#460 — When the Center Cannot Hold
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
196.12173
Summary
Jonah Goldberg returns to the podcast after a six-month absence to discuss the state of our political institutions, AI, the midterms, and the possibility of an attack on Iran, among other things. He also talks about how our institutions are being eroded, and what it means for the future of our democracy.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if you're
00:00:11.740
hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed, and we'll only be hearing
00:00:15.720
the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense
00:00:20.060
Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore
00:00:26.240
it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're
00:00:30.220
doing here, please consider becoming one. I am here with Jonah Goldberg. Jonah, thanks
00:00:38.860
for joining me again. Hey, it's great to be back. It's great to see you. So I think it's
00:00:43.020
been about six months since you were on the podcast, and a few things have happened. I
00:00:46.260
think I looked at it, it was somewhere around August of last year. I have a list of things
00:00:51.080
that I think we could profitably discuss, but what's most concerning you these days,
00:00:56.940
or has your head been on our political landscape? If we're talking politically, right? I mean,
00:01:03.140
there's all sorts of, you know, the AI thing is interesting in all sorts of ways. We could
00:01:07.580
talk about that and all. But if you're just talking about, like, get Goldberg on to do
00:01:11.080
report from inside the Beltway, what's going on with politics stuff, I think the continued erosion
00:01:16.960
and politicization of our institutions in distressing ways is probably the main thing I'm
00:01:24.920
concerned about. I mean, we're talking on, you know, February 19th or whatever, like,
00:01:30.020
by the time that people listen to this, we could be invading Iran. So that could make anything I say
00:01:34.860
kind of outdated. But just the potpourri, you know, just a couple days ago or yesterday, Kevin
00:01:40.520
Hassett, chief economic advisor of the president, you know, he said that some
00:01:45.960
staff economists who did a paper verifying what economists have been saying for 30 years,
00:01:51.180
50 years, 70 years about tariffs, that Americans pay them and that foreigners don't. Kevin
00:01:57.180
Hassett, who I knew personally, and I know he agreed with that when I knew him, now says
00:02:01.560
that those staffers should be penalized for releasing such a finding. And you, or you look
00:02:08.160
at the chicanery that's going on with Stephen Colbert and the FCC. Trump is running what political
00:02:13.800
scientists sometimes call a personalist regime, where the distinction between his personal aims
00:02:20.440
and desires and the demands of state are completely blurred. And I don't think that's going to last
00:02:26.020
forever. You know, the guy's, you know, 80 or whatever. And I don't think Vance can pull off
00:02:30.600
that act or anything like that. But the problem is, is that it's like with trust. Once you violate
00:02:36.020
these kinds of norms and these institutional rules, you know, the sort of Hayekian hidden law stuff,
00:02:41.500
you can't recreate it overnight. We have an, what should have been a headline story all across
00:02:47.180
the country is a number of federal judges have basically have, have abolished or, or rescinded
00:02:53.200
what they call, I think it's the presumption of regularity, which is basically a fancy term for
00:02:59.000
saying that when lawyers for the government come to court, judges are going to assume-
00:03:06.220
Right. They're assuming they're not lying, right? That's it. That's the gist. That the facts they're
00:03:10.100
presenting are true to the best of their knowledge. And the bunch of judges, including
00:03:14.300
conservative judges saying, we can't give you that benefit of the doubt anymore because you
00:03:18.300
guys are lying. And I'm a both sides guy. Like I think these kinds of norm violations invite
00:03:23.740
future norm violations. And so that stuff really worries me. And what Trump does with the midterm
00:03:29.420
elections or tries to do or imply could just really mess things up too. So that's, that's sort of
00:03:35.020
where I'm at. If you're like, if you're looking for reasons to, for things I'm worrying about.
00:03:39.220
Well, I want to talk about a few things you mentioned there, the midterms and even a possible
00:03:43.300
invasion or otherwise attack on Iran. But this point you're raising now, just how the degree
00:03:49.700
which our institutions have been vitiated by Trump loyalists and, and people who we know
00:03:55.940
more or less to a man and woman now are not disposed to follow the norms that we really have
00:04:01.640
every right to expect our institutions would, would enshrine. This raises the question, which
00:04:06.720
several people have asked of late, which is in a perfect world, we'll say we get a completely
00:04:11.460
sane president in 2028. How do we reboot the system? Because it seems that, that any, you
00:04:19.940
know, wholesale change in staffing is going to be perceived at least by a large minority on
00:04:27.040
the right as just yet more, you know, purely partisan tribalism. I mean, just, it can be
00:04:34.300
viewed in the most cynical way as exactly analogous to what Trump did when he came into office and
00:04:39.600
staffed it all with his loyalists in the first place. How do we, with the best of intentions,
00:04:45.200
perform a reset back to something like normal that gets perceived for what it is rather than just
00:04:51.820
this pendulum swing into the antithetical style or antithetical pole of hyper-partisanship?
00:04:58.960
It's very hard, right? It is just very, very hard to see how you do that. Look, I'm not,
00:05:04.100
I'm still a sort of, I'm a right of center guy. I've been conservative. I was at National Review for
00:05:08.860
20 years. I've lost all of my rooting interest in the Republican party, but I haven't gained a lot
00:05:13.180
of rooting interest in the Democratic party, except as a way to sort of right the ship of the American
00:05:19.380
political system. And I've come to the conclusion that the only way you can have a sane Republican
00:05:25.980
party or a sane Democratic party is if both parties are sane. You can't just have one sane party
00:05:32.060
because part of this has to do with, for structural reasons, having to do with primaries, part of it
00:05:37.220
has to do with social media and the balkanizing of the landscape. But the simple fact is, is that
00:05:41.720
we live in a climate now where if one party is crazy, it gives permission to the other party
00:05:47.140
to be crazy as well. And that's a vicious cycle. And so-
00:05:52.680
Do you think the virtuous cycle is just as strong that they, once you have a, some sanity come over
00:05:58.380
one party, it's going to drag the other party back to the normal?
00:06:01.300
I do think it encourages it, but the way you need to do that, right? The only way I know of how to do
00:06:05.520
that is to get back to the system that you and I kind of grew up under, right? You remember,
00:06:10.040
I probably talked about this last time I was here. It's like, you know, when we were going up,
00:06:12.780
Republicans ran a little bit to the right in the primaries to get a little bit of the base,
00:06:17.160
right? And then they ran back to the center once they got the nomination and focused on the median
00:06:22.720
voter, the swing voter, the independent, whatever. Same thing with the Democrats. They ran a little
00:06:26.760
bit to the left of the base in the primaries. And then once they got the nomination, they ran to the
00:06:30.700
center. The problem is, is that structurally the threat to incumbency or election in our system now
00:06:37.760
is in the primaries. It is not in general elections. Something like 80% of districts and
00:06:42.560
states, if you get the nomination in a very blue state, you're going to win. And if you get the
00:06:47.020
nomination in a very red state, you're going to win. And so this has created a sociology within both
00:06:52.260
parties where they think they are there to represent the base of their own party rather than try to be
00:07:00.040
a majority party. Is this truly a symmetrical problem on both sides? Are the rules the same for
00:07:05.520
Democrats and Republicans such that there's no difference here?
00:07:07.920
Well, I want to be really clear. I think the problems with the Republican party are much
00:07:11.260
worse for the country than the problems with the Democratic party.
00:07:14.180
Just as a fact now, or just actually systemically in any decade?
00:07:19.380
Well, I mean, so to answer the first part of your question, yeah, they're basically symmetrical.
00:07:23.400
The two big mistakes we made as a country politically was one, moving to primaries in the first
00:07:30.940
place. I don't want to get, I can get in the weeds on it, but basically we're the only advanced
00:07:34.780
industrialized democracy in the world whose parties have given up the ability to pick their
00:07:39.080
own candidates. Instead, we farm it out to the angriest people on the left and the right who,
00:07:45.100
you know, if you're running in a very blue district and you say, if you send me to Washington,
00:07:49.520
the first thing I'm going to do is work with anybody, including people across the aisle to
00:07:53.320
do what is best for my district and my state. You will not win a primary. If you say in Texas,
00:07:58.600
I'm going to go, I don't care what party you are. I want to do what's best for Texas.
00:08:02.060
You will not win. If you say, if you send me to Washington, I will tear off the, I will tear
00:08:07.860
the skull off of our enemies and use their heads as a victory goblet. You will get the nomination,
00:08:13.960
right? So the incentive structures internally, which are backed up by Fox news and MS now and
00:08:18.840
all of that is to pander to a non-representative voter. And the other mistake we made was having
00:08:25.680
to do with the campaign finance stuff, which basically, you know, Bernie Sanders in that crowd
00:08:29.880
thought we were going to have mass participatory democracy with lots of small donors. And it
00:08:34.860
turns out what we had was mass participatory populism with very small donors. The biggest
00:08:40.020
fundraisers in the Democratic and Republican part in the house for a long time were AOC and Marjorie
00:08:45.740
Taylor Greene. Yeah. They didn't do any legislating, but they were really good at like getting people
00:08:50.400
to give them 10 bucks, give them 15 bucks a month on their credit cards. That incentive structure
00:08:54.800
has messed things up. And then you add in the narcissistic psychosis of Donald Trump,
00:08:59.680
who, you know, literally thinks he's a war president and the enemy is really the other
00:09:05.700
party or the people who don't like him. And that messes all sorts of stuff. So take the Colbert
00:09:10.940
FCC stuff. I think the FCC, I think the equal time rule should have been abolished a long time ago.
00:09:15.780
I kind of thought it kind of had been for all intents and purposes. Stupid law written in 1936,
00:09:20.260
when we basically only had radio and now you're going to apply it to broadcast television when
00:09:25.520
broadcast television is dying. This podcast probably has more viewers than Stephen Colbert
00:09:30.340
on a given night. You know, the idea that somehow you're free to say whatever you want, but Colbert
00:09:34.560
can be policed by the state. I think it's all stupid. But if you're going to establish the principle
00:09:38.620
that for partisan purposes, you're going to punish networks that voice criticism of the president,
00:09:42.940
and you don't think that in the next democratic administration, and I think there will be one,
00:09:47.360
there's not going to be enormous pressure, even on a sane democratic president to go hammer and
00:09:52.860
tongs at right-wing talk radio, which is wildly disproportionately partisan to the right. That's
00:09:58.200
what I'm talking about, about trying to find a balance again about, you know, rather than this
00:10:02.200
tit for tat culture. But as long as both parties think they are only answerable to their most committed
00:10:08.120
base and the most committed base really doesn't like their own party. They just hate the other party
00:10:12.020
more. It's very difficult to figure out how you have a president approach politics as if they're
00:10:19.000
president of the entire country. And the structural reforms I'm thinking of would require getting our
00:10:25.080
system back to the place where we have competitive elections in a lot of places, and the deciding voters
00:10:30.080
are the swing voters, independent voters, the median voter, rather than the fringe voter.
00:10:34.560
What do you think about the prospect of a democratic presidential candidate running on the platform
00:10:41.020
that the first thing he or she would do in office is reset and diminish the powers of the executive?
00:10:48.280
I mean, seemingly work against his or her own interest not to fall into this tit for tat pattern
00:10:53.500
of now using all the full scope of the Trumpian powers of the presidency to do the antithetical thing,
00:11:00.160
but to actually recognize how the shape of the executive branch has been distorted and to figure
00:11:05.860
out how to pull it back and minimize this overreach. I mean, one of this could be, as these words come
00:11:11.400
out of my mouth, it sounds fairly quixotic, but one, do you think that would be something that could
00:11:16.760
be run on? And do you think it could be accomplished if somebody actually had the intention to do it?
00:11:22.200
So I have a sort of a disheartening answer and an upbeat answer. The disheartening answer is,
00:11:26.200
I think it's very hard to get to the democratic primaries with that message. So you would have
00:11:31.120
to, in fact, downplay that message to a certain extent to get the nominee in the process of getting
00:11:36.760
the nomination. But once you had the nomination, I actually think you could, that would be a fairly
00:11:41.460
winning message. You know, that's, that was Joe Biden's message was a return to normalcy after the
00:11:47.440
Trump years. And the problem is he didn't deliver on it because he made a deal with the hardcore base
00:11:52.260
of his party and didn't try to govern as a majority party president.
00:11:56.020
Yeah. I think his first executive order had to do with the trans issue, if I'm not mistaken.
00:12:00.800
Right. So, and, and the first legislation I think that came out of the house, democratic
00:12:05.080
controlled house was to nationalize elections, which everybody's freaking out about right now.
00:12:09.220
Right. And so, look, I think I've talked to Rahm Emanuel about all this stuff. I'm not a massive
00:12:14.620
Rahm Emanuel fan. I have my disagreements with the guy, but the thing I like about Rahm Emanuel is that
00:12:20.560
he's actually willing to have a real argument with the left-wing base of his own party. And I think
00:12:27.320
that sentiment is how, is the, is how you get towards, towards sanity. And, you know, there's,
00:12:32.960
there's rumors that like, if Rahm got the, not got, was elected, he would have like, you know,
00:12:38.080
Chris Christie as his attorney general, try to do a unity government kind of thing. I think a lot of
00:12:43.560
people would, would appreciate, particularly given how I think the Trump presidency going to end,
00:12:48.280
not just a return to normalcy, but a return to decency kind of thing. And that was a winning
00:12:53.040
message for George W. Bush at the end of the Clinton era. And I have to imagine it'll be,
00:12:58.380
it could be an even more winning message at the end of the Trump era, but it takes the right kind
00:13:03.800
of Democrat to carry it. Yeah. Yeah. So what are your expectations around the midterms, both with
00:13:09.960
respect to, um, I guess a result, if a clear result is achieved, but the chicanery that, uh, many people
00:13:17.180
are worried about coming from the Trump administration. Yeah. So let's just say,
00:13:22.000
all right, without Trump, like doing legitimately crooked things, right. Sending in national guard
00:13:29.420
or ICE agents and let's just assume he sits out of it for the most part. Inconceivable to,
00:13:34.940
not inconceivable, but really unlikely that Democrats don't take back the house by a significant margin.
00:13:42.380
I know there aren't that many competitive seats left and all of that for the reasons that we sort of
00:13:45.880
alluded to before, but at the same time, you know, the historic average for a midterm election in a
00:13:51.180
presidency, you know, it's something like 26 seats, give or take. I mean, it's a little
00:13:55.000
sui generis because Trump, this is kind of a second term and it's kind of his second, first term. So,
00:14:00.040
but in a first term, it's, it's like 26 seats. And it's not entirely clear that the Republicans are
00:14:04.780
going to hold onto the house majority by election day. All you need is one dude to slip on a bar of soap
00:14:10.320
or eat some bad clams and the Democrats are going to be a majority. They're down to a one seat
00:14:15.800
majority in the, in the house. The bigger question is the Senate. That is still a heavy lift, but if
00:14:22.680
you actually have a real wave, which there are reasons to think that there is going to be a
00:14:27.260
democratic wave, it does put it in play. Republicans are definitely worried about putting the Senate in
00:14:32.460
play. And so I think it's going to be a good democratic night. The question is how good is depends on
00:14:37.420
your expectations, but I would, it's just very hard for me to imagine that Democrats don't take
00:14:42.640
back the house and at least tighten the margin in the Senate. If they got all of Congress, what would
00:14:49.120
that spell for the rest of Trump's term? I mean, is that just synonymous with impeachment proceedings
00:14:54.860
and endless investigations and just proper gridlock? I mean, I know most of what he's done in any case
00:15:01.160
hasn't even involved Congress. So perhaps he could just keep forging ahead, but you would imagine
00:15:05.740
Congress would no longer be sitting on its hands watching him do that. Yeah. So with the absolute
00:15:10.960
concession that Democrats could screw this up, the simple fact is that it is an outrage that Congress
00:15:18.220
no longer does its job, that Congress is run along partisan lines rather than along institutional lines.
00:15:25.000
And I do chapter and verse of how we got here, but the simple fact is the GOP controlled Congress,
00:15:30.780
at least in its orientation, I'm not talking about their eternal souls, is just shot through with what
00:15:36.240
social scientists call cowards. It's embarrassing. It's terrible. And so-
00:15:41.940
And is the full explanation of that cowardice simply that the Republican Party has turned into a
00:15:48.060
proper cult of personality such that the Republicans in Congress can't afford to take their responsibilities
00:15:54.860
to provide any kind of checks and balances seriously. They don't care about the independence of their
00:16:00.160
institution anymore because each of them perceives their political future to be totally dependent on
00:16:04.940
whether Trump endorses them or not. Yeah. So like the end of that sentence is not necessarily support
00:16:11.340
for the cult, the beginning of it. And so far as for some people, it's definitely a cult of
00:16:15.320
personality. It's that they love his musk. They think he's a genius. They think he's like a world
00:16:19.920
historical figure. They look at him the way Champ Kind looks at Ron Burgundy in the Anchor Nan movies,
00:16:24.880
right? So there's some of those people. And then there are other people who really don't like him.
00:16:28.500
But the base. Fewer than there were. They're afraid of the base.
00:16:31.080
But they're afraid of his base, right? Trump's superpower is still that he can kill you in the
00:16:34.560
primaries. And so one thing to look for as we approach a lot of these primary deadlines in the
00:16:38.920
next weeks or month is how many Republicans, once they have avoided a primary challenge,
00:16:44.680
start heading for the hills and running on their own rather than running on a sort of Trumpy ticket.
00:16:50.840
So some of that might happen. But there are a lot of reasons for the institutional gelding of
00:16:55.580
Congress. My only reason for getting into all that, and I'm happy to get into it more, is that
00:17:00.100
it will be in the partisan interest of Democrats to actually do the job more. The job of Congress is
00:17:07.360
to do oversight, right? I mean, in terms of a president, the job of Congress is to protect its
00:17:11.760
prerogatives. Now, I would like it if they were doing it for more institutional or constitutional
00:17:15.840
reasons than partisan reasons, but I'll take the partisan. And so I think you're going to see
00:17:20.800
a lot of replays of like that Pam Bondi hearing where everyone go, you know, cabinet secretaries
00:17:28.460
go and they perform for Trump or they perform for Trump's base rather than actually showing respect
00:17:35.140
and deference and providing information. I'm fine. You know, that's better than nothing. I want a lot
00:17:40.500
of oversight. I want Congress to sort of carve back its prerogatives. Congress is the supreme
00:17:44.780
branch. The whole concept of co-equal branches is Nixonian propaganda, not sustained by any of
00:17:51.000
the founding fathers. But I also think it's very possible Democrats wildly overreach with impeachment
00:17:56.620
stuff, which is not to say I think he's done a half dozen things that are legitimately impeachable
00:18:01.780
or worthy of impeachment. But if you don't have your ducks in a row, if you seem like you're just
00:18:07.260
doing it to get on cable news or, you know, small donations and not doing it seriously and doing
00:18:13.740
the proper legwork on investigations, it could backfire on Democrats. And, uh, I could also see
00:18:19.840
Trump using all of that stuff as a pretext to just simply truly defy Congress in ways that we've never
00:18:25.880
seen a president do before. And you could see, you can see a much worse erosion of things. I just,
00:18:31.840
I just don't know how it would play out, but like it would be, I think it'd still be better for the
00:18:35.440
Republic if Democrats at least took back one of the branches.
00:18:38.480
So what do you make of all the infighting we've seen of late on the right? I think the epicenter
00:18:43.640
of it was the turning point AmericaFest conference where you had, um, I mean, the schism, which I've
00:18:51.140
spoken about on the podcast before, it seems to be between Republicans who think Nazis are probably
00:18:56.040
still bad, all things considered. And, uh, those who think that, no, we actually kind of need the
00:19:00.860
Nazis. We'll take every last one of them. So you have people who, um, want to disavow someone like
00:19:07.420
Nick Fuentes and they obviously Ben Shapiro is prominent on that list, but he's, uh, disconcertingly
00:19:13.580
alone or nearly alone or surrounded only by other Jews in the Republican party. And then you have
00:19:20.300
some very prominent people like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, and even, you know, J.D. Vance to some
00:19:25.900
considerable degree. I mean, J.D., the only daylight Vance seemed to want to put between himself and
00:19:30.340
Fuentes was, you know, of the don't talk about my wife variety, but it's fairly alarming. Again,
00:19:35.580
you're much closer to these characters than I am. I don't know any of these people personally,
00:19:40.180
really, except for Ben a little. What do you make of this schism and, um, how do you think it's going
00:19:46.740
to resolve itself? So I think you described the schism pretty well. The way I've been saying it is,
00:19:51.360
you know, like, you know how, like, there's this safe harbor for conservatives where they're,
00:19:55.040
they're not pro-Trump. They're just anti-anti-Trump, right? Which is a throwback to being
00:19:59.660
anti-anti-communist. It's like a lot of liberals were like, eh, I don't like the Soviet Union,
00:20:04.580
but I really hate the McCarthyites. So like, I don't like the anti-communist people. There are a
00:20:09.780
lot of people on the right who have fallen back into being anti-anti-Trump because they don't like
00:20:13.400
the resistance types. I see Vance as basically the titular leader of the anti-anti-Nazi crowd.
00:20:20.040
It's not so much that he's a Nazi. I don't think he is. He just thinks part of his
00:20:24.360
political interest is covered by defending people who are either Nazis or Nazi adjacent,
00:20:29.980
or want to have a big tent that allows Nazis in it, or neo-Nazis or bigots, whatever you know,
00:20:36.480
Christian nationalist, white supremacist, I mean, the different, there's a Venn diagram here of
00:20:41.620
There are many rooms in the mansion of bat guano, crazy, bigoted right-wingery, and I get a little
00:20:49.000
tired of people who want to have a big tent that allows all of them in the movement, but then take
00:20:54.560
offense when I associate them with one of the other people in the, they want in the tent.
00:20:59.840
It's like, if you, if you want neo-Nazis in the tent, it is a reasonable conclusion looking from
00:21:06.540
outside the tent. If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need
00:21:11.080
to subscribe at samharris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the
00:21:16.920
Making Sense podcast. The Making Sense podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support,