The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Trump, Tariffs and Israel with James Kirchick

Episode Date: June 28, 2024

Noam Dworman and Periel Aschenbrand are joined by James Kirchick, journalist for the New York Times and bestselling author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington. 

Welcome to Buy From The Table, the official podcast for the world-famous comedy cellar. I am Terri Elf, the producer and host. Here we have Ellen Jarman, owner and host of Live from the Table. A very special guest today. Her guest is a great writer, a great writer, a great author. He was also the writer for the Barry Weiss roast. I roasted her, yes. And you helped me with my roast. I did help you.

And they were very, very funny jokes. Thank you. Were you there? No, but you sent it to me. I sent you my... There is a tape of it somewhere. Do you hate that I wrote the funny joke? I couldn't believe it.

Okay. Max, is this empty mic in the shot? No. No? Okay. So, welcome, Jamie. Thank you, Noam. One of my favorite people ever.

Ditto. And I don't know. What do you want to talk about? We just had Elizabeth Spears on. Inspired. Screaming and yelling. Will this be the same episode that we're on? No. Am I coming after her?

Will listeners have heard her before they hear me? Not necessarily. Okay. Do you want them to? Well, I have a lot of things to say about that. But maybe we don't need to get into it. We don't need to get into it. You can say whatever you want.

One of the things she accused me of. Sort of a post-show wrap-up, you know? One of the things she accused me of was never or barely ever speaking to liberals and stuff. And I told her, and she was like, listen, I prefer speaking to liberals, people I disagree with. When I have somebody like Jamie Kirchick on,

I agree with on so many things. Like, well, what are we going to talk? Yeah, you're right, Jamie. Yeah, you're right, Noam. I know, you're right, Jamie. Yeah, absolutely. But one thing she said was that there aren't enough... She said that liberals don't go on your show.

And she said that it was because they look at the list of guests who you have, and they're so tilted towards the right that they don't go on, whereas I think they don't go on for the reason is that liberals, far more than people on the right, don't want to argue with people who disagree with them. And that is something that I have witnessed and believed in since I was in college 20 years ago. Where it was very, where if you look at the Yale political union, the left-wing parties, the left-wing students were much smaller than the right-wing ones. And that's just the case on university campuses. It's the case, I mean, look what happened at the New York Times when they tried to publish an op-ed by a senator.

Cotton. Yeah. I mean, look what happened there. So they can't even take that. So I just, yes, are there right wing conservatives who are intolerant and want to shut down other people's speech? Absolutely. Of course there are. But it's not even comparable to the size or the influence of the people on the left who have little tolerance for views that diverge from their own. You're 1,000% right, because I wish I'd thought of this when she was here. We had this problem from day one when the podcast started, when Stephen Colabria used to book it for me.

I remember he came to me very disillusioned because he was quite a liberal himself. He's like, the liberals don't want to talk? He felt embarrassed that his crowd were hiding under the table, where he could call up almost any conservative who wrote anything. Like, sure, I'll come on. Even people, well, whatever, very important people were ready to argue. So yeah, this is something cultural in them. I think it's that if you're center-right or even centrist, and you go to these elite schools that produce all the people who write for the newspapers and are in this business that we're in, the ideas business, if you're center-right or even centrist, you can't avoid coming into contact and arguing with people that you disagree with because you're in that environment already. You're in a liberal

world where everyone presumes that everyone else agrees with them on all these issues. And so when I was a student at Yale, and at that point in time, I would have considered myself center-left, but I was not extreme-left. I had to, I mean, a lot of students didn't agree with me, and I had to figure that out. I had to argue with them. I had to hone my arguments better. And that's the case in general. And liberals generally in this business of media and ideas, they grow up in cocoons and they don't have to be challenged for their views. And what about the fact, because I know this goes on with me, whenever I hear something,

like I read Friedman, I wanted to talk to you about Tom Friedman's columns, and certain arguments come to my mind. And my first instinct is like, shut up, Noam. You know, you can't possibly know what you're talking about. So there's always this urge that I want to speak to someone on the other side, because that's the only way I have of testing my arguments. If they don't have an answer for me on the podcast, then I guess there was no answer. And this is very important to me. I'm pretty sure it's the same with you. I want to be right.

Not I want to win. I want to know that the things I believe hold up, that they're the smartest and the most defensible positions. Not that they might, in retrospect, turn out also to be wrong, but based on what we know, that this is the most defensible position that I can have. And the only way you can do that is by testing it against people who don't agree with you. Yes. That's the only way. And why don't they have that instinct to interrogate their own positions? Is it because in some way they know that they don't have good answers to the other side's arguments? I think what we've seen over the past eight years

since Donald Trump is that liberals were very cocooned. I was cocooned. I didn't see Donald Trump coming. I was very opposed to him. I'm still quite opposed to him, but I was much more, my view, I'll give you an example. I wrote a column, September 2016. Do you remember when Hillary said

that half of Trump's supporters could fit into a basket of deplorables? Very famous, infamous statement. I wrote a column where I said, Hillary Clinton's wrong about this. It's more than half. It's almost 90%. That's what I wrote. I know your style.

And I posted this on Facebook and on Twitter. And I got so many attaboys and there you go and likes and whatever. I look back on that now and I'm ashamed of it. Because not only was it wrong, it was also just like bad political analysis. I don't think, I think a lot of liberals in this country are still

stuck in that view of Trump and Trump supporters. Now this is interesting. That's what Russiagate was, by the way. Russiagate was a way to explain away how this man became president, right? It's not that we did anything wrong. It's not that liberal policies over the past 30 years have led to a situation in which a demagogue like this becomes president of the United States.

No, no, no. Vladimir Putin, 5,000 miles away, pressed a button, bots on Twitter, the meeting in Prague with Michael Cohen, that whole mythological fantasy that they constructed. That was a way for them to, for Hillary personally, for her to absolve herself and her campaign of blame for what was, I think it's fair to say, the worst run campaign, presidential campaign in American history. Rather than own up to that, it's just easier to say, well, they're all a bunch of deplorables. They're a bunch of racists and they've been brainwashed by Russian propaganda. And a lot of them still believe that. They still genuinely believe that. Now, how have you changed? What's your epiphany been? Why do you see it differently, and why did you see it differently back then? My epiphany was that I actually went out and talked and listened to people who supported Donald Trump, which is something I did not do. Even though I'm a journalist, I went to the RNC.

I just avoided doing that. And what'd you learn? I learned that they had a variety of reasons to support him and that they were sincerely held and that they were not necessarily racist. It was, we really do want to close the border, or we want less immigration, right? And they were willing to overlook things that I considered

intolerable. They saw his rhetoric as rhetoric. And I've come now to see a lot of the things that in 2016 I was afraid of as being mere rhetoric, if I could say that. And then there were external things that happened that also made me much more suspicious of the left and liberals and Democrats than I had been. I mean, I know this is true for a lot of people, maybe not for you, Perriel, but the Kavanaugh case, that to me was just a complete and utter immoral McCarthyite smear. And seeing that happen,

I had thought that the Democrats and the left had the moral high ground in this political scene. And I watched that and I'm like, I can't trust these people. These people are ruthless. They'll destroy a man's life for political power. And I can't tolerate. And then as the Russiagate thing unfolded,

what they were accusing Trump of was a literal projection of what they had done. It was Hillary Clinton in her campaign who paid a foreign spy, Christopher Steele, a British national, to compile information from Russian nationals. That's right. That was all fake. None of it's been proven, by the way, still today. So she was engaging in a foreign influence campaign. She was paying foreign actors to involve themselves in our election, which is exactly what they accused Donald Trump of. So I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

on that until the Mueller report came out. And by that point, I'm just like, this is, I don't want to use the word hoax, because there was some, you know, there were some strange things that went on. And, you know, Donald Trump's rhetoric on Vladimir Putin in Russia was absolutely abhorrent, okay? I disagree with him on all those things. But that's a much different category of a problem than someone actually being, you know, as a New York Magazine cover story said, alleged, that Donald Trump was recruited into the KGB in 1987 when he visited the Soviet Union. I've never really thought about the following question, whether Hillary knew it was fake or not. But presuming that she didn't know it was fake, if you read the Steele dossier, it talks about getting information from high-level people within the Kremlin.

Which is maybe true, but here's the thing. They knowingly gave information, like the piss tape. They knew that if that was published, and it probably would be, because nothing is not published in America, right? They knew that someone like Ben Smith, who's a friend of mine, would publish that, right? They gave him crap that they knew would infect the political bloodstream of this country.

So they were actually acting, and I think they were sincere. I think Hillary was sincere. I think her campaign people were sincere. But they were unwitting agents of, they were exactly what they accused Trump of being. They were unwitting agents of Kremlin influence operating. Let me just make the point, because this is one of the things I debated with Neil Kachal about, is that one of the big raps on Trump was that he

had, or that his son had that Trump Tower meeting where some Russians offered them information. This is exactly what Hillary did. And they actually didn't get any information. They didn't take it. There was no information actually to be had. But Hillary had a dossier which she paid for, which she hired people to go out and not get offered.

This was, see, the way the Trump Tower meeting was, it was a cold call. Hey, can we meet with you? We have some information. So that's one way to get it. She actively sought it. The other way is I'm going to hire you to go talk to the Kremlin, see what you can dig up on it. And somehow that was astounding to me. But getting back to the deplorables,

it struck me at the time that, you know, in the old days, you're old enough to remember, I think, that Michael Moore, when he hit the public's eye, he did that documentary, was it Roger and Me? Which was championing the plight of the Trump voter.

Yes, absolutely. This was the darling of the Democratic Party. Right. And over time, that entire group of people, I think, had rightly felt and interpreted that the party no longer cares about them. As a matter of fact, the party looks down on them. Yes. And you can get very harsh about it.

If they have some kind of dumb beliefs that they believe they're made fun of. They cling to their guns and religion. If black people, or minorities, have some dumb beliefs that are culturally positive, this is explained and understood. And sometimes we'll even pay lip service to their truth, right? Right.

And they're like, fuck this. Yeah. And then NAFTA and all the economic anxiety. And I haven't even sorted out in my own mind what's the right argument about what we should and shouldn't do vis-a-vis manufacturing, all that stuff. But one thing is for sure, this demographic group of people was negatively impacted by the way the world changed. And they saw the Democrats as just bringing the immigrants. And like, what about us? Right?

So this is all real. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm in a weird, tough spot because I generally agree with that neoliberal politics. Like, I support immigration. I support NAFTA. I support free trade. Yeah.

But I can totally understand where these people come from. And I think the problem with the Democrats is that they were not empathetic towards them. They were openly contemptuous of these people. Learn to code. They actually said that. Pick up and move. Pick up and move to somewhere where there's jobs. So the vote for Trump was in many ways a big F-you to the establishment. I remember during NAFTA and all the run-up to it, I supported it because the people that—

It was the consensus. It was the neoliberal consensus. From the National Review to Bill Clinton, everybody said this was the right thing. I do remember, though, Pat Buchanan being very against it. Labor unions were opposed to it too but pat buchanan who who was his arguments made sense to me and you know i was not disposed to like pat buchanan no not at all and i remember saying you know what and he was predicting that this was going to have this terrible impact on the white working class he didn't use the word white but on the working class and much of what he said turned out to be correct absolutely

and this is a thing we can maybe say yes even though that was correct it's still the right policy because you can't you can't still produce you know uh buggies horse and buggy like the world right yes but they never uh admitted at the time or even since that you know we we got it wrong we told you his argument was wrong and never going to happen. No, we didn't get that right. And if we had admitted that his argument was right... Or we acknowledged it, yes. Maybe we wouldn't have gotten it

through. Or maybe we would have come up with better alternatives to deal with the repercussions, the serious economic repercussions that come from free trade. And there would have been jobs programs or training programs or whatever. And I think they did implement those,

but they clearly were not successful. Yeah, and there probably is nothing that can be done in a worldwide economy. What do you feel about tariffs? I oppose them generally, absolutely. And labor unions? I support private labor unions. Labor unions in the private sector.

In the public sector, I'm like FDR. I'm very opposed to public sector. Because I heard James Surowiecki. Surowiecki. Surowiecki. He was making an argument about tariffs, which I know is the smart person's argument, that they ended up just raising the price of goods

and making things more expensive. Yes, for the consumer, yeah. And the first thing I thought of, and even if it might, he didn't say this, but of course it- It raises the wages of the people who make the protected products, yes. It might actually save some companies in America, right?

Yeah. And then I thought, well, labor unions raise the price of everybody's goods. You have to have labor unions in a fully functioning free market economy. Workers have to be at the bargaining table. If you're working in a factory, you can't negotiate your contract. Every single guy in the factory line can't negotiate his own contract. You have to have them all together so that they can make the best case for themselves and be able to at least match or try to match the power of the corporation that they're working for.

It's totally different in the public sector because then you have public employees demanding money from other government employees who they just pay off with all these ridiculous pension schemes and retiring at 50. We can all look at this. Public sector unions are ridiculous. Yes. They're totally different in my mind. Riveting as tariffs, maybe.

I have a question. My point is that because we think labor unions serve somehow the greater good, we still embrace them, or some people do, I don't. But despite the fact that they do exactly the damage, I think, that we claim tariffs do. They raise the price higher, and it's inflationary, and everybody ends up paying more money, and they also raise wages, which tariffs would do also. So teachers shouldn't have a union?

No, that's public employees. Yeah, I know that. I don't know if they should legally be able to have a union. That's a separate question. They should be opposed in pretty much everything that they demand, is my view. I oppose them. When there's a negotiation,

I generally oppose what public employee unions demand. Whereas in private firms, like if you're the union at Amazon, I support them. Because Amazon is a giant private company, and these people are working for them, and they should be able to. So how do teachers get paid more, assuming you think that teachers should get paid more? I don't know if they should get paid more. Interesting. Okay. That's not my question, though. My question is what are we supposed

to do about this upcoming election? Good question. Wow, thank you. I've decided I'm writing in John Fetterman. And if they let me do vice president, I'll put in Richie Torres. No, but seriously, I think that's actually a fantastic idea. It's a great ticket, right? It's a great ticket.

It's a fantastic ticket. But it's a dodge. A man can dream. Right, yeah, yeah. Okay, but... I'm a journalist. I'm not going to reveal... No, no, no.

I'm not asking you to reveal who you're voting for. I'm asking you to... Assess? Tell me, as somebody who has always loathed Donald Trump

and has always been quite far left wing. Max, put on the AC. It's getting hot. Go ahead. Go ahead. And then being really wary of this anti-Semitic rhetoric that has really infiltrated, it seems, every sector of our lives from schools to camps to universities. The publishing industry. That's my last piece for The New York Times was about that. Everything. Yeah.

So. Well, here's the thing. I'm. There's so many ways to answer this question. If Joe Biden loses, there's the threat that the far left progressive anti-Semitic wing will declare that as a victory. Because they'll say, oh, look, you genocide Joe. He wouldn't listen to us. And the American people rejected him. Now, obviously, were they rejecting Joe Biden because of that? Or were they rejecting him because they wanted someone more pro-Israel? Right. So that's not part of it. Or neither.

But I'm saying him losing could be the last final death knell of the centrist Democrat, right? So that's one reason, perhaps, to support Joe Biden. Another reason to support Joe Biden is that if Donald Trump wins, he will radicalize the left even more, right? Because then it's like, we're under a fascist again, and how do we fight fascism? We got to, you know, employ violence. And so that's also, he will dramatically increase the polarization to the extent we can still be more polarized if Donald Trump wins. Is it true that the Democratic Party is not a friend of the Jews? I would not say that at all.

You would not say that? No, no, no, no, no. There's a wing that isn't, but let's be honest. What are we talking about? I don't know. I'm asking you. Well, look, in the Congress, let's look at the Congress, which is a pretty good barometer of politics. I don't know. AOC is interesting. She's not as bad as the others. Ilhan Omar.

We're really not talking about it. It's maybe 20 people at most. It's most of the people in the progressive caucus. I wouldn't say most. Those people seem to me like they can be very dangerous. They are. They are. But let's look at the other side.

You still have the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are pro-Israel. Now, public opinion is a different question, right? There's a huge difference now on the question of Israel, where the Republicans are now overwhelmingly pro-Israel and the Democrats are, you know, it's hard to tell. Maybe they're 50-50 on it. Whether or not you see that as a barometer of anti-Semitism... I certainly do. Do you not? Well, it depends barometer of anti-Semitism. I certainly do.

Do you not? Well, it depends on how the questions are phrased. I mean, they're not asking, well, they're saying, like, who do you sympathize more with, Palestinians or Israelis? That's usually the question that they ask. That's a false dichotomy in a certain way, I think. I'll bet you didn't know I knew what the word dichotomy meant. I didn't know you knew what the word false meant.

Go ahead. Do you want to go back to tariffs? No, I want to talk about this, but I'm thinking about what he's saying. If public opinion is, if the trend in public opinion of Democratic voters is against Israel. I'll just say this. Then eventually the representatives will. I'll say this, and this is something that most Jews would never want to hear, much less acknowledge. The main font of anti-Semitism in this country is the left.

It's not the right. Of course. It's not. Well, you say of course, but talk to most Jews out there, and they're still holding on to this notion that it's the guys with the white hoods. It's the guys at Charlottesville. That's who we have to be worried about. I'm sorry. Every day since October 7th, there's been at Charlottesville. That's who we have to be worried about. I'm sorry. Every day since

October 7th, there's been multiple Charlottesvilles. Literally every day. Just last week, there was a riot outside an exhibit to the victims of the Nova massacre. People were protesting that. We were there. We had just left.

That's like... Is it only Jews and a couple of Gentiles who see that? I mean, think about how massive Charlottesville was in the national imagination. Joe Biden cited Charlottesville as the reason why he ran for president. Put aside the fact that they lied about, they took Donald Trump's comments about very good people on both sides. They mangled that and they totally misquoted him. To this day, they still refuse to acknowledge what he actually said. Put that aside. very good people on both sides. They mangled that and they totally misquoted him. To this day, they still refuse to acknowledge what he actually said.

But put that aside. Charlottesville was this huge, you know, epical moment in American history. So, like, where's the outrage at the fact that there's been multiple Charlottesvilles every day in the most prestigious halls of this country? At universities and publishing houses and culture and the NGO world is now

increasingly being taken over by this crap. The Ford Foundation is now funding this nonsense. So is anti-Semitism going, is unchecked, is it becoming an acceptable position? I think anti-Zionism is becoming a respectable, and let me finish,

I believe that anti-Zionism is absolutely anti-Semitism. Of course it is. But a lot of people don't see it that way. They need to be educated and they need to... Right, but that's what I'm saying. That's the problem. Yes, right. Like, spray painting...

And what's so difficult about this, Perriel, is that, and what makes the left much more obnoxious and threatening, in my opinion, the right-wing anti-Semites acknowledge that they are anti-Semites. Like, if I went up to David Duke or those schmucks at Charlottesville saying the Jews will not replace us,

it's like, okay, first of all, we're not going to replace your jobs at fucking McDonald's. Okay, don't worry. You're all set. But if I went up to them and said, you anti-Semite, you hate Jews, they'd be, yeah, fuck right I do.

Whereas with these people on the college campuses, you know, in the NGOs, if you were to tell them that, oh, yeah, fuck right I do. Whereas with these people on the college campuses, in the NGOs, if you were to tell them that, oh no, absolutely not, we're anti-Zionist, how dare you conflate criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism, you're desecrating the memory of the six million, and you're blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so they've constructed in their heads this alibi

that they're not anti-Semitic. And that to me, frankly, is much more threatening than a handful of white supremacists. I agree. I'm thinking about what you're saying. And I was going to leave aside now for the fact that I think Trump may be disqualified from anybody's reasonable consideration because he's just such an erratic personality and to have him in charge of, uh, with his finger on the button, maybe no, no, uh, reasoning can, can, uh, sanitize that risk. But leaving that aside, this is always this temptation to play chess in life and strategize. Well,

if I want to defeat them, if I vote for this side, then that, they'll become radicalized. Right. And I think that's often way too clever. There's something about me that says, well, if we want to defeat that movement, the best way to defeat it is to have them lose. If we want to teach the Democratic Party a lesson about flirting and tolerating, like we talked about in the last podcast is Kamani James in Columbia.

Oh, God. Who recited a murderous manifesto to the Colombian faculty. He's from my hometown, Boston. And they did nothing about it. Wasn't he expelled? After the video came out. Yeah, yeah, right. When they interviewed him.

Right, I saw that, yeah. And he said Zionists should die. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They didn't do a thing about it. He went back to class the next day and they buried him. So if we want to make that, to destroy that tolerance, they

need to lose. They need to be whacked in an election. And they need to have... I don't know if... Like in England. With what's happening with Corbyn. So that's the thing. Jeremy Corbyn is not Joe Biden. Jeremy Corbyn is not Joe Biden.

Jeremy Corbyn is a dyed-in-the-wool Jew-hater. Biden is an 82-year-old relic of something the party doesn't represent anymore. Well, I don't know about that. And what I would say is if you want to get back at Kamani James, I'm not sure that voting for Donald Trump is the way to do that, is what I'm trying to say. I don't think the Democratic

Party has become what the Labor Party was, which was absolutely a mass organization that was a movement against the Jews. And they absolutely had to be defeated. Well, we do know one thing. And by the way, that defeat, you're absolutely right, that defeat in Britain absolutely sent a message

that that kind of politics is no longer acceptable. And Corbyn has since been expelled from the party. And a lot of his supporters have been expelled from the party. So I just don't think we're there yet. But why aren't we expelling these rabid anti-Semites from the Democratic Party? Just to say one thing, we do know one thing, and I think it's a very good bellwether if that's the right term.

Chuck Schumer will no longer stand up for Israel as he once did. He gave that terrible speech. Demanding that... He understands the Democratic Party in a granular way way better than you or I do. Rather than try to decide what the Democratic Party

currents are, I prefer just to look at what Chuck Schumer thinks they are. If he thinks it's too risky to be pro-Israel, you know, overly pro-Israel, I read it loud and clear. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Chuck Schumer hasn't been pro-Israel the past couple months.

He gave that speech, which I personally disagree with. And he won't tweet. He's given a lot of speeches that are pro-Israel over the past couple months. He actually gave a great speech on anti-Semitism, if you recall. Before the speech calling for Netanyahu to resign, he gave a very powerful, moving speech on anti-Semitism, if you recall. Before the speech calling for Netanyahu to resign, he gave a very powerful, moving speech about anti-Semitism,

and he specifically called it out on the left, in his own political family. Fair enough, you're right. I may have overstated it. However, if you look at his tweets over the last 10 years... I'm not on Twitter. I'm blissfully unaware of what goes on on Twitter. There is no moral equivalence between Hamas and Islam, and now he's very quiet. He didn't become an advocate for the other side.

Okay, but look at AOC last week. She condemned the protests outside the Nova massacre. And she got a lot of shit for it from a lot of her fans. So I actually give her credit. I do too. She doesn't deserve credit for saying the most obvious thing in the world. She does deserve credit because even if you're late

to the party and you are allowed to amend your position and say the thing that is on the right side of history and humanity and you do get credit for that. I give her credit because anytime a politician says something that they know will bother their constituency, then you're seeing principle. You don't see it that often. And anytime she takes a stand for principle against what she knows is politically expedient, I wish they all did that, right? You've got to give her credit for that.

Well, it's interesting because if you remember when Bill Clinton did that with Sister Soldier, this was a rapper who endorsed killing white people. And she had spoken at the Rainbow Push Coalition speech in Chicago, a convention in Chicago, Jesse Jackson's organization. And Bill Clinton came out and he gave this speech that we still refer to the Sister Soldier speech, where he denounced that kind of anti-white racism in a room full of black people. And some said that he was just doing it to kind of, you know, it was a political move to show that he was different from all the previous Democrats. And he of, you know, it was a political move to show that he was different from all the previous Democrats and he was, you know, trying to get like

white southern voters to support him. It was the right thing to do. The thing now is clearly there's no Democratic politician who could give a speech like that. I mean, if there was a prominent black figure like that who was calling for the death of white people, I have a hard time imagining Joe Biden or another prominent Democrat giving a speech like that, let alone someone who's... Well, I...

The anti-Semitism question here is an interesting one. I mean, if there was... I'm trying to think of, like, if there was a prominent left-wing figure... I mean, look at how they responded to Ilhan Omar. What she said all about the Benjamins? All about the Benjamins. I mean, didn't they try to censure her,

and a lot of Democrats opposed that? Yeah, and then they watered it down to Pacific Islanders. And Pelosi, I can't remember what Pelosi did. I don't think she was a courageous... No, she watered it down to a generic anti-racist thing. And that's just a freshman congresswoman at the time, right? So, I don't know. I think we're so polarized now that they just think purely in political terms, right? It's like, is this going to hurt me with my own side? That's how they think.

Now, what about on more kind of traditionally important matters like foreign policy? We see a lot of things go wrong during the Biden administration that didn't go wrong during the Trump administration. It could be moralization, not causation. Today we saw Putin with a mutual defense pact with North Korea. If I read the headlines right. Do you think this is all a result of bad Biden stewardship?

Not all a result of bad Biden stewardship? Not all a result. I do think we should have been more proactive in helping Ukraine defend itself early on in the war. But I mean, do we think Donald Trump would have been better on this? I don't I don't think so. Well, Biden, what Biden did that. I don't know if I know enough about this to have a strong opinion, but maybe you do. It's apparent that we were ready to give Ukraine a lot of weaponry and a lot of technology and a lot of intelligence. But when it looked like Putin was trying to figure out whether or not he should invade, all we told Putin was, well, if it's a minor incursion, we'll do anything. And if it's a major incursion, there are going to be economic consequences. That was Biden who said that himself, wasn't it? But that's the state of...

Well, the incursion seemed to be a rift, but the general statement about economic consequences was written. And from Putin's point of view, obviously he said, I'm going in because if economic consequences is all they've got, I'll take the economic consequences for a few years while my oil prices go sky high. This seems like a huge blunder.

I mean, there's the argument that, you know, like the madman theory and that no one knew what Trump was going to do and Putin didn't want to test him. That's a counterfactual. We won't know, right, because he went ahead and did it. But Biden did actually communicate. He did. That was a big mistake. You can come in. Yeah, that was like Dean Acheson right before the Korean War. Oh Biden did actually communicate. He did. That was a big mistake. You can come in. Yeah, that was like Dean Acheson

right before the Korean War. He explicitly said that the American defense perimeter in East Asia would not include South Korea. That's right. Good memory. Well, I wasn't alive at the time. And that kind of gave the green light to the North Koreans and the Russians

to help them invade South Korea. It was similar to that. I think Putin green light to the North Koreans and the Russians to help them invade South Korea. So it was similar to that. I wouldn't – look, I think Putin was determined to do this regardless of what Joe Biden said. I mean, this goes back a long time with Putin and Russians in general where they see Ukraine as a part of Russia. He was whipping that country up into a war frenzy. I mean, don't forget that he invaded – he invaded, not officially, he invaded in 2014. Not with like uniform, yeah, they annexed Crimea, which was the first forcible annexation of territory

on the European continent since World War II. And then he sent in all these little green men, right? So they weren't, you know, uniform Russian soldiers, but they were Russian. But Crimea was so Russian, he had no reason to expect any kind of war, right? Oh, you mean within the territory? Yes, it was predominantly

pro-Russian. And it had always been Russian. Well, they did and they have done a lot of brutal stuff that you don't see. They've gone off and they've killed a lot of leaders of the Tatar community, the Muslim Tatars who were sent to gulags under Stalin,

and now Putin was taking out their leadership. Lots of opposition voices had to flee, or they were killed by the Russians. It wasn't like an all-out guerrilla warfare-style situation. But yeah, there was a lot of brutality involved in that referendum and their continued occupation of that territory. We've seen that when America has a weak vibe, that bad things seem to start happening to America and the world.

Yeah, and the world. And pulling out of Afghanistan, as we did in kind of a desperate way. That was a disaster, absolutely. But again, Trump probably would have done the same thing. He was prepared to do that. He was prepared to pull out. It was only a matter of time. Well, Trump has said a lot of things that he never followed through.

But I don't think Trump would knowingly allow America to look weak and powerful. Yes, I'll say this. With Trump, it's not because of any kind of ideological basis. It's like what he thinks is going to make him look good. With Biden, he was determined from when he was vice president. And even before that, I think, when he was in the Senate, he never really believed in the Afghan mission. So he was determined to do that. That is on him.

That is on him in a way that I don't think it would have. Trump would have. Look, the buck stops at the president, right? But I'm just trying to say that, yes. Biden overridden this. Biden was determined to do this. He was known, we all knew it, he was very public about it, that he wanted to get out of Afghanistan.

He didn't think it was worth it. Pull out no matter what. Trump, there's no kind of deep thinking about. And there's a consistent worldview here, which underestimates the bad guys. They thought the Taliban, I think Blinken actually said,

well, if the Taliban wants world legitimacy, they'd better start treating their women better. Yes, and this is their attitude towards Iran, beginning with Obama. And this is their attitude towards Hamas. And Hamas, yes. But can you imagine they really said, well, I'm sure the Taliban wants some legitimacy in the world,

so I fully expect they won't go back to treating women. This is crazy talk, right? And it's not nice to say because I think you agree. Here's the thing. Trump wouldn't say that. Trump's response would be, I don't care what they do to Afghan women. That's what he would say. I don't know.

He wouldn't. He wouldn't say that. He wouldn't say something as stupid as what Blinken said. He wouldn't say that because I think Ivanka would never let him say something like that. Part of Trump's simplistic worldview is that organizations like the Taliban and Hamas, he hates them. Absolutely. He will never take their side. No matter how he feels about Israel. Yes.

Those are the baddest guys there are. He's a Jacksonian in the American foreign policy tradition, which is basically, you know, don't touch us and you're fine. If you know, fuck out, find out. Fafo, right? Fuck around, find out. Fuck around, find out. Fafo. That's kind of like the Jacksonian spirit.

This is a guy of the Muslim ban. This is a guy who talked about them carrying cards. If he's a- Don't call it a Muslim ban, please. It was a ban on all citizens from certain, seven predominantly Muslim countries. I'm using the language of opponents. You want another

example of when I began to think that this Trump thing was not or where I began to change my mind on the political dynamic in America was the first weekend of his presidency when he implemented that and all these NGOs came out and called this policy,

which by the way was based on Obama administration. The delineation of certain countries. The delineation of certain countries at a higher terrorism risk. Yes. He just implemented what the Obama administration was gathering, okay? They started calling it a Muslim ban. And I'm like, this is plainly not a ban on Muslims entering America. But now you take that world view, the Biden's worldview, that was, you know, Charlie Brown kicked the Hamas,

you know, tried to kick the football, the Lucy Hamas that the Taliban were holding. And now you fast forward to 2024, really. And I feel bad saying this because I think all of us are very appreciative to how Joe Biden stood by Israel for a long time and still does in a way, in a way that Barack Obama never would have. Absolutely. Right. However,

I do feel that there are hostages who didn't make it because the Biden policy was to take the pressure off of Hamas to sit and talk because somehow they thought they could reach Hamas in the same way they thought they could reach the Taliban. That same irrational... I actually think it's worse than that. Go ahead. It's worse than that, which is that they believe in the Obama administration. Delusional is what I meant to you, not irrational.

It's worse than that. It's not delusional, actually. It's very straightforward according to their vision of what the Middle East should be, which is what Obama's vision of the Middle East should be, which should be allowing Iran to have equities, as they said, in various countries in the Middle East and not being antagonistic towards Iran. And basically America leaving the region

and not strengthening our alliance structure between the Sunni Arab countries with Israel and America, that's like the alliance structure, and basically allowing the Iranians and the Saudis to sort of figure it out amongst themselves. And Hamas is an Iranian proxy, right? And so going after them will just upset the Iranians. And we don't want to upset the Iranians, right? Because we need them somehow. We need them to make this new Middle East vision that we have work. So absolutely, in Biden's point of view, his or his administration, it makes perfect sense to go easy on Hamas and to keep them in

power, right? And that's where fundamentally the U.S. administration and the Israeli government are at odds because Israel, and I would say most of the American people, we know this because of polling, want to destroy Hamas. And the administration doesn't. So in a cold, hard... And that's what all this talk about, you know, a post-war situation. We need to figure out what the post-war situation... No, we don't. We need to win...

Israelis need to win the war. And then you can figure out what the post-war situation is. But until the war is won— I agree with that. So in your opinion, in the most cold-hearted way, the most frank conversations that they might have in the White House, do they say, we know this is going to be bad for the hostages, but it's in America's interest— No, this actually would be good for the hostages, but it's in America's interest. No, this actually would be good for the hostages because if they do get some sort of ceasefire,

then presumably the hostages would be let out, or some of them would be let out. That's delusional. You don't think they would be let out as part of a deal with Hamas? Well, the only way Sinwar seems to be going to release those hostages is if Israel agreed to let him stay in power.

Right, and that's what the administration wants, I think, at the end of the day. But there was no way Israel was going to agree to that. Maybe now they will. Back then. The administration is trying to make that happen. Why do you think Chuck Schumer gave that speech? Because they want to do a color revolution in Israel. They want to oust Netanyahu from power.

They're very open about that. And they want to replace him with someone who's more amenable to their vision of the Middle East. That's what they want. Which includes keeping Sinwar in power? Yes, yes. Or not Sinwar, Hamas. Whether it's him or someone else doesn't matter.

I mean, that seems delusional. That Israel would allow that? Yeah. Well, America's the biggest, you know, without America, Israel can't survive militarily. I agree with him. I don't think that's delusional. What I thought was delusional, and maybe I was wrong in the way I interpreted it, was the notion that the way to get the hostages out was to relax the military pressure.

When it seems to me the only way to get them out was to ramp up the military pressure because they're going to release them. This is very difficult. This is very difficult to say because what's happening to these hostages is unimaginable. They're living in hell. And what about the 200,000 displaced Israelis in the north? So what I would say, and again, if I was a family of a hostage, I would not be saying this. The war needs to be won. And if the hostages do not get released, I'm sorry, but far more Israelis will die in the future unless the war is finished.

And we know this because Sinwar himself was a prisoner in Israel who was released with 1,000 other Palestinians for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. And what happened after they released him? We got October 7th. So yes, there are 100 hostages left. After an Israeli Jewish doctor performed life-saving surgery on him. Only the Jews, right?

Only the Jews would this happen. Okay. So that's a very difficult reality to have to acknowledge, but I believe it is the reality. You can't let the families of the hostages dictate your foreign policy. I don't think that there is any way for Israel to move forward as a country without the hostages being released. I think it has to be their number one priority. Above defeating Hamas?

No, but I think... So then what if it's one or the other? What's the priority? Look, but I think... So then what if it's one or the other? What's the priority? Look, I would love to get both. I would love for them to somehow do a raid and find the hostages and destroy Hamas. Everyone wants that, obviously. I don't know. Does everyone?

Everyone in Israel. Look, that's the best of both worlds. Who wouldn't want that? But the problem is that to accomplish what I consider to be the primary goal of this war, which is destroying Hamas, like the Nazis were destroyed in World War II, okay, with like Hitler in the bunker shooting himself in the head.

For that to happen, I just think it's very difficult to also at the same time rescue the hostages. I think just from a purely tactical standpoint, that's a very difficult mission. So if you're a prime minister and you decide that I know the hostages are not going to make it or may not make it, but I have to do what I have to do to win the war

for the reason that you said, it's going to be more... It does come with an extra moral responsibility to really have thought it through what the day after is. And I just want to give a caveat. I'm just Jamie Kerchick.

I'm not a military expert. I'm not a politician. I'm not in the Israeliick. I'm not a military expert. I'm not a politician. I'm not in the Israeli cabinet. I haven't looked at the intelligence, right? So take what I said with a grain of salt. But I'm just saying if I were an Israeli citizen, my knowledge of the situation is that there are basically two options. You can, like, surrender and end the war

and get whatever you get back from the hostages. Many of them will be dead. You'll just just getting corpses. It's that or you continue to press on and you risk losing them in order to defeat Hamas. And I think that the second option is the better one. Because if you don't do it, they will be back in 10 years and they will do something.

Maybe it won't be another October 7th. They will do something. Because they're suicidal. They're millenarian suicidal maniacs. The Nazis were not suicidal like this. Hitler was. But most Germans were not. We have a large

portion of the Palestinian population which is supportive of this kind of politics. And that's just a very difficult reality to deal with. And it's, for Europeans especially, it's inconceivable because they live in this post-conflict world where everyone can be negotiated with. Same with the Democrats, too. They're sort of similar, or the left, I should say. They're in a similar headspace, mindspace, where they think they're just conversing with,

you know, like, it's like talking to a Christian extremist or something, you know, like a right-wing Christian. That's what they think that they're dealing with. They think it's just conversing with, you know, it's like talking to a Christian extremist or something, like a right-wing Christian. That's what they think that they're dealing with. They think it's the same thing. It's not. It's not even close. And I think the only way you can deal with these people is to kill them, with the terrorists, is to kill them. There's no negotiating with these people. There's such profound things going on

because the normalization of these tactics, the total inversion of, of international law, which was written to try to, to bring about a more moral quote unquote way of fighting. And for now the bad guys to use these rules as a way, as a sword to defeat the good guys.

The bad guys now take hostages, use human shields, do everything that the rule book says you're not supposed to do. And then the good guys say, well, I guess that wins. So you win. That can't, once that genie's out of the bottle, it won't be put back until we've had enough of it. And at some point there'll be some conflict. We're saying, we're not playing that game anymore.

And then all the death will have to come. giving the order and having these innocent people die, hostages, it's also impossible. I don't know. I'm not an ethicist. I'm not a Jewish ethicist. A rabbi.

You're not a rabbi? You're not a rabbi? I'm not a rabbi. That big Jewish star around your neck might indicate otherwise. But what I've heard, I've listened to a lot of podcasts, and there are religious authorities who say that this is one or the other, and you have to try to rescue people who are being held hostage, but you also have to protect the larger community it's a very difficult i'm not saying that this is an easy choice to make i don't want to leave that impression with you or the listeners that

this is some easy decision to make one of the most difficult decisions you could possibly make i i have not listened to a lot of podcasts but i have worked and continue to work very closely with the Family Hostage Forum and a lot of Israelis. And what I have understood and what I think from, you know, even speaking to some rescued hostages and people who were at the Nova Festival and a lot of other people like that, that the number one priority immediately, I don't know what happens after that, is to get the hostages. Look, if they can do more of these incredible rescue operations

like they did last week, obviously do as many of those as you can. As many are feasible, right? That's the best option. You go in, you get them out. Did the Biden administration fully get behind? I believe that there was intelligence cooperation. No, I mean, in terms of their public statements afterwards

while the world was complaining about... I don't think that they joined in on that, actually. I don't think. I'd have to go back and check. But I don't think the Biden administration joined in on that. I hope not. No. I mean, you know, we had our previous guest, just to make this come full circle,

who was saying that a lot of civilians are dying. And of course, that's... Because she knows, knows she's well versed in the history of urban warfare and what the ratio between civilians to soldiers are. Right. Yes. But my my counterpoint to that was, well, acknowledging, of course, that's a tragedy, is that it becomes an impossible situation when you have Hamas embedded within civilians. Now, I think that what you saw with Noah Arghamani, who has in many ways become the symbol of the hostages who were taken, the girl who was ripped by her hair. Beautiful young girl.

Whose mother was dying or is dying of brain cancer, was living in... A Palestinian journalist's house. And all the family knew about it. Which I kind of say is sort of a sick... Whose father was a doctor. Yes. Who was also living in the house with him. So what the fuck are you supposed to do with that? It's a sick photo-negative image of the righteous of the nations during the Holocaust who rescued Jews in their houses.

It's like the exact opposite of that. He was a journalist for the Palestine Chronicle? And he contributed to Al Jazeera. By the way, you are in a question I asked somebody else once. You're an anti-racial preferences guy, right? You're happy with the Supreme Court decision? Absolutely, yes. So last question about Trump. Now that we survived four years of Trump, now that we know actually

that even on COVID, which seemed to me, I can't believe I'm saying this, it doesn't seem to me any policy he had or any decisions he made actually put us in any worse situation vis-a-vis COVID, except for Operation Warp Speed. Which was a good policy. Which was a good policy, yeah. The only real consequential thing. But we have, he left us with a conservative Supreme Court that got rid of racial preferences, which in my opinion

were going to destroy this country. And we would have had them for the next 50 to 100 years. And I would say the universities are still trying to figure out a way to get around it. They'll try to get around it, but it's illegal. We're already seeing DEI crumble. We're seeing a lot of things crumble from that. Would you go back in time and undo the Trump presidency?

I would not. Okay. I'll let you say that. I wanted to make it easier for you. You have the nerve to do it. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. It's a counterfactual. Other things, bad things happened, good things happened.

I'm saying on balance. Good things would have happened under Hillary, right? I mean, bad things would have happened under Hillary. There's no way for me to... I don't know what Hillary would have done. Well, we know that her Supreme Court picks would have not... But also, there might not have been as many picks, because perhaps some of those conservative justices who retired

would have waited out for the next president, right? Okay, I was presuming... That's also possible. Yeah, that's true. I mean, Scalia died. Right. Who were the others? Kennedy retired.

Kennedy retired. Maybe Kennedy would have stayed. I don't know. But, okay, fair enough. But presuming that it would have been the Supreme Court would have swung that way. I'm just saying that the results of the Trump presidency, we didn't know this prospectively. Sure. Because there were so many risks.

What do you think of January 6th? January 6th is a good reason, especially his reaction to watching it happen, is a good reason not to vote for him now. Absolutely. I think it was many people saw that coming.

Many people predicted that something like that would happen if he became president. Something like that. Some kind of real attack on the democracy. I don't see it. I didn't see as much of an attack. I agree with that. Bill Maher was constantly saying that. Lots of people were saying that. Bill Maher said

Trump wouldn't leave. He didn't. He tried to stay. But he did ultimately leave. That's true. But it's insane that it's even a conversation. I totally agree. And that, to me, is what disqualifies him for president. I find it more disqualifying that he had a strategy to essentially pressure test every 150-year-old law that had never been. Then January 6th, because January 6th, to my mind, as awful as it was, didn't really risk democracy.

It wasn't a coup. It was a riot. They could have occupied the building. It doesn't change. What about shit? But his reaction, as we've heard about it. Support it. And Mr. President, you need to do something.

And not doing anything. Sitting back. While his vice president could have been assassinated. Yeah. Nobody can defend that. I think his show of character of shit-talking horrendous things about every person that he had previously

hired showed such a lack of moral character. I would also say, there are like 40 and counting former high-level officials, Bill Barr, all these guys who worked for him who said, John Bolton, people I respect. Never give him the keys again.

Although it's funny, Barr, I think, is now endorsing Trump. Because he's come out and said, well, if it's Trump or Biden, I can't go with Biden, so I'm going to go with Trump. But most of the rest of them have said, you can't vote for this guy. And I like John Bolton, actually. I know him slightly. I trust his judgment on many things. And I think he's right when it comes to Trump's temperament in foreign policy.

I've heard you say before that you think one of the terrible things that Trump did was how he divided the country against each other. Yeah. Look, the problem is that an individual, especially an individual like Trump, it so grabs your attention. It's so visceral in the way you see it that it becomes difficult for me to weigh it in terms of how awful this guy is and how awful all the friction he causes is in terms of the actual policies that another leader might have that people have to live under, like racial preferences.

Like, it's easy for me to say, but what about the millions of Chinese families who can't get their kids into college? One of the most remarkable polls that's come out. You understand what I'm saying? One of the most remarkable polls that's come out is that Trump now has more black support. The supposedly white supremacist guy who hates black people has more black support than any Republican candidate since Dwight Eisenhower. Right. And what do you attribute that to?

Kanye West. No. No, I think I attribute it to the economy. It was better under him than it was. I attribute it to a delusion among white liberals was better under him than it was. I attribute it to a delusion among white liberals that they got more outraged about things than actual black people got outraged. They could listen to him and say,

he's just a clown talking. He's like a rapper. He's like a, you know, he's just a... He's like Sharpie. He's an animal. He's just a crazy public figure. And they're more, I think black voters are more pragmatic than white voters are.

About their own interests. Yeah, and black voters didn't go for Bernie Sanders for the simple reason that he was a socialist who's never going to become president. And they're like, why would we support this guy? We're going to go with Hillary because she could actually win and help us, which is very pragmatic. And Sanders was the candidate of upper middle class white people who can afford to indulge

in fantasies, okay? Black people can't. Most black people can't. And by the way, the economic realities may be deceptive and common sense may not actually be correct here, but for people who are in the lower strata who are always trying to get jobs- They didn't have inflation under Trump. They're naturally opposed to immigrants.

That too. That's another huge issue. It's a natural reflex. Which is another thing that the left is blind to because they have this idea that there's this rainbow multicultural coalition of voters, and they don't want to address the fact that black voters particularly don't support immigration

because they are competing for low-wage jobs, which makes perfect sense, right? So that's another big issue too. And they tend to be more conservative. They're more socially conservative, absolutely. I'm sure on the trans issues. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. And now I've heard something said, I'm not endorsing it,

but I heard it from a black dude in the hip-hop community who told me he believes that all the legal lawfare at Trump. Trump said that himself. Well, Trump, I heard it from a black person, said that this does make him in some way a sympathetic character within the black community. Interesting.

It sounds like if it came out of my mouth, it would sound racist. But, you know, stranger things have happened. So a little bit of this, a little bit of that. He dropped like 20, 30 points in the black community. Biden, yeah. Trump, I saw, had 21%. It's terrifying. I actually think

that's a good sign, because it shows that politics is becoming less racial. It's less racially polarized, right? I think that's true. I think that's great with the LGBT community. If being, if what your identity is, is not determining who you vote for, that is a good sign.

That's a good sign. What better way to kill wokeness for then the people who have prioritized to wake up and find out, actually, the very people we thought we were championing, they're voting for the other guy. That's the end of that. No more Latinx for me. I was just going to say that. Actually, when you talk to Latino people,

I mean, I had this conversation with Juanita. My wife. Not that long ago. She's Latinx. And she was like, it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. I saw a poll. 90% of Latinos oppose that term.

I think even higher. Again, it's upper middle class, overeducated white people who are the cause of all our problems in this country. You sound like my husband now. That's your constituency. They are. That's a cocktail party in January. They are.

They are the source of all that's wrong with this country. But I just, to clarify, I meant that Donald Trump becoming president again was terrifying, not that I agree with what you said, that evening out. Do you have any fear for democracy? Yes. I don't. None?

I have none. I will say this. I do think that if Donald Trump were to win, that would be in some sense validating what he did on January 6th, and that is not good. That's not good. That's not good. That's not a good precedent to have. That he could do that and the American people would vote for him again, that's a very bad

precedent to be setting. Well, my question is, are they voting for him or are they voting against Biden? That's the thing, right? So I can't get into everyone's heads. I mean, they'll be polling. They'll be exit polling. We'll find out. I like your John Fetterman, Richie Torres ticket.

Absolutely. Why can't that happen, though I like your John Fetterman, Richie Torres ticket. Absolutely. Why can't that happen, though? Why can't Fetterman run? I don't know if Richie's old enough. I think he has to be 35. He has to be 35. Is he 30? For vice president?

Yes, because you're then eligible for the president. Yeah, so I don't think he's old. Oh, but you can be 407 and be president again. Well, you're right. We should put an upper limit on the presidency. If there's going to be a ceiling. Yeah. If there's going to be a lower, if there's going to be a ceiling or a... Yeah, if there'll be a minimum...

If there'll be a minimum, there should be a maximum. Well, anyway. I lost my train of thought about Trump. I don't worry about democracy. I do worry that Trump is so enamored with his own gut and the fact that his gut has proven correct so many times

that he will make a mistake from lack of deliberation which could be catastrophic on the world stage. Absolutely. Not any democracy. Do I want him handling Israel all at the same time? No, that didn't really happen when he was president. It wasn't a catastrophic foreign policy. No, that's the only thing I worry about him because policy-wise.

So let me make another point to you about Israel. For a long time, we Jews have been accused of dual loyalty in our concern for Israel. And I don't like that charge. Even the way it's phrased is not accurate. We're concerned for Israel just the way any ethnic group might be concerned for the people. But something is different now, and I haven't heard anybody talk about it, which is that for the first time, we as Jews understand that what goes on in Israel is not just affecting Israel. It affects the way we live as Jewish citizens in America.

All the anti-Semitism, all the stuff we're going on, what's going on at all the universities. So it's not a dual loyalty issue anymore. This policy is important to me because it affects my lifestyle as an American citizen. And I would just say it's not only Jews who feel that way. I know many Gentiles who are looking at what's been going on since October 7th, and they are extremely

concerned and extremely pro-Israel because they understand that this is not just a regional conflict somewhere in the world where they can't look at it. They realize that this is the front line between civilization and barbarism. That's right. This is an attack on Western civilization. It's an attack on America. And they get that.

And so it's not... There are many Gentiles, and I'm not just talking about Christian right people. I'm talking about secular liberals, conservatives, non-Jewish people. Richie Torres, like John Fetterman. Like Daniel Ryan Spalding. Like Daniel Ryan Spalding,

who look at this and they realize that it is so much bigger. This is about Western civilization. It's good and evil. But the overeducated elite people that we talk about, while their nuance on many issues is to be respected, on this issue I side with the simplistic barbarian who sees it in black and white.

And I prefer that being the general outlook of the President of the United States. They're the bad guys. Stop with all your fancy talk. Especially now, because the Arab world is behind Israel. Sorry, the Arab regimes are behind Israel. They could have made an argument years ago, and they did,

that we had to balance our interests, we need the oil from the Arabs, and we can't totally side with Israel, we have to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The region is totally different now. You have all these countries. Whoever would have thought that Sudan would be recognizing Israel? So you have the Abraham Accords, which are great. Another moronic line in that Tom Friedman column was that he attributed the diplomatic rapprochement to Biden. So I'm just saying that the regional picture has changed now in that there's actually much less diplomatic cost on an American administration to be more pro-Israel.

To be stronger behind it. Because, by the way, the Saudis are looking at this and they're seeing if the American administration is not standing by Israel 100%, how can we trust them? The UAE is thinking that, right? The Egyptians are thinking that. And it's very important to say this, and we probably took too long to say it. If you want the Palestinians to have a future of fulfilling lives—

You have to get rid of Hamas. The only way that happens is if the Israeli people no longer consider that a threat to their existence. That's why Hamas needs to be extirpated. And maybe the Palestinians... In the same way that the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese fascists had to be defeated. Once Israel no longer sees them as a threat, then Israel will agree to whatever.

I don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes because I think this hatred is so deeply and pervasively believed in Palestinian society. It's not just a couple of bad apples. No, I think it's very clear that the Palestinians have no greater enemy than Hamas. Well, it's very clear to you and me. I guess so. Their ideology is the enemy. But also what you said is true. I think that one thing after October 7th was that diaspora Jews felt much closer to Israel,

and Israelis felt much closer to diaspora Jews. I'll say those diaspora Jews who went in the other direction, I have even more contempt for them. They're public enemy number one. They are enemies to their people. I'm sorry if I sound like some Alta Cocker. But after October 7th, you would go out there with these people and protest with them in Wara Kafia, then you are a traitor to your people.

Simple as that. Look, we both know journalists, Jewish journalists, who are not actually sympathetic to Hamas, who will not write the pieces that they could write because they don't want to upset their readers. Not just journalists, but actors, celebrities. I just say it's a scandal.

It's a scandal that Jonathan, what's his name, the zone of interest at the Oscars, the speech. Oh, I don't know his name. It is a scandal. Steven Spielberg came on stage after him. And the last time something like that happened at the Oscars, maybe you remember, Vanessa Redgrave

gave an anti-Semitic speech. And then Paddy Chayefsky, the great director and screenwriter, came on and gave this amazing one-minute slapdown of her to wide applause. The fact that no one followed after this guy and said what he said was disgusting and had no place in that building,

that's a shame. In this industry that Jews supposedly control, there wasn't a single person in that room who could have denounced him from the stage, I think. I think that's a... There was a lot of backlash on social media after the fact, though, yes? There were lots of people supporting him.

There were people opposing him. I'm just saying. There are a lot of people with influence and power. I think Jerry Seinfeld is a great example of someone who is using his celebrity for good. There are a lot of people like who is using his celebrity for good. There are a lot of people. Scarlett Johansson.

Yeah, yeah. But there are a lot who aren't. Yes, there are. And I'm not saying everyone has to go out and be an activist. I agree. But like a single Instagram post. I think that not everybody can be Michael Rappaport. Right. But I think that everybody has a responsibility to do something, whether it's emailing the White House or whatever you can do is the thing that you have to do.

We're just failing. And I don't. The Jews. Yeah. I mean, let's take the. Don't say that, though. Well, take what I think is the most indefensible argument, genocide. Yes.

You cannot win any debate and claim this is genocide. The arguments are ridiculous. And yet the general public, to this day, most people could not tell you the three major arguments as to why it's not a genocide. What are we doing wrong? Anytime there's some argument about something Democratic or Republican politics, everybody knows the talking point arguments the next day.

Why with all our influence are we not communicating in a digestible way to people who are inclined to defend us why this genocide charge is such a calumny. We're failing in some way, in my opinion. I agree with you.

It should be simple. And I think in the end, and we can wrap up, I guess, I'm very pessimistic because, as you already alluded to, Israel is going to be occupying the Palestinian people probably for the rest of our lives, unless something wonderful changes. And American Jews will be held accountable. But they live in the Democratic Party. That's going to change over time. But either that changes... Because look, reformed Jews, I grew up reformed Jew. They're intermarrying at 75%, so they're just going to disappear. And the Jewish community in America is going to be increasingly conservative and Orthodox Jews.

And the people who identify as Jewish will be not voting left-wing, just put it that way. So the complexion of the Jewish community is going to be changing. The Jewish community that you and I and Periel grew up in, this kind of secular, liberal Jewish world, I think we're seeing the final days of that, frankly. All right, any other issues? I think we covered the gamut. No, just all your listeners should buy my book, Secret City,

The Hidden History of Gay Washington. And you can go back. We did a whole podcast about it. Any prominent politicians you suspect are in the closet this day? Oh, God. Besides Lindsey Graham? I can't talk about that. It's all in my book.

It's history, but I can't talk about the current. No. There's no other issue other than Jew-related issues that you care about? Oh, there's lots of things we could talk about. Well, just one more. Just one more. Give us a hot take on one more thing. What have I been writing about? Well, the European elections

I wrote about last week. Okay. France? Marine Le Pen? Yeah, that's a good one. She's actually probably going to become the president of France in 2027. That's a big deal. Now, her father didn't like the Jews, right?

Her father said that the gas chambers were a detail of history. He was a bonafide anti-Semite. And she? Wow. She kicked him out of the party. I don't think it's fair to call her a fascist. That's too much. She's a right-wing populist.

And it's interesting. She's very obviously that the main issue is opposition to Muslim immigration. And there were polls showing that among gays, the National Front is the most popular party. Sorry, her party is now called the National Rally. For why? It's so perplexing. Why wouldn't gay people in France want mass Muslim immigration into their country? That's a head scratcher, isn't it?

Well, but they support Palestinian causes and... I think, actually, that this whole queer for Palestine thing is... It gets a lot of attention because it's so patently absurd. I don't... Like, in my life, I don't encounter... I mean, I know lots of gay people. Some of them are, like, pro-Palestinian, but they're not pro-Hamas.

They're not... You know, they're just, like, general lefty types. But it's not... There's not this mass of LGBT people who are pro-Hamas. They're just general lefty types. But there's not this mass of LGBT people who are pro-Hamas, or even pro-Palestine, frankly. Most gay people just want to have fun. This immigration issue is a worldwide wave. It's a huge issue.

It is the issue of our times. And I think that's actually why Trump came as such a surprise to us, is because people like us, upper middle class urbanites, just didn't think that this was an issue at all. What's the problem? We get all these wonderful foreigners who come and love our country and work so hard in our restaurants and they're so hardworking and they care for our children and they mow our lawns and we just want more of it. And it was not riding on this issue above anything else, I think. And now it's become clear that it is the big issue in Europe. It's the big issue in the Western world, for sure. Now, to be perfectly fair to our own experience with Muslim immigration,

we're not having any of those problems in this country. Well, there have been a couple of incidents. There have been a couple of incidents. And I'll say— They have Cologne. They have, like, crazy things. It's different. They don't have Cologne. They do have—there are banlias. There are been a couple of incidents. They have cologne. They have crazy things. It's different. They don't have

cologne. There are banlieues. There are no-go zones. That's because, look, America is much better at integrating immigrants than Europe is for a variety of reasons. We have a much more dynamic economy. It's easier for them to get work. Our national identity

is not racial. It's creedal. You come here. You take a citizenship test. And by the way, I don't know if either of you have ever been to a citizenship ceremony. Yes, I have. It's one of the most, maybe the most moving thing I've ever seen in my life. It's just an incredible experience. Go ahead, do you want to finish that? In Europe, they don't have that.

As hard as they try, they'll never be German. They'll never be French. They can learn the language. They can know all the facts. They're always going to be looked at as different in some way. So just to be clear, because it's not quite the same, because America really hasn't, maybe we're having it right now, but we never really had an anti-Muslim immigration issue here.

Well, I think after 9-11, there was a lot of it. Trump was really addressing the southern border, and it wasn't their ideology. It was whatever it is. But just maybe this way, and so my whole life, we always had arabic people working here i've told this on the podcast before and before all these issues came to the fore um it was a like a normal thing that someone who worked in the kitchen who would come illegally got married managed to get papers and would eventually go through the whole process and then would go to get the citizenship.

And my father was over the moon with happiness. And he would get sentimental and he'd drive to the ceremony and he'd make a big fuss for them. And it seems like another planet. There was no even thought, even a suppressed thought of like, oh, this is a Muslim. How does this confirm America? It was just like fantastic. Another America. And he used to say to him like, Hassan was like, oh, this is a Muslim. How does this confirm America? It was just like, fantastic.

Another American. And he used to say to him like, Hassan, doesn't it feel great to be an American citizen? And it was all his heart. He felt that way. And now there's other layers to it. It's too bad. Hopefully it'll work out.

We do all wish, we all do believe America should still be a place where immigrants can come. It is what, I just saw a short documentary. Yosef, what was the name of that documentary? The immigration documentary? The short one?

I want to plug it online. Okay, he's going to look it up. I went to a documentary film festival in Washington, D.C. last week, and there was a short documentary short. It was just a 15-minute video documentary about a man from Ghana who was working in an old-age home in Virginia. He's been working there for eight years.

He's a maintenance worker in this old-age home. He had to leave his wife and four or five children back in Ghana. He hasn't seen them in eight years because you can't leave when you don't have a passport, right? And they have a program at this senior citizen's home where the senior citizens help prepare the staff, who are mostly immigrants, prepare for their citizenship test. And there's this beautiful old couple who are sitting there at the desk with him, quizzing him on the three branches of government and all these things. And he goes and takes his... And I was just like in tears.

He takes his test. He passes. The family gets to see his family. The elderly couple, he starts calling them mom and dad. And it's just a wonderful... I don't think there's any other country that has that. That's all American.

That is the magic of America. That is what differentiates us from every other society on earth. So it's fundamental that, yes, we have to control our border. We have to make sure the people coming in are safe, all that stuff. And they have to want that, too. Right. And this guy did. And this is the kind of guy, you look at him and you're like, how could we not make this man a citizen?

He's slaving away in two jobs so he can bring his family. We don't need to worry. He's not going to be on the dole. That's not a problem. So yeah, as much as we want to control immigration, we can't lose sight of how foundationally important immigration is to America, to our country, and what it means to be an American. I guarantee it'll never really happen because the second they actually control the border,

all the rich business owners are going to be screaming, we need more people. Immediately pressure their congressmen. They've been doing that forever. That's the lobby. Did we get the title of that? No? The test.

The test. It's about the citizenship test. I don't think it's available publicly yet. It's being shown at film festivals. Look it up. It's really great. You can't watch it. Maybe there's a BitTorrent of it. You can download it.

No, no. Go to a film festival where they're screening it, if you can. All right. No, don't get it illegally. No, we don't want to encourage that. Have you ever downloaded BitTorrent? Never.

Oh, I have. All right. Well, anyway, Jamie, you're one of my favorite people. Oh, thank you. I don't know how I finally met you, but I'm happy to know you and continue our relationship. And it's very nice of you to stop in. Jamie Kerchick, everybody. Thank you very much.

Thank you.