The Dispatch Podcast - Will Republicans Make Donald Trump a Lame Duck?

Episode Date: June 5, 2026

Steve Hayes is joined by Jonah Goldberg, Michael Warren, and John McCormack to discuss whether Donald Trump has become a lame duck president and reflect on McCormack's piece on Ben Sasse. The Agenda: —Republicans split on slush fund —Standing up to Trump —Bill Pulte as director of national intelligence —Learning from Ben Sasse —The original Remnant cohost —How to talk about death Show notes: —Ben Sasse's remarks during the Kavanaugh hearings —Thom Tillis and Scott Bessent on Bill Pulte —Thune and Cotton on Pulte —Ben Sasse's podcast Not Dead Yet —The Vanishing American Adult: Our Coming-of-Age Crisis—and How to Rebuild a Culture of Self-Reliance —Them: Why We Hate Each Other—and How to Heal The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Steve Hayes. On today's roundtable, we take note of the newfound willingness of Republicans to challenge Donald Trump and even oppose his priorities. And then we take on the question directly. Is Donald Trump a lame duck? And we also discuss one emerging moment of Republican consternation, the appointment of Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence.

Then we'll take a look at Dispatch Senior Editor John McCormick's, incredible piece on Ben Sass and discuss what the former senator has taught us over the past six months and in the many years that we've known him about public service and family, faith and humility, and life and death. I'm joined today by my dispatch colleagues Jonah Goldberg, Mike Warren, and John McCormick. Let's dive right in. Gentlemen, I want to start with a conversation about Donald Trump and the Republican Party. This is a conversation that we've had sort of on an ongoing basis on this podcast, but we've had it more intensely here in the past several weeks. A few weeks ago, we had a brief conversation about whether Donald Trump was entering his

lame duck phase. And I would suggest to you that recent events, just over the past couple of weeks, maybe he is. We have seen Republicans in the House of Representatives, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives pass a war powers resolution yesterday, mostly Democrats, but six Republicans join them, challenging Donald Trump. We've seen Trump challenged by Senate Republicans on the $1.776 billion weaponization fund, which is now killed. We've seen outspoken opposition to Donald Trump's taxpayer-funded ballroom, which started as a ballroom that was going to be funded by private donations, turned into a taxpayer-funded ballroom that was going to fund some secret service projects as well. That's been killed. We are now seeing open,

skepticism, in some cases a downright hostility to Donald Trump's announcement of the appointee to serve as the new director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte, his housing czar. Joan, let me start with you. Is Donald Trump a lame duck? I actually don't think he is, if we mean a conventional lame duck. I do think that politics is looking more normal right now in the sense that Congress, you know, I've been saying the Republican-controlled Congress isn't getting courageous necessarily, but it's showing less cowardice. So that's progress.

And, you know, part of the reason for that is, you know, there are nine Republican senators who aren't coming back next time. And that's nearly 20% of the Republican Senate caucus, right? That's a big number. Senators are harder to corral than members anyway. And then you throw in the fact that Trump screwed a couple popular members, John Cornyn, Cassidy in Louisiana, people who had raised money and campaign for a lot of their colleagues and were seen as responsible people. And so there's just really hard feelings.

And so the reason I don't think he's heading to lame duck status per se is that we've never had a president in either party so willing to wield power against his own party this way. so that the normal assumptions about what we associate with the lame duck president, I don't think are necessarily going to apply. I think he could leave office and he will still meddle, right? But we are seeing the system heal a little bit right now or at least appear to be because these guys are pushing back. And I think this is in part because of the stuff I just mentioned, you know, and all that. But it's also, I was just talking about this on NPR, but like Trump is personalizing

all of the GOP's best. issues. You know, we talked about last week, earlier this week, about that the concert thing on the mall. So he's taking, like, the generic sort of patriotism of the GOP and making it about himself, and like, I'm going to do a rally on the mall because that's what people really want to hear from their favorite president of all time. Immigration, he's personalized it. So it's no longer the generic issue. It's how Trump is actually doing it. The economy, when he says he doesn't care about, you know, essentially doesn't care about affordability or any of this kind of stuff, and that he's making it about him,

particularly in the context of the ballroom and all of these other things, and even national security, by putting Pulte in there, or the Iran war itself, which he did not consult Congress, as we discussed in all these kinds of things, it's all personalizing his own agenda

rather than making it about the issues themselves. And in a climate where Republicans have headwinds going into a midterm, taking their best issues and making them about Trump rather than the issue itself or what the Democrats would do with the issue, is going to create natural, separation. But I just don't think we can say it's not Trump's party after the midterms

because it'll still be Trump's party. We'll look at it on a longer horizon. Think about it a little bit further. What I'm wondering, you know, one of the things, again, that we've talked about here on this podcast before is the difficulty in explaining to people, particularly those of us who spent time on Capitol Hill and have to report or, you know, the meetings that we had, Jonah that we talked about in 2019 when we were launching the dispatch and we sat down with, I don't know, a couple dozen senators and heard from them in private one thing about Donald Trump and heard from them in public in many cases something totally different. They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth. And we've talked about how hard that is. I wonder if what we're seeing today isn't a glimpse of that

post-Trump reality where you have people like John Corny and Tom Tillis and Bill Cassidy who have while they've been in the Senate and while Trump has been around, I think is the sort of operative phrase, stuck to Trump. you know, voted with him, mostly sided with him. When they've raised objections, they've been soft objections. And now that either they're unburdened from having to align themselves with Trump, or because Trump is, you know, at some point in the not too distant future going away, they don't feel this anymore. And we've seen this before from people like Jeff Flake and Pat Toomey, and I would point to especially Bob Corker, who really changed his tune on Trump,

try to be a big help to Donald Trump in his first term until such time as Corker decided he was going to leave Congress and then was a tough critic of Trump. You know, if you're looking beyond the midterms and sort of to the 2028 or just whatever we want to call this post-Trump reality, could what we're seeing today be a preview of that and you have people, you know, who have been Trump skeptics in the past, but were elected despite their Trump skepticism, kind of revert back to their old way of thinking. Jonah, I'll go back to you on that. Yeah, maybe, you know, at the margins.

But again, a lot of the guys you listed, they're sort of in the, you know, what they're starting to call it, starting to call the Yolo Conference because they've lost their jobs in effect, right? They're not going to come back to Congress, and they're pissed, right? So I think that part of it is for some of these guys, I was talking to somebody recently about this with sort of firsthand experience with this.

If, you know, John Cornyn, look, I think it's an honorable guy, normie Republican. But the guy, you know, posted pictures of himself reading the art of the deal. And he changed his tone on the filibuster. And he did everything he could to be a loyal, Trumpy guy while keeping some of his integrity intact. But people can draw lines where they want on whether he succeeded. And he still got screwed by Trump. And same thing with Cassidy.

Cassidy voted for RFK Jr. He helped confirm the dude, which violated everything the guy swore the Hippocratic oath for, right? And still got screwed. And so I think there are people, part of the attitude on the hill, which can look like lame duckism, but I just think it's a different dynamic. They're realizing that at the end of the day, loyalty to Trump may not pay off. So maybe it's not worth selling off parts of yourself if you're not going to get the payoff, right? And so there are a bunch of people who are like, this guy is probably going to screw me if he gets an opportunity anyway. So I might as well get closer to being right with my conscience or whatever.

And I think there's some of that going on. But like, you know, I guess the way I would put it is if you want to say Trump is a lame duck, most of the evidence for why he's a lame duck is coming from lame duck members of the House and the Senate. Yeah. And so it's very hard to gauge what a post midterms. GOP looks like when you have people who are still in office who want to get reelected and need Trump support. Yeah, Mike, what of that? I mean, you talk to people on the Hill a lot. You're very plugged in with Republicans, John, you do. You know, certainly there's been, this isn't probably a very useful description, but in sort of the chatter on the right in Washington, D.C. over the past two months, I would say a demonstrable.

an obvious pickup in the talk of this post-Trump world. Is this coming? How close are we? And, you know, some of it's just the calendar, right? I mean, we've got these midterms. Then Trump's got two more years. Probably not going to be able to get if recent history is any indication. Presidents don't get a lot done in their last two years. Trump proves, finds a way to be consequential no matter what. Certainly there's a lot of history that we will live through in the next two and a half years. So I'm not saying that, you know, sort of this is done and we're at this moment. But, There are people talking about sort of what comes next and how does this look. When you look at the Senate Republican conference today and bearing in mind the people that

Jonah's talking about who are leaving, how do you think of it? And the House as well, if you want to go there. I mean, if we were to divide those two entities into buckets, this sort of hardcore maga bucket, the sort of Republican first but willing to be Trumpy when I need to bucket, and then the Trump skeptical, I'm only doing this because Donald Trump is in power to, you know, there's a range there to the, you know, sometime critic of Trump. What's the breakdown there? It's probably mostly, at this point, mostly Trump loyalists with a handful of, you know,

we're skeptical of all this MAGA stuff, but we're loyal Republicans and so we're going to go along to get along. And then you have, I really do think it's the lame ducks who occupy that final bucket. you mentioned. But look, if we're talking about medium and long term for the Republican Party and for what sort of Donald Trump is going to do in the medium term in the next two and a half years and what that presidency is going to be like, I do think we are getting a sense right now of what it could look like. So, yes, you have these lame duck Republicans who Trump has screwed over. By the way, I think it's interesting that this chatter about is he a lame duck or is he losing his grip

is coming at the same time that just a couple of weeks ago, we were talking about how his grip politically, campaign-wise, has never been stronger. You know, right? He beat those Indiana state legislators who went against him on redistricting. He has helped defeat these incumbent Republican senators who either crossed him or just weren't loyal enough,

like John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy. And so this put me in mind of the line from Star Wars where Princess Leia says to the main villain of the film, Tarkin, the more you tighten your grip, the more star system slipped through your fingers, right? This is, he has got a hold on the party, and yet there are people who form a majority coalition. And I'm not just talking about the strict numbers in the Senate and the House, but just, you know, a majority coalition, a majority of the people who help put Republicans in power. And he's turning those people away.

And, you know, sometimes that's manifest in the form of a John Cornyn or, you know, or, you know, Don Bacon, you know, a Republican who is crossing Trump on Ukraine funding, for instance. House member from Nebraska. House member from Nebraska who is leaving and has won, by the way, a district that has gone for Democrats in presidential elections in recent cycles. And yet he has retained it for the Republican Party. That's what a majority coalition looks like. It's those kind of people who do kind of cross a president when it suits them and

a sort of a healthy president, a president with. a good sense of building a large coalition, sort of can allow those kind of deviations. And Trump is not that way. And so I do think what all of this suggests we're going to look at is a little more spine from Republicans, particularly if and when they are in the minority in the House. And especially if they're in the Senate, I'm still doubtful that Republicans will lose the majority in the Senate. But after the midterm elections, things will be looking very hard toward 2028, and there will be all kinds of jockeying from people who want to be the Republican nominee for president. Trump will sort of be a little more in the background. He will still be a

kingmaker, but everybody will be trying to create, you know, their version of Trump. And in a way, that makes Trump less crucial and less important because everybody's just going to be sort of, you know, claiming that they are the true standard bear for Trump. And so I think his influence lessons, at the same time, I think what you will see is what we have been seeing from Trump over these last couple of weeks and months, which is a president sort of unencumbered, even more so than normal, by any need to kind of go to Congress or any need to comply with any kind of rules or standards. Not that he's been that through the first 18 months.

No, no, but like, okay, then turn it up. Like, it's going to go to 11. Like, the knocking down the east wing of the White House is sort of moving forward on, you know, this reflecting pool stuff. Like, I just think we're going to see more of it. And Republicans in Congress will have, there will be more incentive for some of those people to sort of stand up and say, no. And I think we're already seeing that with this pushback against not only Bill Pulte,

but I think it's going to be difficult, and it may be possible, but difficult to get Todd Blanche, who the president is nominating as the permanent attorney general. Right. Had been acting. Had been, is acting right now. Yeah, yeah. And acting very. hard. The president said last night that he intends to nominate him for the permanent position

because he's done such a good job. John, I just want to go a little further on that. How much of what we've seen, say, over the past week and a half, more outspokenness, more willingness to stand up is attributable to the fact that when they did this on, you know, some of these things over the past few weeks, they kind of spoke out about the ballroom and said, eh, this doesn't, this doesn't make any sense. You had said that it was going to be donations, and now you're trying to push this through, and some of the private pushback that they gave to the White House emerged publicly, and then they won, then they prevailed. And now this weaponization fund, many of them didn't come out forcefully and say, this is absolutely outrageous. There's no scenario in which we should be paying off the

people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th and other cronies of the Trump administration, which is the way that, you know, you would have put it, the way that I put it when we were talking about it. So it didn't go. aggressively at him, but they said, ah, really? I don't, that doesn't make a lot of sense. That's going to get some pushback, you know. I'm not a big fan, is what John Thune said.

I'm not a big fan, right. It's just going to get pushedbacked. And, yeah, I do want to get to that because I think there's usefulness in the less full-throated pushback that I prefer. There's usefulness in the softer pushback, too. But before we get there, John, how much of what we're seeing now with this growing opposition is attributable to the fact that they've had some success recently. And how much is it attributable to the fact that, frankly, many of them are just really pissed?

I mean, if you read the stories about the Senate conference lunch when Donald Trump endorsed Ken Paxton over John Cornyn, many of these senators are fond of John Cornyn. He's raised, I think the number that I read was somewhere around $400 million for his colleagues. He's a go-along to get-a-long guy. like having them around, and they were angry about this. How do you sort of weigh those two in terms of what we're seeing now? I think it's definitely both. I mean, you can look back and see the fact that Trump is just doing more cartoonishly crazy things

akin to, you know, when he named Matt Gates as AG at the beginning of his term, he got pushed back enough internally to scuttle the nomination. So Pulte for DNI is certainly of a piece with that. Weaponization slush fund is certainly of a piece with that going after Jerome Powell. But obviously, yeah, there is a lot of. lot of people are emboldened. Tillis is emboldened, no doubt about that, since deciding he's not going to run, Cassidy and

Cornyn certainly feel like this is the critical mass that Mike was talking about. On the other hand, you know, I think the most interesting thing really is Thune, in response to the Pulte, he said, we don't need a weaponized DNI. I mean, that was a step beyond just the sort of the no comment. That was an actually substantively critical

shot at the guy who's now acting DNI. It should be pointed out that the question that Thune got was about a weaponized DNI. So we responded mirroring the question that he got. But your point stands. Your point we don't need a weaponized DNI. We need professionals there. So again, I've just heard about it. I'll try and get more information about the current state of their thinking about that position. And again, if he's somebody that well, in that position permanently, he's got, as you all know,

a lengthy road ahead of him. This is what I'm getting at. Like, again, if you and I are answering that question, we say, oh, my, this is insane. Bill Pulte has no qualifications. He's He's proved himself a Trumpy clown. There's no reason to consider him. What an awful, horrible choice typical of a president who's making bad decisions. That's not how John Thune answers these questions, as you point out. Yeah, but you are now getting basically Tillis saying stuff like that in the exchange yesterday with Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, you know, saying, did you really say, what was it?

I'm sorry, did you really want to say you wanted to punch him in the face? And Besson said, no, I wanted to kick his ass. Yeah, so, John, pause on that because I'm going to play. Let's play that clip. Do you think that Bill Pulte has the experience to be the acting DNI and same with you, Senator Tom, Senator Cotton, as the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is he the kind of person you want leading the intelligence committee? I'll defer the chairman on that. We was made aware of that appointment this morning. Obviously, it's something that if the administration decides to pursue a permanent appointment to that position, have to come through the Congress and have confirmation hearings.

and ultimately a vote here in the Senate. But Senator Cotton, you want to speak to that? We have four more weeks with Director Dabbard as the DNI, and I look forward to implementing last year's Intelligence Authorization Act with her to implement wide-ranging reforms that will shrink the D&I and take it back to its original intent to provide a mere coordinator or process role for the intelligence community. I have no observations on the matter.

Leader through an invite of the Texas primary. It's one of my favorite Washington sayings in recent memory. I have no observations on that matter. So that was John Thune, Senate Majority Leader being asked about Bill Pulte. He defers to Senator Tom Cotton, who's the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Cotton, Cotton, weighs in on Tulsi Gabbard. He's asked once again about Bill Pulte, and he says, I have no observations on the matter. So that's an example of, I would say, sort of a less confrontational approach that we're

seeing from these Senate Republicans. Can we play the Tom Tillis clip that John mentioned? a little bit earlier. Did you actually tell Pulte you were going to punch him in the face? No, sir. I actually said it was going to kick his ass. Good. Okay, good. I share the emotion. Thank you. And as I said, that was last summer, summer 25, and many teams have fights in the locker room and then go out and win for the team on the table. Yeah. Yeah. Now I was just curious because everybody's going to be showing that. I made it clear. I'm not going to support Pulte for DNI,

but I'm sure they're going to dredge that up. So I thought I gave you an opportunity to. I had a very good exchange with the director yesterday, want to keep the momentum going on the FH. Yeah, well, he lost me when he went after Powell. I mean, two very different ways of handling questions like that. That is Tom Tillis, who does seem to be in his sort of yolo phase. Yeah, I just want to pick a point.

Mike was making earlier about political coalitions, right? So if you, I know Steve didn't, like, might as well have been the far side dog, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ball when Mike's talking about Star Wars. But, you know, very meaningful to me. Yeah, nobody's ever seen that movie, right? We had like seven Star Wars references last time either. And why don't you work in some token? We get some fantasy stuff. Real niche stuff, Steve. Yeah, nobody's ever seen this. Jeez. Somebody gave me a sports analogy, please. I was going to actually. quote, Milton, not Burrell. From office space?

No. You know, the whole thing about better to rule in hell than serve in heaven, right? That's been Trump's attitude about the Republican Party from the beginning. He would rather have a rump minority party that he has unalloyed power over than to be what presidents normally try to do, the most important player in a majority coalition, right? And this is something that I've always been amazed at how many pundits get this basic point wrong. Like the whole genre of Dems and Disarray,

so look, sometimes Dems are in disarray. Don't get me wrong. But for years, you get these arguments about Dems and Disarray as if internal fights within your coalition are a sign of weakness. And part of the reason why you get that is because Democrats believe that. They're drunk on the cult of unity. But, like, FDR had communists, communist Jews. and blacks and Klansmen in his coalition.

That's what a real majority coalition looks like, where you actually have factions within the party that are existentially opposed to each other because it's that big a coalition. Minority coalitions are pretty unified because they're out of power, and everybody else who, like, wants to be in power, who doesn't actually have a core conviction about staying in the minority party,

joins the majority party. And so one of the interesting, things about this moment, again, getting out of the lame duck prism, but more in terms of what Trump is doing with this personalizing of these issues stuff, is particularly on the Iran war. This is one of the last real fault lines within the GOP coalition is on foreign policy. You have the Massey Rand Paul crowd, total non-interventionist dislikes Israel, yada, yada, dislikes giving money to Ukraine. And then you have the Don Bacon,

Lindsey Graham, you know, that crowd, pro-Israel, pro to some extent, depending on who you're talking about Ukraine. And Trump has managed to exacerbate that fault line at this moment. And so that's one of the reasons why we're seeing this sort of surprising thing, right? It's like people are actually feeling like they have to get on one side or the other of this argument, certainly about Israel, but to a lesser extent about NATO, Ukraine and all that kind of stuff. And the coalition that Trump, the MAGA coalition that Trump

assembled used to be able to sort of fudge this fault line. And Trump can't. And I think that that's one of the things that we're seeing and a lot of people want to put it into this sort of conventional, hey, the midterms are coming. You know, is Trump losing his mojo thing? Not saying that narrative is wrong, I think that narrative masks this other thing that's going on about where the real fundamental disagreements still exist within the Republican Party. I agree with you, actually. And I'm not talking about this primarily in the context of the midterms. When I ask the question of Trump is a lame duck and sort of what happens in this post-Trump reality,

I think what you're pointing out is key to why I think he doesn't outlast this, why the coalition falls apart and why he won't have the sort of staying power. or beyond, you know, his time in office and beyond sort of these moments. Part of the challenge in this debate about Iran is that people don't know where to, where Trump is, right? So right now you have this coalition that's built around Trump, right? But people don't know what Trump is. It's not built around ideas. It's built around the guy.

And it's built around fear that he's going to come after you if you're not loyal or the upside that he's going to reward you if you are loyal. and that you do yourself a lot of good by staying on his good side. I think this is Lindsey Graham's career over the past decade, right? Somebody who didn't fundamentally agree with Trump on many things, most things. He was very close to John McCain, who Donald Trump often used as the avatar of an old, tired Republican establishment that was too hawkish, yada, yada, yada. And then he remakes himself to be Trump's best buddy because he knows that's the way to prolong his career.

And he's pretty candid about what he's doing. I draw that distinction between this moment and this Trump coalition where it is a bunch of Republicans in the Senate, certainly in the House, who are just trying to align themselves with Trump at all time, almost irrespective of ideological or philosophical concerns. And the moment, you know, more than a decade ago, but it's probably 20 years ago now, 15 plus years ago, where you had Jim DeMint, speaking of a minority Republican Party, where you had Jim DeMint, where you had Jim DeMint, famously say, I'd rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who believe in the principles of freedom than 60 who don't. That was a Republican Party. It didn't exist the way that Jim DeMint was suggesting, although I would argue that it was closer, that still believed in, there were principles of the Republican Party. You didn't have rewrites of the policy platforms at the conventions all the time. And now you have this Republican Party that is basically just Donald Trump. So while that benefits

Trump while he's in office. It makes me wonder about the post-Trump reality. Does somebody like Bernie Moreno, who was a never-trumper, you know, ran in Ohio as a super-Trumper, got the president's endorsement, what does he do when Trump leaves office? Is he still as loyal to Trump as he has been while Trump's in office? I don't know Bernie Moreno that well, so I don't have any answer to that question. But, John, do you have thoughts on any of that? Well, potentially a segue to our next stop. But when I was speaking to Ben Sass a few weeks ago, he thought that the next iteration could be sort of a Reaganite reform in the form of Marco Rubio. And I thought that was way too optimistic. And then a week ago, there was an Emerson poll showing J.D. Vance and Rubio at like 36, 35 in a national poll.

So, you know, there's definitely an appetite in the party to move into direction. I thought, you know, definitely J.D. Vance is the air. It's all going to stay with Trump. The median Republican centers afraid of Trump. but I think that we are seeing cracks and changes amongst the electorate and members of Congress in the Republican Party that shows that there is some movement towards some sort of post-Trump party. All right, we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the dispatch podcast. And we're back. You're listening to the dispatch podcast.

Let's jump in. Mike, back to you on this question of these sort of soft rebukes of Trump and more forceful rebukes of Trump. As I said, I would prefer that when Donald Trump does something ridiculous, members of Congress, other Republicans, commentators on places like Fox News, just say what they actually believe and are intellectually honest and call him out. And if they think that he should be called out in forceful terms, call him on enforceful terms. But sometimes they don't do that. And I think it's more understandable for people who are in public office who understand that they've got to continue to work with a guy who is, as we've pointed out, popular among the Republican people. bays, does the fact that we're seeing more and more of these sort of soft rebukes from somebody like John Thune give us an indication that there's more to come? Or is John Thune by doing this

jeopardizing his position as Senate Majority Leader, as a, you know, somebody who can get along with the White House? Certainly the MAGA, if you search for John Thune on social media, the MAGA types, the hardcore maga types absolutely hate him and they want him gone. it's a good question. I'm not sure of the answer as specifically to John Thune. I will say, for instance, the hate for John Thune out there is nothing like the hate for Chuck Schumer on the Democratic side, on the sort of populist and activist Democratic side. And so I may be biased in that way in terms of that's how I think about, you know, hatred for these Republican leaders. There was a lot of hatred for Mitch McConnell, but he stayed in power as long as he did because he was effective.

And so I think the question for John Thune is he effective and maybe holding on to power in the Senate, holding on to the majority in the Senate will help answer that question. I don't know. I do think, you know, just quickly to your point about how you wish that more of these members would kind of just say what they think and what they believe. I think I agree with you that they have more of a rationale to sort of maybe keep their criticism private or sort of channel it through ways. in which they can be effective. I've talked to folks on the Hill who say, you know, look, behind the scenes in these very specific areas where we can affect policy, that's where you're going to,

you know, that's, I've talked to like a staff around the Hill says, that's where my boss is trying to be effective and is doing so. You know, it's hard to judge these things. There's a lot of it as, you know, things didn't happen the way they could have because of people who spoke up. And sometimes there are moments. I think the anti-weaponization fund is one where speaking, up publicly or semi-publicly, you know, in a closed-door meeting that then the contents of which

get leaked to the press, you know, that can be effective. I do, I just want to say, I share your frustration with people in the commentariat and in sort of opinion journalism, you know, who don't just speak their mind, who position themselves in ways that they think, you know, acting as if they are political actors, that seems to be a big problem. I know it's a little off topic, but I say, shame to them. They should just tell us what they think, because That's what we do here at the dispatch, you know, and I think it's, it would be a lot healthier if everybody did that, but I'm not holding my breath for that. Well, it would give people a different understanding of just how popular Donald Trump is. I mean, you know, back, I've talked about this endlessly, you know, back in our Fox News days, the number of times that I would go on and have a debate with somebody who would defend Trump and then step off the set, and they would say, I wish that I didn't have to defend Donald Trump.

I've told the story about Monica Crowley doing that before, but people a lot more with a lot bigger profile than Monica Crowley. Hollywood, do and say the same things again and again and again. And it gave people the misimpression that Trump was far more popular than he actually was. Let's spend a minute before we move on. I want to spend just a minute on this appointment of Bill Pulte, who's the president's housing czar, federal housing czar. He has some experience in housing. He has no experience in intelligence whatsoever. And you have had a number of Republicans, including and especially, I would say, Mitch McConnell and Tom Tillis in the clip that we played before, signal that they will oppose. him if the president tries to make him the permanent head of the director of national intelligence.

Let me just read McConnell's comment here. Anyone performing this role of such immense public trust must have the extensive national security experience required by statute. And no nominee who falls short of this requirement will earn this vote. And he goes on to point out that when the DNI, the Office of Director of National Intelligence was created, it required that the person who occupies the office have significant national security and intelligence experience, and Pulte has none. Do we think, John, that this Pulte nomination could be held up? Do we think that the president's, first, do we think the president's going to try to make him the permanent director of national intelligence?

If so, is there a reason to believe that Republicans won't back him? I mean, the comment from Tom Cotton, which again, I love, I have no observations on the matter. on the one hand it looked like a dodge on the other hand he was saying everything you needed to know when he says i have no observations on him yeah i think there's no chance i mean cornyn plus mccano plus cassidy plus tell us you know that's four right there then you've got colinz murkowski there's not a majority in the senate to put him in there but he's got 210 days right i mean i'm not an expert on the the statute governing acting cabinet secretaries but i mean 210 days trump doesn't have you know we're talking about the lame duck issue i mean that gets some you know two

thirds of a year and where he goes from there with somebody else, I don't know. But I don't think that there's any chance that he's going to try and make this permanent. I don't think there's any chance that he has a majority to make him permanent. I mean, he could Jonah move to Kid Rock or Nicky Minaj if the clock runs out. Yeah, I mean, so the amazing thing, well, there are a lot of amazing things about this appointment. First of all, he's not even resigning from FHA. He's going to keep his housing job. Right. He's going to be the part-time. director. And we should tell people, just as a consistency thing, virtually every, or I shouldn't say every. The vast majority of a sort of national security hawks think this was a dumb position to

create in the first place. It was just the whole idea came out of the 9-11 commission and like this is a way to prevent stovepiping and all of these sort of compartmentalization. And the idea was to create one sort of clearinghouse that could coordinate the 18 different intelligence communities. and instead what it did is they put another labor bureaucracy on top of it. And that's part of the context of Tom Cotton, who hates the position, completely subscribes to that point of view. And I think there was reporting on this about how part of his support for Tulsi Gabbard

was to trim the responsibilities of the role in the first place in exchange, right? So there's that. But the thing is, Pulte, this is like, you know, if a president named Mother Teresa, the Secretary of Defense, defense, right? Or, you know, Jack Kovorkian as HHS secretary, you would know that the reason, and at least Kovirkin is an MD, right? But the point is, is that when you put someone who's only qualification, there is no other qualification for Pulte, is his willingness to be a political attack dog, to be Trump's Luca Bratsey, you cannot take it face value that there's any other

serious, high-minded reason for doing this. And it has the feel, one of the reasons why I think the Senate is so pissed about it, is Trump is not giving anybody even a rhetorical fig leaf. But there's like nothing in the guy's resume that they could say, well, he was very effective. Nothing. Right? There's just nothing there. And that makes it more like I know it's apocryphal and people say it didn't happen. But at least according to legend, Caligula appointed his horse to the Senate, right?

It has that kind of, screw you guys, I'm doing this, eat it. And vibe to it. And to do that after the last two weeks with Senate Republicans and with the country in general and talking about ballrooms instead of affordability and all those other stuff, it just, it feels like pure spite more than anything serious, right? And I think pilot might be, because he's pissed about losing the 1776 fund. And so this is his way to do. sort of a different kind of screw you weaponization stuff.

It's just remarkable. Yeah. Can I say real quick here? Like Bill Pulte isn't really even qualified on the federal housing finance agency. He, you know, his name, right, is Pulte Homes, which one of the biggest home builders in the country. It was, which was founded by his grandfather. His role with the company was essentially to be appointed to the board by his grandfather in a sort of internal board dispute with that company. and then the port ended up essentially ousting him from that job.

So the guy is sort of an ultimate nepo baby fail son and his really only qualification for any of this, as we've said, he's a total suck-up to Donald Trump. And in fact, we played that clip earlier of Scott Besson talking about wanting to kick his ass. You know, all of that came from because Pulte was essentially going around trying to get directly to Trump to say, look, I've done all this research on one of the Fed governors and these other people,

they've lied on their mortgage documents, and I have the proof and I'm making a criminal referral, all of which have been dismissed. None of those cases have actually played out, and he annoys everybody, you know, around the president, except for the president himself. So we should just underscore that he's not only not qualified for DNI, he's pretty much not qualified for anything in government. He was also the 50-year mortgage guy, right? Oh, yeah, that's right.

He came up with a 50-year mortgage, which I'm surprised Trump didn't kick him to the curb back for that because I think even Trump realized after he announced his support for that, that it was a dumb idea. So because we don't hear about it anymore. And, you know, I think most prominently his role going after Trump's perceived or the people that Trump has identified as his political enemies on these mortgage on taking two mortgages. And Pulte was very aggressive on that in a way that pleased the president. You know, one of the things that you sometimes see in Washington, you have the people like Tom Tillis who speaks out. forcefully against Bill Pulte, you have the Thune and Cotton comments, which I think said a lot by not saying much. And then one of the other things that frequently happens in a moment like this, the White House makes an announcement. It sort of lands with a thud.

There's some grumbling and some opposition, a lot of silence. And then you'll see the White House itself try to rally support and push people to go out. And, you know, every White House does this. This is not something new with Trump, but Trump is particularly transactional where his team will make calls to the Hill and say, if you do this, the president will look favorably on, you know, this piece of legislation that's important to you, or he will support you in your primary or what have you. And you can usually generate a fair amount of sort of fake support by doing those things. But what's so telling to me in this pool denomination is if you go to the White House's rapid response Twitter feed or X feed and you look at the people who have done this, it's the current Secretary of Housing that you're going. You're going to you. It's the current Secretary of Housing that you're He works for the president. He would expect that he might be supportive. One senator, Jim Banks from Indiana,

and the White House is retreating this, to give people an indication of the level of support. And then a bunch of, I would say, pretty random, insignificant House members, Aaron Lucas, Lloyd Smucker, Claudia Tenney, Darrell Issa. People might know who Darrell Issa is. I don't think he carries a lot of weight.

Step away from the car. Yeah, I don't think he carries a lot of weight. But Lance Gooden, who is one of a handful of folks who has given his public support to Pulte, I think summarized the White House's argument on this. If Democrats, Rhinos, and the deep state are all vehemently against Pulte as Director of National Intelligence, he's the right man for the job. It's Jonah's New Yorker cartoon, Come to Life. Before we take an ad break, we're recording a special live episode of the Dispatch podcast on

Tuesday, June 23rd in New York City. And you don't want to miss it. We're bringing the roundtable together to discuss what's left of the right. Jonah and I will be joined by dispatch contributors Megan McArdle and Chris Steyerwald in Manhattan to discuss the biggest news stories of the day and the evolving identity of conservatism in the Trump era and beyond. What does the war in Iran mean for Trump's coalition ahead of the midterm elections? Is MAGA still a conservative movement? Was MAGA ever a conservative movement? And who is the future of the Republican Party? The show starts at 7 p.m. on June 23rd in New York City, head to the events page at 929.org. That's 929.org and purchase your tickets today if you're going to be in Manhattan.

Okay, we'll be right back. Welcome back. Let's return to our discussion. All right, let's take a hard turn here after the depressing end to that last discussion. For something really depressing. Something that is in some ways more depressing, but at least, we're talking about a good guy, somebody we all like and respect and admire, and that is Senator Ben Sass. Former senator from Nebraska, former president of the University of Florida, renowned author, and now someone who is living with terminal cancer. Sass was given a diagnosis in December of terminal pancreatic cancer, was given roughly three months to live. Here we are in June.

He's been taking heavy chemo, getting lots of. of treatment. He's down at MD Anderson, cancer hospital in Texas, and has taken really a public approach to his diet. And I thought it would be worth spending a few minutes talking about that, in particular because, John, you have just written a long piece in which you had the opportunity to interview Ben Sass in New York a couple weeks ago. And turned out a really wonderful profile of the senator, but not really Ben Sass the senator, Ben Sass the man. And it was a telling moment when after our editorial meeting wrapped up on Tuesday morning, we had a sort of took an informal poll around the room of who was moved to tears by your piece

and who wasn't moved to tears by your piece. So that I think gives people some indication of what you managed to do with the piece. Can you just tell us a little bit about the piece and Ben Sass. You've interviewed him a number of times over the years. We've all gotten to know him in different ways. I'd love to hear more about the piece and what you learned from this piece. This interview was different than any

of the other interviews you've conducted. Yeah, very different. Yeah, I mean, I think Ben Sass has been doing several interviews. He likes to say that he really is only doing them once every maybe 10 to 14 days and they just tend to go viral because he's talking about living and dying well. It's very moving to see him

speak about his faith and his family. in such a heartfelt way. I think his interview with Ross Douthit when his chemotherapy had his, you know, his face was bloodied and scabbed over and he was, you know, still his jocular and jovial self and, you know, speaking movingly about his faith. So I basically tried to take all this, you know, all these comments he's already made in public, you know, his books, I went back and read them. And then, you know, I sat down with him for about two hours, maybe a half an hour that was, you know, off the record jokes and interruptions from the waiter. We were at a bar in the hotel lobby bar at the Hyatt Grand Central in Midtown Manhattan.

This was the night before he was going to give a speech, the Hamilton Award at the Manhattan Institute. And, yeah, we sat down. The thing I tried to capture in the piece is that, you know, both his joy and his suffering are real. And obviously, his deepest joys are in his family and, you know, it was genuine and lifelong faith in God. But even this, there was a lot of banter.

It was actually a fun interview. I know the piece is very heavy and, you know, some people have moved to tears. But, I mean, he just really still just, is Ben Sass. He's just this happy, you know, both public intellectual and goofball who loves joking around. He really loves Gallo's humor. I kind of open with the piece talking about how, you know, he, you know, his, he, you know, his, shows the name of the, his podcast is not dead yet. His wife suggested dead man talking. His co-host, Chris Dyerwald's wife, suggested I'd rather

die than do a podcast. All of his children, age 14 to 24, he tells me they have some very hearty gallows humor jokes. And he went off the record to share his favorite routine from his 15-year-old old son, which I can't repeat, but he did say I could tell everyone that it left me and Ben and his longtime advisor, James Whiteburn laughing very hard in the hotel lobbies. You can just imagine what that might entail. But yeah, I mean, his joy is real, his suffering is real, and these two things coexist and just a very beautiful testament to faith and love and his family. And I go through, you know, to where does politics fit in all this? You know, I mean, honestly, it was the conversation really focused mostly on faith and family and God and banter. And it was really sort of a, you know,

maybe 20 minutes of it was really on the politics stuff where it managed. But he still thinks it does matter. I mean, even though he believed that it was right for him, it was wrong for him to prioritize being in the Senate over being with his family every night at dinner. He still says, hey, no, we need good people in there. It's sort of a, it's a necessary precondition to create a space for families to love each other and to raise their kids, right? You still need people involved in politics. I was really struck by that passage. I mean, I was struck by so many passages. And of course, the things that you tend to take away from a piece like the one that you wrote or the things that caused me to ruminate sort of well beyond the reading of the piece itself or on the, you know,

the big things, the life and death things, the sort of meaning of life things, the relationship to God moments and discussions that you had with him. But I was sort of struck by his comments about the Senate and public service. He left the Senate before his term was up to become the President University of Florida. He was pretty clear while he was in the Senate. I would say, in fact, in all of my conversations with him, it was if not the main topic. One of the main topics was just how broken the Senate is and just how dysfunctional it was and how it was hard to get good people. He was struck by the sort of lack of seriousness of fellow senators. And he made that point again and again and again in a way that I didn't think made him very many friends in the Senate.

Did he get in at all with you or do you have ideas independent of the conversation with him on things we could do to attract more people like Ben Sass and make public service more attractive to people like. him rather than the people that we spent most of the first segment talking about. You know, I mean, so his comments to me, first of all, were that when I said, people like you, should they just abandon politics? You've got these Tocquevillian and Reaganite principles, and it seems like few people in either party are going to, you know, listen to you, so what's the point of all this? He's like, absolutely, you know, if you don't have, you know, family obligations, and he says, I don't want to say FU money, but FU life circumstances, absolutely, you know, it'd be good if you want to run and don't care about it. You know, I think he would

say we really need, he thinks it's a problem of people. They're performing for TikTok. They're performing for, you know, the short sound bites. They're not really interested in the weighty debates. He thinks, you know, fewer cameras in the Senate would be a good thing. That's the reason he thought that the Senate and Intelligence Committee works. He's frustrated with the lack of the Senate being serious, but he also thinks that the filibuster should remain. His big idea, which is a Jonah, hobby horse, I believe, is expanding the House. He thinks there should be something like 4,000 members in the House now and cites the fact that George Washington, you know, only spoke up the Constitutional Convention to, in defense of the idea that a member could theoretically, at

least meet everybody in his district. But actually getting people like Ben Sass, I mean, you know, we would need to become more serious as a people. I mean, I think more people reading his books would help us take there. That's, you know, sort of take responsibility, believing in hard work, focusing on your family. It seems to be a long road ahead to actually reinvigorating that sort of culture, though. Mike, is there anyone in the Senate now or in the House now who you would compare to SAS, who's sort of a Renaissance man, intellectual, serious conservative, thoughtful person, and, you know, a legislator. I mean, John pointed out in his piece that SAS didn't do a lot of lawmaking. He wasn't sort of eager to be a co-sponsor on or an early

sponsor on bills coming out of the Senate. He didn't do a lot, I think, there. And in part, I think that's because he saw the futility of some of those efforts on part of his colleagues. anybody in Congress today who's like Ben Sass? No. I mean, no. The answer is no. And maybe there have been in the past, I think, you know, I think of Daniel Patrick Moynihan as maybe a good analog just in terms of the, you know, he's a public intellectual and sort of used that perch and also a lot of, you know, experience like Ben Sass had in the sort of policymaking before he entered the Senate and sort of thinking about policy. you know, your lead up to that question

reminded me of a moment when we met with Ben Sass back in 2017, 2018 at the Weekly Standard Offices. And he had a book coming out, I think, which is why he was talking to us. And I asked him at a certain point because I was sort of wondering,

I mean, he wasn't really doing a lot of legislating at the time. He was promoting this book about kids and how to raise your kids. And I sort of asked him, like, what do you want to do? And why do you want to be? in the Senate? Why do you want to continue to be a senator? And I don't remember his exact answer.

He sort of talked about some of the things he continued to talk about with John, you know, several years later about, you know, the need to be engaged in politics and that sort of thing. But I think it's something that he was constantly wrestling with, which is what am I doing here? And what, how can I be effective? And I don't know if he actually reached an answer to that question, which I imagine has to be frustrating for him. It was certainly frustrating for me. to watch him because I viewed him as somebody who could maybe revive the Senate and revive Congress and sort of lead by example. And I think his frustration at being able to do that, you know, reflects just how difficult that project is, if you can even call it a project these days,

because I don't think there's anybody who fills that role. Yeah, I mean, his answer may have been his departure itself. That's right. Sort of tells us what we need to know. I mean, so, You've got to know him pretty well over the years. One of the things that I sort of took away from all of my times talking to him, he was such an engaging guy. He was, and still is at the same time, a sort of a super intellectual. I mean, he could go deep on places that I'm just not capable of going deep. He's incredibly well-led.

Although that's not evidence being a super intellectual, but going to go on. There's so many things I could say right now. I will simply say I have no observations on the matter. the thing that struck me in my conversations with him is he was and again remains as much a normal guy as you can talk to he talks like he you know he would be one of us he could sit in on this conversation and do the banter he'd probably get more of your star wars and sci-fi references than i do but he also he did the job differently and i'll say this was sort of i had an evolution in my own thinking about this early i met with him a bunch of times early we did one of on ones. We do these off the records, you know, weird places. One place we met a few times was this random tennis court that was in some, it was in one of the Senate buildings. I don't even know which building it's in. And I didn't even know it existed. And he used to go there. I think he would go there occasionally to play tennis, but he used to go there mostly because nobody else was there. And it was

one place in the Senate that he could actually go and not be bothered by anybody. So we'd take brown bag lunches and go there and chat. But the other thing that struck me is, you know, when I'd see him sometimes, he would, I mean, this is probably half a dozen times when I would see him. I would call him and try to set up a meeting. And sometimes I just wanted to chat and catch up with him and find out what he's thinking about and what was on his mind. Many other times I wanted a specific thing.

So I wanted to talk to him about, you know, this thing that was happening on some committee that he was involved with or there's some, you know, internal dispute among Senate Republicans, can I talk him about that? And he would agree to meet me. And then I would show up, and sometimes in advance and sometimes not in advance, I'd show up and he'd be there with a family member. And I was like, you know, in my very sort of hard-nosed reporting days, younger guy, probably not understanding family dynamics as well as I think I do now, I'd be pissed at that. I'm like, ah, how am I going to have a conversation about this, you know, specifically, thing I want to know on the Defense Authorization Act if his wife and son are here. Like,

what the heck? And, you know, that was my thinking. The more we did that, the less I cared about getting something specific from that conversation about whatever it was that I was reporting on. And the more I appreciated just the opportunity to sit down with Ben Sass and a family member, his daughter, his wife a couple times, his son. And he is more than anybody I've covered in 30 years in Washington, he is somebody who did his very best to integrate his family into what he's doing. So, John, it was interesting to me in your piece that he said, you know, it's been really hard to find the balance. It was hard for him to find the balance.

I think he did it better than anybody else. So that maybe speaks to some of the challenges of the job and the changes that might need to be made. But Jonah, back to you. John mentioned this podcast that he's doing with our friend Chris Steyerwald, not dead yet. terrific podcast. We'll put a link in the show notes. It's really fascinating. He has very interesting guests from sort of politics and journalism, from music. He did the Holcomb's. He did Clint Black. He had Chris Pratt, the actor. Conan O'Brien. Conan O'Brien. It was really interesting conversation.

And then for whatever he's, I guess they couldn't find anybody else. They had you, Joan on one of those. But it was sort of despite yourself, and a really interesting conversation where they sort of pressed you on what it was like. I think they called you a public munch. But they pushed you on kind of what it was like to how your writing often involves making yourself vulnerable and talking about your family and kind of putting yourself out there in a way that most people don't. I wonder if what you thought about that conversation, that was, I wonder your response to their pushing you on that in the conversation and then what you thought about John's piece and sort of where you are in your relationship with Ben these days? Sure. I think it's given my relationship with Ben and given

what Ben is going through and the ordeal that he has and the burden that he's carrying, I think it's vitally important to make this conversation about me. And no, but like, it's like I don't love Ben Sass discourse because I've had a lot of people in my own life die and I'm so sick of death and it makes me upset. But for background, I think it's sort of important just to sort of pick up on some of the things that people have been saying. So first of all, for background, for a considerable period of time, the remnant was supposed to be co-hosted by me and Ben. Yeah. And that's why he's the first guest on the podcast and on episode one. And that I think you've all lived in is on episode two. So in terms of foreshadowing themes of

the remnant, those first two guests will tell you a lot. And he's agreed to come on the remnant during this, you know, whistling past the graveyard tour that he's on. And I haven't pressed him about it precisely because I hate talking about him dying. And that said, I think I also really regret being on his podcast because it felt, at least in the room, I haven't listened to it. I think I've listened to exactly one and a half podcasts that I've been on in my entire life. I regret it because he bugged me to come on. I didn't want to do it. He bugged me to come on because I had talked about my brother who had passed away.

And he wanted to like do gallows humor about all that. I was like, that's not a fun afternoon for me, you know. But I agreed to come on and it's hard to say no. Yeah, no, it's very hard to say now. And, I mean, just ask, I mean, talking about being a mensch, just ask Chris Starwalt about, like, the stuff he's had to put on hold to do this thing for his friend Ben Sass and be, basically be the Ed McMahon of that thing, right? You know, it's not like Chris doesn't have a couple day jobs. And, and so, anyway, I didn't, it's weird, it's a very weird thing to say, but the good news was Ben was in such discomfort when I was on, when I did the podcast, that he just didn't have the energy to get. get into the stuff that he wanted to do, you know, he kept having to apologize because he had

these tumors on his spine and they were killing him and he was all on, all drugged out. I think he said he went from morphine to meth. Yeah. Before that conversation. And he was pretty zoned out. And I should also say he's friends with my wife. He and my wife have collaborated on some things. And so he's, I don't want to say he's the closest friend in the world or anything like that,

but he's sort of part of like the extent. I try not to be unlike most of you guys, I try not to be friends with politics. politicians. You know, my standard joke, people have heard it a million times, is you need to have the same attitude towards politicians that you have towards lab animals. And it's much easier to stick a needle and test subject 47B than in Mr. Whiskers. And, but Ben is one of the few people who's made it past that force field. And I love the guy. And at the same time, I think if we're going to talk about, you're talking about what his role is, I agree, he wasn't a great legislator. I think he has his reasons for it. He saw himself as Moynihan type. He got Moynihan's desk, I believe, in the Senate.

What Ben was was an educator. I think that's really what his mindset was. You know, and people know who listen to The Remnant, my favorite definition of rhetoric is from this literary critic Wayne Booth, who says, rhetoric is the art of probing what men believe they ought to believe. And that's sort of Ben's approach to politics and public rhetoric is to try and frame things in a way. And now the way he talks about religion, right, and the way he talks about his own death, what he is trying to do, by my lights, is tell people how to think and how to talk about these things, like family, like responsibility, like politics, like death in a way that gets at the character formation that he wants to see, that he thinks.

thinks part as, sort of at the heart of Republican virtue. And if you want to see a great example of him doing this, his little seven-minute opening thing at the Kavanaugh hearings about what the proper role of Congress is was one of the best sort of modern updates of Schoolhouse Rock I've ever seen. We'll clip that and put it in the show notes. And it gets at the heart of like so many of the themes of the remnants, some of the things that me and Ben have talked about, that Yuval has talked about, that we've always talked about, that we've talked about, about how Congress is where politics is supposed to happen, right?

It's like literally the place, it's the dumping ground for politics. And it's where representatives of different regions, different interests, different ways of life, different religions come to one place and argue. And when Congress doesn't do its job, politics doesn't go away. it's just that we don't have the right dumping ground for it anymore. And so instead it gets into the groundwater, it gets into our daily lives, it gets into all these other places because Congress is supposed to be the sponge that soaks it all up.

And this was sort of his point. And that for me was like a very useful framing for like so much stuff. And I think his time as a college president, you know, his first college, you know, and his experience in higher ed, that was. sort of his real calling, which is a very 19th century thing. There were a lot of, like, college presidents and professors who went off to become senators or congressmen because back then it wasn't direct election and just who was an esteemed member of our community and the electors, you know, sent them, the state legislators would

send their esteemed person. Ben is sort of a throwback to that in a lot of ways. And what's weird is that when we first came to Washington, at least me and Steve, not like you fetuses, there were still a quite. a few senators who were bad at that, but they still thought that was part of their job, was to give grand framing speeches that aroused the greater patriotic virtues in the people and all this kind of stuff. Bill Bradley kind of thought of himself in those terms. And that's, like, as far as I can tell, utterly gone. And I think there's still senators who remember that,

like Mitch McConnell, certainly. But those senators who even have that muscle memory, even in that recollection of that foregone era are going away. And so I don't think we need every senator to be an intellect like Ben or have his energy or sell runzas at stadiums, you know, in Nebraska or any of that kind of stuff. But we do need people who have this conception that the way we talk about our politics and our country should fit that definition of rhetoric of probing what men believe we ought to believe. What is the best version of ourselves that we should try to follow? And Ben is now doing that about this terrible about death.

But I think that's the through line in all the different facets of Ben's life. It's like he cares about service and work and talking about family, even though he disappointed his family, as he would fully admit, by putting work ahead so many times and too many times and all that kind of stuff. But he talked about family the right way, which is better than not talking about family in the right way. And now he's talking about how to end your life with dignity and faith. And it's very moving, but it just bums the,

bums me out. But does it make it? I mean, I guess it didn't in your case for that podcast. I think one of the things that I've taken away and watched these interviews with him, listen to the podcast with Chris, is his willingness to talk about death in a way. And I think that's why, that's one of the reasons that this has gone so far beyond, you know, the conservative movement or Republican politics or, you know, our world is you have other people who didn't know Ben Sass as a senator who'd never read any. of his books. We're paying attention to the things that he's doing and saying now. And I think in some ways, it's so helpful to have somebody like that who's willing to talk about death in the way that he's willing to talk about death. And, you know, I certainly couldn't do that. I mean,

you know, in some ways, I'm your opposite, Jonah. I really have trouble writing about my family. I don't want to talk. I try to guard my family, keep them out of this as much as I can. The times I've written about my wife and kids who talked about them, you know, probably a couple dozen over 30 years because I'm not good at it. But I do think watching him do this thing now, you know, he received this diagnosis in December, pancreatic cancer was supposed to be three months. And watching him have this conversation in public has made it, I think, easier for a lot of people to have this conversation in public. And, you know, we, my family did this. My dad has had cancer now for more than a decade. And several years ago, my youngest brother, Dan,

suggested that my siblings, I have three siblings, get together with my parents in Florida for a long weekend so that we can talk about their imminent deaths. And I can tell you there's nothing less appealing than that invitation. Like, I didn't want to do it. I wanted to see my, I always want to see my family. I always want to see my family. I always want to see my parents I always want to see the siblings. The more time I can spend with them the better. So I think we all sort of reluctantly agreed to go down there so that we could see each other and hang out. We call it the original six. And, you know, we'd do some talking about death. In the meantime, sort of as the excuse to get us together. And we went down there and it turns out

we actually did spend a ton of time talking about death and talking about their death and where they are and their life. And it was such an unbelievably sort of liberal. conversation in a weird way. And, you know, we've had some challenges, you know, in the intervening years. And to have had those very open conversations about death and how they want to die and who they want to be around and how they think of their relationship to God. And it was so amazing that I think when I watch Ben do this in a public way, in a much more public way, which has a has to be difficult for him. I mean, Jonah, you point out that he's, he shows joy in all that he does, but you know it's also hard, and he talks about how hard it is. If he sets that example

and people can have these kind of conversations with the people that they love, man, what a legacy that is, in addition to sort of all of the other legacies that he's leaving us. Anyway, John, I'll give you the last word. You pointed out some of the things that Jonah was just talking about. Jonah was just mentioning with respect to Ben's Senate career where he didn't do a lot of legislating, but he wrote these books. And, you know, you compared him to Daniel Patrick Boyne and said, these books are the kinds of things that are important and likely to outlive him for a long time.

Yeah, I mean, in 2019, I pressed him on this whole question away. You had time to write two books, but you didn't get involved in the thick of Obamacare legislation. and I went back through those books before I interviewed him, and they're really good books. I mean, the first one especially, the Vanishing American Adult, it is this, the education

that Jonah talked about. That is basically him taking, you know, he's a Harvard grad who thought four years at Harvard and a semester at Oxford didn't properly grapple with life's big question. So he goes and gets a master's degree

at St. John's, the Great Books College in Annapolis in 98, and then he goes and gets a PhD at Yale just because he wanted to read these great books. And the Vanishing American Adult is basically him taking all, these lessons from the classics, the great books, and trying to give them to people. This is a kind of beautiful gift. And yeah, it's a really great book. I'm glad I got the time with him. And

one thing I took from his book, he talks about the importance of having a shelf of books. You go back to the importance of travel, not as sightseeing, but as sort of really an education, root word of travel is travail. And so I interviewed him on paternity leave, sort of, I took a week out and took my 19-month-old and two-month-old daughters with my wife on the Amtrak up to New York City and got to introduce him to Ben Sass. So it was really great. We embraced a Sassian, you know, the way he brought his kids to those interviews with you.

Yeah. We sort of embraced that model. And, you know, we kind of felt like, how crazy is this? Like, they've never been in a hotel together. We never been in a train together. And it was surprisingly easy. Like, we were lucky this time.

But, you know, we sort of embraced the idea of the journey as the point of the travel was the travel. You know, it's not like we were going to some destination. It was like, let's see what it's like to be on a train together and to be in a hotel together. and my 19-month-old daughter did enjoy chasing pigeons in Bryant Park. She didn't make it to Central Park. But anyway, yeah, I mean, Ben says,

this is obviously, he's transcended politics in this moment of his life. He's leaving us. Lessons much more valuable than any piece of legislation. You know what I mean, when people talk about the whole,

well, he wasn't really an active legislature, I would say, okay, well, name to me the best senator from the last two decades. And what were the top piece of legislation they passed? You know, it's like we've compared, and I did this in my own pieces. You know, Ben, you compare,

you were Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. You campaigned against Obamacare. You were on Ashrius cover. Why didn't you do it when it's like, you know, there were, you know, the president and a whole, you know, 50 other, some other senators in the House. And so, yeah, I do think those questions were kind of silly

and even a little petty in hindsight. I mean, he correctly pointed out he's a freshman and he concluded there was no real interest in real reform. And never even got close to reform. It wasn't like John McCain, if he had just given the thumbs up, they were going to pass something really great. It's like, no, that was like this stripped down shell bill that they basically ended up getting those pieces in different form.

Like they got her the individual mandate eventually. And I'm sorry, I'm like spiraling off into random questions. But obviously, he's transcended politics in a way that is much bigger than any of these little legislative efforts that were likely doing from the start. And he's left us a lot of lessons. And I do that. I think, you know, both these books together sort of presents a vision for what would it actually look like to sort of have individual and familial and national renewal.

And how do we get there? That's really hard. It's a long, long road. much more important than any peace legislation. Well, we will put links to those books in the show notes, to John's piece in the show notes. We thank you for sticking around. We're going to skip not worth your time this week

because we went longer on something that was very much worth our time. So thank you all for joining us, and thank you guys for the conversation. And finally, if you like what we're doing here, you can rate review and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us. It really works.

We'd appreciate it if you'd take a moment to do it. As always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns, or corrections, you can email us at Roundtable at the dispatch.com. We read everything, even the ones from people who say, I have no observations on the matter. That's going to do it for today's show. Thanks so much for tuning in, and thank you to the folks behind the scenes who made this episode possible.

Noah Hickey and Peter Bonaventure. Thanks again for listening. Please join us next time.