The Dishcast with Andrew Sullivan

Emily has been the most fearless reporter on the fraught subject of sexual assault and due process on college campuses, first for Slate and then The Atlantic. She also wrote a hilarious book about a beagle, What the Dog Did.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or just below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts from my conversation with Emily — on the Democrats’ selective defense of due process; on a culture of fear on the left; and on the need for journalists to be misfits and malcontents — head over to our YouTube page.A reader looks back to last week’s Dishcast:Loved the episode with Tim Shipman — not least because of the effortless switching of your attentions back and forth across the Pond. But only an hour?? I could have listened all afternoon ... Same for this reader:As someone whose grandparents emigrated to the US from Ireland, and one who has no interest in Brexit or Boris Johnson, I was surprised how much I enjoyed your podcast with Tim Shipman and in fact was disappointed it was shorter than your other podcasts. I would have liked to hear more from him, particularly his thoughts on Trump, wokeness, and the future of the US media.What was most refreshing was to hear a man whose success and competency as a newsman is based on his knowledge and experience rather than his intersectionality and his related “story”. I can’t imagine anyone having a political discussion like you two had with Maggie Haberman or Jim Acosta — or anyone in the US White House press corp. And Shipman’s gravitas and dignity stand in stark contrast to our young woke writers. Comparing Shipman’s thoughtfulness to Olivia Nuzzi’s profane snarky tone makes clear how young people in the media today — brought up on Twitter — have a long way to go to develop the type of world-view that will allow them to do the type of quality reporting Shipman does. The most important thing I got out of your discussion was how different Trump and Johnson are. Whatever else Johnson may be, he is obviously a bright, well-educated man — something you cannot say about Trump. You can see how Johnson survives to fight another day and Trump is banished to Mar-a-Lago. It also makes clear that if Trump was just a little smarter and less thin-skinned, we would be in his second term right now.A reader in Ireland found the episode wanting:Great piece with Tim, but I’m really surprised neither of you talked about the Irish Border. This became the thorniest issue in Brexit (because of the hard Brexiteers) and exposed Johnson not just as a liar (ask the DUP — no border in the Irish sea), but also as reckless when dealing with the Good Friday Agreement, the most successful piece of conflict resolution arguably anywhere in many years. I live one mile from the Border with Northern Ireland, so the issue was very real for me and many others on this island. Johnson is devoid of real principle, although he has buckets of charm, which makes him wholly untrustworthy and also, ironically, a real danger to the UK union, having left the European one. Anyway, very few British people “get” Ireland (North or South). But aren’t you, Andrew, Irish?Sorry for that omission. Yes, Boris lied. It’s what he does. And I don’t think he ever really thought through the Irish dimension of Brexit. Another reader remarks, “I really loved this episode, and I hope we get to learn more about non-American politics and personalities.” Always open to suggestions: dish@andrewsullivan.com. Many readers have been recommending Bryan Caplan:After reading your latest column on immigration (which was excellent as usual), I’m wondering if you’ve had a chance to read Caplan’s book Open Borders. It’s a fun and easy read, so I would recommend doing so if you haven’t. I think he makes a strong case for open borders and while I would not go as far as to endorse the position, he definitely nudged me in his direction.This reader recognizes Mickey’s total aversion to b******t:I was gratified to see Mickey Kaus on the podcast. You two were the first bloggers I followed way back when. Oddly, I was about to send a recommendation that you invite him when he magically appeared. Substack has fulfilled my subliminal wish. MK is one of the clearest social welfare policy thinkers around and is incapable of political posturing.I agree. And hilarious. Another reader digs deep into the issues he and I explored:I enjoyed listening to the podcast with Mickey Kaus. You were both so rational and fair that you didn’t piss me off as much as thought you might because I have strong feelings about “welfare”. For the past 25 years, I have worked as a mental health counselor for a community agency in the Cleveland area. All of my clients, most of them women (white, black, and Latino) are low income (or to use Mickey’s term, “on the dole”). I don’t know how many hundreds of people I have worked with over the years, but I have never met a Welfare Queen. Nobody “on the dole” lives comfortably, unless they are lucky enough to have extended family to add to their support, or are also involved in some illegal activity — but that’s not comfortable. If they don’t work, it is not because the government is giving them so much money that they don’t have to.Poverty is a trap that is very difficult, nearly impossible, to escape these days. Only “the fittest survive” and somehow work their way up to a living wage. Mickey and others say that statistics prove that Clinton’s Welfare Reform was a success, but I guess I just saw the people who didn’t succeed. I wonder how many former welfare recipients under Clinton earned a LIVING WAGE.From my perspective on the ground, the “doles” available to those who qualify are: food stamps, Ohio Medicaid (pays my salary!), Section 8 or public housing, reduced rates for utilities, and day care subsidies. You have to work. You can get an earned income tax credit once a year. Your income must be very low to qualify for any of these “benefits”, and it’s as time consuming and stressful as working a full-time job to maneuver the bureaucratic nightmare to quality. In the Cleveland area, the waiting lists to get housing assistance is about five years, and then you have to win in the housing lottery. The average low-rent apartment is $700 to $900 a month, which is very difficult to manage if you have a minimum wage job and are only earning about $1000 a month. If you get behind in rent, you get evicted, and this makes it so much harder to get another apartment unless you can find an unscrupulous landlord who will forgo the credit check, but will never make repairs.Food stamps are rarely enough, so you supplement at food banks. It takes months to get a day care voucher and you have to have a job before you can get one, so you better have child care while you are waiting for the voucher so you can keep the job that you need to get the voucher. Then there’s the problem of getting to work if you have a job. Public transportation in the greater Cleveland area is anything but convenient. I have clients who take several buses and over an hour to get to my office, even if they live only a few miles away. Most try to get cheap cars (usually with their tax refund), but they always have to pay many times what the car is worth because their credit is poor. When the cars die, which they inevitably do, they have to miss work and are likely to lose their job. Often, the car is repossessed before it dies because they can’t afford the ridiculous payments. If you lose your job, you have to start all over again. But your work record looks bad because you can’t keep a job very long. So it is harder to find a job. If you are a single mom with a couple of kids (and it is a rare single mom who has more than two kids, unlike the stereotype that they are having lots of kids so they can get more money “on the dole”), it is very unlikely you are getting any child support because the fathers aren’t faring any better. The men often have children with different mothers and there is no incentive for them to work because their income goes to these women “who are screwing them over.”      So the men work under the table if they can. Many of them have criminal records for minor crimes (drug offenses), which also makes getting employment more difficult. The good factory jobs with union wages for unskilled middle-class men that were plentiful during the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s began to go away in the ‘80s, and Cleveland became part of the Rust Belt. Now, as the Trump base knows well, “all the jobs went to China.”So now Biden’s Recovery Act is going to give families $350 or $250 a month per child with no strings attached. (For a year, anyway.) You may think that these people don’t deserve the help and we can’t afford it (unlike the “job creators” who “needed” tax cuts that were supposed to provide my clients with such great jobs that THEY wouldn’t need government assistance). Or you may think that the money will discourage them from working.  But I see it differently. With that money, maybe they CAN work and be more productive. Maybe they can use it to pay their rent so they don’t end up with their kids in a homeless shelter if they don’t have a supportive family. Maybe they will use it to make payments on a GOOD car that won’t die a month after they buy it. Maybe they will be able to keep a job if they have reliable transportation. Maybe they will use it for child care, or if they are lucky enough to live with a partner who has a “working class” (low paying usually) job, they won’t have to go to work, also, and can care for their young children themselves and give them a good start in life. Yes, some of my clients will blow the money on some immediate gratification luxury. But if you can meet your basic needs month after month, because you can add this child subsidy money to the inadequate amount that you have been able to earn through working your low-paying job, you can begin to understand how to use money more carefully. If you never have enough money and you are always robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can’t learn to spend it wisely.My impressions are “anecdotal,” a compilation of the same stories that I have heard over and over again for 25 years. Poverty keeps my clients and their children depressed, anxious, traumatized, more susceptible to substance abuse, violence, etc. Money would be far more useful than therapy in most cases. It’s about time we started valuing children more than corporations and the wealthy. I’m for any plan that will raise families out of poverty. We need to reform welfare reform. My work has taught me that nothing is black and white, people are extremely complicated. I am not a left-wing socialist, or a bleeding heart “privileged elite” white person trying to assuage my guilt. I have to be a realist. And I applaud Biden’s agenda that is helping the poor and middle class and I think they are doing it the right way.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Tim is simply the best political reporter in Britain. He’s their Bob Woodward, but he can also actually write. His two books, Fall Out, and All Out War, are indispensable to understanding the politics of Brexit. He knows the Westminster political class as well as anyone. In this episode, we talk about Boris Johnson’s astonishing luck and charm, as well as the Labour Party’s floundering. For three clips of our conversation — on the Tory leader’s knack for winning over the working class; on his and Brexit’s vindication over the vaccine; and on whether the monarchy might not survive the death of Her Majesty — pop over to our YouTube page. You can listen to the whole episode in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. If you want to understand how the politics of the UK helps us understand the politics of the US right now, have a listen. We had a blast.Looking back to last week’s episode on welfare and immigration in the US, a reader writes:I enjoyed your conversation with Mickey Kaus immensely. I realized I’ve never understood these generational shifts and counter-shifts in government policy emphasis, and that if that’s the case, the vast majority of voters don’t, either. I take issue with one comment, though. Biden has, in fact, harped so incessantly on the “dignity of work” that it invited blowback during his campaign. Do not confuse the activist position with Biden’s. He is the President, and I do not see his acceding to any assistance policy that doesn’t support work. My understanding of even the the child credits argument is that it supports day care, so the parent(s) can work!A sharper dissent comes from this reader:Can you just stop it with the “The Media is monolithically behind Biden” — it’s so lazy and obviously false. Is Fox News behind Biden? NY Post? Washington Examiner? National Review? Townhall.com? Sinclair? Washington Times? Wall Street Journal? Ann Coulter / Hannity in their talk shows? Or are they not part of the media?I get that you had a bad experience with NY Mag and you don’t like Charles Blow, but time to move on and look the world as it is — not some caricature.Over to immigration, another dissent:It’s such a fear-mongering narrative to spin immigration as a conspiracy by shadowy forces on the left to flood the country with non-white racial groups so as to destabilize the structures of white supremacy … you’re sounding like conspiracy theorist! What kind of American politician would invest so much in a strategy that won’t see a pay-off for 20+ years? The waiting list for green cards is backlogged decades, and that’s not even counting the waiting period for becoming a citizen after that. And you even admit that plenty of immigrants don’t automatically vote for one party over the other! This would be the most convoluted conspiracy ever. There are far more effective ways to grow the party than to be pro-immigration.It’s not a conspiracy. It’s out in the open. Almost every argument against mass immigration is instantly stigmatized as racist or “white supremacist.” White liberals have increasingly come to see non-white skin as a sign of moral worth, and opposition to mass or illegal immigration as de facto proof of racism. Another reader on immigration addresses an angle that could divide the left:To your point about there being two primary concerns with mass immigration (the traditional labor concerns Mickey spoke to, and the concerns about social cohesion that you and David Frum share), I would add a third (related) concern: environmental sustainability and quality of life.For the past 50 years, immigration policy has driven the majority of U.S. population growth. Without reductions, the Census Bureau projects the U.S. population to surpass 400 million by 2060. In other words, if current trends (2020 notwithstanding) continue, we will grow by roughly the entire population of France in just a few decades. Biden’s immigration proposal would more than double annual immigration. Some might say that’s a good thing, and others will say it is a bad thing, but either way, immigration-driven population growth will have a profound impact on American life. We are making decisions today for future generations. Not only should we be allowed to talk about it, but we should be encouraged to talk about it.For instance, I don’t know if your environmental concerns extend to biodiversity, natural habitats, or access to open space (I know you are very worried about climate change), but each of these become more difficult to guarantee with Congress mandating population growth through immigration. A quarter century ago, President Clinton’s Task Force on Population and Consumption wrote, “We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.”I agree. I have no problem with a stable or declining population. For the planet, it’s a good thing. I think of Japan, and see a country that would rather shrink and remain itself than grow and become unrecognizable. The passion for mass immigration and “diversity” is a very Western one. Circling back to the welfare debate, this next reader digs into the many nuances of the child tax credits under the American Rescue Plan:I had to turn off the episode in the midst of the discussion of the “Biden Dole."  Mr. Kaus’s attitude toward this idea was straight outta 1985. Parents should get the money but “only if they work.” So by that logic, if a couple opts for one parent to stay home and raise the kids, their bonus should be cut in half. What really grinds my gears is Mr. Kaus’s obliviousness to the value added to the economy by the unpaid work that occurs in every household. Domestic work — parenting, cooking, cleaning, taking Granny to her appointments — is the grease that allows the machinery of society to operate efficiently. One of the reasons our society feels like it is disintegrating is that too many people are working too damn much.Do you ever think about why memberships in social and fraternal organizations have been declining for decades? Or that church attendance has collapsed? These declines map pretty closely to the increases in labor force participation by women. Do you know how long the waiting lists are for infant daycare? Do you know how people who work 50 or so hours a week plus commute time manage to get the grocery shopping and laundry done? That is what young families are doing on Sunday mornings, and so things like church get crowded out of the weekly schedule.These government payments are a godsend and a first step toward rebuilding the kind of communities that many of us were lucky to grow up in. Families could get by, if modestly, on one income, leaving one parent free to raise the kids and keep the house going, as well as participate in the community. The old system wasn’t great, in that women were always the ones assigned this role and so many women who wanted to do things differently felt trapped. But that is no longer the default; now each couple can decide how it wants to operate. Both parents can keep working full time and use the extra money to buy services to support their choices — maybe a nanny vs. a daycare center, or a cleaning service, or a caregiver for an aging parent. Or one parent can stay home with the kids and the extra money replaces their contribution to household income minus what would have been paid in extra taxes and in daycare costs. Or maybe the extra income allows them to pay off student loans faster and make a down payment on a house. As to Mr. Kaus’s statement that this will provide incentives for poor people to avoid work: possibly. We don’t know that. It may allow low-wage workers like Dollar Store and Walmart clerks to organize and even strike for predictable schedules and decent benefits because they have a cushion to fall back on. But yes, in every society there are layabouts who milk the system. We have them today and they are milking the disability system. The advantage of a program like child allowances is that since every family benefits, there is less resentment seeing your undeserving neighbor or brother-in-law scamming disability payments while you virtuously work and get nothing. One of the reasons the old welfare system was so toxic was that working-class people who were having trouble making ends meet lived cheek by jowl with those who got welfare payments. The workers at the bottom were hardly better off financially than the non-working welfare recipients. It was also a binary system: If you got a job, no matter how low paying, you got kicked off welfare, so many women were not willing risk an uncertain income (a job they could be fired or laid off from) vs. a certain income.I really hope you will rethink this topic and invite a different guest with a different perspective to talk to you about what it is like in 2020 to be a young family trying to juggle jobs, kids and aging parents, and how this universal child allowance will strengthen families and communities. Senator Mitt Romney comes to mind. I believe it is his experience in the LDS church and his large family that gives him a much better understanding of the conditions on the ground in 2020 for raising families. Or how about Liz Bruenig? She just wrote a great piece in the NYT on this very topic, and could educate you and your audience about what it’s like to have young children today.I’ve asked Bruenig, actually. She didn’t reply to my email. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Mickey is an old friend and colleague from way back. His 1992 book, The End of Equality, was hugely influential for welfare reform in the Clinton years. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Mickey — on the history of how neoliberalism gutted the middle class; on whether Joe Biden’s amnesty policy amounts to “open borders”; and our questioning of what Biden actually believes, if anything — head over to our YouTube page.Mickey in the first ten minutes of the episode touches on a much-forgotten history noted by this reader:You wrote in your column last week that Johnson was a radically progressive president. Actually, I think that Nixon was more radically progressive. He might have been the most left-wing president of my lifetime since 1953. Nixon created the EPA and supported environmental legislation. He tried wage and price controls to combat inflation. Nixon’s 1969 Family Assistance Program included a guaranteed income (what we increasingly call UBI), and it passed the House but not the Senate. Nixon and Senator Ted Kennedy were also in negotiations for a federal universal health coverage plan. These negotiations didn’t get too far because of Watergate distractions and other priorities.Peter Beinart sizes up the LBJ-Biden analogy when it comes to foreign policy.Looking back to last week’s episode with addiction expert Sally Satel, a reader writes:Thank you for your incredibly fair treatment of AA, and 12-step programs generally. I’m 21 months sober and active in AA, and honestly my main issue has always been depression (which I largely see as my feelings of hopelessness and meaninglessness in this life). I believe the two are intimately connected for me. And I hear how people speak of the program in popular culture and even people who are in addiction services and they don’t seem to understand it, and I think it serves to actively dissuade people from going, which is a huge disservice to lots of people. I think you really understand it (have you spent some time in 12-step recovery?), and I just want to say thanks for doing it justice, in my mind. I also really appreciated this conversation with Sally generally, and the nuanced treatment of depression and addiction and how they are really social disorders, with biological and psychological and other bases.Never done 12-step myself. But I’ve seen its power in others. Another reader dissents a little:Sally Satel is so close! It’s true that addiction isn’t a disease, it’s a symptom — a symptom of a larger psychological problem, usually trauma of some kind. Something that requires escaping. Dr. Gabor Maté found from working with addicts that every single one of them had some kind of traumatic experience that they seek to escape through chemical means. Check him out:This next reader recommends Gabor Maté for the Dishcast and offers some excellent observations about the opioid crisis — both from a professional perspective and a personal one:Fantastic podcast this week with Sally Satel on a topic that interests me greatly (I edited a book about the opioid crisis). You asked some probing questions that the recovery community hasn’t been able to collectively answer: To what degree should we think of addiction as a brain disease, versus something that a person can control? And where should we assign responsibility for the scourge of addiction that is sweeping our country? Surely, the pharmaceutical companies behave villainously. And as you suggest, there are obvious reasons why addiction epidemics strike hardest where people were already suffering.But there is another issue that your podcast failed to take up, and I fear it is likewise lost in the broader conversation, at least among certain educated, liberal circles. I cannot believe that what I’m about to say should strike anyone as remotely controversial, but people often don’t like hearing it: People should not f**k around with certain dangerous drugs, such as crack, meth, or heroin. Not ever, and even a little bit, not even if they are “responsible grown-ups.” So, I regard Carl Hart, whom Sally mentioned on your show, as a terribly misguided menace.(P.S. I feel differently about MDMA and psilocybin, though that muddles my message.)Studies show that the overwhelming majority of opioid addicts did not, initially, receive narcotics from a careless doctor. They started using opioids recreationally. Furthermore, about 70 percent of opioid addicts started fooling around with other drugs before they got hooked on OxyContin or heroin. When overdose deaths occur, they typically involve combinations of drugs, such as when heroin is laced with fentanyl, or when people mix opioids, cocaine, benzos and booze. That happened about 80,000 times last year. Obviously, this is not an invitation to shame, marginalize, or humiliate drug abusers. No decent person would do these things. But we should have a greater capacity — a better language — for compassionately encouraging addicts to take more responsibility for their lives. Whenever we say people are “slaves” to their addictions (or compare opioid users to “zombies”), we are using metaphors. Even when a person’s compulsion to use a drug seems irresistible, their free will is never entirely extinguished. Everyone who ingests an addictive recreational drug is making a choice (and usually it’s a bad one). Toward the end of your podcast, you spoke wonderfully about the virtues and benefits of AA. That organization has yet another salutary quality that I want to mention: It brings people together from all walks of life, working to solve a common problem. We are so unbelievably fractured these days — by race, region, education, class, sexual and gender orientations and (of course) our degraded political situation. But none of those things matter whatsoever in AA. (I mean, I guess they can come up, if a meeting goes off the rails, but they are not ever supposed to.)I’m certain that some of my old-AA cohorts were rabid, FOX-viewing Trump supporters. But I bet if I asked them for help, in an AA context, they would be there for me, just as I would for them. I cannot think of another institution in American life that fosters these kinds of benevolent interactions with people from opposite ends of the political spectrum.Shifting gears to mental illness, a reader relays some interesting and tragic history:Cost was the main reason that the large mental hospitals (“asylums”) were closed in my state. The hospitals overwhelmed state budgets (see Ten Drugs: How Plants, Powders and Pills Have Shaped the History of Medicine by Thomas Hager), but the conditions of the hospitals were embarrassing when shown (see, the documentary Titicut Follies or Geraldo Rivera’s Willowbrook investigation.) Freeing patients into the community with medications like Thorazine and a promise of support seemed to permit the hospitals to be closed and the patients to enjoy life with fewer restrictions. This was an apparent win-win: state budgets freed from the burden of the mental hospitals and the patients liberated. The first part worked brilliantly; the second part, less so. Not only did promised outpatient services fail to emerge, the patients stopped their meds. And with good reason: Thorazine has permanent and irreversible physical side effects. But there was a second reason that my clients (I was a Legal Aid lawyer in Manhattan) stopped taking their meds: they did not think they needed them. And who could blame them? When properly medicated, they were self-aware and rational. And like you and me, they tended to believe that was who they were and would continue to be. As they experienced it, they had overcome their mental issues and had put them behind them. Just as you were eager to get off steroids for your bronchitis, my clients were eager to get off Thorazine.Insidiously, stopping their meds did not have an immediate effect. This reinforced their belief that they no longer needed them. And when they began to deteriorate, their illness blinded them to it. All of this also applies to the mentally ill homeless today. I have no idea whether jails are cheaper than mental hospitals, but I assume that they must be since there seems to be no political stirring to revive them. And, of course, it seems inhumane to restrain people who, once medicated, seem fine until they are not.Another reader has some gut feelings about the spiritual nature of drug addiction:The most recent podcast episode was great food for thought, as usual. Something was said toward the end about nondenominational churches involved in addiction recovery, and made me think of this:I grew up Pentecostal Protestant, and I’ve had a lot of experience in Pentecostal churches and communities. Pentecostal worship practices, and group behavior in general, is extremely emotionally and viscerally charged to the point that transcendental experiences can be triggered in people open to these experiences. At some point I noticed that a lot of people who have recovered from a substance addiction were drawn to this tradition of Christianity and tended to be most open to intense mystical experiences, and that in certain cases the pattern of addiction carried over into their spiritual practices and beliefs. But I also know people (family members) whose recovery from drug addiction and life stability was directly assisted by charismatic experiences. I mention the fact that these groups were Christian simply for context, because I think that this phenomenon probably also applies to other spiritual traditions where ecstatic experiences are a focus. Lastly, on a very different subject, a reader wants me to go there, again:Thanks so much for the podcast with Michael Anton a few weeks ago. I appreciated that both of you could keep your cool talking about such heated topics, and I thought you both made many good points about issues I am torn on.You should talk to Charles Murray at some point about human biodiversity and the plausibility of genetic bases for disparate outcomes in our society between the sexes or among racial groups. His extensively researched, carefully written book on that subject last year, Human Diversity, was intentionally ignored by most mainstream media outlets and commentators, and he has a timely short follow-up book coming out this summer that will address our current derangement over racial issues.So I think he would be thrilled to talk to you about his recent scholarship. Obviously this subject is incredibly controversial and most people would rather avoid thinking about it entirely, but I think intelligent heterodox adults like your audience should be able to grapple with these issues and their implications for fully understanding the world we live in. I’d understand if you’d rather avoid more notoriety of course. But since you essentially got fired from your last job for refusing to condemn Murray’s work, and you started your own independent outlet to maintain your intellectual freedom, I do think it would be a shame to never touch on those types of taboo ideas in your future work.That’s a good idea. I read Human Diversity carefully, and found it nuanced as well as fascinating. I didn’t review it because, well, the process of getting that through the woke-checkers at New York Magazine would have destroyed what T-cells I have left. But since the elite media won’t touch these subjects, it seems to me that those of us with independent platforms should bear the burden of pursuing the truth, even through the relentless harassment and obloquy. In all honesty, that’s why I’m a writer. I’m interested in the truth about the world. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Sally Satel, the author of many books, is a psychiatrist and journalist who just came back after spending a year with opioid addicts in Ironton, Ohio. She writes about that experience, and her views on addiction — that it’s not as simple as a “brain disease” — for the journal, Liberties. We also discuss depression, mental illness, and modernity. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with Sally — on the compelling story of how Nixon got Vietnam vets off heroin; and on the tragic impact that meth has had on too many gay men — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back to last week, a reader loved our episode with Glenn Greenwald:Do you have any idea how refreshing that was?! One and a half hours of b******t-free thinking out loud! As much of his stuff I’ve read, I had never heard Greenwald interviewed in depth or even heard his voice.  I was just so impressed with this man’s courage. He exemplifies intellectual honesty and integrity, to the point that he puts his body on the line. The dude has big brass balls and I admire the hell out of him even more having heard you two chat.  Another reader digs up a YouTube recording from 2013:I finished your podcast with Glenn this morning and went to find and watch the marriage debate in Idaho that you mentioned in the episode:I’m just sending this note to let you know how moving you were in the debate. I don’t cry, but I do let my eyes swell, and over the course of those two hours you made so many statements that moved me to the point of my eyes swelling. Really appreciate your work and everything else.Another reader criticizes my work:Greetings from Afghanistan. I’ve read your work on and off since your days at The New Republic. I credit you for changing my mind on gay marriage, so thank you for that alone. Although we have different views — I’m a Never Trumper, somewhere between Kevin Williamson and George Will — I respect your willingness to debate people who hold different views.I must admit, however, that I vociferously disagree with your thoughts on Iraq/Afghanistan/and the wider war on terrorism. I’m currently on my sixth deployment and I’ve spent nearly five years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully admit that I’m probably biased on this subject. I’ve shed a lot of blood here. I’ve lost so many friends — both Afghan/Iraqi and American — so when I hear you and Mr. Greenwald roll your eyes at the thought of staying put in either country, it certainly boils my blood. I’m aware we’ve made egregious errors. I’ve railed against the machine myself, tilting at the proverbial windmills. Nevertheless, I’m quite reluctant to quit (lose) and see hundreds of my Afghan friends get slaughtered, like our South Vietnamese allies did in re-education camps. These wars are just talking points for so many — another cudgel to hit the neo-cons with or put that war-monger W in his place. But for thousands of my brothers and sister-in-arms, it has been our lives’ work. I didn’t intend to be in any respect glib about that. I’m in awe of the way so many service-members have given their lives to this endless war, and it’s impossible to express my respect and admiration for those not in armchairs debating policy. The question is whether to keep this kind of sacrifice going indefinitely, or to end it, however grueling an admission of defeat might be. Another reader sizes up the rapidly shifting mediascape from his vantage point in Boston:Thank you for the wonderful conversation with Glenn Greenwald. I was struck by your mentioning the recent media obsession with violence toward Asian Americans. You are correct — in none of the stories have I seen a word said about the perpetrators. We are supposed to assume that this is collateral damage from Trump’s xenophobic reign, but it appears to me that many of those committing these heinous acts are young black men. For the media to acknowledge that would sort of make the simplistic narrative surrounding BLM that we’ve been spoon fed these past several months a bit more complicated, so therefore we are left with just the storyline that’s there’s been “escalating violence” against Asians.Your attitude towards the New York Times mirrors mine toward the Boston Globe. The Globe was a staple on my morning doorstep throughout my life — I guess I’m a true classic Liberal deep down as well — but I no longer have faith in the paper. Conversely, The Manchester Union Leader has always been my local paper — but growing up gay and reading anti-gay bigotry on its editorial pages throughout my life did little for my self acceptance.A funny thing happened during the Trump era. The Globe ran story after front-page story as part of “the resistance”, and the op-eds all had the same punchline: Trump is evil. (I did not vote for him either time.) The Union Leader did not support Trump; he’s really not a “ conservative, they said, nor a Republican at heart.Long story short, I no longer subscribe to the Globe — way too woke and only dishing out what hyper-elite progressives want to read. I find the once intolerant far-right Union Leader actually publishes more moderate and Liberal op-eds these days than the Globe does with moderates and conservatives. So much for “diversity”.Another reader looks back to our episode with Mara Keisling:I’ve followed your thoughts on the trans debate a great deal, and I very much appreciate your perspective. But it seems to me that your writing, and your episode, miss one particular point a bit (one which I believe J.K. Rowling was making): Allowing people who declare themselves to be trans into women-only spaces merely on the basis of that declaration introduces a risk to women from abusive cis men, not from trans people.An example. In one company I worked for, with around 5K employees, the bathrooms were set to automatically lock overnight. People who worked late could still get into them by using the employee ID cards, which were key-coded to only let you into the bathroom of your gender. This was meant as a safety mechanism for women who worked late in the office to have a place to retreat to if a man started acting in a threatening way and no one else was around.The risk with some of the proposed legal changes, as Rowling seemed to be pushing back on, is that a straight male predator could declare himself a woman legally, mandate the company honor this by changing the coding of his ID card, and use this as a way to attack a woman in exactly the place our society set aside for her to retreat to.The knee-jerk reaction of some people is to say no cis man would do this, but I’d suggest that those people are not considering seriously the lengths to which teenage boys will go for a laugh, and the lengths to which male predators regularly can and do go to against women.There must, of course, be a balancing act in this. There are clearly ways our society should change to be more welcoming and supportive of trans people. But it seems reasonable to ensure that those changes don’t inadvertently dismantle safety mechanisms for women designed to protect them from cis men — or at least have an honest debate about where that balance might be, and how to minimize the cost.Another wrinkle in the trans debate from a reader:In our corner of northwest London, we have a large population of Muslim families who we struggled to engage in girls’ sports. Many of them are already nervous about allowing their girls to participate in mixed classes for swimming and after-school sports. Any whiff of shared changing rooms or physical contact (judo/soccer, etc) with a biological boy and they would be out for sure.  Emails keep coming in over that episode with Mara, which is probably our most popular yet, in terms of downloads. Here’s another:Reading your column celebrating gender non-conformity, and listening to your conversation with Ms. Keisling, it occurred to me that some on the left are simply flatly denying the validity of any kind of statistical analysis.I work as a scientist at a biotech startup, and I’m used to thinking of things in statistical terms. Nature manifests many phenomena, particularly biological phenomena, as probability distributions. This is true of organismal properties like body size, genome content, immunological responses, and more socially relevant phenomena in human beings like expression of sex/gender and ancestry/race. Leftist political thinkers, immersed in postmodernist theory, take these probability distributions and use them to justify statements like “race simply doesn’t exist” or “sex-based binaries are meaningless”, which is, it seems to me, fairly absurd. Statistical analysis is about clusters of data, correlation, grouping things together based on shared characteristics, and these analyses (like the bimodal probability distribution of “male” and “female” characteristics you spoke to Ms. Keisling about) often don’t perfectly fit the entirety of an individual. But they are still often incredibly useful in making predictions about many individuals, and policy making, by nature of its broad strokes approach, must necessarily concern itself with the statistic.To recognize an individual as just that — an individual, with their own private life and idiosyncrasies and beliefs — is appropriate and just and moral and compassionate. In most day-to-day interactions, it’s not necessary to collect data to understand someone; we simply need to have a dialogue with them to come to appreciate their personality and traits. We can observe patterns without being prejudicial. We can be rational and kind at the same time. Indeed, we need to be.But it’s ridiculous to deny that probabilities and correlations aren’t useful in policy analysis. Biological males are more often physically stronger and faster than biological females. The fact that Sara Sigmundsdóttir exists doesn’t negate that. Ms. Keisling seemed to deny, for instance, that one can say on average a trans woman should be presumed to have a biologically based advantage over a cis woman in an athletic competition, despite that fact that one of the primary reasons androgen levels spike in males is to increase muscle and bone mass. To be frank, that was an astonishing rejection of simple reality.The more leftists rely on non sequiturs and sophistry to attempt to secure what they believe is the moral high ground, the more the foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary right will point to these irrationalisms and denounce the entire progressive framework.As an aside, as a lover of Impressionism, I thought your father’s painting was gorgeous, and it’s a shame he couldn’t devote more of his life to what seems to have been a remarkable talent.Lastly, from a reader who just listened to the episode with Michael Anton:Everybody loves a non-falsifiable argument these days. “Given all the irregularities, there could obviously be fraud and you don’t know how much and so why wouldn’t you commit fraud?” Or “if the same situation happened after the 2016 election, Hillary would behaved in much the same way!” Or “if the Capitol riot was actually a BLM protest, the cops would have massacred the protestors and that proves racism exists!” These are all b******t arguments and they are everywhere, and it's distracting and utterly exhausting.I believe that it is quite obvious that the elections were free and fair because I have some basic understanding about how democracy is supposed to function!  But, of course, I can’t directly PROVE that the elections were free and fair, because the systems are manifold and complex.  In the same way I believe peer-reviewed science to produce conclusions that are provably correct, I believe that a functional democracy will produce elections that are provably fair. And when the majority of a political party is insistent on casting doubt on a systemic process that is so utterly fundamental ... we have serious problems!One thing I would love to see produced by news media is a legitimate, detailed case-study / audit of election process. Examine every aspect of election process in various states (not just contested ones, because obviously the focus there is because of the results, not because of the imagined fraud). I want to know every step of how elections work — from registration to the hiring of poll volunteers to the selection of polling sites to the operation of voting machines to the tabulation of ballots.  And then also an honest, categorical interrogation of the fraud allegations. Can “dead people” actually vote? If that's possible, why is it possible, and what is State X doing to ensure it doesn’t happen? If it is happening, what’s the frequency, and what’s the impact? How is identity verified at the polls? How is it verified for mail-in voting? How are votes actually tabulated, and how do we know that they count?  How do we know that the software on voting machines is secure and accurate in its reporting? Can individuals know that their vote was tabulated correctly, and if so, how?Is each flavor of theoretical fraud actually possible? What prevents it? How likely is it that the scale of such fraud could be done in a way that is impactful and undetectable?  For all I know, this has been done by mainstream press. Sounds like something the New York Times would produce. But then you have an entire half of the political spectrum that is prepared to dismiss such reporting out of hand.It’s just f*****g easier to say “The system works and it’s obvious” or “The election was rigged and it’s obvious” than to break anything down and actually examine things and it's so troubling, and this is why I enjoy your podcast, which I found through Sam Harris’s podcast, which I also very much enjoy, even when — or maybe especially when — I disagree with the arguments.Spoken like a true Dish reader. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

The indefatigable Greenwald needs no introduction for Dishheads. He was once a demon for the pro-war right; and now for the woke left. You can pre-order his book on Brazil under Bolsonaro, Securing Democracy, and you can donate to the animal shelter he started.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Glenn — on the dangers of living as a gay public figure in Bolsonaro’s Brazil; on Trump’s success when it came to foreign policy; and on the ways in which elite journalists punch down with wokeness — head over to our YouTube page. Looking back to last week, many readers enjoyed our episode with trans activist Mara Keisling:Thanks for having the conversation with Mara and kudos to her for having a civil conversation with you. While I agreed with much of what you said, I think “trans women are women” is a much more defensible statement than you seem to believe.  You appear to push back against it because you interpret it as a factual statement about how trans women aren’t in any way different from cis women, which would indeed be false. A different way of looking at it: we should define the term “women” to encompass both cis women and trans women. Scott Alexander made this point beautifully in a post on his old blog called “The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories.”As I’ve said repeatedly, I believe that trans women should be treated as women under the law and by decent human beings. But I can’t in good conscience say they are in every way indistinguishable from women, that “biological sex” is a bigoted term, and that where nudity or safety are concerned, we cannot make some small compromises. Another reader:Excellent podcast. I found it telling that Ms. Keisling struggled in three parts of the interview: women’s sports, religious tolerance under the proposed Equality Act, and where do we draw the line with regards to children and transgender therapy/medical procedures. These three topics are where the majority of people supportive of transgender identity often raise legitimate questions of concern, and where they’re often met with the fiercest hostility by activists. Notice how difficult it was to get a straightforward response from Ms. Keisling on these three issues, as if she were walking a tightrope above a sea of egg shells. Could it be that these areas are where much of the current transgender rights argument falls apart? I don’t think it falls apart as a whole. But I do think treating these legitimate, small worries as a form of “hate” is wrong, and counter-productive. In their defense, I don’t think many trans activists have ever engaged these arguments without dismissing them as bigotry, and beneath a response. They mainly chant, deploy maximal emotional blackmail, and intimidate the press, which is already on their side. When you regard debate itself as a form of white supremacy, you tend not to be very good at it.This next reader focuses on the sports issue and illustrates why Dish readers are the absolute best:I have been reading and listening to you since your early New Republic days but have never written to you because I felt I didn’t have enough specific knowledge to jump in. Having listened to your conversation with Mara Keisling, it is odd to me that the topic I do have specific knowledge about is women versus men in billiards, which Mara speculated about.From 2001 to 2005, I was President of the United Poolplayers of America (UPA), the governing body of men’s professional pool in the US. During that time, I promoted the World Summit of Pool that was televised on ESPN from Grand Central Terminal in NYC. In an effort to sell more tickets, I suggested that we let the women compete as well. Well, the guys couldn’t have cared less. It was the women who were adamantly opposed. I had several conversations with Jeanette Lee, aka the Black Widow, the greatest American woman billiards player. She was the one who made the case that the guys have an overwhelming physical advantage. The advantage has nothing to do with the guys being taller, as Mara suggested. (Efren Reyes, the best poolplayer in the world, is 5’7”.) While the women are equal shot-makers and just as cool under pressure, the guys have a big advantage on the break. Because they are stronger and can generate more power, they will pocket a ball on the break more frequently, which allows them to continue shooting. In a “race to eleven”, if a woman fails to pocket a ball just one or two times less than her opponent, then that’s the whole ballgame.Back in 2003, Jeanette actually gave me several academic studies that she had researched. Sorry to say, but Mara is just not correct when she says there aren’t real studies on the topic of the advantages that boys have in sports from an early age. All these years later I have found these articles in my file cabinet:* “Longitudinal Change in Throwing Performance: Gender Differences”* “Development of Gender Differences in Physical Activity”* “Transcending Tradition: Females and Males in Open Competition”One of the studies, however, does make an interesting point on why girls might want to compete with boys (and presumably trans girls.) Girls who compete against boys are forced to up their games and their skills improve much more quickly.During your discussion with Mara, she also said that people thought Martina Navratilova had an advantage because she was a lesbian. Nobody within the world of tennis thought that. They all knew she practiced almost exclusively against guys.  That, and she was the first player to hit the gym and rigorously lift weights. I’ve heard Chris Evert talk about how she was then forced to lift weights in order to keep up and that made her a much better player.If a top women’s billiards player were to adopt Navratilova’s training regimen, no doubt they could rise to the top of the women’s rankings and perhaps give the guys a run for their money.Another reader turns to a different sport:I’m an avid tennis fan. Both Serena and Venus in the prime of their fitness faced an aging male tennis pro ranked 203 in the world in the twilight of his career after he had two beers. It’s a well-documented event from 1998. He absolutely destroyed them both. One female trans tennis player ranking anywhere in the top 500 getting on the women’s tour would absolutely destroy the WTA (Women’s Tennis Association). Every Grand Slam trophy, every Masters 1000 event, every Olympic match. This is proven with objective metrics of the game. Serve speed, groud-stroke speed, reflexes. There’s absolutely no argument here that gender can be mixed in tennis. I don’t know about other sports, but I’m assuming the same principle applies.This soccer headline says it all: “Australian women’s national team lose 7-0 to team of 15-year-old boys.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Mara is a brilliant transgender rights activist and founding executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. I’m so grateful for her willingness to have a robust exchange of views on some issues, along with much agreement as well. Every few weeks, I hope to add another perspective to the debate over trans identity, a subject that has suffered from the mainstream media’s horror of open debate. Dana Beyer kicked the series off. You can listen to the episode with Mara Keisling right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts of Mara — on the tensions within the new Equality Act; on the conflation of sex and gender in public policy; and on the fairness of trans athletes competing with cis athletes — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back, here’s a question from a reader prompted by our episode with Kmele Foster:You expressed your frustration with terms like “whiteness” or “white values”, which mean nothing more specific than anything the speaker disapproves of at that moment. Whilst I agree, I’m not sure this is a new phenomenon. When I was at university, people on the left would use the phrase “bourgeois values” in the same way. Whilst the points of reference are rooted in identity politics rather than economics, and the underlying ideology is critical race theory rather than Marxism, is it not the same phenomenon? And, if so, do you believe they are interchangeable or is this generation’s activism significantly different?My concern is associating a whole slew of characteristics to a single “race” and erasing all the variety and diversity within that population is, itself, a form of racism. Values are not black white; they are human, and available to all. Last week’s episode with pro-Trump intellectual Michael Anton elicited the most email of any episode we’ve had so far. A reader writes:I appreciated your discussion with Anton, as it can be useful to hear the best defense of even (and perhaps especially) those things one finds largely indefensible (allowing me to check my Trump Derangement Syndrome levels, and all that). But boy, that sure didn’t move the needle. Anton’s defense of Trump boiled down to a combination of relentless whataboutism and what appeared to be, if we’re being extremely generous, highly selective “epistemological humility,” as he puts it. I came away with the impression that, whatever his rationalizations, what was driving him was largely the same motive driving my Trump-supporting relatives: a desire to own the libs/spite the elites/stick it to the Dems. Why that particular tribal motive is so powerful, and what can be done about it — in conservative and liberal circles alike — seems important to figure out if we’re to keep the republic chugging along.Another reader focuses on our fiery exchange over the 2020 election:Thank you for interviewing Michael Anton. I’d never before listened to a person espouse theories of voter fraud who actually has the mental resources and willingness to debate the topic, so the discussion was very revealing. I do wish that you, or someone, would ask him why he feels that our “loosey goosey” voter registration system (to use his words) is being massively exploited only by Democrats. If the fraud is not baked at the voting machine level (which Anton conceded) and is instead organic, then why does this organic fraud only cut in one direction? Anton casually asserts that half of the electorate (his side) is honest, while the other half is widely corrupt on an individual, person-by-person level: millions of people individually deciding to cheat the system. Anton himself has written a response to his Dish experience. Check it out. Another reader is “disturbed by the ongoing ‘bad election’ narrative”:As someone who has worked elections, may I suggest the doubters please work a poll? My experience is people of all political ideologies work together to make free and fair democracy happen. I am in Georgia. Workers here risked their health to open the polls. Then they spent long hours counting and recounting and recounting. Then they reset the whole thing for a 5 January run off. All this during the holiday season! The Senate double run-off is proof Georgia was free and fair. Georgia — a state run by Republicans — spent $100 million between 2016 and 2020 buying new voter-verified paper and digital voting machines. If Senators Purdue and Loeffler had won reelection, the Democrats would not have challenged the result. They would had gone back to discussing why they get 48-49% but never crack 50%.This next reader looks to other parts of the episode:Two things that really stuck out that I would’ve loved to hear Anton address as he played his whataboutism rhetorical games with you:* During his campaign in 2016, Trump promised to not only get rid of the budget deficit, but to eliminate all US debt within 8 years. This wasn’t a throwaway promise. It was on his website, and I know people who voted for him precisely for this reason.* Anton grotesquely underplayed the entire attack on the Capitol. He did this by focusing solely on the deaths, but there have been hundreds of serious injuries to Capitol and DC police officers caused directly by the insurrectionists, and obviously plenty of videos documenting some of these attacks. I’d love to hear him defend these as well, as if this was some sort of fun lark and people went in because they didn’t know there was a Visitors Center (give me a f*****g break!).Anyway, an enraging but enlightening discussion. Makes me skeptical of any reconciliation any time soon.Lastly, some much deserved praise for Anton:I really enjoyed the episode, and Michael Anton has the kind of perspective I never really hear in my bubble, so I found it fascinating. While I think he was wrong about virtually everything over the first half of the podcast, he did have some insightful criticisms of the left toward the end. Thank you for your effort to provide fans of the Dish with some much needed intellectual diversity. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

One of the leading intellectuals of Trumpism, Michael was a senior national security official in the Trump administration and is most widely known for writing “The Flight 93 Election”, an essay endorsing Trump in 2016. He’s out with a new essay, “The Continuing Crisis”, and a recent book, “The Stakes”.I think you’ll find our debate, er, lively. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my chat with Michael — on what he believes are Trump’s greatest achievements in office; and how he thinks Trump caved to the GOP establishment — head over to our YouTube page.A lovely note from a reader about the Dishcast:My husband and I listen to your podcast separately. We then discuss it on our weekly date night. I learn something new in each episode. We miss you on Real Time. Thanks for brightening our Covid mindsets.Another reader dissents over the still-new format:One tiny piece of feedback: Please, please, please stop interrupting your interviewees/guests. I found myself thinking during the Kmele Foster podcast, “Andrew stop interrupting him and let him finish his response on the question you JUST asked him!” There are so many platforms (like Bill Maher’s) that are meant to be a more strident debate between commentators where it is more of an interruption and zinger battle between them, and that makes sense. But in a 1:1 interview for an hour-long podcast, I expect the pace to be slower and for the two people to not interrupt each other.This is not the first time a reader has told me this. I get absorbed into the conversation too easily and can forget I’m broadcasting. I will try harder. Another reader “very much enjoyed your discussion with Kmele Foster” and dissents over a passing comment of mine:I particularly enjoyed those parts that touched on the power of words and mob rule; the concepts of “use vs mention”, “intent vs impact” and the power the mob has in exercising its almost ritualistic cancelling of a person’s career.It was interesting to me, therefore, that you stated George Floyd was murdered. Interestingly — actually, surprisingly — your statement ignores the very concepts upon which much of your discussion with Mr. Foster was focused: intent and the need to defend against mob rule.Murder is when one person kills another (unlawfully) with the intention to cause either death or serious injury (UK). In the States, I understand it to be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought — and malice aforethought means the “intention to kill or harm”.  Intent matters, and the case of George Floyd has not yet been adjudicated. Mr. Floyd was killed. From what the general public has seen, his killing was appalling, horrific and heinous, but we do not yet know if he was murdered.Defending the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is vital. Intent in all its forms should also be defended. Otherwise the mob rules.Point taken. (There’s also the complicating factor of fentanyl in Floyd’s bloodstream at the time of death — which may be irrelevant but will still doubtless come up at the trial.) Another reader continues on the theme of preventing mob rule:I totally second the concerns of Kmele Foster. Before social media, the methods that political victors could use to suppress the other side in the USA was limited mostly to government structures. The separation of powers and the guarantees of individual rights stymie the urge to suppress others through government. When these rights are violated, individuals can seek redress through the legal system. It is not a perfect system, and it often takes longer than it should, but our civilization depends on most citizens believing the system will ultimately work.Social media has dangerously changed that by bypassing government. I fear that cancel culture and the example of groups like Antifa — which can coordinate on social media and behave as they do with few consequences — is shaking the belief in our system of government. There are new methods of suppression, outside of our legal structures. Many feel a vulnerability they did not feel a few years ago.Another reader illustrates the divisiveness of woke initiatives in the workplace, even among friends:I wanted to share a story with you after listening to your conversation with Kmele Foster. I work for a very well-known big tech company in the Bay Area. (I can hardly stand CA, from Texas originally — two different worlds.) A few weeks ago, the company sponsored a week-long summit for women of color. The summit description invited all groups of women or people who identify as women that were: black, latina, asian, native american, muslim, etc. — all listed there except white. So while they didn’t say “anyone who isn’t white”, the message was clear. I am Lebanese (not a muslim) and have never thought of myself as white until the 2020 census included Lebanese ... as white (?).The summit invited anyone outside of these listed groups to join as allies but also made it clear that swag was not available for allies. I didn’t join for numerous reasons.But a colleague who is Mexican-American did, and when next we spoke, I asked her how it went. She was most impressed by the keynote speaker’s explanation of whitewashing. She explained that having to change her look and the way she speaks to fit into corporate America is an example of whitewashing. I noted back that everyone has to change to accommodate office and business formalities, i.e., I have to leave myself at home too. Then I pressed her to say more about whitewashing so I could understand what it is. She told me that as a “white woman,” I couldn’t possibly understand. This is someone with whom I have exchanged stories of our families and childhoods. We’ve laughed more than a few times about how much we actually have in common. I am Lebanese. She is Mexican. We were both raised Catholic by big families and have many siblings. This is also a women who recently sold her house in SF for 3 million. I am still trying to pay off my student loans.In your conversation with Kmele, it was mentioned that calling people out and asking them to explain is a good first step. I try to do that where I can AND find that most folks, when pressed, CAN’T explain. But at work, I can only press so much without putting my livelihood in jeopardy.  There must be ways for people in my circumstance to counter this effectively, without having to put our families at risk. One last reader has a suggestion for an upcoming topic and guest:Just finished listening to the pod with Kmele Foster — another early gem in this project. I’m also in the midst of reading Cynical Theories, and I was struck by how much the conversation with Kmele overlaps with the dangers of applied postmodernism and critical race theory highlighted in the book. The rejection of reason and objectivity in favor of opportunistic groupthink, the emphasis on superficial and contrived identity-based power dynamics over individual experience, the dismissal of intent in favor of (often disingenuous) wailing over subjective impact — all came through in your discussion. If only more of us could approach these issues with the courage and intellectual honesty you and Kmele called for at the close. Along those lines, it would be interesting if you could find a guest to dissect some of the similar overreaches of the me-too movement. I was struck while listening to this pod by how many of the themes you and Kmele criticized with respect to race are also prevalent in some me-too cases, especially those where unprovable subjective responses to awkward situations end up ruining the lives of men and boys who actually have a lot less power than the woke left will admit — all in furtherance of a different kind of identity-based reckoning. Emily Yoffe comes to mind as someone who has shown some guts in countering the prevailing narrative.  Emily is a great idea. Thanks for prodding me. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Kmele is co-host of the brilliant and funny Fifth Column podcast and the lead producer at Free Think. You may have seen him on a recent episode of Real Time. A friend and an inspiration, Kmele really opens up in this conversation.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Kmele — on the tensions between African-Africans and black immigrants; on the intractable problem of the racial wealth gap; and on the purging of the NYT’s Donald McNeil — head over to our YouTube page.This week we didn’t get many notable responses to our episode with David Wallace-Wells — just lots of praise for David — but here are a handful of good emails from readers on other topics. One writes:The beautiful passage in your latest essay that begins with “I prefer another form of liberation…” should be required reading for students along with the classics. But the term you throw out at the end, “neoracists”, caught my attention as perhaps having greater significance. What reasonable folks need to combat these woke zealots are quick, intuitive arguments, phrases and most of all, labels. The Woken fight their battles chiefly with labels. “Racist” is the big one. Why not “neoracist” for us? That term, especially without a hyphen, is relatively nonexistent on a one-minute Google search. (Hey, I do my research!) It’s perfect. It immediately puts them on the defensive while they scramble to explain why they aren’t racists. It completely turns the table.John McWhorter has seized on “neoracist” for his new book. And speaking of new terms, Charlie Sykes floats “Never Again Trumpers”.Another reader articulates a core philosophical point about being a minority, an outsider, a rebel:As a child of the ‘60s, I came of age during the time when my generation was busy giving the finger to our elders, shocking them with long hair and telling them they could park their sexual repression in their own bedrooms, not in ours. We were content to be outsiders. If we grew our hair long, we did not believe we enjoyed a right to be employed with it. If we identified as free lovers, we did not expect our elders to endorse it, let alone like it. Today it is different. For many so-called rebels, it’s not that they are free to go their own way, but that society must come with them. Their identity is an absolute. Not only may they grow their hair long, but their employer is obligated to accept it. Increasingly the employer is not even allowed to enjoy the right to object to it.This next reader makes an ever-necessary case for classical liberalism — especially needed during impeachment week:I’ve held characteristically liberal positions on most political matters throughout my adult life and I’ve voted almost exclusively for Democrats for 20 years. Yet in recent years I’ve become more of an institutionalist and even a bit of a small ‘c’ conservative. Your recent newsletter, “The Big Lie That Must Die”, reminded me of why I’ve gone down that path in recent years.I’m a Foreign Service Officer. I served in Guatemala from 2014-2016. In reading a book about Guatemalan history, I noticed a disturbing trend. When liberals came to power, they threw conservatives in prison. When a conservative such as Rafael Carrera took power in the mid-1800s, he was named presidente vitalicio — president for life — which effectively locked liberals out of power. This pattern continued for well over a century. Liberals criminalized conservatives until some sort of revolution took place. And then conservatives criminalized liberals until yet another sort of revolution took place. To quote from the book’s description of the Cold War battle between the left and the right: “On neither side was their tolerance or acceptance of the actual game of politics, because tyranny was the only way to ensure the defeat of your opponents.”The implication is clear: Tyranny is the attempt to destroy politics, because politics is the never-ending settlement of power between coalitions of people who have different interests. This is what makes classical liberalism so powerful. Instead of ferocious violence on behalf of the “correct” set of interests, liberalism accepts that there will always be a competition of interests in society. So we create baseline political rights for individuals, we diffuse power across institutions, and we live to fight another day when our side loses an election. Because coalitions will shift and our constitutional rights protect us from those who happen to hold power today.But that arrangement is fragile. It’s precious. And it recalls a line from American Hustle, which I actually saw in a movie theater in Guatemala: “You know what, if the country were run by people like you, Irving Rosenfeld, we’d be living in Eastern Europe or Guatemala.”And perhaps we are. I suspect there is a frightening number of American conservatives who would happily criminalize the left, just as I suspect there is a frightening number of American progressives who would happily criminalize the right. This is not good for the long-term health of society. And the reason I write this to you is because you have been clear and consistent on the importance of liberalism, the fragility of liberalism, and the staggering number of Americans who seem to have no concept or concern for liberalism.So I’m glad that you are raising the alarm. I don’t know whether it’s a fight we’re going to win, but it’s a fight worth having. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

David is a deputy editor at New York magazine and one of the sharpest journalists covering the Covid19 pandemic. (He edited my essay on plagues this past summer.) He’s also a clear-headed expert on climate change and the author of The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. This pod is full of fact, insight and speculation on the virus, the vaccines, and the new variants. If you need to get your head wrapped around where we are in this plague, check it out.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with David — on the threat posed by vaccine skeptics; and on whether lockdowns did more harm than good — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader sounds off on last week’s episode:I was so pleased to hear Christopher Caldwell on your podcast! I agree he is one of the sharpest conservative thinkers and a first-rate stylist. In fact, I’ve become a bit obsessed with his work. I’ve recently written a lengthy review of Age of Entitlement for a specialized scholarly journal, to be published soon. (So, if I'm lucky, maybe a couple dozen people will read it.) You and I have never met, but I am the editor of a book that features essays by both you and Caldwell: American Epidemic: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Opioid Crisis (New Press, 2019).I have a few thoughts about your podcast interview. First, I wish you had pushed back at one point. Caldwell said that Age of Entitlement is “not a manifesto,” but rather “a work of history.” I suspect you will agree that it is often difficult, while reading that book, to separate Caldwell (the historian) from Caldwell (the rancorous, sharp-witted partisan). Age of Entitlement is not just an analysis of the continually broadening scope of civil rights since the 1960s. It is also, very plainly, a jeremiad against the post-1964 civil rights movement. He’s trying to have it both ways. Second, you occasionally talk over your guests when you’re excited about something! Caldwell said he liked the idea of the 1776 Commission, and I think he was about to talk about it more substantively. I would have liked to have heard him assess the Report’s quality and execution. But he didn’t finish his thought. You declared the Report was execrable garbage, then the conversation moved in a different direction.From another reader who listened to the episode:Caldwell claims that civil rights legislation has created a system whereby courts can overrule democratic majorities, but the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent rule by democratic majorities. George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote but got to be president and appoint a bunch of judges that were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. That the resulting court affirmed things Caldwell is uneasy with, like same-sex marriage, is no different than them carving out religious exemptions that I am uneasy with, such as allowing discrimination against same-sex couples trying to adopt children. Importantly, that is the system working as intended. Neither of us gets entirely what we want and so we are motivated to cast our votes for representatives we feel will pass laws and confirm judges that we like, but that tension cannot be resolved because it is fundamental to our system of government. Conservatives like Caldwell seem to be arguing against the entire constitutional system of American representative democracy because it doesn’t always deliver the results a bare majority of people want — in same way Woke critical theory adherents want to tear down the system because it sometimes delivers the results a bare majority of people want. They are both upset about the necessity of empowering minorities in a democracy. How are the two views fundamentally any different?Another reader digs into some legal history:I listened to the podcast and thank you for the gentle challenging you did, which helped illuminate the argument. I was startled by Caldwell’s apparent lack of acknowledgement during the podcast that there might be strong reasons for a civil rights regime in places outside of the South, e.g., in the context of housing policies in northern cities.But the place he really lost me was in his description of the Griggs v. Duke Power ruling, which introduced the legal theory of disparate impact. Yes, nominally, the ruling said a neutral rule that just coincidentally causes a disparate impact could be unconstitutional. But the actual rule employed by the Duke Power Company was in fact no such coincidence, as was transparent to the Court and all litigants. Here's Richard Primus describing the background:The defendant in Griggs, the Duke Power Company, had officially discriminated against blacks until July 2, 1965, which happened to be the date that Title VII became effective. On that date, the company ceased its official discrimination but adopted a rule that only high school graduates who passed two written aptitude tests could be employed anywhere other than in its lowest wage, lowest status division. These requirements had the effect of preventing all but a few blacks from gaining employment outside the one division where blacks had been allowed before Title VII. This tactic was an obvious subterfuge for intentional discrimination. Nonetheless, the district court found as a fact that the company had no discriminatory motive in adopting the high school diploma and written testing requirements. The Supreme Court accordingly faced a choice between overturning a factual finding or imposing liability without respect to the defendant's intent, and it chose the latter. One way of reading Griggs and later cases is that they authorize courts to recognize, and forbid “obvious subterfuge[s] for intentional discrimination.” That’s the kind of stuff the doctrine is most often actually used against.Another reader looks to an episode from December:I had some time to catch up on your podcasts. I noticed the sound quality has improved, which is great, and even though they may be a tad on the longish side, the conversations are really interesting. So I listened to your conversation with Damir Marusic & Shadi Hamid. About 15 minutes before the end, you talk about the absence of religion in the world. You mention continental Europe (where I live), call us continentals “dead inside” and quote Francis Fukuyama’s statement that we “are shadows of human beings”. Because “we” do not have religion.Well ... thanks!I could just get on with my life and chalk your insights up to Christian and/or British delusions or whatnot. But something about it bothered me, because I see it reflected in the English reaction to the Brexit negotiations with the EU. You situate the border between people who are dead inside and the people who are still (?) “alive inside” in the English Channel and the North Sea. How convenient. This merits some soul-searching on your part. When is the last time you visited Europe, besides England? You spoke on your podcast with a soft authority on the subject of European zombiedom as if you spend alternate weekends on the continent. Your readers know that not to be true. I look forward to you unpacking some of this stuff. Best and warm wishes to you and your colleague Chris for a much better and life-affirming 2021!I can get carried away sometimes. I was thinking of the post-religious ennui in Western Europe, which is no different in the UK. The dissenting reader who back in December told me to chill over Trump — a dissent I called “the most effective counter to my worries about our democracy that I have ever read” — follows up:I spent quite a bit of time feeling very proud that you guys published my dissent in which I argued that Donald Trump was not going to lead a coup and that you were too worried about the prospect of violent uprising. Then came the Capitol Hill Riot and this caused me to engage in some hard self-reflection. Had I been wrong? To what degree did these actions legitimize the notion that Trump and his supporters represent an existential threat to the government of the United States? Still, despite the Capitol Riot, I believe I was right. I think that it’s important to divide two things that you might argue are indivisible.  One is the fact that there are a huge number of Republicans who believe in the Big Lie that the election was stolen.  This trend is extremely worrying, and is seen in the votes of the Republican members of the House and Senate who voted against certifying the election results. The second is the riot itself and the attack on the Capitol — a lawless use of violence to upend a key aspect of the election.  One might argue that the riot naturally grew out of the soil of distrust of the election results, and on one level this is self-evidently true. The Big Lie called all those yahoos to DC and sent them off into the Capitol Building. And yet, given that huge numbers of Americans believe that this election was legitimately stolen, this riot turned out to be a farce and a fiasco. If millions of Americans really believed that the dark night of tyranny was about to fall, would only a couple thousand have shown up? The crowd was only “large” because the police were not present in large enough numbers to block them.Despite zip-tie guy (who most likely found them on the ground), I still believe that this riot was largely unplanned LARPing that met with no security and pushed its way in. That is to say, if it was planned, what the hell was the plan? Assuming that this was a calculated assault assumes that the rioters were smart enough to know that the Capitol would be largely unguarded but dumb enough to believe that they would somehow be able to get Congress to change the election? I suppose you could argue that there was a cohort of trained terrorists/paramilitary members ruthlessly accomplishing their goals while the open doors allowed clowns like shirtless buffalo guy to wander in. But there seems to be no evidence that anyone was ruthlessly or efficiently doing anything. In your podcast where you rehost (and re-roast) Shadi Hamid, you argue that the protesters got what they wanted in that they disrupted the certification of the vote.  But they didn’t get what they wanted — not by a long shot. They delayed the certification for about half a day and, if anything, probably reduced the number of Republican dissenters in Congress. Additionally, the riot has led to the unpersoning of Trump on social media along with many other right-wing figures. Parler was basically annihilated by Apple, Google and AWS. And now a bunch of the rioters are going to go to jail — maybe for decades. As an aside, isn’t the glee with which everyone is turning them in a sight to see?  Where was this glee when mobs were burning, stealing and looting this summer?  You certainly never would see articles like this or like this. Imagine a world where the riot didn’t happen. You would have had *more* Republicans dissenting from the certification, and wouldn’t that have been worse? You cite Plato to argue that the tyrant is undisciplined and cannot control himself and you are right! Plato does argue that this is the defining characteristic of the tyrannic man. You use this definition when Trump’s incompetence is pointed out —of course he’s incompetent, his tyrannic nature makes it impossible for him to rule effectively. But here’s the key point: Trump is such a tyrannic man that he cannot rise to the level of actual tyranny. You compared him to Richard III, but how could you insult Britain’s last Plantagenet king this way? If Shakespeare is to be believed, Richard was a schemer par excellence. Trump has no plan, and no capacity to plan.  Finally, I do share many of your feelings. The fact that so many Republicans were willing to overturn the views of their own voters is disturbing. All of the aspersions that Trump has been casting on the results really are corrosive. The fact that our media has schismed into two warring realities is profoundly upsetting.  Here’s some more Republic for you:Have we any greater evil for a city than what splits it and makes it many instead of one? ...Doesn't the community of pleasure and pain bind it together, when to the greatest extent possible all the citizens alike rejoice and are pained at the same comings into being and perishings? I worry that the United States is no longer a shared community of pleasures and pains. The hypocritical responses by the right and the left make this clear. I do believe that this division is a cancer in the heart of our nation. Still, I don’t think it presents an imminent threat. We are still too fat, prosperous and successful. If our economy crashes — I mean really crashes — or if we get hit with a much more deadly and fatal virus, then I will join you in panicking. I’m grateful for this thoughtful response, and want to share your optimism. We’ll see, I guess, won’t we? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Chris is an old friend and, in my view, one of the sharpest right-of-center writers in journalism. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, his latest book, The Age of Entitlement, is a constitutional narrative of the last half-century that is indispensable — especially for liberals — in understanding the roots of our polarization. Here’s a great primer from Sean Illing:Caldwell doesn’t defend racism or the apartheid system the Civil Rights Act dismantled; rather, he argues that the civil rights movement spawned a whole constellation of other liberation struggles — for immigrants, for gay and transgender rights, for sexual freedom — that Americans did not sign up for and did not want. And the result of this steady encroachment is what Caldwell calls a “rival Constitution” that is incompatible with the original one and the source of a great deal of social unrest.It’s a challenging way to understand our tribal divide. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Christopher — on the exodus of elites from Middle America; and on the dearth of intellectuals on the Republican right — head over to our YouTube page. Meanwhile, a reader remarks on last week’s episode: Your conversation with David Frum was excellent. His perspectives are always worth listening to, and I enjoyed your challenging questions. To think you two are supposed to be on the right side of things (and I, as a left-leaning person, agreed with most of what you said) shows what a strange — nuanced? — world we live in.Another reader focuses on a specific part:I felt the most thought-provoking part of your discussion with David Frum came near the end, where he talks about not having spent any time in a hospital. Does he deserve this good fortune? I suppose the woke answer would be that he is health-privileged and should be forced to do his fair share of hospital time. Perhaps he should intentionally be made sick? Or more likely the less-healthy should be given some other benefit to level the playing field. So indeed Frum’s advantage is undeserved and we should try to take it from him.I think the classic American answer (if it had occurred to anyone to ask the question) is that “deserving” doesn’t enter into it. We want everyone to reach their full potential, aware that ability (i.e. “luck”) is not evenly distributed. We want our best and brightest to fly the highest, and they will elevate the whole country with them. To borrow a phrase, this is what made America great.The left now tells us that “meritocracy” is a code word for racism, but really one of the problems with racism is that it prevents us from having a true meritocracy.This next reader appreciates the Dishcast medium in general:I am new to your commentary, which I got onto after your episode with Sam Harris. I’ve struggled to understand your (and Sam’s) critiques of the left on race since you also make it clear you recognize there is a problem with race in America. Your conversation with Mr. Frum went a long way toward helping me reconcile and better understand your positions. Please keep talking about this stuff, including talking more about what the race problems are, and not just what they aren’t. I’ll stay tuned. Another reader has a recommendation for a future episode:There was a very charming moment at the beginning of this week’s podcast, where David referred to you as a star teaching assistant at Harvard’s government department. People would apparently come out of your section burbling with enthusiasm, and then the next group of David’s students would trudge into his section. (“Another hour with this guy.”)Anyhow, it got me thinking: What was the class? Who was the professor?  (Mansfield?) How did you approach teaching those undergraduate sections? (I guess it hadn’t occurred to me that you were once at T.A.)I started reading you in the early 2000s, and even though I’m a huge fan, I’ve never heard you systematically discuss your intellectual origins and development. I know bits and pieces of the story — a provincial kid, debated at Oxford, proud Tory and Reagan supporter, came to the States, courted controversy at The New Republic, was a pioneering supporter of gay marriage, supported the Iraq War and lived to regret it, and so on ...But I bet podcast listeners might enjoy hearing you interviewed thoroughly and in-depth about how you see the trajectory of your intellectual life. (I know I would.) Another impetus for this suggestion is that I recently enjoyed listening to Glenn Loury do something like this on his own podcast. He allowed himself to be interviewed about his intellectual origins for three hours! I loved it and learned a lot. (My other, more prosaic suggestion for an interview subject is Christopher Caldwell, who puzzles and fascinates me.) Good idea, perhaps. This podcast interview with Giles Fraser gets at some of this, and, believe it or not, my dissertation is in print. The Conservative Soul defines what conservatism means for me, if for very few others. Later this year, a collection of my essays from 1989 - 2021 will be published. To get a good sense of my intellectual connection to Michael Oakeshott — the English philosopher I wrote my doctoral thesis on — see my profile of him for The Spectator. Money quote:When you think of Oakeshott in this way, you realise why co-opting him for a political party — the way some tried to turn him into a patron saint of Thatcherism — was a profound misreading. Such passing allegiances seemed alien and trivial to him. So too did the incessant chatter we now call politics. I remember telling him I thought I would become a journalist after my PhD. His face fell. ‘I’ve always thought the need to know the news every day is a nervous disorder,’ he said, with a slight grin. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe