Lex Fridman Podcast - #180 – Jeremi Suri: History of American Power

Episode Date: April 30, 2021

Jeremi Suri is a historian at UT Austin. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - LMNT: https://drinkLMNT.com/lex to get free sample pack - Munk Pack: https://munkpack.com and use code LEX to get 20% off - Belcampo: https://belcampo.com/lex and use code LEX to get 20% off first order - Four Sigmatic: https://foursigmatic.com/lex and use code LexPod to get up to 60% off - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings EPISODE LINKS: Jeremi's Twitter: https://twitter.com/JeremiSuri Jeremi's Website: http://jeremisuri.net This is Democracy Podcast: http://jeremisuri.net/archives/1798 The Impossible Presidency (book): https://amzn.to/2QKC5Jp PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (14:33) - Power of charisma (20:24) - US presidency (31:10) - Aliens (36:17) - Bill Clinton (39:07) - Students of history (43:58) - George Washington (46:44) - Putin (53:27) - FDR (1:08:39) - Henry Kissinger (1:18:32) - Realpolitik (1:30:22) - What is a just war? (1:36:27) - Cold war (1:40:44) - Communism in the United States (1:50:42) - Vaccines and the future of the human species (1:55:57) - Book recommendations (1:57:31) - Learning another language (2:01:58) - Advice for young people (2:08:10) - Grandmother (2:11:03) - Meaning of life

The following is a conversation with Jeremy Surrey, a historian at UT Austin, whose research interests and writing are on modern American history with a knife towards presidents and in general individuals who wielded power. Quick mention of our sponsors, Element, Monk Pack, Bel Campo, Forsegmatic, and 8-Sleep. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that in these conversations, for better or worse, I seek understanding, not activism. I'm not left, no right. I love ideas, not labels. And most fascinating ideas are full of uncertainty, tension, and trade-offs. Labels destroy that.

I try ideas out. Let them breathe for a time. Try to challenge, explore, and analyze. But mostly I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to think and to make up your own mind, together with me. I will try to have economists and philosophers on from all points on the multidimensional political spectrum, including the extremes. I will try to both have an open mind and to ask difficult questions when

needed. I'll make mistakes. Don't shoot this robot at the first sign of failure. I'm still under development. Pre-release version 0.1. As usual, I'll do a few minutes of As Now, No ads in the middle, as a listener I hate those. I'll give you time stamp, so if you skip please still check out the sponsors by clicking the links in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. I'm very picky with the sponsors which are your con.

So hopefully if you buy their stuff you'll find value in it just as I have. This episode is sponsored by Element, Electrally drink mix spelled LMNT. I've been doing a lot of keto and carnivore diets and fasting and I think the number one thing to get those rights is to get your electrolytes, specifically sodium, potassium, magnesium. That's where elements have been really helpful for me, both when I'm exercising, when I'm fasting, all that kind of stuff. It really does make a huge difference. You know, the thing that people talk about with the keto diet is you get this kind of, what they call keto flu, where you feel groggy, there's headaches, all that kind of stuff. And that really, most of the time, can be fixed with getting the electrolytes into your

system, making sure you drink a lot of water and getting the electrolytes. Element just makes it very easy to get that mix correct. Olympians use it, tech people use it, I swear by this stuff. Try it at drinkelement.com slash Lex. That's drinklment.com slash Lex. I highly recommend it. If you're at all like me, we're doing the keto diet or doing it in your kind of fasting, element will be a lifesaver. This episode is also sponsored by a Monkpack, keto nut and seed bars that contain one gram of sugar or less, two to three grams of net carbs,

and there are only 150 calories. My favorite is coconut almond dark chocolate. Second is peanut butter dark chocolate I tend to be really picky about the kind of snacks at partakein So if I'm traveling or if I'm on the move in terms of doing long distance running or just don't have quick easy access to sort of a good meat or meat of veggies meal and Good snacks are sensual and my favorite for the kind of lifestyle, for the kind of diet I live is a monk pack.

The macromix is just right, is delicious, but it doesn't do any of the crazy amounts of sugar. So I don't recommend many snacks, but of the ones I do recommend monk pack is at the top. So get 20% off your first purchase of any monk pack product by visiting monkpack.com and entering code Lex at checkout. If you don't like it for any reason, they'll exchange it. That's Monkpack.com and enter code Lex at checkout. Like I said, my favorite is coconut almond

dark chocolate. So it's definitely one I would recommend unless you hate coconut, which apparently many people do. I for one love coconut. This show is also sponsored by Bel Campo Farms whose mission is to deliver meat you can feel good about meat that is good for you, good for the animals, and good for the planet. Bel Campo animals graze on open pastures and seasonal grasses resulting in meat that is higher in nutrients and healthy fats, plus friends is delicious. Bel Campo has been the best meat I've eaten at home. It's a little bit more expensive than store bought meat, but it's definitely worth it, both in terms of taste and in terms of ethics. I'm actually going to visit a Bell Campo farm, a late May.

Maybe I'll do a couple of videos and podcasts out there, or maybe I'll just enjoy the experience. I'm not sure, but I'm a huge fan of what they're doing. I can't wait to check it out. If you can pay a little bit more money for the meat, you consume. I think you're not going to regret it. You should definitely consider ordering some other meats. You can do so by using code Lex at bellcampo.com slash Lex for 20% off for the first time customers that's code Lex at bellcampo.com slash Lex for 20% off for the first time customers that's code Lex at bellcampo.com slash Lex.

They'll deliver it straight to your door. I think you're going to love it. This show is sponsored by ForSignmatic, the maker of delicious mushroom coffee and plant-based protein. Again, I think I heard this ad read on Cal Newports deep Questions podcast that I highly recommend. I've been binge listening to it. It has a lot of good productivity advice. I sometimes feel like I'm shamed for the ways of my life when I listen to Cal because he often has this stuff together. I tend to be much worse at saying no to projects and people and so on. I just kind of embraced the chaos of it and worked my ass off. I think Cal is much more structured, but there's so much to learn from him. Anyway, he's a supporter of Forsegmatic. So, in my, I think the coffee is delicious, which is the most important thing,

but it's also really good for you. Get up to 40% off and free shipping on mushroom coffee bundles if you go to 4sigmatic.com slash Lex. That's 4sigmatic.com slash Lex. This episode is also sponsored by 8 sleep and its pod pro mattress. It controls temperature with an app. It's packed with sensors and can cool down to as low as 55 degrees on each side of the bed separately. Go to 8sleep.com slash Lex to get special savings. Because I'm in the process of moving, I currently don't have hate sleep on my bed and I really, really miss it.

It's kind of funny how quickly you get used to amazing things. And A Sleep is definitely one of those. If you like your mattress already, you can just get the pot pro cover that goes over your mattress. And then you get all the nice features that they provide with the sensors and the app and so on. But their mattress, just so you know, is also very nice. So I recommend it if you don't have a mattress or if you're looking to upgrade your mattress.

They track a bunch of metrics like heart rate variability, but honestly, cooling alone is worth the money. That's what I actually miss most here in Texas. Go to 8sleep.com slash Lex to get special savings. That's 8sleep.com slash Lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast, and here is my conversation with Jeremy. Sorry. You studied many American presidents throughout history, so who do you think was the greatest

president in American history? The greatest American president was Abraham Lincoln. And Tolstoy reflected on this himself, actually, saying that when he was in the Caucasus, he asked these peasants in the Caucasus, who was the greatest man in the world that they had heard of. And they said Abraham Lincoln. man in the world that they had heard of. And they said Abraham Lincoln. And why? Well, because he gave voice to people who had no voice before. He turned politics into an art. This is what Tolstoy recounted the peasants and the caucuses telling him. Lincoln made politics more than about power. He made it an art. He made it a source of liberation. And those living even far from the United States could see that model, that inspiration

from Lincoln. He was a man who had two years of education, yet he mastered the English language, and he used the language to help people imagine a different kind of world. You see leaders and presidents are at their best when they're doing more than just manipulating institutions and power when they're helping the people imagine a better world. And he did that as no other president has. And you say he gave voice to those who are voiceless. Who are you talking to about in general? Is this about African Americans? There was this about just the populace in general. Certainly part of it is about slaves, African Americans, and many immigrants, immigrants from all parts of Europe and other areas that have come to the United States.

But part of it was just for ordinary American citizens. The Republican Party, for which Lincoln was the first president, was a party created to give voice to poor white men, as well as slaves and others. And Lincoln was a poor white man himself, grew up without slaves and without land, which meant you had almost nothing. What do you think about the trajectory of that man with only two years of education? Is there something to be said about how does one come from nothing and nurture the ideals that kind of make this country great into something where you can actually

be a leader of this nation to expose those ideas, to give the voice to the voiceless. Yes, I think you actually hit the nail on the head. I think what he represented was the opportunity, and that was the word that mattered for him, opportunity that came from the ability to raise yourself up, to work hard, and that was the word that mattered for him, opportunity that came from the ability to raise yourself up to work hard and to be compensated for your hard work. And this is at the core of the Republican Party of the 19th century, which is the core of capitalism. It's not by getting rich. It's about getting compensated for your work. It's about being incentivized to do better work. And Lincoln was constantly striving. One of his closest associates,

Herndon said, he was the little engine of ambition that couldn't stop. He just kept going, taught himself to read, taught himself to be a lawyer. He went through many failed businesses before he even reached that point. Many failed love affairs. But he kept trying, he kept working.

And what American society offered him, and what he wanted American society to offer everyone else, was the opportunity to keep trying to fail, and then get up and try again. What do you think was the nature of that ambition? Was there a hunger for power? I think Lincoln had a hunger for success. I had think he had a hunger to get out of the poor station

he was in. He had a hunger to be someone who had control over his life. Freedom for him did not mean the right to do anything you want to do, but it meant the right to be secure from being dependent upon someone else. So independence. He writes in his letters when he's very young that he hated being dependent on his father. He grew up without a mother. His father was a struggling farmer, and he would write in his letters that his father treated him like a slave on his father. He grew up without a mother. His father was a struggling farmer and he would write in his letters that his father treated him like a slave on the farm. Something his hatred of slavery came from that experience. He didn't ever want to have to work for someone again. He wanted to be

free and independent and he wanted again every American. This is the kind of Jeffersonian dream to be the owner of themself and the owner of their future. You know that's a really nice definition of freedom. We often think kind of this very abstract notion of being able to do anything you want, but really it's ultimately breaking yourself free from the constraints, like the very tight dependence on whether it's the institutions or on your family, the institutions or on your family or the expectations or the community or whatever, being able to be to realize yourself within the constraints of your own abilities. It's still not true freedom.

The true freedom is probably sort of almost like designing a video game character. I agree. I think that's exactly right. I think freedom is not that I can have any outcome I agree. I think I think it's exactly right. I think freedom is not that I can have any outcome I want. I can't control outcomes. The most powerful free is person in the world cannot control outcomes. But it means at least I get to make choices. Someone else doesn't make those choices for me. be said about Lincoln and on the political game front of it, which is he's accomplished some of them. I don't know, but it seems like there were some tricky politics going on. We tend to not think of it in those terms because of the dark aspects of slavery. We tend to think about it in sort of ethical and human terms, but in their time, it was probably

as much a game of politics, not just these broad questions of human nature, right? It was a game. So is there something to be said about being a skillful player in the game of politics that you'd take from Lincoln? Absolutely, and Lincoln never read Carl von Clauswitz, the great 19th century German thinker on strategy

and politics, but he embodied the same wisdom, which is that everything is politics. If you want to get anything done, and this includes even relationships, there's a politics to it. What does that mean? It means that you have to persuade, coerce, encourage people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. And Lincoln was a master at that. He was a master at that for two reasons. He had learned through his hard life to read people, to anticipate

them, to spend a lot of time listening. One thing I often tell people is the best leaders or the listeners, not the talkers. And then second, Lincoln was very thoughtful and planned every move out. He was thinking three or four moves, maybe five moves down the chessboard while others were moving up move number one or two. That's fascinating to think about him just listening to studying. That's, you know, they look at great fighters in this way. Like the first few rounds of boxing and mixed martial arts, you're studying the movement of your opponent in order to sort of define the holes. That's a really interesting frame to think about it. Is there in terms of relationships,

where do you think as president or as a politician is the most impact to be had? I've been reading a lot about Hitler recently. And one of the things that I'm more and more starting to wonder, what the hell did he do alone in a room with one-on-one with people? Because it seems like that's where he was exceptionally effective. When I think about certain leaders, I'm not sure Stalin was this way. I apologize. I've been very obsessed with these. I was this period of human history.

It just seems like certain leaders are extremely effective one on one. A lot of people think of Hitler in Lincoln as a speech maker, as a great charismatic speech maker, but it seems like to me that some of these guys were really effective inside of Rome. And what do you think? What's more important, your effectiveness to make a hell of a good speech, sort of being in a room with many

people, or is it all blown down to one-on-one? Well, I think in a sense it's both. One needs to do both, and most politicians, most leaders are better at one or the other. It's the rare leader who can do both. I will say that if you are going to be a figure who's a president or the leader of a complex organization, not a startup, but a complex organization where you have many different constituencies and many different interests,

you have to do the one-on-one really well. Because a lot of what's going to happen is you're going to be meeting with people who represent different groups, right? The leader of the labor union, the leader of your investing board, et cetera. And you have to be able to persuade them. And it's the intangibles that often matter most.

Lincoln's skill, and it's the same that FDR had, is the ability to tell a story. I think Hitler was a little different, but I'm what I've read of Stalin as he was a storyteller too. One on one storyteller? Yeah, that's my understanding is that he and what Lincoln did, I don't want to compare Lincoln to Stalin, but Lincoln did, is he was not confrontational. He was happy to have an argument if an argument were to be had, but actually what he would try to do is move you through telling a story That got you to think about your position in a different way to basically disarm you and frankly Roosevelt did the same thing Ronald Reagan did the same thing storytelling is a very important skill

It's almost heartbreaking that we don't get to have Or maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it feels like we don't have a lot of information how all of these folks were in private, one-on-one conversations. Even if we get stories about it, it's like, again, sorry to bring up Hitler, but people have talked about his peers and and they're one on one. Like there's a feeling like he's just looking through you. I wonder, like it makes me wonder, it was Lincoln, somebody who's a little bit more passive,

like who's more, the ego doesn't shine. It's not like an overwhelming thing. Or is it more like, again, don't want to bring up controversial figures, but Donald Trump works more menacing, right? There's a more like physically menacing thing where it's almost like a bullying kind of a dynamic. So I wonder, you know, I wish I wish we knew. I wish because it's from a psychological perspective, I wonder if there's a thread that connects most great leaders.

Great question. I think the best writer on this is Max Weber, right? He talks about the power of charisma. The term charisma comes from Weber, right? Viber is use of it actually to talk about profits. I think he has a point. Leaders who are effective in the way you describe are leaders who feel prophetic or Weber says they have a kind of magic about them.

And I think that can come from different sources. I think that can come from the way someone carries themselves. It can come from the way they use words. So maybe there are different kinds of magic that someone develops. But I think there are two things that seem to be absolutely necessary. First is you have to be someone who sizes up the person on the other side of the table. You cannot be the person who just comes in and reads your brief.

And then second, I think it's interactive. And there is a quickness of thought. So you brought up Donald Trump. I don't think Donald Trump is a deep thinker at all, but he's quick. And I think that quickness is part of it's different from delivering a lecture where it's the depth of your thought. And you for 45 minutes analyze something.

Many people can't do that, but they still might be very effective if they're able to quickly react, size up the person on the other side of the table, and react in a way that moves that person in the way they want to move them. Yeah, and there's also just a couple of the quickness is a kind of instinct about human nature. Yes sort of asking the question What is this person worry about What is it what are the biggest problems somebody? What is this too much force man? I think said to me these are this business man I think you said like what I've always tried to do is tried to figure out

I think he said, like, what I've always tried to do is try to figure out, like, ask enough questions to figure out what is the biggest problem in this person's life? Try to get a sense of what is the biggest problem in their life? Because that's actually what they care about most, and most people don't care enough to find out. And so he kind of wants to sneak up on that and find that and then use that to then build closeness in order to then probably he doesn't put it in those words, but to manipulate the person into whatever to do whatever the heck they want. And I think part of it is that and part of the effect of the Estonial Trump has is how

quick he's able to figure that out. You've written a book about how the role and power of the presidency has changed. So how has it changed since Lincoln's time, the evolution of the presidency as a concept, which seems like a fascinating lens through which to look at American history. Sure. Because the president, you know, we seem to only be talking about the presidents. Maybe a general here and there, but it's mostly the story of America is often told through the presidents. That's right.

That's right. And one of the points I've tried to make in my writing about this and various other activities is we use this word president as if it's something timeless. But the office has changed incredibly just in Lincoln's time to the present, which is 150 years. He wouldn't recognize the office today. And George Washington would not have recognized it in Lincoln. Just as I think a CEO today would be unrecognizable to a Rockefeller or a Carnegie of 150 years ago. So what are some of the ways which the office has changed? I'll just point to three there are a lot. One, presidents now can communicate with the public directly. I mean, we've reached the point now where President

can have direct almost one-on-one communication. President can use Twitter if he so chooses to circumvent all media. That was on thinkable. Lincoln in order to get his message across often wrote letters to newspapers. And waited for the newspaper for Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune to publish his letter. That's how he communicated with the public. There weren't even many speaking opportunities. So that's a big change, right? We feel the president in our life much more.

That's why we talk about him much more. That also creates more of a burden. This is the second point. We feel the president in our life much more. That's why we talk about him much more. That also creates more of a burden. This is the second point. Presidents run to a microscope. Presidents run to a microscope. You have to be very careful what you do and what you say. And you're judged by a lot of the elements of your behavior

that are not policy relevant. In fact, the things we judge most and make most of our decisions on about individuals are often that. And then third, the power the president has, it's inhuman, actually. And this is one of my critiques of how the office has changed. This one person has power on a scale that's, I think,

dangerous in a democracy. And certainly something the founders 220 years ago would have had trouble conceiving. Presidents now have the ability to deliver force across the world to literally assassinate people founders 220 years ago would have had trouble conceiving. Presidents now have the ability to deliver force across the world to literally assassinate people with a remarkable accuracy. And that's an enormous power that presidents have.

To your sense, this is not to get conspiratorial, but do you think a president currently has the power to initiate the assassination of somebody of a political enemy or like a terrorist leader or that kind of thing to frame that person in a way where assassination is something that he alone or she alone could decide to do. I think it happens all the time and it's not to be conspiratorial. This is how we fought terrorism by targeting individuals. Now you might say these were not elected leaders of state,

but these were individuals with a large following. I mean, the killing of Osama bin Laden was an assassination operation. Um, and we've, we've taken out very successfully many leaders of terrorist organizations and, and we do it every day. You're saying that back in Lincoln's time, George Washington's time, there was more of a balance of power. Like a president could not initiate this kind of assassination. Correct. I think presidents did not have the same kind of military or economic power. We could talk about how a president can influence a market by saying something about where money is going

to go or singling out a company or critiquing a company in one way or another. They didn't have that kind of power. Now, much of the power that a Lincoln or a Washington had was the power to mobilize people to then make their own decisions. At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln doesn't even have the power to bring people into the army. He has to go to the governors and ask the governors to provide soldiers. So the governor of Wisconsin, the governor of Massachusetts, could you imagine that today? So, but yeah, so they use speeches and words to mobilize versus direct action in closed-door environments, initiating wars, for example. Correct. correct action in closed door environments, initiating wars, for example.

Correct. It's difficult to think about if we look at Barack Obama, for example, if you're listening to this and you're on the left or the right, please do not make this political. In fact, if you're a political person and you're getting angry at the mention of the word Obama or Donald Trump, please turn off this podcast and I'm just crying. We're not going to get very far. I hope we maintain a political discussion about even the modern presidents that view through the lens of history. I think there's a lot to be learned through about

about the office and about human nature. Some people criticize Barack Obama for sort of expanding the military industrial complex, engaging in more and more wars, as opposed to sort of the initial rhetoric, was such that we would pull back from sort of be more skeptical in our decisions to wage wars.

So from the lens of the power of the presidency, the modern presidency, the fact that we continue the war in Afghanistan and different engagements in military conflicts, do you think Barack Obama could have stopped that? Do you put the responsibility on that expansion on him because of the implied power that the president has, or is this power just sits there? And if the president chooses to take it, they do. And if they don't, they don't, almost like you don't want to take on their responsibility because of the burden of that responsibility. So a lot of my research is about this exact question,

not just with Obama. And my conclusion, and I think the research is pretty clear on this, is that structure has a lot more effect on us than we like to admit, which is to say that the circumstances, the institutions around us drive our behavior more than we like to think. So Barack Obama, I'm quite certain, came into the office of the presidency committed to actually reducing the use of military force overseas and reducing presidential war-making power. As a trained lawyer, he had a moral position on this actually,

and he tried, and he did withdraw American forces from Iraq and was of course criticized by many people for doing that. But at the same time, he had some real problems in the world to deal with, terrorism being one of them. And the tools he has are very much biased towards the use of military force. It's much harder as president to go and get Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to agree with you. It's much easier to send these wonderful toys we have and these incredible soldiers we have over there. And when you have Congress, which is always against you, it's also easier to use the military because you send them there and even if members of Congress from your own party or the other

are angry at you, they'll still fund the soldiers. No member of Congress wants to vote to starve our soldiers overseas. So they'll stop your budget, they'll even threaten not to pay the debt, but they'll still fund your soldiers. And so you are pushed by the circumstances you're in to do this and it's very hard to resist. So that's, I think the criticism of Obama, the fair one would be that he didn't resist the pressures that were there, but he did not make those pressures. So is there something about putting their responsibility on the president to form the structure around him locally,

such that he can make the policy that matches the rhetoric. So what I'm talking to is hiring. So basically, just everybody you work with, you have powers of president to fire and hire or to basically schedule meetings in such a way that can control your decision making. So I imagine it's very difficult to get out of Afghanistan or Iraq when most of your scheduled meetings are with generals or something like that. But if you reorganize the schedule and you reorgan reorganize who you have late night talks with, you potentially have a huge ripple effect on the policy.

I think that's right. I think who has access to the president is absolutely crucial. And presidents have to be more strategic about that they tend to be reacting to crises because every day has a crisis. And if you're reacting to a crisis, you're not controlling access because the crisis is driving you. So that's if you're reacting to a crisis, you're not controlling access because the crisis is

driving you. So that's one element of it. But I also think, and this is the moment we're in right now, presidents have to invest in reforming the system, the system of decision making. Should we have a national security council that looks the way it does? Should our military be structured the way it is? The founding fathers wanted a military that was divided. They did not want to unify the Department of Defense. That was only created after World War

II. Should we have as large a military as we have? Should we be in as many places? There are some fundamental structural reforms we have to undertake. Part of that is who you appoint, but part of that is also how you change the institutions. The genius of the American system is that it's a dynamic system. It can be adjusted. It has been adjusted over time. That's the heroic story. The frustrating story is it often takes us a long time to make those adjustments until we go into such bad circumstances that we have no choice. So in the battle of power of the office of the president versus the United States military, the Department of Defense. Do you have a sense that the president has more power?

Ultimately, so to decrease the size of the Department of Defense, to withdraw from any wars, or increase the amount of wars, is the president... You're kind of implying the president has a lot of power here in this scale. Yes, the president has a lot of power and we are fortunate and it was just proven in the last few years that our military uniquely among many countries with large militaries is very deferential to the president and very restricted in its ability to challenge the president. So that's a strength of our system. But the way you reform the military is not with individual decisions, it's by having a strategic plan

that re-examines what role it plays. So it's not just about whether we're in Afghanistan or not. The question we have to ask is when we look at our toolbox of what we can do in our foreign policy, are there other tools we should build up and therefore some tools in the military we should reduce? That's the broader strategic question. Let me ask you the most absurd question of all that you did not sign up for, but it's especially I've been hanging out with a guy named Joe Rogan recently. Sure. So it's very important for me and him to figure this out.

If a president, because you said you implied the president is very powerful, if a president shows up and the US government is in fact in possession of aliens, aliens spacecraft, do you think the president will be told a more responsible adult historian question version of that is, is there some things that the machine of government keeps secret from the president or is the president ultimately at the very center? So if you like map out the set of information and power, you have like CIA, you have all these organizations that like, that do the machinery of government, not just like the passing of bills, but like gaining information,

Homeland Security, actually engaging in wars, all those kinds of things, how central is the president? Would the president know some of the shady things that are going on, aliens or some kind of cybersecurity stuff against Russia and China, all those kinds of things, is the president really made aware and how nervous does that make you? So presidents like leaders of any complex organizations don't know everything that goes

on. They have to ask the right questions. This is Machu Valley. Don't know everything that goes on. They have to ask the right questions. This is Machiavelli. Most important thing a leader has to do is ask the right questions. You don't have to know the answers. That's why you hire smart people. But you have to ask the right questions.

So if the president asks the US government those who are responsible for the aliens or responsible for the cyber warfare against Russia, they will answer honestly, they will have to, but they will not volunteer that information in all cases. So the best way a president can operate is to have people around him or her who are not the traditional policymakers. This is where I think academic experts are important, suggesting questions to ask to therefore try to get the information.

It makes me nervous because I think human nature is such that the academics, the experts, everybody is almost afraid to ask the questions for which the answers might be burdensome. Yes. And so it's right. And you can get into a lot of trouble not asking, it's the old elephant in the room. Correct. Correct. This is exactly right.

And too often mediocre leaders and those who try to protect them, try to shield themselves. They don't want to know certain things. So this is part of what happened with the use of torture by the United States, which is a war crime during the war on terror. President Bush, at times, intentionally did not ask. And people around him prevented him from asking or discouraged him from asking questions he should have asked

to know about what was going on. And that's how we ended up where we did. You could say the same thing about Reagan and Iran Contra. I wonder what it takes to be the kind of leader that steps in and asks some difficult questions. So aliens is one, UFO spacecraft, right? Another one, yeah, tortures, another one, the CIA, how much information is being collected about Americans?

I can see as a president being very uncomfortable asking that question, because if the answer is a lot of information is being collected by Americans, then you have to be the guy who's lives with that information. If for the rest of your life, you have to walk around, you're probably not going to reform that system. It's very difficult.

You probably have to be very picky about which things you reform You don't have much time. It takes a lot of sort of effort to restructure things But you nevertheless would have to be basically lying to To the you know to to yourself to all there's around you about the unethical things Depends of course what your ethical system is, I wonder what it takes to ask those hard questions. I wonder if how few of us can be great leaders like that. And I wonder if our political system, the electoral system,

such that makes it likely that such leaders will come to power. It's hard, and you can't ask all the right questions, and there is a legal hazard if you know things at certain times. But I think you can back to your point on hiring, you can hire people who will do that in their domains. And then you have to trust that when they think it's something that's a question you need to ask, they'll pass that on to you. This is why it's not a good idea to have loyalists, because loyalists will shield you from things. It's a good idea to have people

of integrity who you can rely on and who you think will ask those right questions and then pass that down through their organization. What's inspiring to you, what's insightful to you about several of the presidencies throughout the recent decades? Is there somebody that stands out to you that several of the presidencies throughout the recent decades. Is there somebody that stands out to you that's interesting in sort of in your study of how the office has changed? Well, Bill Clinton is one of the most fascinating figures. What can I apologize? Bill Clinton just puts a smile on my face every time somebody mentions him at this point. I don't know why. I guess, it's his, my suppose. Well, and he's unique individual, but he fascinates me because he's a figure of such enormous talent

and enormous appetite and such little self-control and such extremes. And I think it's not just that he tells us something about the presence. he tells us something about our society. American society, this is not new to our time, is filled with enormous reservoirs of talent and creativity. And those have a bright and a dark side. And you see both with Bill Clinton. In some ways, he's the mirror of the best and worst of our society. And maybe that's really what presidents are in the end, right? They're mirrors of our world that we get the government we deserve, we get the leaders we deserve. I wish we embraced that a little bit more. You know, a lot of people criticize, you know, Donald Trump for certain human qualities that he has. A lot of people criticize Bill

Clinton for certain human qualities. I wish we kind of embraced the chaos of that. I would, you know, because he does, you're right, in some sense, represent, I mean, he doesn't represent the greatest ideal of America, but the flawed aspect of human nature, what he represents, and that's the beautiful thing about America, the diversity of this land, with the mix of it, the corruption of within capitalism, the beauty of capitalism, the innovation, all those kinds of things, the people that start from nothing and create everything, the Elon Musk's to the world, and the Bill Gates and so on. But also the people, Bernie Madoffs and all as the me too move that showed the multitude of creeps that apparently permeate the entire of our system.

So I don't know, there is something, there is some sense in which we put our president on a pedestal, which actually creates a fake human being. Like the standard we hold them to is forcing the fake politicians to come to power versus the authentic one, which is in some sense the promise of Donald Trump is a definitive statement of authenticity. It's like this, the opposite of the fake politician is whatever else you want to say about them is there's the chaos that's unlike anything else that came before One thing and this particular may be preference and quirk of mine, but I really admire maybe I'm romanticizing the past again

But I romanticized the presidents that were students of history. Yeah there were almost like King philosophers There were almost like king philosophers, great, you know, that made speeches that, you know, reverberated through decades after, right? And we kind of, using the words of those presidents, whether written by them or not, we tell the story of America. And I don't know, does even Obama has been an exceptionally good as far as I know,

I apologize if I'm incorrect on this, but from everything I've seen, he was a very deep scholar of history. And I really admire that. Is that through the through the history of the office of the presidency? Is that just your own preference, or is that supposed to come with a job? Are you supposed to be a student of history? I think, I mean, I'm obviously biased as a historian, but I do think it comes with a job.

Every president I've studied had a serious interest in history. Now, how they pursued that interest would vary. Obama was more bookish, more academic. So was George W. Bush in Strangeloise. George H. W. Bush was less so, but George H. W. Bush loved to talk to people. So he would talk to historians, right?

Ronald Reagan loved movies and movies were an insight into history for him. He likes to watch movies about another time. It wasn't always the best of history, but he was interested in what is a fundamental historical question, how has our society developed, how has it grown and changed over time, and how has that change affected who we are today? That's the historical question. It's really interesting to me.

I do a lot of work with business leaders and others too. You reach a certain point in any career and you become a historian because you realize that the formulas and the technical knowledge that you've gained got you to where you are. But now your decisions are about human nature. Your decisions are about social change

and they can't be answered technically. They can only be answered by studying human beings. And what is history? It's studying the laboratory of human behavior. To sort of play devil's advocate, especially in the engineering scientific domains, I often see history holding us back. It's sort of the way things were done in the past are not necessarily going to hold the key to what will progress us into the future. Of course, with history and studying human

nature, it does seem like humans are just the same. She has the same problems over and over. Yes. So, in that sense, it feels like history has all the lessons, whether we're talking about wars, whether we're talking about corruption, whether we're talking about economics. I think there's a difference between history and antiquarianism.

So antiquarianism, with some people call history, is the desire to go back to the past or stay stuck in the past. So antiquarianism is the desire to have the desk that Abraham Lincoln sat at. Wouldn't it be cool to sit at his desk? I'd love to have that desk if I had a few extra million dollars. I'd acquire it, right?

So in a way, that's antiquarianism. That's trying to capture and hold on to the past. The past is a talisman for antiquarians. What history is, is the study of change over time. That's the real definition of historical study and historical thinking. And so what we're studying is change. And so a historian should never say, we have to do things the way we've done them in the past. The historian should say, we can't do them the way we did them in the past. We can't step in the same river twice. Every podcast of yours is different from the last one, right? You plan it out and then it goes in its own direct shift, right?

And what are we studying then in history? We're studying the patterns of change and we're recognizing we're part of a pattern. So what I would say to the historian who's trying to hold the engineer back, I'd say no, don't tell that engineer not to do this. Tell them to understand how this fits into the relationship with other engineering products and other activities from the past that still affect us today. For example, any product you produce

is going to be used by human beings who have prejudices. It's going to go into an unequal society. Don't assume it's going to go into an equal society. Don't assume that when you create a social media site, that people are going to use it fairly and put only truthful things on it. We shouldn't be surprised. That's where human nature comes in. But it's not trying to hold onto the past. It's trying to use the knowledge and the past to better inform the changes today. I have to ask you about George Washington. It may be, maybe you have some insights. It seems like he's such a fascinating figure

in the context of the study of power because I kind of intuitively have come to internalize the belief that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And sort of like basically in thinking that we have to, we cannot trust anyone individual. I can't trust myself with power. I can't trust nobody can trust anybody with power. We have to create institutions and structures that prevent us from ever being able to mass absolute power. And yet here's a guy George Washington who seems to, you can correct me if I'm wrong,

but he seems to give away relinquished power It feels like George Washington did it like almost like the purest of ways which is Believes in this country, but he just believes he's not the person to to To carry it forward What do you make of that?

What kind of human does it take to give away that power? Is there some hopeful message we can carry through to the future, to elect leaders like that, or to find friends to hang out with, or like that? Like, what is that? How do you explain that? So it's actually the most important thing about George Washington, it's actually the most important thing about George Washington.

It's the right thing to bring up. What the historian Gary Willes wrote years ago, I'm going to quote him, was that Washington recognized that sometimes you get more power by giving it up than by trying to hold on to every last piece of it. Washington gives up power at the end of the revolution. He's successfully carried through the revolutionary war aims. He's commander of the revolutionary forces and he gives up his command. And then, of

course, he's president and after two terms, he gives up his command. What is he doing? He's an ambitious person, but he's recognizing that the most important currency he has for power is his respected status as a disinterested statesman. That's really what is power is. And how does he further that power by showing that he doesn't crave power? So he was self-aware. Very self-aware of this and very sophisticated and understanding this. And I think there are many other leaders who recognize that. You can look to, in some ways, the story of many of our presidents who even before there is a two-term limit in the constitution, leave after two terms, they do that because they recognize

that their power is the power of being a statesman, not of being a president. I still wonder what kind of man it takes, what kind of human being it takes to do that, because I've been studying Vladimir Putin quite a bit. And he's still, I believe he still has popular support that that's not fully manipulated, because I know a lot of people in Russia, and the, almost the entirety of my family in Russia, our big support is a Putin. Everybody I talk to, sort of, that's not just a consortium media. Like the people that live in Russia seems to, seem to support him. It feels like this will be be in a George Washington way. Now will be the time

that Putin, just like Yatsin, could relinquish power. And thereby, in the eyes of Russians become in like the long arc of history, be viewed as a great leader. You look at the economic growth of Russia, you look at the rescue from the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia finding its footing, and then relinquishing power in a way that perhaps if Russia succeeds forms a truly democratic state. This would be how Putin can become one of the great leaders in Russian history, at least in the context of the 21st century. I think there are two reasons why this is really hard for Putin and for others.

One is the trappings of power are very seductive, as you said before, they're corrupting. This is a real problem, right? If it's in the business context, you don't want to give up that private jet. If it's in Putin's context, it's billions of dollars every year that he's able to take for himself or give to his friends. It's not that he'll be poor, if he leaves, he'll still be rich, and he has billions of dollars stored away, but he won't be able to get the new billions. And so that's part of the trappings of power are a big deal.

And then second, in Putin's case in particular, he has to be worried about what happens next. Will he be tried? Will someone try to come and arrest him? Will someone try to come and assassinate him? Washington recognized that leaving early limited the corruption and limited the enemies that you made. And so there was a strategic choice. Putin is at this point brining power too long. And this comes back to your core insight. It's a cliche, but it's true. Power corrupts. No one should have power for too long. This was one of the best insights

the founders of the United States had. That power was to be held for a short time as a fiduciary responsibility. Not as something you owned, right? This is the problem with monarchy, with aristocracy that you own power, right? We don't own power. We are in a holding

you to trust. Yeah, there's some probably like very specific psychological study of how many years it takes for you to forget that you can't own power. That's right. That's, you know, that could be a much more rigorous discussion about the length of terms that are appropriate, but really, there's an amount like Stalin had power for 30 years, like Putin is pushing those that many years already. There's a certain point where you forget the person you wore before you took the power. That's right. You forget to be humble in the face of this responsibility, and then there's no going back. That's right.

And that's how dictators are born. That's how the evil like authoritarians become evil. Or let's not use the word evil, but counterproductive, destructive to the ideal that they initially probably came to office with. That's right. That's right. One of the core historical insights is people should move jobs. And this applies for CEOs probably. Absolutely.

Apps that can go become CEO somewhere else, but don't stay CEO one place too long. It's a problem with startups, right? The founder, you can have a brilliant founder and that founder doesn't want to let go. Yeah, right. It's the same issue. At the same time, I mean, this is where Elon Musk and a few others, like Larry Page and Sergey

Bryn, that stayed for quite a long time and they actually were the beacon. They, on their shoulders, carried the dream, the company. Yeah. Where everybody else doubted. So, but that seems to be the exception versus the rule. Well, I'm even Sergey, for, for example, has stepped back. He plays less of a day-to-day role and is not running Google on the way. But the interesting thing is, he stepped back in a quite tragic way from what I've seen,

which is, I think Google's mission, an initial mission of making the world's information accessible to everybody, is one of the most beautiful missions of any company in the history of the world. I think it's what Google has done with its search engine and other efforts that are similar like scanning a lot of books. Sure. It's just incredible. It's similar to Wikipedia.

But what he said was that it's not the same company anymore. And I know maybe I'm reading too much into it because it's more, maybe practically saying just the size of the company is much larger, the kind of leadership that's the way. But at the same time, they changed the model from, you know, don't be evil to it's becoming corporatized and all those kinds of things. And it's sad. It, there are also our cycles, right? History is about cycles, right? That they're cycles to life. They're cycles to organizations. It's sad. I mean, it's sad. Steve Jobs leaving Apple by passing away said, you know, what the future of SpaceX and Tesla looks like with Adela Musk isMusq, it's

quite sad. It's very possible that those companies become something very different. They become something much more, you know, like corporate and stale. Yeah. So maybe, maybe most of the progress is made through cycles. Maybe new Elon Musk comes along, all those kinds of things. But it does seem that the American system of government has built into it the cycling. Yes. That makes it effective and it makes it last very long. It lasts a very long time. It continues to excel and lead the world. Sure.

Right, it continues to excel and lead the world. Sure, sure. And let's hope it continues to. No, it's, I mean, we're into, you know, a third century and democracies on this scale rarely last that long. So that's a point of pride, but it also means we need to be attentive to keep our house in order because it's not inevitable that this experiment continues.

Now, it's important to meditate on that actually. You've mentioned that FDR Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the great leaders in American history. Why is that? Franklin Roosevelt had the power of empathy. No leader that I have ever studied, or been around, or spent any time reading about, was able to connect with people who were so different from himself as Franklin Roosevelt. He came from the most elite family. He never had to work for a paycheck in his life.

When he was president, he was still collecting an allowance from his mom. I mean, you couldn't be more elite than Franklin Roosevelt, but he authentically connected. This was not propaganda. He was able to feel the pain and understand the lives of some of the most destitute Americans and other parts of the country.

It's interesting. So through one of the hardest economic periods of American history, he was able to feel the pain. He was able to, the number of immigrants I read oral histories from or who have written themselves. Saul Bello was one example of the great novelist who talked about how as immigrants to the US, Saul Bello was a Russian Jewish immigrant. He said growing up in Chicago politicians were all trying to steal from us.

I didn't think any of them cared until I heard FDR. And I knew he spoke to me. And I think part of it was FDR really tried to understand people. That's the first thing. He was humble enough to try to do that. But second, he had a talent for that, and it's hard to know exactly what it was, but he had a talent for putting himself imagining himself in someone else's shoes. What stands out to you is important.

So he went through the Great Depression, the New Deal, which some people criticize, some people see, I mean, it's funny to look at some of these policies and they're long ripple effects. But at the time, it's some of the most innovative policies in the history of America. You could say they're ultimately not good for America, but they're nevertheless hold within them very rich and important lessons. But the New Deal obviously World War II, that entire process,

is there something that stands out to you as a particularly great moment that made FDR? Yes, I think what FDR does from his first 100 days in office forward and this begins with his fireside chats Is he helps Americans to see that they're all in it together? And that's by creating hope and Creating a sense of common suffering and common mission. It's not offering simple solutions One of the lessons from FDR is if you want to bring people together Don't offer a simple solution because as soon as I offer a simple solution, I have people for it and against it. Don't do that. Explain the problem, frame the problem, and then give people

a mission. So Roosevelt's first radio address in March of 1933, the banking system is collapsing. We can't imagine it, right? Banks were closing and you couldn't get your money out. Your life savings would be lost, right? We can't imagine that happening in our world today. He comes on the radio, he takes five minutes to explain how banking works. Most people didn't understand how banking worked, right? They don't actually hold your money in a fault.

They landed out to someone else. And then he explains why if you go and take your money out of the bank and put it in your mattress, you're making it worse for yourself. He explains this. And then he says, I don't, he does, I don't have a solution, but here's what I want to do. I'm going to send in government officers to examine the banks and show you the books on the banks. And I want you to help me by going and putting your money back in the banks. We're all going to do this together. No simple solution, no ideological statement, but a sense of common mission. Let's go out and do this together. When you read, as I have so many of these oral histories and memoirs for people who lived through that period, many of them disagreed with some of his policies.

Many of them thought he was too close to Jews and they didn't like the fact he had a woman in his cabinet and all that, but they felt he cared and they felt they were part of some common mission. And when they talk about their experience fighting in World War II, whether in Europe or Asia, it was that that prepared them. They knew what it meant to be in American when they were over there. So that to me is a model of leadership. And I think that's as possible today, it's ever been. So you think it's possible? I was going to ask this again, it may be a very shallow

view, but it feels like this country is more divided than it has been in recent history. Perhaps the social media and all those kinds of things are merely revealing the division as opposed to creating the division. Is it possible to have a leader that unites in the same way that FDR did without, well, we're living through a pandemic. This is already, yes. So like, I was going to say without suffering, but this is economic suffering. Right.

Huge number of people have lost their job. So is it possible to have, is there one a hunger? Is there a possibility to have an FDR style leader who unites? Yes, I think that is what President Biden is trying. I'm not saying he'll succeed, but I think that's what he's trying to do. The way you do this is you do not allow yourself to be captured by your opponents in Congress or somewhere else. FDR had a lot of opponents in Congress. He had a lot of opponents in politics, governors and others who didn't like him. Herbert Hoover was still around and still accusing FDR of being a conspiratorist and all these

other things. So, you don't allow yourself to be captured by the leaders of the other side. You go over their heads to the people. And so today, the way to do this is to explain to people an empathize with the suffering and dislocation and difficulties they're dealing with, and show that you're trying to help them not an easy solution, not a simple statement, but here are some things we can all do together. That's why I think infrastructure makes a lot of sense. It's what FDR invested into.

FDR built Hoover Dam. Hoover Dam turned the lights on for young Lyndon Johnson, who grew up outside of Austin. FDR was the one who invested in road construction that was then continued by Dwight Eisenhower, by a Republican with the Interstate Highway system. FDR invested through the WPA in building thousands of schools in our country, planting

trees. That's the kind of work that can bring people together. You don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican to say, you know what, we'd be a lot better off in my community if we had better infrastructure today. I want to be a part of that, oh, well, maybe I can get a job doing that. Maybe my company can benefit from that. You bring people together in that way. It becomes a common mission, even if we have different ideological positions.

Yes. Funny. When I first heard Joe Biden, I did many, I mean, many years ago, I think he ran for president against Obama. That's correct. Right. And before I heard him speak, I really liked him. But once I heard him speak, I stopped, I started liking him less and less. And it speaks to something interesting, where it's hard to put into words what, why you connect with people, the empathy that you mentioned in FDR, you have like these bad, pardon the French motherfuckers, like Teddy Roosevelt, that connect with you. There's something just powerful and would Joe Biden I can't I want to really like him and I can't there's something not quite there

Where it feels like he doesn't quite know my pain. Yeah, even though he on paper is Exactly, you know, he knows the pain of the people and there's something not connecting and it's it's hard to explain It's hard to put into words. And it makes me not, as an engineer and scientist, it makes me not feel good about like presidencies because it makes me feel like it's more art than science. It is an art. And I think it's exactly an art for the reasons you laid out. It's aesthetic.

It's about feeling. It's about emotion. All the things that we can't engineer. We've tried for centuries to engineer emotion. We're never going to do it. Don't try it. I'm a parent of teenagers. Don't even try to explain emotion.

But you hit on the key point of the key challenge for Biden. He's got to find the right words. It's not finding the words to bullshit people. It's finding the words to help express. We've all felt empowered and felt good when someone uses words that put into words what we're feeling. That's what he needs. That's the job of a leader. And there's certain words, I haven't heard

it many politicians use those words, but there's certain words that make you forget that your fore-immigration or against immigration, make you forget whether you're four wars and against wars, make you forget about the bickering and somehow inspire you, elevate you to believe in the greatness that this country could be. Yes. In that same way, the reason I moved to Austin,

it's funny to say, is I, I just heard words from people from friends where they're excited by the possibility of the future here. I wasn't thinking like, what's the right thing to do? What's the strategic? Because I want to launch a business. There's a lot of arguments with San Francisco or maybe staying in Boston in my case, but there's this excitement that was beyond reason. That was emotional. That was, yes. And that's what it seems like. That's what great leaders do,

but that's what builds countries. That's what build great businesses. That's right. And it's what people say about Austin, for example, all the time, a talented people who come here like yourself. And here's the interesting thing, no one person creates that. The words emerge. And part of what FDR understood, you should've got to find the words out there and use

them. You don't have to be the creator of them, right? Just as the great painter doesn't invent the painting or taking things from others. As a small aside, is there something you could say about FDR and Hitler? I constantly tried to think, in this person, in this moment in history, have been circumvented, prevented. Can Hitler have been stopped? Can some of the atrocities for my own family,

that my grandparents had to live through the starvation and the Soviet Union, so the thing that people don't often talk about is the atrocities committed by Stalin and his own people. It feels like here's this great leader, FDR, that had the chance to have an impact on the world that he already probably had a great positive impact, but had a chance to stop maybe World War II or stop some of the evils. When you look at how weak Hitler was from much of the 30s relative to militarily,

the relative to everything else, how many people could have done a lot to stop him. And FDR in particular, didn't, he tried to play not pacified, but basically do diplomacy and let Germany do Germany, let Europe do Europe, focus on America. Is there something you would, would you hold this fee to the fire on this, or is it very

difficult from the perspective of FDR to have known what was coming? I think FDR had a sense of what was coming, not quite the enormity of what Hitler was doing and not quite the enormity of what the Holocaust became. I also lost relatives in the Holocaust. And part of that was beyond the imagination of human beings. But it's clear in his papers that as early as 1934, people he respected who he knew well told him that Hitler was very dangerous. They also thought Hitler was crazy, that he was a lunatic.

Hamilton Fisharm Strong, who was a friend of Roosevelt, who was actually the council on foreign relations in New York, had a meeting with Hitler in 1934. I remember reading the account of this. And he basically said, definitely, are this man is gonna cause a war? He's gonna cause a lot of damage. Again, they didn't know quite the scale.

So they saw this coming. They saw this coming. After you had two problems. First, he had an American public that was deeply isolationist. The opposite of the problem in a sense that we were talking about before. If we're an over militarized society, now we were a deeply isolationist society in the 1930s. The depression reinforced that FDR actually had to break the law in the late 30s to support the Allies. So it was very hard to move the country in that direction, especially when he had this program at home, the new deal that he didn't want to jeopardize by alienating an isolationist

public. That was the reality. We talked about political manipulation. He had to be conscious of that. He had to know his audience. And second, there were no allies willing to invest in this either. The British were as committed to appeasement, as you know, you're obviously very knowledgeable about the French were as well.

It was very hard. The Russian government, the Soviet government was cooperating to remilitarize Germany. So there were a lot of allies out there, either. I think if there's a criticism to be made of FDR, it's that once we're in the war, he didn't do enough to stop in particular the killing of Jews. And there are a number of historians, myself included, who have written about this, and it's an endless debate. What should he have done? There's no doubt by 1944, the United States had air superiority and could have bombed the rail lines to Auschwitz

and other camps. And that would have saved as many as a million Jews. That's a lot of people who could have been saved. Why didn't FDR insist on that? In part because he wanted to use every resource possible to win the war. He did not want to be accused of fighting the war for Jews. But I think it's also fair to say that he probably cared less about Jews and East Europeans than he did about others, those of his own Dutch ancestry and from Western Europe.

And so, even their race comes in. It's also the explanation for the internment of Japanese in the United States, which is a horrible war crime committed by this heroic president. 120,000 Japanese American citizens lost their freedom unnecessarily. So he had his limitations.

And I think he could have done more during the war to save many more lives, and I wish he had. And there's something to be said about empathy that he spoke that FDR had empathy. But us, for example, now there's many people who describe the atrocities happening in China, and there's a bunch of places across the world where there's atrocities

happening now. And we care. We do not uniformly apply how much we care for the suffering of others. That's correct. Depending on the group. That's correct. And in some sense, the role of the president is to rise above that natural human inclination to protect, to do the us versus them to protect the inner circle and to empathize with the suffering of those that are not like you. That's correct. I agree with that.

Yeah. Speaking of war, you wrote a book on Henry Kissinger. It's not a great transition, but it made sense in my head. Who was Henry Kissinger as a man and as a historical figure? So Henry Kissinger to me is one of the most fascinating figures in history, because he comes to the United States as a German Jewish immigrant at age 15 speaking no English. And within a few years, he's a major figure, influencing US foreign policy at the height of US power.

But while he's doing that, he's never elected to office, and he's constantly reviled by people, including people who are anti-Semitic because he's Jewish. But at the same time, also, his exoticism makes him more attractive to people. So someone like Nelson Rockefeller once Kissinger around, he's one of Kissinger's first patrons because he wants a really smart Jew. And Kissinger is going to be that smart Jew I call Kissinger a policy Jew. There were these court Jews in the 16th and 17th and 18th centuries in Europe, every king wanted the Jew to manage his banking.

And in a sense, in the United States, in the second half of the 20th century, many presidents want to do to manage their international affairs. And what does that really mean? It's not just about being Jewish. It's the internationalism. It's the cosmopolitanism. And that's one of the things I was fascinated with with Kissinger. Someone like Kissinger is unthinkable

as a powerful figure in the United States 30 or 40 years earlier, because the United States is run by wastes. It's run by white elites who come from a certain background. Kissinger represents a moment when American society opens up not to everyone, but opens up to these cosmopolitan figures who have language skills, historical knowledge, networks that can be used for the US government when, after World War II, we have to rebuild Europe, when we have to rebuild Europe.

When we have to negotiate with the Soviet Union, when we need the kinds of knowledge we didn't have before. And Harvard, where he gets his education late, he started at City College, actually. But Harvard, where he gets his education late, is at the center of what's happening at all these major universities at Harvard at Yale, at Stanford, at University of Texas, everywhere, where they're growing in their international affairs, bringing in the kinds of people who never would be at the university before,

training them, and then enlisting them in Cold War activities. And so Kissinger is a representative of that phenomenon. I became interested in him because I think he's a bellweather. He shows how power has changed in the United States. So he enters this whole world of politics, what post-World War II in the 50s?

Yes, so he actually, in the 40s, and it's an extraordinary story, and he comes to the United States in 1938, just before Christophe Noctis family leaves, they actually grew up right outside of Nuremberg. They leave right before Christophe Noctis in fall of 38. Come to New York, he originally works in a brush factory,

cleaning brushes, goes to a public high school. And in 1942, just after Pearl Harbor, he joins the military. And he's very quickly in the military, first of all, given citizenship, which he didn't have before. He's sent from the first time outside of a kosher home. He had been in a kosher home his entire life. He sent to South Carolina to eat ham,

fronkel sam. And then he is, and this is extraordinary, at the age of 20, barely speaking English, he is sent back to Germany with the US Army in an elite counterintelligence role. Why? Because they need German speakers. He came when he was 15, so he actually understands the society that he people have that cultural knowledge. And because he's Jewish, they can trust

that he'll be anti-Nazi. And there's a whole group of these figures. He's one of many. And so he's in an elite circle. He's discriminated against in New York. When he goes to Harvard after that, he can only live in a Jewish only dorm. But at the same time, he's in an elite policy role in counterintelligence. He forms a network there that stays with him the rest of his career.

There's a gentleman named Fritz Kramer, who becomes a sponsor of his in the emerging Pentagon Defense Department world. And as early as the early 1950s, he sent them to Korea to comment on affairs in Korea. He becomes both an intellectual recognized for his connections, but also someone who policymakers want to talk about. His book on nuclear weapons when it's written is given to President Eisenhower to read, because they say, this is someone writing interesting things. You should read what he says. There's a certain aspect to him that's kind of like Forrest Gump.

He seems to continuously be the right person at the right time in the right place. That's right. Somehow finding him in this, I don't, I don't want to, you know, you can only get lucky so many times because he continues to get lucky in terms of being at the right place in history for many decades until today. Yeah, well he has a knack for that. I spent a lot of time talking with him and what comes to very quickly is that he has an eye for power It's I think unhealthy. He's obsessed with power. Can you explain?

Like an observer of power or this, or being, does he want power himself? Yes, both of those things. Both of them. And I think I explain this in the book. He doesn't agree with what I'm going to say now, but I think I'm right. And I think he's right. It's very hard to analyze yourself, right? Yeah. I think he develops an obsession with gaining power because he sees what happens when you have no power. He experiences the trauma. His father is a very respected gimnazimler in Germany.

Even though he's Jewish, he's actually the teacher of German classics to the German kids. And he's forced to flee and he becomes nothing. His father never really makes a way for himself in the United States. He becomes a postal delivery person, which is nothing wrong with that, but for someone who's a respected teacher in Germany and Gimlasim Lerr, like professors there, right, to then be in this position. His mother has to open and catering business when they come to New York. It's a typical immigrant story, but he sees the trauma. His grandparents are killed by the Nazis. So he sees the trauma and he realizes how perilous it is to be without power.

And you're saying he does not want to acknowledge the effect of that. It's hard. I mean, most of us, if we've had trauma, it's believable that it's traumatic because you don't talk about it. I have a friend who interviews combat veterans. And he says, as soon as someone freely wants to tell me about their combat trauma, I suspect that they're not telling me the truth. If it's traumatic, it's hard to talk about. Yeah, sometimes I wonder how much for my own life, everything that I've ever done is just the result of the complicated relationship with my father.

I tend to, I had a really difficult time to podcast conversation with him. I saw it actually. It's great. It was, I regret everything. I never do that with my face. But I remember as I was doing it and for months after I regretted doing it, I just regretting it. And the fact that I was regretting it spoke to the fact

that I'm running away from some truths that are back there somewhere. And that's perhaps, well, Kissinger is as well. But is there, I mean, he's been a part of so many interesting moments of American history, of world history, from the Cold War of Vietnam War until today, what stands out to you as a particularly important moment in his career, that made who he is. Well, I think what made his career in many ways was his experience in the 1950s building a network, a network of people across the world who were rising leaders from unique positions.

He ran what he called the International Seminar at Harvard, which was actually a summer school class that no one at Harvard cared about, but he invited all of these rising intellectuals and thinkers from around the world. And he built a network there that he used forever more. So that's what really I think boosts him. The most important moments in terms of making his reputation, making his career or two sets of activities. One is the opening to China. And his ability to first of all take control of U.S. policy without the authority to do that, and direct U.S. policy, and then build a relationship with Mao Tidung and Joe and Li that was unthinkable just four or five years earlier.

Of course, President Nixon is a big part of that as well, but Kissinger is the mover and shaker on that, and it's a lot of manipulation, but it's also a vision. Now, this is in the moment of American history where there's a very powerful anti-communism. Correct. So communism is seen as much more even than today as the enemy. Correct. And China in particular, they were one of our key enemies in Vietnam.

And in Korea, American forces were fighting Chinese forces directly. Chinese forces come over the border. Thousands of Americans die at the hand of Chinese forces. So for the long time, the United States had no relationship with communist China. He opens that relationship. And at the same time, he also creates a no relationship with communist China. He opens that relationship. And at the same time, he also creates a whole new dynamic in the Middle East. After the 1973 war, the so-called Yom Kippur War, he steps in and becomes the leading

negotiator between the Israelis, the Egyptians, and other major actors in the region. And it makes the United States the most powerful actor in the Middle East, the Soviet Union far less powerful, which is great for the United States in most powerful actor in the Middle East, the Soviet Union far less powerful, which is great for the United States in the 70s and 80s. It gets us though into the problems we of course have thereafter. So that speaks to the very pragmatic approach that he's taken, the realistic approach versus the idealistic approach, the term re-alphalic.

What is this thing? What is this approach to world politics? So, re-al-politic, for Kissinger, is really focusing on the power centers in the world and trying as best you can to manipulate those power centers to serve the interests of your own country. And so, that's why he's a multilateralist. He's not a unilateralist. He believes the United States should put itself at the center of negotiations between other powerful countries. But that's also why he pays very little attention to countries that are less powerful. And this is why he's often criticized by human rights activists. For

him, parts of Africa and Latin America, which you and I would consider important places are unimportant, because they don't have power. They can't project their power. They don't produce a lot of economic wealth. And so they matter less. Realpolitik views the world in a hierarchy of power. How does realpolitik realize itself in the world? What does that really mean? Like, how do you push forward

the interest of your own country? You said there's power centers, but it is a big bold move to negotiate, to work with communist nature with your enemies that are powerful. What is the sort of, if you can further elaborate? Sure. Philosophy behind it. Sure. So there are two key elements that then end up producing all kinds of tactics, but the two strategic elements of Kissinger's way of thinking about Real Politics, which are classical ways going back to Thucydides and the Greeks, are to say, first of all, you

figure out who your allies are and you build webs of connection so that your allies help you to acquire what you want to acquire. This is why according to Herodotus, the Greeks beat the Persians. The Persians are bigger, but the Greeks, the Spartans, the Athenians are able to work together and leverage their resources. It's about leveraging your resources for Kissinger. This makes Western Europe crucially important. It makes Japan crucially important. It makes Israel and Egypt crucially important. It makes Japan crucially important.

It makes Israel an Egypt crucially important, right? In building these webs, you build your surrogates, you build your brother states, in other parts of the world, you build tight connections and you work together to control the resources that you want. The second element of the strategy is not to go to war with your adversary,

but to do all you can to limit the power of your adversary. Some of that is containment, preventing the Soviet Union from expanding. That was the key element of American Cold War policy. But sometimes it's actually negotiation. That's what they taught was about for Kissinger. He spends a lot of time more time than any other American foreign policy maker negotiating with Soviet leaders, as well as Chinese leaders. What does he want to do? He wants to limit the nuclear arms race. The United States is ahead. We don't want this over you, and we get ahead of us. We negotiate to limit their abilities, right? We play to our strengths. So it's a combination of keeping your adversary down and building tight webs. Within that context, military force is used,

but you're not using war for the sake of war. You're using warfare to further your access to the resources, economic, political, geographic that you want. And then- To build relationships, and then the second thing to limit the powers of those who are against it. Exactly.

So is there any sort of insights into how he preferred to build relationships? Are we talking about like, again, it's the one on one, is it through policy, or is it through like phone conversations? Is there any cool kind of insights that you could speak to? Yeah, Kissinger is the ultimate kisser. He is at some use to make fun of him. In fact, even the film, the filmmaker from Stockter Strange,

love whose name I'm forgetting, Stanley Kubrick, called him Kiss-up at that time. He had a wonderful way of figuring out what it is you wanted back to that discussion we had before, and trying to show how he could give you more of what you wanted as a leader. It was very personalistic, very personalistic. And he spends a lot of time, for example, kissing up to Leonid Brezhnev, kissing up to Mao.

He tells Mao, you're the greatest leader in the history of the 20th century. People will look back on you as the great leader. Some of this sounds like BS, but it's serious, right? He's feeding the egos of those around him. Second, he is willing to get things done for you. He's effective. You want him around you because of his efficacy. So Richard Nixon is always suspicious that Henry Kissinger is getting more of the limelight. He hates that Kissinger gets a Nobel Peace Prize and he doesn't, but he needs him. Because Kissinger is the guy who gets things done. So he performs. He builds a relationship. In almost, I say this in the book, in almost a gangster way, he didn't like that. He criticized that part of the book.

But again, I still think the evidence is there. You need something to be done, boss. I'll do it. And don't forget that I'm doing this for you. And you get mutual dependency in a Hageleon way, right? And don't forget that I'm doing this for you. And you get mutual dependency in a Hageleon way, right? Yeah. And so he builds this personal dependency through ego and through performance. And then he's so skillful at making decisions for people who are more powerful,

because he's never elected to office. He always needs powerful people to let him do things. But he convinces you it's your decision when it's really his. To read his memos are beautiful. He's actually very skilled at writing things in a way that looks like he's giving you options as president, but in fact there's only one option there. Is he speaking to the gangster, to the loyalty, is he ever, like the sense I got from Nixon is he would, Nixon would backstab you if he needed to. One of the things that I admire about gangsters is they don't backstab those in the inner circle, like loyalty above all else. I mean, at least that's the sense I've gotten from the stories of the past at least. Where would you put Kissinger on that? Is he loyalty above all else? Or is it

our human, like the Steve Jobs thing, as long as you're useful, you're useful, but then once the moment you're no longer useful is when you're knocked off the chess board. It's the latter with him. He's backs down quite a lot. And he's self-serving, but he also makes himself so useful that even though Nixon knows he's doing that, Nixon still needs him. Yeah. By the way, on that point, so having spoken with Kissinger, what's your relationship like with him as somebody who is in objective way writing his story?

It was very difficult because he's very good at manipulating people. And we had about 12 or 13 interviews, usually informal over lunch. And this was many years ago, this is probably now more than 10 years ago. Did you find yourself being like sweet talked, like to where you like go back home later and look in the mirror and say, wait, what just happened? He can be enormously charming and enormously obnoxious at the same time. So I would have these very mixed emotions because he gives no ground.

He's unwilling to, and I think this is a weakness. He's unwilling to admit mistake. Others make mistakes, but he doesn't and he certainly won't take on any of the big criticisms that are that are pushed. I understand why. I mean, when he worked his hard for what he has as he has, you're defensive about it, but he is very defensive, he's very fragile about it. He does not like criticisms at all. He used to, he hasn't done this in a while, but he used to call me up and yell at me on the phone quite literally when I would be quoted in the New York Times or somewhere saying something that sounded critical of him.

So for instance, there was one instance a number of years ago where a reporter came across some documents where Kissinger said negative things about Jews in Russia. Typical things that a German Jew would say about East European Jews. And the New York Times asked me, is this accurate? And I said, yeah, the documents are accurate. I've seen them. They're accurate. He was so angry about that.

So there's the fragility, but there's also the enormous charm and the enormous intelligence. The real challenge with him though is he's very good at making his case. He'll convince you. And as a scholar, as an observer, you don't want to hear a lawyer's case. You want to actually interrogate the evidence and get to the truth. And so that was a real challenge with him. So speaking of his approach of re-appalate, if we just zoom out and look at a human history, human civilization, what do you think works best in the way we progress forward? A realistic

approach, do whatever it takes, control the center's power to play a game for the greater interests of the good guys." Quarant quote, or lead by sort of idealism, which is truly act in the best version of the ideas you represent as opposed to kind of present one view and then do whatever it takes behind scenes. Obviously, you need some of both, but I lean more to the idealistic side and more so, actually believe it or not, as I get into my 40s, as I do more historical work. Why do I say that? Because I think, and this is one of my criticisms of Kissinger, where I also have a lot of respect for, the real politic becomes self-defeating.

Because you're constantly running to keep power, but you forget why and You often then use power and I think Kissinger falls into this in some of his worst moments Not all of his moments where the power is actually being used to undermine the things you care about It's sort of the example of being a parent and you're doing all these things to you know Take your kid to violin basketball all these things and you realize you're actually killing your kid and making your kid very unhappy. And the whole reason you were doing it was to improve the person's life. And so you have to remember why it is what what a Hans Morgan thou calls this is your purpose.

Your purpose has to drive you. Now your purpose doesn't have to be airy, fairy idealism. So I believe deeply in democracies and ideal. I don't think it's going to ever look like a Athenian democracy, but that should drive our policy. But we still have to be realistic and recognize we're not going to build that democracy in Afghanistan tomorrow. I mean, does it ultimately just blow down again to the corrupting nature of power that nobody can hold power for very long before you start acting in the interest of power

as opposed to the interest of your ideals. It's impossible to be like somebody like Kissinger who is essentially in power for many, many decades. in power for many, many decades, and still remember what are the initial ideals that you strove to achieve. Yes, I think that's exactly right. There's a moment in the book I quote about him, comes from one of our interviews, I asked him, what were the guiding ideals for your policies?

And he said, I'm not prepared to share that. And I don't think it's because he doesn't know what he thinks he was trying to do. He realizes his use of power departed quite a lot from. So he would sound if he made them explicit, it would sound hypocritical. Correct. Well, on that, let me ask about war, America often presents itself to its own people, but just the leaders, when they look at the mirror, I get a sense that we think of ourselves as the good guys. And especially this begins sometimes to look hypocritical when you're waging more.

Is there a good way to know when you've lost all sense of what it is to be good? Another way to ask that is there in military policy in conducting war? Is there a good way to know what is a just war and what is a war crime? In some circles, Kissinger is accused of contributing, you know, being a war criminal. Yes. And I argue in the book, he's not a war criminal, but that doesn't mean that he didn't misuse military power. I think a just war is Michael Walls or another's right about it, a just war. It is a war where both the purpose is just, and you are using the means to get to that purpose that kill as few

people as necessary. That doesn't mean they won't be killing, but as few as necessary, proportionality, right? Your means should be proportional to your ends. And that's often lost sight of, because the drive to get to the end often self-justifies means that go well beyond that. And so that's how we get into torture in the war on terror. Is there some kind of lesson for the future? Yes. You can take away from that. Yes. I think the first set of lessons that I've shared as

a historian with with military decision makers is first of all, always remember why you're there, what your purpose is, and always ask yourself if the means you're using are actually proportional. Ask that question just because you have these means that you can use, just because you have these tools. Doesn't mean they're the right tools to use. And here's the question that follows from that. And it's a hard question to ask because the answer is one we often don't like to hear. Are the things I'm doing in war actually doing more harm or more good to the reason I went into war. We came to a point in the war on terror where what we were doing was actually creating more

terrorists. And that's when you have to stop. Well, some of that isn't a data, but some of it there's a leap of faith. So from a parenting perspective, let me let me speak as a person with no kids in a single guy. Let me be the expert in the room on parenting. No, it does seem that it's a very difficult thing to do to even know you know that your kid was making a mistake to let them make a mistake to give him the freedom to make them mistakes. I don't know what to do, but I mean, that's a very kind of light, hard-hearted way of phrasing the following, which is when you look at some of the places in the world like Afghanistan, which is not doing well, right? To move out knowing that there's going to be a lot of suffering, economic suffering, injustices, terrorist organizations growing,

that committing crimes and its own people and potentially committing crimes against allies, violence against allies, violence against the United States. How do you know what to do in that case? Well, again, it's an art, not a science, which is what makes it hard for an engineer to think about. This is what makes it endlessly fascinating for me.

And I think the real intellectual work is at the level of the art, right? And I think probably engineering at its highest level becomes an art as well, right? So policy making you never, you never know. But I will say this, I'll say you have to ask yourself and look in them here and say, is all the effort I'm putting in actually making this better? And in Afghanistan, you look at the 20 years and two plus trillion dollars that the US has put in. And the fact that, as you said correctly, it's not doing well right now after 20 years of that investment.

I might like a company that I invest in, but after 20 years of my throwing money in that company, it's time to get out. Well, in some sense, getting out now is that's kind of obvious. I'm more interested in how we figure out in the future how to get out earlier. I mean, at this point, it was stayed too long and it's obvious. The data, the investment, nothing is working. It's very little data points to us staying there. I'm more interested in

being in a relationship. Let me take it back to a safer place again, being in a relationship and getting out of that relationship while things are still good, but you have a sense that it's not going to end up in a good place. That's the difficult thing. You have to ask yourself, whether it's a relationship or you're talking about policy making in a place like Afghanistan,

are the things I'm doing showing me evidence, real evidence that they're making things better or making things worse. That's a hard question to ask. You have to be very honest and in a policy-making context, we have to actually do the same thing we do in a relationship context. What we do in a relationship context, we ask other friends who are observing. We ask for other observers.

This is actually just a scientific method element, actually, that we can't, the Heisenberg principle, I can't see it because I'm too close to it. I'm changing it by my looking at it, right? I need others to tell me in a policy-making context, this is why you need to hear from other people, not just the generals, because here's the thing about the generals. They generally are patriotic, hardworking people, but they're too close. They're not lying. They're too close. They always think they can do better. Yeah. How do you think about the Cold War? But they're too close. They're not lying. They're too close. They always think they can do better. Yeah.

How do you think about the Cold War now from the beginning to end? And maybe also with a knight towards the current potential cyber conflict, cyber war with China and with Russia, if we look sort of other kind of cold wars, potentially emerging in the 21st century. When you look back at the Cold War of the 20th century, how do you see it and what lessons do we draw from it? It's a wonderful question because I teach this to undergraduates and it's really interesting to see how undergraduates now almost all of whom were born after 9-11.

So the Cold War is ancient history to them. In fact, the Cold War to them is as far removed as the 1950s were to me. It's unbelievable. It's almost like World War II for my generation and Cold War for them. It's so far removed. The collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't mean anything to them. So how do you describe the Cold War to them?

How do you describe the Soviet Union to them? First of all, I have to explain to them why people were so fearful of communism. Anti-communism is very hard for them to understand. The fact that in the 1950s, Americans believed that communists were going to infiltrate our society and many other societies and that after Fidel Castro comes to power in 1959, that we're going to see communist regimes all across Latin America, that fear of communism married to nuclear power.

And then even the fear that maybe economically they would outpace us because they would create this sort of army of Khrushchevian builders of things. And you know what his khrushchev said, right, say, we're going to catch Britain in five years and then the United States after that. So to explain that sense of fear to them that they don't have of those others. That's really important. The Cold War was fundamentally about the United States defending a capitalist world order against a serious challenger from communism.

An alternative way of organizing everything, private property, economic activity, enterprise, life, everything organized in a totally different way. It was a struggle between two systems. So your senses started to interrupt, but your senses, the conflict of the Cold War was between two ideologies and not just two big countries with nuclear weapons. I think it was about two different ways of life or two different promoted ways of life. The Soviet Union never actually lived communism.

But I think my reading of Stalinist, he really tried to go there. And Khrushchev really believed Gorbachev thought he was going to reform the Soviet Union. So you would go back to a kind of Buhar and Lenin communism, right? So I do think that matter. I do think that matter.

The enormous thing for the United States point of view, the view was that communism and fascism were these totalitarian threats to liberal democracy and capitalism, which went hand in hand. So I do think that's what the struggle was about. And in a certain way, liberal capitalism proved to be the more enduring system, and the United States played a key role in that. That's the reality of the Cold War, but I think it means different things now to my students and others. They focus very much on the expansion of American power and the challenges of managing. They're looking at it from the perspective of not, will we survive, but did we waste our resources on some elements of it? It doesn't mean they were against what America did, but did we waste our resources on some elements of it?

It doesn't mean they were against what America did, but there is a question of the resources that went into the cold war and the opportunity costs. And you see this when you look at those sort of healthcare systems that other countries build, and you compare them to the United States race issues also. So they look at the costs, which I think often happens after a project is done. You look back at that. Second, I think they're also more inclined to see the world as less bipolar, to see the role of China as more complicated. Post-colonial or anti-colonial movements, independent states in Africa and Latin America, that gets more attention.

independent states in Africa and Latin America, that gets more attention. So, one of the criticisms now is because you forget the lessons of 20th century history and the atrocities committed under communism, that you may be a little bit more willing to accept some of those ideologies into our deni state society, that this kind of, that forgetting that capitalistic forces are part of the reason why we have what we have today, there's a fear among some now that we would have, we would allow basically communism to take hold in America? I mean, Jordan and others speak to this kind of idea. I tend to not be so fearful of it. I think it's on the surface. It's not deep within. I do see the world as very complicated as they're needing to be a role of having support for each other on certain

political levels, economic levels, and then also supporting entrepreneurs. It's like that the kind of enforcing of outcomes that is fundamental to the communist system is not something we're actually close to. And some of that is just fear mongering for for likes on Twitter kind of thing. Yep. If I could come in on that because I agree with you 100%. I've spent a lot of time writing and looking at this and talking to people about this. There's no communism in the United States.

There never has been and there certainly isn't now. And I'll say this both from an academic point of view, but also from just spending a lot of time observing young people in the United States, even those on the farthest left, take whoever you think is the farthest left. They don't even understand what communism is. They're not communist in any sense. Americans are raised in a vernacular, an environment of private property ownership. And as you know better than anyone, if you believe in private property, you don't believe

in communism. So the, what, what the sort of Bernie Sanders kind of socialist elements. That's very different, right? And I would say some of that not all of that Some of that does harken back to actually what one in the Cold War There were many social democratic elements of what the United States did that led to our winning the Cold War for example the New Deal was investing government money in propping up business in propping up business,

in propping up labor unions. And during the Cold War, we spent more money than we had ever spent in our history, on infrastructure, on schools, on providing social support, social security, our national pension system, being one of them. So you could argue actually that social democracy is very compatible with capitalism. And I think that's the debate we're having today. How much social democracy?

I'd also say that the capitalism we've experienced the last 20 years is different from the capitalism of the Cold War. During the Cold War, there was the presumption in the United States that you rates that you had to pay taxes to support our Cold War activities, that it was okay to make money, but the more money you made, the more taxes you had to pay. We had the highest marginal tax rates in our history during the Cold War. Now the aversion to taxes, and of course no one ever likes paying taxes, but the notion that we can do things on deficit spending that's a post cold war phenomenon that's not a cold war phenomenon. So so much of the capitalism that we're talking about today is not the capitalism of the Cold War and maybe

again, we can learn that and see that it is see how we can reform capitalism today and and and get rid of this false worry about communism in the next day. Yeah, you know, you make me actually realize something important. What we have to remember is the words we use on the surface about different policies what you think is right and wrong is actually different than the core thing that is in your blood, the core ideas that are there. I do see the United States as there's this fire that burns of individual freedoms, of popularized these basic foundational ideas that everybody just

kind of takes for granted. And I think if you hold on to them, if you're like raised in them, talking about ideas of social security of universal basic income of of of reallocation resources is a fundamentally different kind of discussion that you had in the Soviet Union, I think the value of the individual is so core to the American system that you basically cannot possibly do the kind of atrocities that you saw in the Soviet Union. But of course, you never know. The slippery slope has a way of changing things, but I do believe the things you're born with is just so core to this country.

It's part of the, I don't know what your thoughts are, we are in Texas. I'm not necessarily, I don't necessarily want to have a gun control type of conversation, but the reason I really like guns, it doesn't make any sense, but philosophically, It doesn't make any sense, but philosophically, it's such a declaration of individual rights that's so different than the conversations I hear with my Russian family and my Russian friends. The gun is very possible that having guns is bad for society in a sense that it will lead to more violence, but there's something about this discussion that proclaims the value of my freedom as an individual. I'm not being eloquent in it, but there's very

few debates where whenever people are saying, should we have what level of gun control, all those kinds of things. What I hear is it's a fight for how much freedom, even if it's stupid freedom, should the individual have. I think that's what articulated quite often. I think combining your two points, which are great points, I think there is something about American individualism, which is deeply ingrained in our culture and our society. And it means that the kinds of bad things that happen are different,

usually not as bad. But our individualism often covers up for vigilante activity and individual violence toward people that you wouldn't have in a more collective culture. So in the Soviet Union, I was at a much worse scale and it was done by government organizations. In the United States, it's individuals, the history of lynching in our country, for example. Sometimes it's individual police officers. Sometimes it's others. Again, the vast majority of police officers

are good people and don't do harm to people. But there are these examples and they are able to fester in our society because of our individualism. Now, gun ownership is about personal freedom, I think, for a lot of people. And there's no doubt that in our history included in the Second Amendment, which can be interpreted in different ways, is the presumption that people should have the right to defend themselves, which is what I think you're getting at here, that you should not be completely dependent for your defense on an entity that might not be there for you, you should be able to defend yourself.

And guns symbolize that. I think that's a fair point. But I think it's also a fair point to say that as with everything defining what self-defense is is really important. So self-defense mean I can have a bazooka. Does it mean I can have weapons that are designed for a military battlefield to mass kill people? That seems to me to be very different from saying I should have a handgun or some small arm to defend myself. That distinction

alone would make a huge difference. Most of the mass shootings at least, which are a proportion, a smaller proportion of the larger gun deaths in the United States, which are larger than any other society, but at least the mass shootings are usually perpetrated by people who have not self-defense weapons, but mass killing, mass killing weapons. And I think there's an important distinction there. The Constitution talks about a right to bear arms for a well-regulated militia when the framers talked about arms that did not mean the ability to kill as many people as you want to kill, it meant the ability to kill as many people as you want to kill.

It meant the ability to defend yourself. So let's have that conversation. I think it would be useful as a society. Stop talking about guns or no guns. What is it that we as citizens need to feel we can defend ourselves? Yes. Yeah. I mean, guns have this complicated issue that you can cause harm to others.

I tend to see sort of maybe in droid like legalization of drugs, I tend to believe that we should have the freedom to do stupid things. Yeah. So long as we're not harming lots of other people, yes. And then guns, of course, have the property that they can be used. It's not just a bazooka, I would argue, is pretty stupid to own for your own self-defense, but it has the very negative side effect of being potentially used to harm other people. And you have to consider that kind of stuff. By the way,

as a side note to the listeners, there's been a bunch of people saying that Lex's way to libertarian for my taste. No, I actually am just struggling with ideas and sometimes put on different hats and these conversations, I think through different ideas, whether they're left right or libertarian. That's true for gun control, that's true for immigration, that's true for all of that. I think we should have discussions in the space of ideas versus in the space of bins we put each other in labels and we put each other 300% and also change our minds all the time. Try out, say stupid stuff with the best of intention, try our best to think through it, and then after saying it, think about it for a few days,

and then change your mind and grow in this way. Let me ask a ridiculous question. When human civilization is destroyed itself and alien graduate students are studying it like three four or five centuries from now, what do you think will remember about this period in history? The 20th century, the 24th century, this time we had a couple wars, we had a charismatic black president in the United States, we had a couple of pandemics. What do you think will actually stand the stand-dollar in history. No doubt the rapid technological innovation of the last 20 to 30 years, how we created a whole virtual universe we didn't have before. And of course, that's going to

go in directions you and I can't imagine 50 years from now. But this will be seen as that origin moment that when we went from playing below the rim to playing above the rim, right to be all in person to having a whole virtual world. And in a strange way, the pandemic was a provocation to move even further in that direction. And we're never going back, right? We're going to restore some of the things we were doing before the pandemic. But we're never going to go back to that world we were in before, where every meeting

you had to fly to that place to be in the room with the people. So this whole virtual world and the virtual personas and the avatars and all of that, I think that's going to be a big part of how people remember our time. Also, the sort of biotechnology element of it, which the vaccines are part of. It's amazing how quickly, this is the great triumph,

how quickly we've produced and distributed these vaccines. And of course, there are problems with who's taking them, but the reality is, I mean, this is light speed compared to what it would have been like not just in 1918, in 1980. Yeah, one of the, and sorry if I'm interrupting, but one of the disappointing things about this particular time is because vaccines, like a lot of things got One of the disappointing things about this particular time is because vaccines, like a lot of things got politicized, used as little pawns in the game of politics, that we don't get the chance to step back fully at least and celebrate the brilliance of the human species. That's right.

That's right. that this is, yes, they're a scientist who used their authority improperly that have an ego that when their, within institutions are dishonest with the public because they don't trust the intelligence of the public, they are not authentic and transparent. All the same things you could say about humans in any positions of power anywhere. Okay, that doesn't mean science isn't incredible. And the vaccines, I mean, I don't often talk about it because it's so political and it's heartbreaking to, it's heartbreaking how all the good stuff is getting politicized. Yeah.

That's right. And it shouldn't be. It'll seem less political. Eat in the long-ark of history. Yeah, it'll be seen as an outstanding accomplishment. And as a step toward whatever, maybe they're doing vaccines or something that replaces a vaccine in 10 seconds. And you know, at that point, right?

It'll be seen as a step to it. Those will be the some of the positives. I think one of the negatives they will point to will be our inability, at least at this moment to manage our environment better. How we're destroying our living space and not doing enough even though we have the capabilities to do more to preserve or at least allow a sustainable living space. I'm confident because I'm an optimist that we will get through this and we will be better

at sustaining our environment in future decades. And so in terms of environmental policy, they'll see this moment as a dark age or the beginnings of a better age, maybe as a renaissance. Or maybe as the last time most people lived on earth, when a couple of centuries afterwards were all dissipated throughout the solar system and the galaxy. Very possible. If the local resident, hometown resident, Mr. Elon Musk, has anything to do with it. I do tend to think you're absolutely right with all this political bickering. We shouldn't forget that what this age will be remembered by is the incredible levels of innovation.

I do think the biotech stuff worries me more than anything because it feels like there's a lot of weapons that could be yet to be developed in that space. But I tend to believe that I'm excited by two avenues. One is artificial intelligence. The kind of systems will create in this digital space that you mentioned you were moving to. And then the other, of course, this could be the product of the Cold War, but I'm super excited by space exploration. Sure. There's the magic tour to humans being...

SP. And we're getting back to it. I mean, we were enthralled with it in the 50s and 60s when it was a Cold War competition. And then after the 70s, we sort of gave up on it. And thanks to Elon Musk and others, we're coming back to this issue. And I think there's so much to be gained from the power of exploration. Is there books or movies in your life long ago or recently that had big impact on you? Yes. Is is something you work. Yes. You know, my favorite novel, I always tell people this,

I love reading novels. I'm a historian and I think the historian and the novelist are actually, and the technology innovator are all actually one and the same, we're all storytellers. Storytellers, and we're all in the imagination space. And I'm trying to imagine the world of the past to inform us in the present

for the future. So one of my favorite novels that I read actually when I was in graduate school is Thomas Mons' Buddha Brooks. And it's the story of a family in Lubbock in northern Germany living through the 19th century and the rise and fall of families, cycles of life. Many things we've talked about in the last couple hours, cycles of life, challenges of adjusting to the world around you. And it's just a very moving reflection on the limits of human agency and how we all have to understand the circumstances we're in and adjust to them. And there's triumph and tragedy in that. It's a wonderful novel. It used to be a kind of canonical work. It's sort of fallen out now. It's a big, big novel, but I'm very moved by that.

I'm very moved by Tolstoy's War and Peace. I assign that every year to my students. That's a big, big book. But what Tolstoy challenges is he challenges the notion that an Napoleon can rule the world. And we're all little Napoleon's, right? We're all sort of thinking that we're going do that and he reminds us how much is contingency circumstance it doesn't mean we don't have some control you've spoke to me a

little bit of Russian where does that come from so you're your relationship of Tolstoy but I'll see your ability to speak a bit of Russian where's that from so I speak in addition to English I speak reasonably well depending on how much vodka I've had. I guess. Russian, I speak French in German. I learned those for research purposes. I learned French actually when I was in high school, Russian when I was in college,

German when I was in graduate school. Now, I do have family on my mother's side that's of Russian Jewish extraction, but they were Yiddish speakers by the time, you know, I met them by the time they had gone through Germany and come to the United States, we really got through Poland and come to the United States. They were Yiddish speakers. So there's no one really in my family who speaks Russian, but I do feel a connection there, at least a long-range personal connection.

Is there something to be said about the language and your ability to imagine history, sort of when you study these different countries, your ability to imagine what it was like to be a part of that culture, a part of that time. Yes, language is crucial to understanding a culture. And even if you learn the languages I have, you're learning Russian and German and French, it's still not the same as also being a native speaker, either, as you know. But I think language tells you Russian and German and French, it's still not the same as also being a native speaker either, as you know.

But I think language tells you a lot about mannerism, about assumptions. The very fact that English doesn't have a formal U, but Russian has a formal U, right, Vlie versus Tlai, right? German has a formal U, Z versus D, right? So the fact that English doesn't have a formal U, tells you something about Americans, right? That's just one example. The fact that, you know, that Germans have such a wider vocabulary

for certain scientific concepts, then we have an English tells you something about the culture, right? Language is an artifact of the culture. The culture makes the language. It's fascinating to explore. I mean, even just exactly we usually said, uh, Vity, which is, there's, uh, fascinating transition. So I guess in English, we just have you.

Yeah. There's, uh, there's a fascinating transition that persists to this day, is of a form of a human politeness, where it's an initial kind of dance of interaction that's different methods of signaling respect, I guess. The language provides that, and in the English language, there's fewer tools to show that kind of respect,

which has potentially positive or negative effects on it flattens to society where like a teenager could talk to an older person and show like a difference that I mean, but at the same time, I mean, it creates a certain kind of dynamic, a certain kind of society. And it's funny to think of just like those few words can have a ripple effect through the whole culture. And we don't have a history in the United States of aristocracy.

Yeah. These elements of language reflect aristocracy. The surf would never refer to the master, even if the master is younger as a toy. It's always a toy, right? And Tregana, if it's always a toy. I mean, and so it's, yeah, so it tells you something about the history. That's why to your question, which was a great question, it's so crucial to try to penetrate the language. I'll also say something else, and this is a problem for many Americans who haven't learned

a foreign language. We're very bad at teaching foreign languages. If you've never taught yourself a foreign language, you have closed yourself off to certain kinds of empathy, because you have basically trained your brain to only look at the world one way. The very act of learning another language, I think tells your brain that words and concepts don't translate one to one. This is the first thing you realize, right?

We can say, you know, these two words mean the same thing from two languages, they never mean exactly. Yes, the same thing. Right,. They never mean exactly the same thing. Right. Dos Vidanya is really not goodbye. Yes. Right.

And there's something, you know, right now, those people talking about idea of lived experience, one of the ways to force yourself into this idea of lived experiences by learning another language is to understand that you can perceive the world in a totally different way, even though you're you perceive the same thing. And of course, the way to first learn Russian for those looking for tutorial lessons for me is just like as you said, he started by drinking lots of vodka. Yes, of course, it's very difficult to do otherwise. Is there advice you have for young people about career, about life, and making their way in the world? Yes. Two things I believe that I say to a lot of talented young people. First, I don't

think you can predict what is going to be well-renumerated 20 years from now. Don't pick a profession because you think even though your parents might tell you or do this and you'll make money. You know, there's the scene in the graduate where guy tells Dustin Hoffman, go into plastics, money in plastics. We don't know. So many of my students now have parents who are telling them bright students, you know, go to the business school. That's what's going to set you up to make money.

If you're passionate about business, yes. But don't begin by thinking you know what's going to be hot 20 years from now. You don't know what's going to be hot from 20 years ago. About 20 years from now. What should you do? This is advice number one, find what you're passionate about. Because if you're passionate about it, you will do good work in that area if you're talented and usually passionate and talent overlap. And you'll find a way to get people to pay you for it. I mean, you do it really well. People will want to pay that. That's where really well. People will want to pay. That's where capitalism works.

People will find it valuable, right? Whether it's violin playing, right? Or engineering or poetry, you might not become a billionaire. That involves other things. But you'll find a way to get people to pay you for it. And then the second thing is it's really important at the very beginning of your career, even before you're in your job, right?

To start building your networks, but networks are not just people you're on Facebook with or Twitter with. I mean, that's fine It's actually forming relationships and some of that can be mediated in the digital world But I mean real relationships. I like podcasts because I think they actually open up that space I know a lot of people can listen to a podcast and find someone else who's listened to that podcast and have a conversation about a topic. It opens up that space. Build those relationships not with people who you think will be powerful but people who you think are interesting because they'll do interesting things. And every successful person I know at some level had a key moment where they got where they are because of someone they knew for some other reason. Who had that connection? So use and spread your networks and make them as diverse as possible. Find people who are of a different party,

have different interests, but are interesting to you. That's brilliant advice. Some of that on the passion side, I do find that as somebody who has a lot of passions, I find the second part to that is committing. Yes, that's true. Which sucks because life is finite. And when you commit, you say, well, I'm never going to be good. Like when you choose one of your two passions, one of the two things you're interested in, you're basically saying, I'm letting go. I'm saying the Sudanya to, uh, that's true. That's true. Which is actually what does the Sudanya mean?

That's five. I'm letting go. That's exactly right. Yeah. I think that's exactly right. I think that right. I think you do have to make choices. You do have to set priorities. I often laugh at students who tell me they want to have like three majors.

If you have three majors, you have no major, right? I mean, so I do think you have to make choices. I also think it's important that whatever you do, even if it's a small thing, you always do the best you can. You always do excellent work. My kids are tired of hearing me say it is at home, but I believe everything you do should be about excellence. The best you can do. If I'm going to watch the dishes, I'm going to be the best person watching the dishes.

If I'm going to write a book review, I'm going to write the best possible book review I can. Why? Because you develop a culture among about yourself, which is about excellence. Yeah, I was telling you offline about all the kind of stuff, Google, Fiber and cable installation, all that stuff. I've been always a believer, washing dishes. People don't often believe me when I say this. I don't care what I do. I am with David Foster Wallace. I'm unborrable. There is so much joy for me. I think for everyone, but okay, let me just speak for me, to be discovered in getting really good at anything. In fact, getting good at stuff that most people believe is boring or menial labor or, you know, impossible

to be interesting. That's even more joyful to find the joy within that in the excellent. It's the georgeums of sushi making the same freaking sushi over and over and becoming a master that can be truly joyful. There's a sense of pride and on the pragmatic level, you never know when someone will spot that. And intelligent people who perform at the level of high excellence look for others who do say. And it radiates some kind of signal. It's weird. It's weird what you're

attracted to yourself when you just focus on mastery and pursuing excellence and something. Like this is the cool thing about it. That's the joy I have a really truly experienced. I didn't have to do much work. It's just cool people kind of. I find myself in groups of cool people. Like really people who are excited about life, who are passionate about life. There's a fire in their eyes that's, you know, at the end of the day, it just makes life fun, you know. And then also money-wise, at least in this society, we're fortunate to where if you do that kind of thing, money will find a way.

I have the great, I say this, that don't care about money. You know, I have to think about what that means because some people criticize that idea as like, yeah, it must be nice to say that because I have for much many periods in my life had very little money, but I think we're living a society where not caring about money, but just focusing on your passions. If you're truly pursuing excellence, whatever that is, money will find you. That's, I guess, the ideal of the capitalist system. And I think that the entrepreneurs I've studied had the chance to get to know, and I'm sure you agree with this, they do what they do because they're passionate about the product.

They're not just in it to make money In fact, that's when they get into trouble. Yeah, just trying to make money. Exactly You said your grandmother Emily had a big impact on your life. She lived to 102 What are some lessons she taught you? Emily who was the the child of immigrants from Russia and Poland, who never went to college, her proudest day, I think, was when I went to college. She treated everyone with respect and tried to get to know everyone. She knew every bus driver in the town.

She'd remember their birthdays. One of the things she taught me is no matter how high you fly, the lowest person close to the ground matters to you. And you treat them the same way you treat the billionaire at the top of the podium. And she did that. She didn't just say that. Some people say that and don't do it. She really did that. And I always remember that it comes up in my mind at least once a week because we're all busy doing a lot of things.

And you either see or you even feel in yourself the desire for the reasons of speed to be short or not polite with someone who can't do anything to harm you right now. And I remember her saying to me, no, you treat everyone with respect, you treat the person you're on the phone with, customer service, you treat that person

if you're talking to Jeff Bezos, so you're talking to Elon Musk, right? And I think making that a culture of who you are is so important. And people notice that, that's the other thing. And they notice when it's authentic. Everyone's nice to the person at the bottom or the total poll when you want

to get ahead in the line for your driver's license. But are you nice to them when you don't need that? They notice that. And even when nobody's watching, there has a weird effect on you that's going to have a ripple effect. And people know, that's the cool thing about the internet. I've come to believe that people see authenticity.

They see when you're full of shit, when you're not. That's right. The other thing that Emily taught me, and I think we've all had relatives who have taught us this, right, that you could be very uneducated. She was very uneducated. She had a high school diploma, but I think she was working in a delicatessen in New York

while she was in high school, or maybe it was a gimbals or somebody. So she'd put it in high school very seriously. She wasn't very well educated. She was very smart. And we can fall into a world where I'm a big believer in higher education and getting a PhD in things of that sort, but where we think those are the only smart people. No. Sometimes those are the people because of their accomplishments, because they're egos of the ones who are least educated in the way of the world. Yeah. Least curious and not ultimately wisdom comes from curiosity and sometimes getting a PhD

can get away, can get in the way of curiosity, it's supposed to empower curiosity. is supposed to empower curiosity. Let me ask, from a historical perspective, you've studied some of human history. So maybe you have an insight about what's the meaning of life? Why, do you ever ask when you look at history, the why? Yeah, I do all the time and I don't have, I don't have, I don't have an answer. It's the mystery that we can't answer.

I do think what it means is what we make of it. There's no universal, every, every period I've studied, and I've studied a little bit of a lot of periods and a lot of a few periods. Every period people struggle with this, and there's no, they don't come to, wise or people then us don't come to a firm answer, except it's what you make of it.

Meaning is what you make of it. So think about what you want to care about and make that the meaning in your life. I wonder how that changes throughout human history, whether there's a constant, like that's, I often think, especially when you study evolution in biology and you just see our origins from life and as it evolves, it's like, it makes you wonder, it feels like

there's a thread that connects all of it that we're headed somewhere. We're trying to actualize some greater purpose, You know, like there, there seems to be a direction to this thing. And we're all kind of stumbling in the dark trying to figure it out. But it feels like we eventually will find an answer. I hope so. Yeah, maybe. I mean, I do think we all want our families to do better. We are familial and family doesn't just mean biological family. You can have all kinds of ways you define family and community. And I think we are moving slowly and in a very messy way toward a larger world community. To include all of biological life and eventually artificial life as well.

And so to expand the lesson to the advice that your grandmother taught you is I think we should treat robots and AI systems good as well, even if they're currently not very intelligent, because one day they might be. Right, right, I think that's exactly right. And we should think through exactly as a humanist, however, to approach that issue. We need to think through the kinds of behavior patterns we want to establish with these new forms of artificial life for ourselves also to your point. So we behave the right way.

So we don't misuse this. We started talking about Abraham Lincoln, ended talking about robots. I think this is the perfect conversation, Jeremy. This is a huge honor. I love Austin. I love you, T. Austin. And I love the fact that you would agree to waste all your valuable time with me today. Thank you so much for talking to me.

I can't imagine a better way to spend a Friday afternoon. This was so much fun, and I'm such a fan of your podcast and delighted to be a part of it. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Jeremy Surrey. And thank you to Element, Monk Pack, Bell Campo, Forceigmmatic, and a sleep. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. And now let me leave you some words from Franklin D. Roosevelt FDR. Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.

Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you