. Last (JVL) and Sarah Longwell (with Tim Miller absent) engage in a nuanced, sometimes combative, discussion about the boundaries of liberalism, sparked by Isaac Chotiner’s interview with Cass Sunstein in The New Yorker. They dissect Sunstein’s "big tent liberalism" thesis, reflect on the nature of ideological coalitions, and debate how—and whether—American democracy and political culture can be "fixed." The episode features trademark Bulwark banter and deeply reasoned disagreements, along with a frank critique of prominent figures, both contemporary and historical.

1. Setting the Table: Thought Experiments and No-News Day

• JVL and Sarah point out they're taking a break from the week's news to dive into "big, gigantic thought things" because Sarah is traveling to Toronto for a live show.

  • "No news. We're not going to talk about any news today. We're only going to talk about big, gigantic thought things." —JVL [01:28]

• JVL humorously explains his absence from the live show: He distrusts border crossings due to the erosion of rights, especially under a potential Trump administration, and would rather not "make myself hostile to assumptions."

  • "When you cross a border, you basically lose all of your rights... I am not going to make myself hostile to assumptions that the Trump administration will adhere to the rule of law as it applies to my habeas corpus as I'm crossing a border. No fucking way." —JVL [02:35]

2. Cass Sunstein, Chotiner, and the "Big Tent Liberalism" Debate

a. Who Is Cass Sunstein and What Did He Say?

• JVL introduces Sunstein as a respected academic and legal mind, lauding his career spanning the Reagan and Obama administrations.

  • "Cass Sunstein... academic, a very, very mainstream neoliberal type. I have always thought incredibly smart, written tons of books, tons of scholarly articles... worked in the Reagan administration, worked in the Obama administration." —JVL [03:59]

• Sunstein’s Core Thesis: In light of rising authoritarianism, Americans should expand the definition of "liberal" to include figures as wide-ranging as Martin Luther King, JFK, Hayek, Reagan, and perhaps even George W. Bush. The fight now is not left vs. right, but "liberal vs. illiberal."

  • "He's no longer really interested in left versus right, but is interested in up versus down, with up being liberal and down being illiberal." —JVL [04:40]

b. Chotiner’s Critique: Drawing the Line

• Both hosts agree Sunstein’s thesis is appealing—at first.

  • "This is a book for me... a book that talks about liberalism in the biggest, broadest context and allows us to see where the lines are.” —Sarah [08:08]

• Chotiner presses Sunstein on historical figures’ racist or anti-democratic actions (e.g., Hayek supporting a South American coup; Reagan defending business discrimination).

  • "I think the point he's trying to make is that actually we're retconning. These guys weren't. Weren't really liberals. And I see what he's saying, but I also don't think I agree with it." —JVL [07:20]

• Sarah and JVL both note that everyone is inconsistent, shaped by time and context.

  • "Whenever you're talking about any... there are very few people who... are all the way in on liberalism. Everybody is a little inconsistent. Everybody has blind spots." —JVL [16:22]

c. What Counts as Liberalism?

• Sunstein’s “Tent Poles”: Free speech, rule of law, pluralism, and sometimes human rights.

  • "There is kind of a tent pole set of issues that make one committed to liberalism... pluralism, the rule of law and pluralism... and free speech." —Sarah and JVL [09:23–09:30]

• Sarah draws on the Never Trump experience: The movement’s animating force is the defense of small-l liberal democracy against Trump’s illiberalism.

  • "That's kind of the point of the Never Trumpers... because we believe in liberal democracy, because we believe that Trump is illiberal. That is why he cannot and should not be tolerated." —Sarah [11:44]

d. Chotiner’s Gotchas

• Chotiner is relentless; both hosts joke about refusing his interview requests out of self-preservation.

  • "Don't ever call me for an interview. I won't do it. You murder people in your interviews... you are a... credibility destroyer for everyone who wanders into your zone." —Sarah [12:44]
  • "I'd be happy to do an email interview or a text interview because I have tremendous respect for the power of mediums and for people who are really masters of their medium. ...I would not participate in something like that." —JVL [14:59]

• Chotiner exposed the vagueness of Sunstein's "big tent" by naming problematic "liberals" and watching Sunstein hem and haw on the inclusion of individuals with deeply anti-liberal actions or beliefs.

3. Where to Draw the Line? Historical Blind Spots and the Problem of "Nice Guys"

• Preponderance of Evidence Standard: JVL advocates for weighing the dominant themes in a figure’s life, accounting for era and context, rather than demanding moral purity.

  • "On the whole, were they... in support of liberalism or not? And... everybody is a product of their time and place." —JVL [16:22]
  • "When you see somebody who's truly a liberal, it's not a close call. ...when you see the real liberals, it's just coming out of their pores." —JVL [20:29]

• Acknowledgement of the Founding Fathers’ Contradictions: JVL brings up slaveholding founders as an example of necessary ambiguity.

  • "You know, they're almost all slave owners... and yet they believe in these Enlightenment ideas about liberalism." —JVL [20:22]

• Distinguishing Between Theoretical and Practical Illiberalism: JVL dismisses "dorm room" libertarianism as less dangerous than actual authoritarians.

  • "There is a difference between some 75-year-old academic who's just jerking off in a book about abstract, and somebody who's summoning an armed mob to the Capitol and attempting to overthrow the government." —JVL [18:07]

• Critique of DC’s “Nice Guy” Excuses: Sarah points out the fallacy of defending public figures based on private decency.

  • “I think you and I have had because we broke with many of our old friends… who we respected... and now are publicly poisoning the discourse… I could say about a great many of those people: nice guy, was at my wedding... And I don’t know that I think that, though... I won’t lie about the damage they’re doing.” —Sarah [25:20]
  • “It’s just that. And so I guess I find that to be a, it’s a little bit of a Washington failing, almost like it’s kind of Washington brain to be like, ‘but I know Mitch McConnell, and he’s not a monster.’” —Sarah [26:00]

4. The Kissinger Moment: Ethics, Friendship, and “Knifing” an Interviewee

• The interview’s most notorious section is Chotiner’s focus on Sunstein’s personal friendship with Henry Kissinger, whom many consider a war criminal.

  • "He concludes the final line from Sunstein... 'Maybe go light on the Kissinger stuff. It'll distract people from my main point.’” —Sarah [24:31]

• JVL and Sarah agree this ending was a calculated, brutal journalistic move by Chotiner.

  • "You don't include that unless you're knifing the guy." —JVL [24:38]

• Sarah’s Reflection: She draws a parallel to current moral reckonings about former conservative friends who “betray every value they ever taught to us… publicly poisoning the discourse.”

  • "I think you and I do agree on this. Again, it's... not that I've cut these people out of my life... But I won't lie about the damage they're doing." —Sarah [25:20]

5. (Preview) Next: Can It Be Fixed? Why or Why Not?

• The episode ends as they prepare to go behind the Bulwark paywall, where JVL promises a nuanced take on Henry Kissinger and they will finally answer the question: can American democracy/culture be "fixed"?
  • “I will mount my quasi, kind of not really a defense, but a series of line drawings around Henry Kissinger behind the paywall. And then we're going to talk about why nothing can be fixed after this moment and how Sarah's going to fix it.” —JVL [28:46]
  • “We are mostly running an information charity, but not this part. So help support the work that we do and come listen to the other half of this convo.” —Sarah [29:08]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On border-crossing and risk analysis:
  "In my heart, I'm an actuary. I think about risk all the time... When you cross a border, you basically lose all of your rights... And I am not going to make myself hostile to assumptions that the Trump administration will adhere to the rule of law... No fucking way." —JVL [02:23–03:10]

• On the tension between theory and danger:
  "There's a difference between some 75-year-old academic who's just jerking off in a book about abstract... and somebody who is summoning an armed mob to the Capitol." —JVL [18:07]

• On “just following orders” friends:
  "Nice guy was at my wedding, gave me a nice present, sent something to my kids when they were born... but I won't lie about the damage that they're doing." —Sarah [25:20]

• On journalistic technique:
  "You always... if you're a professional, you never do it by accident. Right. You don't knife somebody accidentally... Shotner knew what he was doing there." —JVL [24:52]

Key Timestamps

• 00:33 – Intro to the Cass Sunstein/New Yorker interview that frames the episode
• 03:59 – JVL summarizes Sunstein’s bio and thesis
• 09:23–09:30 – Defining the “tent poles” of liberalism
• 14:59 – JVL and Sarah on why they wouldn’t debate Chotiner
• 16:22 – JVL on historical context and the “preponderance of evidence” standard
• 18:07 – Distinction between theoretical libertarians and real-world authoritarians
• 20:22–20:29 – Founding Fathers’ tensions and recognizing true liberals
• 24:31–24:52 – The Chotiner “knifing” over the Kissinger question
• 25:20 – Sarah on the limits of “nice guy” defenses in politics
• 28:46 – Tease for the next segment: JVL’s quasi-defense of Kissinger and the fixability of American democracy

Tone and Style

Engaging, witty, and deeply skeptical, with a uniquely Bulwark blend of policy wonkery and personal candor. The conversation is both good-naturedly combative and intellectually rigorous, as JVL and Sarah push each other—and their audience—to move beyond "team" politics toward confronting real philosophical questions about the future of democracy.

Missed the second half? Subscribe to The Bulwark for more of this ongoing, essential conversation.