Why Journalists Appealed More Than Actors

Sally is a journalist, columnist, TV commentator, author, wife to Ben Bradlee, and legendary DC hostess. Who better to talk to about the implosion of The Washington Post? She also founded the Post’s religion website, “On Faith.” She’s the author of six books, including the spiritual memoir Finding Magic, and We’re Going to Make You a Star — about her time at “CBS Morning News.” Her latest novel is Silent Retreat, and she’s now working on a memoir called Never Invite Sally Quinn. Her energy at 84 is, well, humbling. We had a blast.

For two clips of our convo — on Sally’s initial impression of Bezos, and the time Bill Clinton called her the b-word — head to our YouTube page.

Other topics: born in Savannah, GA, and learning voodoo as a kid; moving as an Army brat; her general dad who captured Göring and helped create the CIA; at Smith College wanting to be an actress; rebelling against Vietnam and the wishes of her dad by marrying Bradlee; the Georgetown party circuit and how it’s grown more partisan; throwing a pajama party for Goldwater; dating Hunter S. Thompson; Watergate and Woodstein; the Grahams; Tom Stoppard; Hitchens; Howell Raines; Newt’s revolution; Bill’s womanizing; Hillary defending her cheater; the Monica frenzy; Obama rising on merit; Barack the introvert; Jerry Brown; the catastrophe of Biden running in 2024; Dr. Jill’s complicity and cruelty; Jon Meacham; Maureen Dowd; David Ignatius; Bradlee’s dementia; declining trust in journalism; Bezos nixing the Harris endorsement; his life with Lauren Sanchez; sucking up to Trump; the Will Lewis debacle; Sally’s spiritual life; silent retreats; Zen meditation; the humor in Buddhism; the denial of death; debating the the Golden Rule; children in Gaza; and the need more than ever for in-person gatherings.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Jeffrey Toobin on the pardon power, Michael Pollan on consciousness, Derek Thompson on abundance, Matt Goodwin on the UK political earthquake, Jonah Goldberg on the state of conservatism, Tom Holland on the Christian roots of liberalism, Tiffany Jenkins on privacy, Adrian Wooldridge on “the lost genius of liberalism,” and Kathryn Paige Harden on the genetics of vice. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com. A listener writes:

Thanks for all these good episodes. Is Vivek still planning to be a guest soon? I have been looking forward to that episode.

He got cold feet. Too bad. On the other hand, I tend to avoid active politicians. Because they’re rarely as candid as I’d like a guest to be. Oh well.

A fan of last week’s pod who lives near Atlanta writes, “The longtime Dishheads on the Mableton cul-de-sac definitely approve of your interview with homegrown talent Zaid Jilani”:

I agree with his description of Mableton as a bit like the United Nations; I see that diversity in our grocery stores and local restaurants. He mentioned how he was often the only Pakistani and thus perceived as a nonthreatening minority. It makes me wonder how much the diversity mix affects how people perceive immigration? If a large group from one country arrives, does that seem more like an invasion? If a similar number arrives but from a wide range of locations, does that seem more like the normal American melting pot?

After 30 years of living in Mableton, this may partly explain why I am not bothered by immigration in the way that you are, Andrew. I expect to see and hear all sorts of people wherever I go in my neighborhood. Today the teller at the bank spoke accented English. There are regular clerks at my grocery store who are immigrants. Our new HVAC was installed by immigrants. As an Atlanta suburb, there are many people descended from African slaves. European ancestry is merely one possibility off the long colorful menu around here.

I think pace and numbers matter. A slower pace and fewer — with no massive homogenous populations arriving at once. And a new emphasis on Americanization over “multiculturalism”.

From a listener who wants to “Make Democrats Great Again”:

Great conversation with Zaid Jilani last week. I am very concerned that hardly any Democrats are being at all introspective, trying to figure out where they went wrong and how to become a party that can actually win elections — maybe even hearts and minds. They are only defined as anti-Trump, and their only hope is for Trump to go down in flames — which he very well might, but all they aspire to is winning as the least-worst party.

The policy directions for reclaiming sanity and moderate voters are obvious (to me, at least). Here are my top three issues:

1. Affordability

The longest lever to affect affordability is housing. Democrats have been complete failures in this regard, with strongholds like California and NYC being the least affordable places. When they talk about “affordable housing,” they only mean housing that is forced below market rate for the few poor people lucky enough to get it. They offer no solutions for the middle class or young people.

The solution is obvious: build more. Plough through the various restrictions that are preventing housing from being built. There is no reason housing can’t be cheap, except for NIMBY politics. Scott Weiner in California has been doing great work on this.

Health care is the second-longest affordability lever. Obamacare made some progress, but not nearly enough, especially in terms of keeping costs down. But I’m not sure we’re ready for another push on this; I say focus on housing.

2. Immigration

Obviously there should be some immigration, and obviously we have structured our economy such that many jobs are only done by immigrants. But the Democrats’ policy of simply not enforcing immigration law is untenable, especially for a group asking to be put in charge of law enforcement. We need those migrant workers, so find a way for them be here legally. Not through amnesty, but through some sort of bureaucratic process: have the employers fill out a form; have the prospective worker fill out a form in some office in Mexico; have someone process the form; and give them a green card.

This is simple stuff! And yes, it would be helpful to admit that open borders, sanctuary cities, and subverting the law were not good ideas.

3. Culture

End wokeness. America is not a country consumed by white supremacy, and the people who voted for Trump are not racists. There are hardly any racists! And drop the other insanities, like the trans stuff.

The message needs to be, “We are the Democrats and we want to help anybody from any state who needs help.” Hard to convince struggling white people in the South that you’re going to help them when you seem to despise them. Love your brother, for crying out loud. And naturally, today’s woke Democrats would be much more accepting of this message if it came from a racial minority candidate.

Another wanted to hear more:

I wish you had asked Zaid about Josh Shapiro. Also, when Zaid talked about affordability, he never mentioned housing — which is why there are so many ex-Californians in his home state of Georgia and elsewhere. “Build Baby Build” should be the slogan of the Democratic Party, rather than gaslighting Americans into believing housing prices will come down because we are getting rid of immigrants (Vance).

Here’s a dissent:

About 20:30 into your interview with Zaid Jilani, he said that the root of all the Abrahamic faiths is that the meek have rights. You replied that this applied more to Christianity and Islam than to Judaism. I say this neither rhetorically nor to admonish you, but how much do you know about Judaism? Your comment is completely mistaken. Just what do you think Judaism says about the meek?

Another has examples:

In Genesis, you find that all humans were created b’tzelem Elohim (in the image of God). Moreover, Jewish texts consistently frame care for the poor as a legal obligation and moral imperative, not mere charity. Every Jewish child learns that promoting economic justice is mandated. It is called tzedakah.

This religious mandate has manifested itself in the real world. Jews have been disproportionately represented in social justice movements aimed at promoting human equality. It wasn’t an accident that two of three civil rights movement activists murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi by the Ku Klux Klan were Jewish.

Points taken. Big generalizations in a chat can be dumb. My quarrel may be semantic: the meek is not merely the weak. It’s about the quiet people, those easily trampled upon. Like many of Jesus’ innovations, it takes a Jewish idea further.

Another listener on the Zaid pod:

I wonder if you ever play the game of “which time would you like to go back to”? I do! And only half-jokingly, I often say 1994 in DC. Something about, for example, Christopher Hitchens on CSPAN in a dreary suit jacket discussing such *trivial* aspects of politics in a serious way. How perfect! When I listened to your episode with Zaid Jilani about how the left can win, it seemed dated to about this period in the early ‘90s.

Ah yes, the Nineties. They were heady times and I think we all kinda realized it at the time. The economy was booming, crime was plummeting, Annie Leibovitz took my picture, and we had the luxury of an impeachment over a b*****b. Good times.

On another episode, a listener says I have a “rose-colored view of President Obama”:

In your conversation with Jason Willick, you said that Obama was a stickler for proper procedure and doing things the right way. I might instance, on the other side:

* Evading the constitutional requirements on treaties in pursuit of the Iran deal (an evasion that the Republicans were stupid enough to go along with)

* Encouraging the regulatory gambit of “sue and settle”

* The “Dear Colleague” letter

* “I’ve got a pen and a phone”

Points taken. Especially the DACA move. But compared to Biden and Trump? Much better. One more listener email:

I’ve been following you for years, but more recently I became a subscriber, and it’s a decision I don’t regret! I usually listen to the Dishcast over the weekend, and I always find it extremely stimulating, but there is also something relaxing about the length and scope of your conversations.

I want to respond to something you said in your Claire Berlinski episode on the subject of Ukraine. Although I appreciate your position in defence of international law, you implied that Russia’s claim to Ukrainian land is somehow “historically legitimate.” This is not only problematic from a logical standpoint (does Sweden have a historically legitimate claim to Finland and Norway, or does the UK have a claim to the Republic of Ireland, the US, and all its former colonies?), but also not based on historical reality.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time your comments on Ukraine seem come through the prism of a Russian lens. I am sure it’s not intentional; perhaps that’s not a subject you have invested much time in, which is legitimate. However, I find it a bit surprising that, as we approach the fifth year of Russia’s full-scale invasion, you still don’t seem to have had the curiosity to explore this and invite any specialist on Ukraine. If Timothy Snyder is too political these days, I would recommend Serhii Plokhy — possibly the most eminent historian of Ukraine — or Yaroslav Hrytsak. They would each be a very interesting conversation.

The Dishcast has featured many guests with expertise on the Ukraine war, including Anne Applebaum (twice), John Mearsheimer, Samuel Ramani (twice), Edward Luttwak, Fiona Hill (twice), Robert Wright, Robert Kaplan, Fareed Zakaria, Douglas Murray, Edward Luce, and Niall Ferguson.

A reader responds to last week’s column, “The President Of The 0.00001 Percent”:

Like you, I’m not against people getting rich. A lot of good is done by a few people who have enough money to seed research and the arts, and pursue things that ordinary worker bees would never have the margin of time or resources to pursue. Good so far.

But all strong forces need regulation and/or protective barriers, whether it’s the weather, sex, patriotism, or capitalism. What’s going on now is obscene. Progressive taxation is a social good: it doesn’t stop anyone from getting richer and richer; it doesn’t remove the positive motivators for success; it just means that the farther they get, the higher their proportionate contribution to the system that lets them get there. There are various ways to tweak the dials, but there is nothing philosophically wrong with tweaking them in a way the sets some outer limit. Let it be very high, but let it not be infinite.

Here’s a familiar dissent:

You were right to torch the nihilism of the .00001 class. You were right to call out moral evasions. But when you referred to “the IDF’s massacre of children in Gaza,” you collapsed a morally and legally distinct reality into a slogan. Words matter. “Massacre” implies intent. It suggests that the deliberate killing of children is policy rather than tragic consequence. That is a serious charge, and it deserves serious evidence.

The governing reality in Gaza is not that Israel woke up one morning and decided to target children.