Making Sense with Sam Harris - #423 — “More From Sam”: Democracy, Populism, Wealth Inequality, News-Induced Anxiety, & Rapid Fire Questions

Episode Date: July 8, 2025

In this latest episode of the “More From Sam” series, Sam and Jaron talk about current events and answer some of the questions you all submitted on Substack. They discuss Epstein’s “client list,” how to safeguard democracy, populism, wealth inequality, the allure of socialism, how to manage feeling overwhelmed by current events, and rapid fire questions. Produced by Griffin Katz

Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast. This is Sam Harris. Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you're not currently on our subscriber feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation. In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support of our subscribers. So if you enjoy what we're

doing here, please consider becoming one. Hi everybody, and welcome to another episode of More From Sam. Sam, how's it going? Good. Good. How are you doing? I am good. I'm good. We had dinner last night, but I still have to ask you how you're doing. Yeah, yeah. Well, things could have changed in the meantime.

That's true. That's true. As a reminder to all, the goal of this series is to get more from Sam on current events more often. I'm here to surface Sam's ideas and we'll be doing so as always with the input of subscribers, questions and comments.

Thank you guys for taking the time to share those with us. And lastly, this series is not meant to be a replacement for anything. It's simply in addition to what Sam is already doing. So if you don't enjoy it, don't worry. It's fine. One more thing before we get started. Some updates on Sam's upcoming tour. There are currently five shows on sale at the moment. New York, Austin, Seattle, San Jose, and Chicago. I believe all those shows still have some tickets still available, although in some markets, I think that number is pretty low. So if you want to see the show, you can head over to Ticketmaster, search Sam Harris, or you can find the dates listed at samharris.org.

Also, it seems likely that we're going to be adding some dates in the future. So be on the lookout for those. I'm thinking maybe LA, maybe Texas somewhere. I don't know. If you have any suggestions, please make those suggestions and we'll consider those. As a reminder, Sam will be delivering a prepared talk for the first part, and then he and I will sit down and do a version of this, more from Sam in the second segment. While Sam will offer some disturbing insights, it will also be hopeful. Is that right, Sam? I hope so. A lot can happen between now and then. Yeah, well, it's a night out. So regardless of the topics

It's important that you all enjoy yourselves too. So we'll do our best to make sure that happens Okay, let's get to our first topic and with a little fun. Did you see the The latest on Epstein the DOJ and FBI have concluded that Epstein had no client list. Oh, yeah, that's amazing Yeah, Pam Bondi said she had the list on her desk and FBI have concluded that Epstein had no client list. Oh yeah, that's amazing. Yeah, Pam Bondi said she had the list on her desk, I think, and now she says there is no list. So you reconcile, you MAGA people reconcile those irreconcilable notions.

I mean, does anyone care? Do they care that they're lied to now about something that was their dearly held bright, shiny object for so many years? I mean, they gotta be lying one way or the other, right? There's no way that both these claims can be true. I mean, this was a big one. I mean, a lot of people were electing Trump, right?

We couldn't wait to open up that Christmas present. Well, yeah, we want to know about the UFOs. We want to know about JFK. We want to know about what else was on that list, but certainly Epstein was at the top of that list. And speaking of the UFO, did we see something that the Pentagon did? I mean, that was pretty crazy. That was crazy.

It was kind of like it was a hazing ritual among Pentagon employees. That's pretty fucked up. That went on for like decades. Yeah, that misfired badly. Yeah, not good. But it's an easier explanation than that we're actually being visited by extraterrestrials. And they're, you know, abducting us and performing amateur proctology on people in the middle of the country. And yet the cameras, well, they've, it's that line that they say, well, the cameras continue to improve. The sightings are always still

at one megapixel. It's always, you know, it looks like a frisbee colored with, covered with tin foil thrown in the air. Yeah. No one seems to be able to capture it. Yeah. Okay. Let's get to a, we just, we just celebrated July 4th and for all our flaws, we really are an amazing country.

And one of the enduring paradoxes of democracy is that it extends rights and protections even to those who would use them to undermine it. We see this in various forms, Islamists who leverage free speech and open borders to advance illiberal aims and elements on the right that manipulate loopholes and procedural gray zones to violate ethical standards and concentrate power. The central challenge is how to defend democracy against those who would hollow it out from within without compromising the liberal principles that define it. How do we build safeguards robust enough to protect democracy, yet restrained enough not to destroy it in the process? Well, that really is the $64 trillion question at this point.

We have this tension in open societies. I prefer the framing of open society more than democracy. I think it's in the Venn diagram of political and social institutions, those overlap significantly. But I think Popper's notion of an open society is the more important one to defend here. And it's a society in which the institutions allow for error correction because, I mean, the institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, allow for error correction because things mean the institutions both governmental and non-governmental allow for error correction because things like free speech and pluralistic tolerance are enshrined

as into law and into norms, right? So you can talk about more or less anything, you can argue over more or less anything. It's not a theocracy, it's not an authoritarian dictatorship, it's not a much less a totalitarian one. It's not some tribal fiefdom in Afghanistan. It's a society we know and love and have imperfectly built for ourselves here in the West. But the open societies are perpetually under threat by people who would use the principles of tolerance to undermine tolerance. And one of the most glaring examples of this in recent times is the kind of the stealth and none-too-stealthy Islamist campaigning

everywhere, which is basically trying to smuggle in theocracy into Western communities. And the liberals, you know, the Areswale liberals, the, you know, the, the, the, the, the left wing of every left wing party, it has been successfully gold by this or has just not late and the nascent or endemic anti-Semitism on the left and in the Muslim community. So yeah, what to do about it is there's no easy answer to that. I mean, we can't tip over into xenophobia and bigotry. We have to focus on dangerous ideas rather than specific classes of people. But, you know, in broad strokes, you can, it's certainly tempting to notice that specific classes of people have more than their share of dangerous ideas. Right?

So when you have a regime like, you know, the second Trump administration, or some of the right-wing parties in Western Europe wanting to filter by Muslims or, or, or immigrants from specific countries, Muslim majority countries, it's easy to see why that's tempting. I don't agree with any of that, but the underlying concern is something I, I, I'm, I'm also very much worried about, which is the spread of Islamism and Jihadism in the West. So if you don't agree with that, what, how do you solve that problem? So if you don't, if you can't say, okay, we're going to try to keep anybody out of the country who's going to use democracy or, or we should do that against it.

Right. So how do you do that? We should vet people. We just shouldn't say we're going to keep everyone from Somalia out of the country or everyone from Eritrea or Saudi Arabia or just pick your country. But how do you find out if somebody is more religious or less religious? So you say, we'll take people from every country. I mean, there has to be some process of vetting.

I mean, we have to screen people, we have to talk to people, we have to do online research about people. I mean, they have to have references. There's, you know, I'm not into the weeds on what the process actually is, but clearly there's some process that's possible whereby we could raise the probability of successfully catching jihadists and Islamists who are trying to immigrate. And we just, we have to acknowledge that we want to do that.

And we would, just as we wouldn't want to import Nazis into our society, we should not be eager to import Islamists and jihadists into our society. Right, so where do you draw the line with, and I'm blanking on his name, from Colombia who was tossed out and then brought back, you know, where do you draw the line with someone like him?

Khalil, I think his name was. That's right, Mahmoud Khalil, yeah. Yeah, well, I think we should acknowledge that it's different once someone has been admitted and been given a green card, right? Then there's a different burden of proof and there's got to be a different procedure, right? So it's better to keep people out rather than let them in and figure out how to respond to the fact that they're in now legally. But yeah, I mean, if someone is sufficiently despicable, I think we should be able to rescind their green card and kick them out of the country.

I mean, it's not the same thing as you're not a citizen if you have a green card. And, um, you know, ultimately we have to figure out what to do with citizens who go bonkers and believe these things, right? I mean, this is, you know, that's under the rubric of free speech and freedom of religion, but we have a problem with potentially homegrown jihadists. Um, this is a problem that's easy to forget about given all the other problems in the world. But the moment we have another terrorist attack in the society of any scale,

all of a sudden we're going to realize this problem never went away. It's a bigger problem in Western Europe than it is in America, but it's a problem here too. Again, we have to err on the side of tolerating the expression of any ideas. Right, I just don't, I don't think we should be kicking people out for saying despicable things, but the moment they do more than merely talk about them, the moment they're planning to do something, the moment they're obstructing, physically obstructing life on a university

campus, you know, keeping Jews out of certain buildings or bullying them physically, right? Spitting in people's faces who are trying to attend lectures. All those kinds of things have happened on college campuses. All of that's illegal, right? All of that should get you kicked out of, I mean, it should get you prosecuted,

but it should also get you, it's all assault, but it should also get you kicked out of school, right? These people shouldn't be winning awards for social activism. They should be kicked out of these Ivy League universities for behaving badly. Topic, the new ecosystem of independent media personalities seems really no different from what we're seeing in politics. Mamdani, for example, is basically an influencer, just happens to be running for mayor.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson is interviewing the president of Iran. The gatekeepers are gone and in many ways, maybe we're better off for it, but in what ways are we worse? And why do you think it feels like only populists are able to gain traction now? Well, so populism is a few things, but at its core, it's a rejection of elites and elite institutions. It's an expression of resentment and revulsion against the gatekeepers. So it almost has built into its DNA an abdication of the kinds of standards and notions of responsibility that those gatekeepers and institutions imperfectly embodied. You have just lots of people out there with iPhones

pretending to be journalists. And one of them is effectively Tucker Carlson, right? Like he's got more than an iPhone, but basically he has the principles of somebody just wielding an iPhone with impunity and with no reputation for professionalism or integrity to protect. So, and you know, you could add a lot of people to that list, but all of these sort of outdoor cats who are now gaining audiences of tens of millions of people are, I mean, it's entertaining, right? They're in the entertainment business, right? A lot of these people are very good at what they do. I mean, I think Tucker is extremely good at what he does. So is Candace Owens, right? I think these

are people who have charisma and they're very facile demagogues and confabulators and conspiracists. And again, they're not, they don't feel the friction of personal integrity, or at least that's not, it's not apparent to me that they, they ever have. So they can just lie and spin, but there's no burden of not being a hypocrite. I mean, that's not a fate to be avoided because it's not a fate that is even acknowledged when you don't have any principles. So they're just kind of freewheeling bullshitters who can keep tacking left and right and up and down as their whims strike. And then also Trump is an animal of this kind.

There's no burden of coherence. There's no burden of paying attention to what really happened in the world or, or, or the risks of spreading certain lives. I mean, they, this is, so it's, it's entertainment, you know, and on some level we're entertaining ourselves toward the precipice. Yeah. I mean, if everyone is rejecting the system and everyone becomes outdoor cats, at some point there's nobody left in the building. And when you, when you map that onto the political sector and you see someone

like a Mondani, uh, who is falling in the footsteps of an AOC or a Bernie. And then the right, you have, as you said, Trump, it just seems like these are the only people that can get traction here. And so is this what the future looks like for everyone? Is that everyone is rejecting the system and saying, I'm not with those guys. And at some point, it's sort of every man for themselves. Well, clearly we need institutions and we have institutions and they're still functioning. It's just on the government side, and certainly in Trump's second administration,

they're being increasingly populated by loyalists and cranks and loons and grifters and incompetence. I mean, so the kinds of people who are running the Justice Department or the FBI or HHS, I mean, these are not the sober experts who you would want, even if you agreed that you had to purge all the old experts who gave us a bad response to COVID or a bad response to foreign policy or anything else, right?

Even if you think literally everyone in the Biden administration was corrupt and incompetent, and you needed a new crop of people, you still want sober experts who are not grifting lunatics, right? Who have their own, you know, who have dollar signs in the low, in the self-branded logo of their name and who are just creatures who came from the tabloids and now have responsibility for law and order in our society.

So it's, we need institutions that we can trust. And the question is what will make them trustworthy again? And some I think are trustworthy most of the time, even though they've been, their reputations have been badly damaged by just the backlash against them and their own failures in recent years. And I think it's very easy to exaggerate how bad the New York Times is or Harvard University is or the government is. I just think it's very easy to exaggerate how bad the New York Times is or Harvard University is or the government is. I think a lot of that's been exaggerated, but I understand everyone's frustration with institutions in the last few years.

We have a degree of transparency coupled with a degree of misinformation that has created a perfect storm of reputational damage for the gatekeepers and the experts, right? So like half of the stuff, speaking very broadly, half of the stuff is true and embarrassing and worth correcting. The other half is Alex Jones style confabulation and lies, but both halves are in most people's brains, or at least right of center in America now. And the left of center has its own problems. But what just problems with institutions?

I mean, I'm going to try again to get you to talk about Mamdani. I mean, if you're growing up in America today where the deck feels more stacked than ever, where's your incentive to defend capitalism? What do you say to the people in New York City that say, fuck you, it hasn't worked for me. Regardless of how bad socialism has been proven to be disastrous in the past, capitalism isn't working. So we'll just try something else or bring everyone else down. So is Mamdani, are we going to see more of this in the future? More of these types? Well, I have been arguing for a very long time, I mean, maybe close to two decades that we have a real and growing problem with wealth inequality in this country.

And obviously, Mamdani is responding to that. I mean, it's hard to find a locus of wealth inequality more obvious than New York City. But the idea that state-owned grocery stores is a sane response to that, or that we're going to get rid of billionaires or the other crazy Marxist things he's proposed, those aren't serious proposals. Capitalism is the best we've got. What we don't want to add to capitalism is an oligarchic winner-take-all, regressive tax code, and just obvious crony capitalism and corruption, where everyone is just ransacking the place, and we have something like a kleptocracy. We want the best version of capitalism we can achieve,

and that requires compassion, it requires a commitment to the common good, it requires not malignantly selfish people running the government who are trading stocks based on insider information and creating favored deals for their friends. We have a layer of corruption on top of capitalism, which is giving capitalism a bad name. Right, but we keep saying, well, we have to address that. We have to fix it. And if anything, it's moving in the opposite direction, especially with this latest term.

And so it does give rise to a Mamdani type who is incredibly likable. You know, gregarious, he's out there, you know, with the bullhorn and he's really whipping everyone into a frenzy and you look at the faces and they really seem like there's some relief out there. He's obviously selling a system that's not going to work. Yeah. Well, he's going to, he's going to freeze rents in New York city.

Is that, does that sound like a good plan to anyone who knows anything about what rent control does to the economy of a city? Yeah, of course. But a lot of them are just saying, okay, but whatever you keep saying about capitalism, you know, I've studied it. Sounds great. It does sound better. You know, I've, I've studied it, sounds great, it does sound better. I've read the book, Sam, but you keep talking about fixing capitalism for me, it's not working, and now we got a president who's offering his friends

all the deals and the insider stock trading and whatever else that you're claiming, it's going in the wrong direction. That's awful, but people are also just confused. This is another optical illusion. People don't recognize that even the barely middle-class people in our society today live much better than the wealthiest people on Earth, you know, some years ago.

It's just... If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at samharris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the Making Sense Podcast. The Making Sense Podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support, and you can subscribe now at samharris.org.