Making Sense with Sam Harris - #470 — Democrats at a Crossroads

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

Sam Harris speaks with Rahm Emanuel about American politics, the state of the Democratic Party, and the 2028 presidential race. They discuss Emanuel's possible presidential run, identity politics and the left's cultural cul-de-sac, the Mississippi reading miracle, antisemitism on the left and right, the Gaza war, Netanyahu's failures, U.S. policy toward China, wealth inequality, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.

You're listening to Making Sense with Sam Harris. This is the free version of the podcast, so you'll only hear the first part of today's conversation. If you want the full episode and every episode, you can subscribe at samharis.org. There are no ads on this show. It runs entirely on subscriber support. If you enjoy what we're doing here and find it valuable,

please consider subscribing today. I'm here with Rahm Emanuel. Rom, thanks for coming back on the podcast. Thanks for having me. I didn't have to travel as far this time. There's no jet lag. You've got some jet lag. I adjusted.

Just kick me underneath if I start the dose. Yeah, we were just talking off mic about you wrapping up life in Japan. And my expectation that things are going to get pretty interesting there from a foreign policy perspective pretty soon. What's your sense? We're going to jump into all of it, the war in Iran and everything else. But what's your sense of that? At about six weeks from now, the president's going to sit down with Xi, President, China. The second is he's going to go in a weekend position.

which is what everybody knows that because of Iran and a series of things. If you just take kind of a, let's take a landscape, you've irritated a 30-year project for the United States, which is bringing India closer to our bosom, both of what you've done with Pakistan, what you did degrading Modi. Second, you removed our THAAD and our aircraft carrier from both Thad from South Korea

and our aircraft carrier out of Okinawa and other assets that have come out of the region that are a deterrent and add credibility to our deterrent. While you have been focused all on Iran, China, after five years are not building another island in the South China Sea off of Philippines coast. They finally built another one, which is dangerous because they're claiming that as their water

is not an international waterway. 40% of the GDP, maritime GDP, goes through that water. Lastly, the biggest economic crush on China was deflation. People were talking about entering a possible lost Japanese-like generation. And now they finally, for the first time, you gave them inflation, which is what they wanted, which is higher energy prices, and prices are up now for their products. So I can go on and on, and I think our allies, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India are holding their breath because they don't believe

the president knows how to stand up to Xi and is desperate for Xi's affirmation and therefore we'll give away the store to the region. Remember, our goal is to communicate. We are a permanent Pacific power and presence. You can bet long on America. And the one thing you know about our president is he punches down, kisses up. He is always seeking Xi and Putin's affirmation. And I think he's going in weakened. He knows he's going in weakened.

And he's desperate for Xi's affirmation. And Xi has another card on him, which is I helped get your chestnuts out of the fire in Iran. And you owe me. So at every level, I think this is a very bad situation for the United States. the Indo-Pacific in a very bad situation for our allies who not only rely on us, we rely on them. Maybe we'll come back to that. That'll be a sidebar for the moment. Remind people, I want to start with the domestic picture and American politics.

Remind people of all the roles you have served for our government, because there are many. Okay. For President Clinton, I was his senior advisor for policy and politics and replaced Stephanopoulos in that position. First term, I was director of special projects doing the crime bill, the assault weapon ban, welfare reform, immigration policy, to name a couple. I was a congressman from the 5th District in Chicago. Second term was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to help not only take the House back for the Democrats, but make Nancy Pelosi first woman speaker. And then I was fourth, I was caucus chair. I served, get elected four terms for only three, become President Obama's first chief of staff and help him pass the ACA health care bill.

and the financial reform, the Recovery Act and the auto industry, bailout and saving. I then run for mayor of the city of Chicago, served two terms, most partly left with Sean Ritter at Stanford calling it the single best education system of the top 100 in America, when it was once called by William Bennett, the worst in America. And then I served as our ambassador to Japan for the United States, and in that process brought a historic meeting together between Japan and Korea, the United States that accommodated at Camp David. So the kind of, the goal is not titles, but results. Yeah, yeah. I'm a results driven. I could get you. I don't need titles. I want results. But obviously, you have an unusually

clear perspective of how the machine works. Are you running for president in 2020? I'm seriously evaluating it. I think that you, I think we're at a cross-sairs as a country. What I'm most interested in getting across if I decide to do this, I think we've had two presidents back-to-back, both Trump and Biden, who were focused on restoring a pass that's not coming back. In 2028, I'm going to make a bit about the future and who has a plan to make that future. And then, as I always say, tough times require a tough leader, have the kuhna's to get it done. 10 million kids got health care because of it. The country got an assault weapon ban because of it.

Nancy Pelosi became speaker because of it, passive minimum wage because of it, and kids got free community college because of it in the city of Chicago. So will I do it? I think there's real challenges about restoring faith in America by the American people that is broken and having an election where we start taking care of the future. I think we have spent 12 plus years and some nostalgic dreamlike way of trying to restore a past that's not coming back. And it was not good to all Americans. It was good to you and I, not all Americans. Well, there are parts of the past that I think we are rather desperate to restore like normal institutions.

that can be trusted. I actually think, yeah, I don't mean to cut you off. But there's parts of the past, I agree, but not in some kind of nostalgic sense, but in a sense that it's updated for a few, that is a guiding post and a guiding principle for the future. I'm talking about what I should have probably been clear, but some element of some kind of black and white,

Ozian Harriet life that didn't really truly exist when we think it did. And it's not about the future. We need something that is not about you and me, but about your kids and my kids. Yeah, Sazy and Harriet plus robots. So what is the state in your view of the Democratic Party and are we past? So when you were ambassador to Japan and rather tongue-tied in your role there, I was twisting your arm around.

I thought it was pretty diplomatic. You were, you were very diplomatic. In a rare moment. And the manual, diplomatic. Think of that. You had the seal of the executive branch behind your desk of memory serves. But are we past this social justice hysteria and identity politics, or is the party ready to double down on it and lose again emphatically in 2028?

So the answer is an ambivalent yes and no in this sense. I'm a, I mean, I said it when I came back. I don't want to, but this point was stop talking about bathroom access and start talking about classroom excellence. 50% of our kids cannot read at great level. And you are arguing about a bathroom and a locker room access when you should be focused on how do we improve reading scores. And that's why I went to, I don't know if you know this, but I went to Mississippi because they have this miracle. The first national leader to go down.

I said, okay, the science of reading and all the other type of parts of that should be the national model. The answer is right there. You just got to have the courage to take it. Yeah, what is the miracle there? They turn their education system around? So let me finish the first question. And so do I think, as somebody also that said, you know, we weren't really good in 2024 when we talked about the kitchen table, the family room, the only room we did well was the bathroom. And it's the smallest room in the house.

Do I think that's dead? I think people know that there was a consequence getting caught in what I call a cultural cul-de-sac. We declared and wanted to bring the cultural wars to our schools, and we lost that. Do I think people are conscious of that? I think they were weird. And I, somebody that in 2016, as mayor of Chicago, signed bathroom access, but I never lost my focus on graduation rate, three scores, and mass scores. So we can be a culture, and we are as a party, rightfully, a culture of acceptance. We became a culture of advocacy, and that's where we cross the line.

As I, like, take the issue I've said this before on boys playing in girls sport, I'm not undermining title nine. The reason we're winning in soccer worldwide, the reason we're winning in hockey worldwide, that we were winning and swimming worldwide is Title IX. I don't think the party should be in the business of undermining one of our great accomplishments as an example. So I do think there's been some sense that that was a mistake. Does it mean that everybody buys it? No.

Now, what you had to say what Mississippi did, and I want to also repeat, they did this 20 years ago. In Mississippi, they don't call it a miracle. They call it the marathon. Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee replicated it and all seeing massive increases in reading scores. One, it was a mandate. statewide. You couldn't opt in or out. This was required. Every teacher got retaught on the phonics

or science of reading. They got coaches for each school to keep the teachers and the principal focused and trained constantly. Third, kids going all the way back to kindergarten and first grade were prepped for their third grade reading test. They got three times to pass at the kids. If they didn't, they were held back. So there were standards. It was accountability. There was support if kids were showing challenges. They got extra tutoring time. Each child got, I think I'm doing this by memory, an hour and 15 minutes minimum every day on reading.

They went from 49th in Mississippi on reading scores across the country to ninth. If you account for demographics, they're beating Massachusetts now. So with a result like that, what's controversial about this project? Well, there's a professor, called it 25 years ago out of Columbia University who taught people got a lot of school districts to go into the art of reading, not the science. You like the letter of A. You can use it. If you don't like the letter A, don't use the letter A.

And ruined a generation. And when I find that professor, you don't have to do any forensics for the physical body harm. I did it. It's unbelievable what they did ruining. So what got controversial, and this is one is some people don't like the accountability part, the testing, as one principal in Hattiesburg told me, you need those tests to help improve what you're going to do, not only for that student or for the next class,

the second grade's coming into third grade. You can't be scared of accountability and standard. I want to come back to that in a second. On the other side, which is Mississippi did not abandon their public schools with some other fancy thing called vouchers. They invested in their public schools. It was all started, by the way, by Mr. Barksdale from Netscape,

and he came from Mississippi, he put his money into it, put the first $200 million. So public schools were supported with public resources, and accountability came with those resources. Around the country, Republicans are advocating a way to abandon public schools, and Democrats advocated and succeeded in abandoning standards, and our kids are falling through the cracks.

We're at a 30-year low. 50% of our kids can't read a grade level. I don't know what makes you think fourth and fifth grade are going to be okay if the third grade they're failing. And nobody seems to think this is worth worrying about. Now, there are other reforms along the way. Every place that has adopted the whole program is not just science or reading, the support for teachers and the support for students with standards of attachment, as I said, Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee being the most kind of comprehensive in adopting the Mississippi model, all seeing rapid increases and reading scores.

Democrats getting back to the science of reading or the accountability thought that leave no child behind under President Bush, they were teaching to the test rather than using the test. as a measure of success or failure or improvement. Not wrong, but the answer wasn't to abandon it, which is what we all did as a country. The answer is how to find that sweet spot where, yes, you have a test, yes, you have a measure. It's a reflection of whether we're making progress, but it doesn't become the only thing you're doing

from an academic standpoint. And we, meaning the country, led by Democrats, walked away from standards and accountability. And that is a mistake. Now, this is going to get me in trouble, but I'm for it. I'm not only for it as a parent, but I'm forward as a former mayor that had responsibility for the schools, which is why we saw our reading and math scores each year successfully. This gets you in trouble because standards and accountability are perceived at some levels

being racist or? No, I mean, I don't know about racist, but that the criticism is not wrong. We had gotten to a point. We overshot where the test was supposed to measure. it became not the means, it became the ends, which was, we're going to teach to the test. The remedy, throw it all out was the mistake. Don't measure anything, yeah. So, and what's happened, it's a contributor, it's not the only thing.

What has happened is we abandoned measurements, and I get you back to the principal in Hattiesburg, who took a school from of the nine in Hattiesburg last to first. Accountabilities and standards are our friend. We have to be open to them, receptive to him. know how to find that sweet spot between measurement and using it to improve our teaching. All right. Well, I'm going to ask you about a standard of moral sanity here. I don't know how we test for it, but we've seen an explosion of anti-Semitism on both the left and the right. We can come back to the right if you want, but on the left. Yeah, we're going to come back to it because it's a generational

thing. Yeah, but it's a, I mean, this is sort of confirmed horseshoe theory, at least for the Jews, because the far right and the far left seem to agree that they are the problem. 77% of Democrats think that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Only 11% don't think that, right? And then they're the undecided. This seems to me it's going to be an issue in the Democratic primary. How would you navigate this question? So let's, you did it.

You started up. So I don't mean to do the Talmudic version of the question around the question, but I'm going to do that to you. That's all right. I'll get back to the question. No, I know the question. I'm going to get to the question, too. There's three questions that are out there,

one. Okay. Okay. First, you started about anti-Semitism and then you went to Israel. So as somebody that had been a target of anti-Semitism in his public life, that's separate and distinct, but is attached to what's happening in and around the prime minister and Israel. I would say to you, it was very ugly in my campaign for Congress. It was seen in, if you know, Chicago as the Polish seat, Dan Raskolskine, Frank and Nanceo Roman Bukchinsky were all predecessors. Got it very ugly. And I said then, as I said, there's only 2% in the district. And they elected Rahm Israel Emmanuel, and I was running against a Polish woman who was a state rat.

I know the people of city of Chicago, good people with good values, they were going to see through this ugliness. When Amy and I, when you came to visit, when we were ambassador in Japan, I was ambassador and we were living. Somebody sprayed Nazi insignia on our fence. Next day, a neighbor cleaned it up. I still don't know. They never came forward and said who they were. I've said this many times hoping one day they'll introduce them so I can thank them. So I've seen the worst, I've seen the best.

Anti-Semitism always exist. What happened in this country, that it allowed to go from not being kosher to coming public. That's something that we all have to ask about why it also became acceptable, not only to express it, but to act on it violently from the Trial Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh to what we saw in Colorado, to what we saw in D.C., where it's not just saying ugly things about Jews, but then acting on it in a real violent way. And what gave that permission slip, that nobody would have done that

when I first ran for Congress in 2002. They said some ugly things about a money changer. He's not one of us, the normal tropes of anti-Semitism, but that became somewhere you could act on it and not just act on and say it publicly, but then violent. That's another topic I hope we can get into.

Now, to Israel, somebody, and I want to say this, to you, look, I didn't need a word to know that this prime minister was not good. 2009, I don't know if you know this. We got it in such a public fight when I was from President Obama's chief of staff.

Publicly, he called me a self-loathing Jew. Is this when he came and addressed Congress? No, that was 2015. This is 2009. My disagreement with him, and it's gotten pretty direct, was over housing in the West Bank because I thought he was destroying

a two-state solution. If you destroyed that, Israel was on a course to endless wars. A lot of other people thinking about running from national office were lip-sinking his. stuff. I was 20 years ahead. I knew where this was going to go. So we got into it, he and I, to the point that publicly said I was a self-hating, self-loathing Jew was attacked. And the prime minister

and I have always, I disagree with his approach. And I think, in fact, this is the first year in Israel's history, there are more people have left than came. He has led Israel in a way that the endless wars that he's doing is destroying the fabric of the country. And I don't think it was good for Israel. I don't think it's good for the Jewish community of Israel, and for a host of reasons, inside Israel. And I was up front about it. I didn't need, again, as I want to say. Let's bracket Netanyahu and his political problems. It's hard to do with the longest serving Prime Minister to say that he isn't the face of that country. But swap in the perfect Prime Minister, how differently would he or she have navigated the October 7th moment?

Well, as members of- What should Israel have done on October 8th? If you go, so there's three things. I'm not saying, look, I give no pass to a country's self-defense, no to any of the people of the world. But even elements of the IDF, Israel Defense Force, we're telling him we're just killing for the sake of killing. The opportunities of security have to be enhanced by diplomacy and politics. He has never seized that in the way that Yitzhak Rabin did,

the way Menacham Began did, the way Golden Mayor did, or the way the Bengorian did. And as somebody that participated in both Oslo Accords for, President Clinton, the wide plantation agreement, the agreement in Akaba between Israel and the state of Georgia, in all those processes, he has isolated the state of Israel. Not only has you lost world opinion for Israel, he's losing in the United States. So I can't brag, what he didn't do is, you know, as Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you make peace like there's no terror and you fight terror like there's no peace. He has never extended himself politically on the diplomatic front.

Now there's three chapters to Israel. There's one which was Egypt, Jordan, and the Abraham Accords making peace with stable governments and parties. Second was unilateral decisions on Lebanon and Gaza that gave you Hamas and Hezbollah. And then third, the divorce attempt in the West Bank. And now what they're doing, which is violence. Even one of the leading settler voices, the violence that's being created by settlers is destroying Israel. And the leadership of the IDF, my criticism, is no different than elements of the IDF. So what Israel is no more secure, having gone from 40,000 Gazans dead to 70,000.

It was violence for the sake of violence with no political strategy. So difference between Oslo, and I want to say, I understand the hardened heart that if you agree at Oslo to peace in a two-state solution and you have buses blowing up and dizzying off

and not parts of Tel Aviv and parts of Jerusalem, your heart will get hard. But the choices are more violence or what you have now, which is Arab country saying, okay, we're going to reform the Palestinians, give you a real partner for real peace. Where we were in the infant days of 93, 94, 95,

and even 2001 President Clinton with Ech al-Berach and Yasser Arafat try at Camp David to get a final agreement, there will never be a river to the sea as the Palestinians advocate, and there will never be a greater Israel as elements of this prime minister's government try to advocate. Their heads and tails of the same coin, and too extreme. In the end of the day, you're going to have to have two people live side by side

and respect each other's needs, a sovereign nation for the Palestinian people and a secure Israel for the Jewish people. If you don't, it's not going to work. Members can hear the full conversation by subscribing at samharis.org. Subscribers get a private RSS feed you can use with your favorite podcast player. I am not a fan of what Israel has done. You can believe in Israel's security without your heart being so hard that you're not moved by the pain of Palestinian mothers seeing their kids killed. The Iranians in Geneva offered you everything you wanted and you were too stupid to know and your two negotiators, the strategic mind of Wickoff and Kushner, didn't know what they had.

The American people still have and want hope that their kids can do better. They have real doubts that we're taking care of the business. My faith is not your challenge or your problem. The faith that you need to be worried about is that America and Americans have lost faith in this great country.