The Bulwark Podcast - George Will: Democracy Rests on Persuasion

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

For those living under a gray cloud because of what the American electorate has done, it's time to get to work on changing opinions. People who follow the news and read op-eds may be in a minority, but salient minorities have propelled history. On the 50th anniversary of George Will's tenure at The Washington Post, George joins Tim to discuss the power of criticizing presidents and saying what you think. Plus, Tim reads from the mailbag and serves up some advice for dealing with Trump-supporting relatives at the Thanksgiving table. George Will joins Tim Miller show notes George on his first 50 years as a columnist George's first column for The Post An appreciation of the Iron Man of America's oped pages Mona's tribute to George 

Hello and welcome to the Bulldog Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. A stick around at the end. We've got a mailbag for dealing with Thanksgiving family members coming your way. But first, I'm so thrilled to have George Will, columnist for the Washington Post. The Post is honoring his writing and his legacy this week on the 50th anniversary of his tenure at the paper with a series of tributes including by our own Mona Cheran. And there was also a delightful quiz with George Will quotes that I'd recommend that you take. I did just so-so on it. His books

include American Happiness and Discontents and the Conservative Sensibility. Welcome back to the Bullwork Podcast. George Will, how are you doing? I'm doing very well. How about you? I'm okay. I'm okay. My puckish impulse required that I wear this denim shirt. So I apologize for that in advance, but I just couldn't help myself this morning. I've written, I don't know, somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 columns, and that's the one people remember most is my harangue against the ubiquity of denim. Yeah that's maybe not the one I remember most but it it does stick with you it does stick with you for sure. I want to spend a bunch of time on your

columns and your career but alas we are tormented to live in interesting times and I need to start with a little bit of news if that's okay to get your response to. We have the latest decree from our new president-elect on his social media feed. I'm going to read it to you. On January 20th, as one of my many first executive orders, so-so on the grammar there, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States and its ridiculous open borders. The tariff will remain in effect until such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl and all illegal aliens, stop this invasion of our country.

Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power and until such time that they do, it's time for them to pay a very big price. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on that. Well, first thought is so much for those who said his threats were just negotiating ploys. Second, the country is going to be rudely awakened to the fact that Congress has, through its lassitude, conferred upon presidents enormous powers that are actually vested by the Constitution

and Congress, that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. Third, he hasn't even begun to get to the bottom of the bag of tricks the modern president can have because of excessive delegations of power from Congress. That is, I don't know, I think we're operating as a nation under something like 41 emergencies right now. Congress allows presidents to declare emergencies, at which point they acquire an enormous discretion. My hope for the next four years is that they revive Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. It's been a bipartisan failure, this encrusting so many barnacles, the presidency with all kinds of discretion and powers they should not have. So my hope

is that we're going to have a rethinking of the presidency itself. And the Democrats particularly who are being progressives and progressives celebrate executive power, untrammeled executive power and the administrative state and all that, that Republicans and Democrats are going to rethink how we might reestablish the Madisonian equilibrium between the branches. Is that a wish or an expectation? I guess, because it feels more like a wish to me, but I would love to be convinced otherwise. It is a wish, but what Madison said was that the branches should be rivalrous. He didn't

anticipate the coming of the party system and the coming of a presidential centric politics under which the president's party in Congress is considered mere appendages to salute sharply and tug their forelocks and implement his agenda. My 19th century Wiggish belief builds upon Madison's belief in the primacy of the legislature. The Congress's, the first branch of government is Article 1 for a reason in the Constitution. The president's powers are basically, at least in domestic affairs, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That makes him secondary and responsive to the first branch of government, the Congress.

So you ask, is this the wish being fathered to the thought? Yes. But it's a wish that I think Mr. Trump, by the curious laws of political physics, is apt to provoke every action having an equal and opposite reaction. Yeah, I hope that's right. And I do appreciate your sunny disposition. It provides a nice balance to the more negative thoughts that usually pervade here at the bulwark. So I do just kind of want to

get underneath the potential negatives. I mean, you implied there in the first answer that this is just the beginning of the potential bag of tricks. If Congress were not to act on the Madisonian impulse and were to decide not to check him, what do you worry about most from the executive branch in a second Trump term? A recession that will cause the grass to grow in the streets of American cities. That is, if he were to implement across the board tariffs, 10, 20 percent, the numbers he's thrown out during the campaign were simply whims and reflexes on his part. But were he to do this, he would wreck the trading system. He would wreck the supply chains. He would cause enormous disruptions and be a, I was going to say be a one-term president,

he's going to be that anyway. But he could on day one, as you just read his first threat or promise or fulfillment of his mandate, call it what you will, on day one, he's going to begin to revive the Democratic Party. Yeah, I should add that in addition to that long post-bleat that he sent about Mexico and Canada, he also said that he plans to do an additional 10% tariff on China across the board. So that is our new conservative governance. We're going to get to that in a second. I'm curious your thoughts also just on the cabinet from a big picture standpoint. You wrote about the need

to – for the Senate to reject Gates, Hegseth, Gabbard, and Kennedy in a recent column. I like that you called Gates a arrested development adolescence with the swagger of a sequined guitarist in a low rent casino. It was nice that you got that one off before he left Exited Stage Right. But I'm wondering, since you've written that column, there's been a spate of other picks. I'm wondering your big picture thoughts on what the cabinet choices tell us. Well, it's a sharply divided cabinet. There are the four there who simply should not be confirmed or not qualified by experience or thought.

The new Treasury Secretary, from what little I read about him, is a skeptic about protectionism, which should make for some interesting dialogues between the White House and the Treasury building right next door. The new Energy Secretary, I've forgotten his name, but he gets very good reviews. Agriculture Secretary, if we're going to have one, she seems perfectly adequate. I tend to think that Lincoln's biggest mistake was not sticking with General McClellan too long, but in creating the Agriculture Department. There it is, it's like the Education Department, what can you do about it?

Was Lincoln's biggest mistake not keeping his first vice president? I believe that was maybe his biggest mistake, sticking with Hannibal Hamlin. That was a big one. We'll take Andrew Johnson, the Agriculture Department, and McClellan, you can pick the big three of his mistakes. Okay. I'm from Central Illinois, Lincoln country, and we don't admit to a fourth. There, there. Chris Wright is the Energy Secretary.

I was blanking on his name too. I worry about the foreign policy picks the most. And I'd throw in there the NATO ambassador, Matt Whitaker, who is an absurd selection for NATO ambassador. I'm confident cannot name the NATO member countries or couldn't at least before his nomination. And I just, I'm interested in your view on no matter how this kind of shakes out. Do you think that the American-led international

order is now permanently broken, I guess would be, is the simplest way to put it? Not yet. Not yet. And it could be, again, let me go back to the physics of politics. It could be that Mr. Trump is going to, through sheer terror, galvanize a more responsible defense commitment to Europe's self-defense. We shall see. Getting all those nations above the 2% of GDP

spent on defense. I share entirely your belief that everything else pales next to the axis we're now confronting, Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia. I believe it is not too much to say that historians looking back on this may say that we're already in the early stages of a third world war. A lot of Americans, I think, tend to think the second world war started at Pearl Harbor. Some others with a more spacious view of history say, no, it was when the Germans invaded Poland

on the 1st of September, 1939. Others would say, well, it was the great rehearsal in the Spanish Civil War when Germany and Italy intervened there, or when Italy invaded Abyssinia, as Ethiopia then was in 1935. Actually, it seems to me a number of historians say that coming together, the clustering of crises that became World War II began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. We can imagine historians several generations from now saying

several generations from now, saying that a serious world conflagration began five or six years ago. Began, perhaps they would say, with the Russia's annexation of Crimea. What has been made clear, I guess, at this point, is that, you know, maybe the American-led world order can maintain, maybe our alliances can maintain, but if you're taking the view from Europe and watching us, looking back at us, you cannot look at us and think of us as a reliable partner, I guess, at this point anymore. And it's very clear that the American public does not care that much about its international commitments, at least a

plurality of them. And so does that not change their actions? And I guess you kind of implied it also is potentially influencing the actions of the access powers. I just wonder what you think about that. I don't want to say that isolationism is the default position of the American people. That would be too strong. But against the sweep of American history,

if you go back to 1938 and 1939 when Franklin Roosevelt carefully, not to say guilefully, maneuvered the United States into engagement in the Second World War, the American people, what they generally want from foreign policy is as little of it as possible. And you can understand this. It goes way back to the broad oceans and the two placid neighbors that we have in the general sense that predates intercontinental flight and ICBMs and all the rest, that we are somehow safe.

The period between 1940-41 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 does look like an aberrant period. However, I think it is possible for political leadership to convince the American people that what they do care about constantly, which is prosperity, full employment, rapid economic growth, rapid enough to throw off the revenues to pay the bills for the entitlement system. That depends, absolutely depends on free trade. We're going to have to have an enormous argument now about protectionism, which is, as I and others have said, equivalent to a nation blockading its own ports. The President-elect really seems to believe that if he imposes tariffs

on Chinese goods, China pays the tariffs, which is of course preposterous. The point of protectionism is to raise domestic prices. That is what they're for. And the American people, it seems to me, if they get a good jolt of protectionism, might swing back to understanding that the great burst of American prosperity at the end of the Depression, right through 2024, had to do with, was absolutely dependent upon international trade. Pete Yeah. I mean, I believe that to be true. I hope it's true that it gives the jolt people need. My friend, Stephen Richer, who acted very admirably as a recorder in Maricopa County, amidst all the Kerry Lake and Donald Trump nonsense,

he sent a tweet a couple months ago that stuck with me. I went back and found it said, we've gone from the party of George Will to the party of Cat Turd. I want to upgrade that in kind of a sad way, which is when the party of Cat Turd was successful. You know, and I do wonder like how you process that, right? That like, that this party that you're so central to kind of left you, at least ideologically, you know, principally in what you're just discussing with free you, at least ideologically, principally in what

you're just discussing with free trade, but across a number of issues, and dumbed itself down and that worked. That's got to be a little bit of a depressing realization. I would destroy my reputation if I became a little ray of sunshine, but let me still look on the bright side, which I'm not accustomed to doing. There is an equipoise in our politics that is going to take hold here. The Democratic Party is capable of learning. It has done in the past.

The Republican Party is capable of learning. It has done in the past. And the good news about the bad news about Mr. Trump is this. The bad news is he showed how one feral candidate can change the tone of the country. I think it is possible that a non-feral candidate, someone with the opposite of his approach to public rhetoric, could change it back. I do think that the country is ripe for, and four years from now will really be ripe for, what I would call a deep breath candidate. Someone who comes to the country and says, deep breath everybody, relax. Been through

worse before. Who says, as Lincoln did at the end of his first inaugural, we are not enemies, we are friends, we must not be enemies. See, I just don't believe the American people are angry. There are 334 million of us. At any point, 324 million are not watching cable television, not listening to talk radio. They're getting on with life. They're exhausted and embarrassed by our public life. And someone needs to come along who says, as Bill Lee, the governor of Tennessee, said,

I'm a conservative, I'm just not angry about it. And I think you're going to find that there's a market out there that our political parties are exquisitely sensitive market mechanisms, and they adjust quickly. The Democratic Party, they're going to learn their vocabulary is going to get cleaned up. As I say, we've been through worse before. I've just been reading a whole bunch of books about the 1850s. And I recommend that as an anecdote to exaggerating the dangers that we're currently in. I don't know that I'm exaggerating the dangers, but I think I pretty clearly see the sins, the flaws, the darkness that allowed us to get here. I wonder how you think about that. I'm doing my best to just bring you down from the sunniness into the night here a little

bit. And you may be right, maybe a sunny optimist can take us out of this in 2028, but it still says something about, I think, us as a country and the conservative movement in particular that we got here. And so I wonder if you look back on that 50 years and think, is there anything you look back on and think, oh, I should have seen that this was heading to this place. I became a columnist in January 1973, actually, with the National Review and beginning to submit columns to the Post. January 1973 was when Judge Serecka in Washington began to impose draconian sentences on the Watergate burglars in an attempt, a successful attempt to crack the cover up.

So I dipped my toe into punditry just as the Watergate waves were rising. So maybe I'm inured to the fact that there is much ruin in a nation and we have our fair share of it. But again, protectionism doesn't work. It's morally wrong to interfere with free transactions of free people, but leave that aside, it doesn't work. The Democrats have found out what doesn't work. Hectoring people, a kind of hectoring progressivism

doesn't work, they will adjust. And we learn as a nation, as individuals, by our mistakes, our blunders. And the Democrats have made a whopping one, and we're still making one on the Republican side. But we are creatures who learn. That's the foundation, such as it is, of my sunniness. We learn by trial and hard error, but we learn. One thing I learned about you reading the anniversary columns in the post that I didn't

know, I'm from Colorado, was that you were working for a Colorado senator actually around the time that you just referenced, I guess a little before 73, who ends up losing in part, maybe because Nixon's coattails weren't as long as they could have been. And you end up in this early period around Watergate and around impeachment, being a young conservative columnist who is harshly critical of Nixon from the right. So there is sort of a bookend element to this that you are now critical of Trump. Talk to me just about that moment and like what gave you the Hutzpah to do that. We see now that's a lot harder than it seems.

Well, it's funny because with national review, which I was writing for at the time, beginning in January 1973, was then even more than now, I think, supported in part by contributions. And some of the contributors didn't really warm to Nixon until he got into trouble. And National Review would do, as I recall, it's been a long time. They would do an analysis of the mail they got,

and they had a category called subscription cancellations in George Will. They would do an analysis of the mail they got and they had a category called subscription cancellations in George Will. They were the same thing because I was annoying people. Bill, to his enormous credit, with this financially shaky enterprise, this magazine that he'd started in 1955, Bill never once tried to restrain what I was writing about Mr. Nixon. I'm deeply indebted to him for that and it's a sign of what a large person Bill was. I appreciate your compliments of him, but this is maybe one moment to give some self congratulation. We'll just, we'll allow it for just the next one minute.

Like, what do you think it was about George Will that gave you the spine to twice, you know, speak out in ways that went against the grain of the party? And we've seen many of your peers from, just speaking to the Trump era, the Nixon era is before my time, but many of your peers, the columnists, the commentators who agree with you, who are classically liberal, who believe in enlightenment values, and who succumbed to Trump. I don't need to name them all. We all know them. What do you think it was that made you differentiate from that? Well, let's go backward to start with Trump. Trump was A, not a close call.

Amen. As I wrote at the time with every sulfuric belch from his campaign in 2015, it was obvious that this man was unsuited for what he was trying to be. And at that point, I was an established columnist and I didn't need to worry very much. Maybe back in 1973, I was too naive to understand I was taking a risk. But what's the point of doing this if you don't say what you think? If I wanted to be in politics, I know how to do that. I could have stayed in politics. I was a Senate staff member and I had a chance to continue being a political staffer, but

I chose to be a writer. And what's the point of writing if you're not free to express yourself? I just, I wouldn't do it otherwise. Just makes no sense. Maybe you hit the sweet spot, right? You're, you're young and brash for Nixon and, and seasoned for Trump. So I guess that does, there are plenty of seasoned people who went along with Trump. So I guess that would, that would let some people off the hook.

Most important virtue you can have as a political writer is a certain indifference to public opinion. Jefferson wrote in the declaration about a decent respect for the opinion of mankind, implying that there's such a thing as an indecent respect for public opinion. Just try to avoid that. Bill Clinton had famously said in a State of the Union while trying to recover his political fortunes that the era of big government is over. It's hard not to sit here right now and think that the era of small government is over.

Do you disagree with that? The era of small government was over in 1965 with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The two most popular programs in America are Medicare and Social Security, and they, combined with Medicaid, are about 70% of the budget. We have made a decision as a people that we're going to have a large ethic of common provision.

There's going to be a safety net of increasing thickness. That argument's over. I've backed enough lost causes that I know a lost cause when I see one. And the idea that we're going to undo the welfare state is preposterous. Still, there are intelligent ways of having a big government, there are unintelligent ways. We're still living with the echo of the Great Society in the 1960s in, it seems to me, family disintegration and chaotic neighborhoods. The conservative mission now is to make a government that does embody an ethic of common provision compatible with vigorous local communities, compatible with federalism, compatible with experiments at the state level.

That's still a great and stately mission for conservatism. Y'all, the search is over. Hexclad is the perfect gift for your significant other this holiday season, at least if your Y'all, the search is over. Hexclad is the perfect gift for your significant other this holiday season, at least if your significant other is the one that does the cooking in the family, because they will absolutely love it. And it's secretly a gift for you as well, because Hexclad's nonstick and stainless steel hybrid technology means that the meals are going to taste

better and clean up is so much easier. So don't blow it again this year with some terrible gift. Say I love you with the gift of Hexclad, even though what you're really thinking is that doing the dishes is going to be easier for you for the rest of your life. That's right, Hexclad has a lifetime warranty. These are literally the last set of pots and pans you will ever have to buy. Literally. It's time to upgrade your kitchen and your relationship for a limited time.

You can shop Hexclad's biggest sale of the year and save up to 42% off. Just go to hexclad.com slash the bulwark. Get the best deals of the year and support our show at H-E-X-C-L-A-d dot com forward slash the bulwark. I got some pants. They sent me some pants. I got a walk. I got a little saucepan and I can tell you I've used both over the last week and they ain't lying. They ain't lying. The cleanup is much easier. My little, you know, Papa's special pasta came out

tasted nice and yummy and you know, you're not going to be surprised to learn probably that I don't do the cleanup in the, in the family. But Tyler tells me that it was much better, much easier. I'm a messy cook. I know that's probably not going to surprise you either. So very pumped to get the Hex-Clad walk and saucepan. You should get that as well.

Hex-Clad truly checks every single box when it comes to picking your cookware. They're metal utensil safe, dishwasher safe, and oven safe up to 500 degrees. They're induction ready and even have a stay cool handle so you can saute with ease. Whether you're treating yourself or looking for that perfect gift, now is the time to snag the cookware that everyone's talking about for a limited time. Only our listeners can shop Hexclad's biggest sale of the year for up to 42% off with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com slash the bulwark to unlock their best deals of the year.

Support our show and check them out at h-e-x-c-l-a-d.com forward slash the bulwark. Bon Appetit. Let's eat with Hexclad's revolutionary cookware. Happy cooking and happy Thanksgiving. I was reading one of your anti-Jones Act polemics about the ports and the overregulation of the ports. This is in maybe an area where smart, small government conservatism can still exist. As I was reading the article, I'm happy to hear you riff about that if you want, but

it also made me wonder if Trump called you up tomorrow and said, okay, or Elon Musk called you and said, I want to get rid of the stupidest things that we have in our government, a couple of really particularly pernicious rules or regulations. I was wondering what you would have picked. Well, the Jones Act, which I won't bore your listeners with, which restricts to certain kinds of ships what we can, goods that can be carried between American ports. That would start the buy American provisions would be part of them. A radical simplification of the tax code. I mean, if these guys were really radical, they could try and say, let's get rid of the

income tax and have a consumption tax. That would be worth considering. I mean, that would be regressive, no? That doesn't give you any doubt? You can fiddle it in lots of ways to make it less regressive, but I don't particularly mind regressive taxes. The title of a very famous book about 60 years ago was called The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation. I know this is where I might have gone fully native now, that Trump might have

caused a reaction in me, but here in Louisiana, we have a we've increased the sales tax and cut the income tax by another percent. And I'm thinking, I don't know, I'd rather not have that extra couple grand and not make people pay extra few cents on their coke or on their orange juice or whatever. Is that right? Am I a hopeless progressive now? No, no, no.

That's well, the conservative catechism is more elastic than that. So you won't be excommunicated for that. But the one thing that the Trump administration might do, which is take on the most wicked, I use such language, sparing, the most wicked force in American life are the teachers unions. And the best thing that can be done, and enormous progress has been made in the last five, ten years, to spread school choice everywhere. Arizona under Governor Doug Ducey, good Republican, has really shone the way, but other states are not far behind. Universal school choice is the best thing we could do

for the United States. I do think, sir, that the Trump administration is gonna challenge that notion, and I think that they will find some more wicked forces within us, though I don't necessarily disagree with the policy recommendation. I'm concerned about the wickedness ahead. Oh, and I ended a little happier note, though. You wrote this in 1991 about happiness. Politics is not crucial to the principal

ingredients of happiness. Cheerful children, feisty friends, fulfilling work, and a strong bullpen were the things that you said were crucial. Many of our listeners, I think, are struggling on this point right now, not letting politics impact their happiness. So I'm just wondering if you'd like to revise and extend those remarks with 33 more years of wisdom. Not really. Look, a good citizen worries about the country, and there's much to worry about here.

But as I say, protectionism and all the rest is going to refute itself. The Democrats have learned just the high risk of crossing certain red lines and the sensibility of the American people. Donald Trump worries about trade deficits. I have a chronic and incurable trade deficit with my barber. Every four weeks, I'd buy a haircut from her and she never buys anything from me. Somehow it works out. And we need to have a little more faith in the somehow it works out of life because this

extraordinarily complicated world we live in. This enormously complicated economy that requires of us what Hayek called epistemic humility. Don't mess with this complicated thing that you're gonna get burned. So the great hope for conservatism is, and it's a huge one, conservatism is true. It works, and the alternatives don't work. So we're going to come out of this. But for the minority of people who read op-ed pieces, what I do,

it's a self-selected minority. Most Americans don't read newspapers. Most newspaper readers don't read the op-ed pages. But what that means is we have a small, self-selected, intellectually upscale audience of people whose mental pantry shells are stocked with opinions and facts and worries and judgments. It's a minority conversation, but worth having because salient minorities propel history. So for those who you were talking about who are depressed and whose life is under a gray cloud because of what American electorate has done, get out and go to work. Democracy rests on persuasion, but persuasion means that on opinion, it's shiftable sand. Go out and shift the sand, change the opinions. I've been doing it for 50 years and I'd be hard put to name a column of my five or six thousand that's made a big difference. But

what you do is you keep hoping that the cumulative effect somehow matters. You said your great hero is Madison. You've referenced him several times in our half hour. Might you leave us with a favorite Madison quote or passage? We see throughout our system the process of supplying by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives. Federalist 51. And in Federalist 10, he brought off a revolution in democratic theory. Before Madison, the few people who had believed that democracy was possible anywhere at any time believed that it had to be in a small face-to-face society like Pericles Athens or Rousseau's Geneva, because the enemy of democracy was factions, a plurality of

interests and warring factions. Madison said, that's exactly wrong. He said in Federalist 10 that you want to have an extensive republic, because there the government can perform its first duty, which is to protect the different and unequal capacities of acquiring property. So you have a saving multiplicity of factions because what is the great danger in politics? Tyranny. To what form of tyranny is a democracy prey? Tyranny of the majority. Solution don't have stable tyrannical majorities.

Have majorities that consist of unstable coalitions of factions that don't last very long and therefore can't be a big danger. There's your short seminar on medicine in a minute and a half. And well, that's actually a good reason for optimism if you think about it. That hopefully the potential tyranny or the wannabe tyrant that we're dealing with now won't be long lasting from that Madisonian framework. George Will, what an honor, what a treat. Thank you so much for coming onto the Bulwark podcast. I enjoyed it. We'll do it again.

All right. We'll see you soon. Everybody else stick around. We got a mail back. How many people in the world did you guess have been forced to flee their homes? A million? 10 million? What if I told you the number was forced to flee their homes? A million? Ten million? What if I told

you the number was 122.6 million? If that were a country, it would be the sixth largest in the world. Every day, people all around the world leave their homes because of violence, ethnic, religious, or territorial conflict, persecution, political upheaval, climate-related events. In 58 countries, people on the move look to Jesuit Refugee Services for Help. JRS is a ministry of the Jesuits, the Catholics you might know best for their schools and universities. Their work in education is especially meaningful here as they operate schools and refugee camps and offer job training, mental health support, and community building programs worldwide

to support those who have had to leave behind everything they know to keep themselves and their families safe. JRS is known for going where others don't and staying long after others have left. Standing in solidarity with those experiencing the impacts of world events others have forgotten about, their mission is to accompany, serve, and advocate for forcibly displaced people so they can heal, learn, and determine their own futures. I've talked about this before, but the Jesuits are great. I got my issues with the Catholics at times that I'm dealing with. You know, I went to Jesuit high school in Denver, Regis, and I think that a big part of my moral

formation happened there, happened at home too. But it happened at Regis. And I think the Jesuits have a view of the world, a view of caring for others and serving others, a view of not putting yourself first, that really speaks to people no matter what your faith background is. We just interviewed George Will today. He called himself a low-impact atheist, I think was his phrase, even a low-impact atheist, I think was his phrase, even for low-impact atheists. The Jesuit worldview works in that kind of small C Catholic sense, the universal. And I got to tell you, I just, maybe it was a little too late in life that I took some of the advice, some of the Jebby teachers I had

gave me, but I definitely hear them inside when I think about the turn into the light that I've made over the last few years. So I recommend the Jebbies. I love this particular effort. The refugee services are our wedding. We asked people to donate to refugee services instead of in lieu of gifts. And it's something I'm passionate about. That's maybe the number one issue I'm the most passionate about. And so if you're looking for something to support this holiday season, I recommend JRS.

So it's been a few weeks. If you want to do something good today, go visit JRS USA online, read some of the stories about their work, and then make a donation or look at other ways of supporting Jairus' work like advocacy or volunteering. To check them out and show the bulwark sent you, visit JRSUSA.org slash bulwark. That's JRSUSA.org slash bulwark. All right, we are back with the mailbag. I cannot say that my answers to the mailbag will be as sanguine and calm as George Wills, but it's nice to have somebody bring that demeanor to this podcast from time to time. I received several emails, not to the actual mailbag account, but from people reaching out wanting to know my genuine thoughts about this. I thought it'd be best to do it on the podcast.

I am going to get back to doing podcasts mailbags though. So if you just email us, bulwarkpodcast at the bulwark.com, we'll start to do this more often. Obviously things got kind of busy with the campaign, you might have noticed. So we cut back on mail back time. So here we go. Thanksgiving mailbag. Buckle up. I'm a 30 year old guy, an Obama millennial lib. Dad voted for Obama, mom for Romney. My parents and I are devastated by the Trump win. My two brothers are not devastated. Older brother's at Thanksgiving,

he's your classic Ivy League educated Ben Shapiro listening anti-woke, anti-anti-Trump conservative who made the transition to solid Trump supporter. The policies, not the personality. He brings in real money, bought a great seven figure house, no economic anxiety. I have trouble talking to him about politics and anything politics adjacent. We used to mix it up, but 2020 got too intense. He said he thinks Biden won, does not believe the election lies, but he told my mom he voted

for Trump again this year and he votes in a swing state. We've lost touch a bit, no outward animosity, but the weirdness is below the surface when we get together, etc., etc. Makes me sad. Yeah, I hear that. The question, how do you suggest I handle Thanksgiving? I'll be with him in a few days and the election will come up. My boomer dad will say something.

Do I say little nothing? Change the topic. Happy warrior? Do I get pretty real? Not sure how to balance the disrespectful devil on one shoulder and the Obama pluralism angel on the other shoulder. I had a similar question from another reader. Do you have tips for engaging with people like my brother who watches fake news or non-news, Patrick Bet David, Joe Rogan, et cetera? He knows literally nothing about what is actually happening but loves to instigate discussions.

He then shuts down and goes into denial anger mode when confronted with counterpoints. I'm actually skipping Thanksgiving with him this year for that reason, but have many other meals ahead. All right, I just want to start here. This is hard. And it's hard, everybody's dealing with it at some level. It's different than it was in the past for younger listeners.

It wasn't always like this. And here's what I think that is. Because in the Trump era, I think that there really a moral dimension to how we view politics has really developed. And there were some people who had very strong, deeply held views about politics throughout all of history and there were moral elements to it. But kind of in the modern era, there was a period of time where you felt like your family

or your friends, somebody might have bad ideas or mistaken views and that that was okay. It didn't necessarily mean that they were a bad person. You just disagreed. And that's gotten hard in the Trump years. And whether or not we want to admit it or say it, a lot of us have kind of concluded that at some deep level, the people that we disagree with, the one for Trump, don't just have bad views, like they are bad at some level.

You know, to get into a little therapy talk here, one of the things you go through when you're dealing with your own issues as I have is there's this difference in definition between guilt and shame, right? Guilt is this feeling that you have done something bad. Well, shame is this kind of sense that you are bad at some deep level. And this is kind of like the external version of that,

right, like rather than feeling like somebody made a bad choice, you're feeling like that they have, that there's something deeper there. That kind of changes the relationship naturally. I could change how you view people. I don't know that there's anything that I can say that will like fix that, right? You can't trick yourself into not thinking that.

And so what I can say is this, is that fundamentally we all are sinners. We just are. Like we all have bad impulses, bad thoughts, we've all made bad actions. Writing off somebody you love over this fucking asshole that's going to be the president, like doesn't really serve you. Like it doesn't serve them and it doesn't really serve anybody. It doesn't do anything of value. And it doesn't mean you have to let them off the hook or change your views about them.

But it does mean that kind of reframing it in your head in the context of there are certain flaws that you look past in friends in your life, you know, and other family members. It's not like everybody that voted for Kamala Harris is a fucking angel, you know, but you rationalize it, right? You look past it. You look at the good traits. I went through this when I was coming out with family that didn't react well to it. You know, I was resentful and bitter and like thought bad thoughts about them. And that didn't serve me. And I don't, I got past that. And it's been a lot healthier to get past it. I have close family right now that are going through the same Thanksgiving thing as these questioners. How much or whether at all they see their close loved ones is being affected by their political support.

And it makes me sad. And it is not the right approach, even though it might feel right. Because cutting people off over this or blocking yourself off from them emotionally is just the worst of bad options. I want to caveat something here. I'm talking about actual loved ones. You know, if you have an uncle Rufus who's an asshole that you're never that close to, you can feel free to let Rufus go. But for brothers, for friends, for people that you're close to. My advice is not going to be that satisfying, but here it goes. Try to find other things to talk about. Reminisce, talk about sports, watch football, ask them about some other part of their life, get them talking. They've got to have other interests. Ask them about work, ask them about their dating life, ask

them about whatever. Pick their brains. You know, they have to have other things that they like to talk about. If, you know, your boomer's dad or whoever it was and the questioner forces the conversation, having a little argument and then cooling off after, that's not the worst thing. Okay. That's fine. We all, that all happens. We've, I've had, I've been there.

As long as you're not saying things that you're gonna regret having a little arguments. Okay It's better than not Engaging, you know what else is better than not engaging? Just sitting together and being together and eating And being a little bit more distant than you'd wish That is melancholy for sure

That is melancholy for sure. That is not probably what you hoped for that relationship. And that is there's a disappointment there. There's a loss there, but still you're together. And the alternative is going to lead to regret. You don't need to compound your torment by adding something you'll regret on top of it. One last thing, speaking from experience, less might be more when it comes to alcohol if things are really fraught. I know that there's a gag about how you're going to be home, you're going to be drinking,

you're going to be having wine, going to deal with your family members. That might be right if it's like a low-level disagreement and frustration, but if it's deep-seated disagreement and anger, less is more when it comes to alcohol. So, happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Enjoy that. For all of you that are blessed and not have to deal with this. Appreciate that blessing and savor it because this stuff comes for all of us. My other question that I wanna get to, which is very relevant for everybody right now. Do you have advice on how to develop a healthy media diet?

I appreciate your conversation with Sam Harris and your reflection on your own Twitter obsession. I'm a fellow political obsessive with TDS, but I had to take a break after the election. I went cold turkey for a week and then I jumped back in. I wish I didn't have to, but as a concerned citizen, I have to devote some brain space to Donald Trump for the next four years. How do you recommend staying informed without going insane? Okay, for starters, you're listening to this podcast. That's great. I appreciate it. You don't have to. If you need a break from it, I get it. But by listening to a daily politics podcast, you're pretty up to speed on what's happening in politics already. There's not a whole lot you need

to absolutely add on top of it. I would recommend newspapers and actual news as a supplement. There's certain things I'm not covering, policy stuff, local stuff that's happening in your community. I'll look to my husband as a model. He's totally cut off social media, political social media, and replaced it only with Apple News. I don't really love the Apple News interface myself, but it works for him.

Another option is picking a couple of newspapers, supporting actual journalists that you like, and reading their hard news outlet, and not just reading opinions. I think that is useful. A newsletter might be right for you. And I think that is a perfectly healthy balance. There is not necessarily a need to do that much more than that. I'm going to say this next thing with a caveat that I am an MSNBC political analyst. I appreciate the folks at MSNBC for supporting me. And as far as cable TV is concerned, if you like a show, great. I'm going to still go on Nicole Wallace twice a week. If you like Nicole Wallace and you feel like that's a good vessel for you to get info,

watch Nicole Wallace. If you like Alex Wagner or Chris Hayes or watch them. If you like Jake Tapper, he's great. Caitlin Collins, whatever. I don't know about that show on CNN where they do the panel where they're all yelling at each other. I only see the clips of Scott Jennings yelling at random libs. I'm not sure that that's that nourishing to you. So I don't know if that would be the one that I would pick. sure that that's that nourishing to you. So I don't, I don't know if that would be the one that I would pick the host of that. Abby Phillips seems great, but the show format, not for me, but I'd say this about TV consumption and it's related to the social media consumption, passive consumption of this, you know, having whatever the most recent horror is of Donald Trump just thrust upon your face, kind of unwillingly,

or you know, as a second order thing while you're doing other stuff. It doesn't seem that healthy to me. And it seems like a lot of people do that, you know. I like to have sound on in the house. I don't know, I don't like silence. So I have records and music I play or sports. Some people have news just like kind of on in the background. I think that's probably unhealthy for the next little bit. And part of it is JVL wrote about this in the triad, just about a way to process Donald Trump that I'm trying to work on here on this podcast is to get upset about things that happen, to cover things that happen, not to wrap yourself around things that may happen or that he's threatening

or that he said or that he whatever. That might be a good rubric as well for focusing on things that are actually happening. That's what I'm going to try to do on this show. So unfortunately, I don't actually have the benefit of being able to take this advice that I'm giving everybody. So maybe I'm a little bit of a hypocrite, but in order to do the show, do it well, I need to consume things. It's my job. But put that burden on me. Let me listen to Steve Bannon and watch Fox when I'm in hotel rooms and suffer through social media to know what's happening out there. And I will filter it for you. And you'll get the stuff that you need to know or that's funny. We can get a laugh out of them or that's scary.

In the meantime, read things that are reported and, you know, find other, if there's somebody else, like I said, if there's another show, if there's a show that you like, consume that. And I think that's probably a that you like, consume that. And I think that's probably a good starting place for all this. So, you know, trusted sources, things that aren't inflaming you. This is going to be a marathon, not a sprint. And there's a bigger world out there. So go and enjoy it. Everybody, I've got one more podcast

tomorrow before the Thanksgiving break. Very excited about that. There'll be much Pete Hegseth chat on tomorrow's podcast. You guys know how much I love talking about Pete Hegseth. So please come and hang out with me, especially if you're worried about hanging out with your family. I'll be here and we'll see you all back here tomorrow. Peace. Peace! The Bullork Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.