The Dishcast with Andrew Sullivan

Bryan, who teaches economics at George Mason University, is the author of the graphic nonfiction NYT bestseller Open Borders. His views on immigration, nation-states, and democracy are extremely different from my own, so we debate all throughout the episode. Bryan has been the most recommended guest by our readers, who clearly want to see some fireworks on this issue. I had a lot of fun.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three clips of my conversation with Bryan — on whether a country’s citizens should have any say over immigration; on whether adding a billion people to the U.S. is wise or feasible; and on whether voting is irrational “poetry”, as Bryan puts it — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a wave of reader email came in after our episode with Jonathan Rauch, the most email we have received for any guest. Many of them are below, starting with this reader:This was an excellent podcast. Jonathan Rauch is kind and articulate, a great combination, and your dialogue was a great mixture of respectful conflict between the two of you and time for each of you to make your cases.In light of a new opinion piece in the NYT, “Cancel Culture Works: We Wouldn't Have Marriage Equality Without It,” and throwing in some of Rauch’s ideas, I wonder what you think about this: Democrats and those to the left of center have long been accused of playing too nice. Republicans began by using negative ads — tactics that didn’t begin but coalesced under Trump — and progressed to outright threats and naked power plays used to punish wayward thinkers. Democrats, on the other hand, wouldn’t attack each other and generally held on to the idea of building relationships and playing nice much longer. The problem is the negative ads worked. The threats worked. All of Trump’s disgusting tactics worked. Mind you, I do believe the Republicans may be hurting themselves in the long run, but in the short run, they’ve got loyal politicians, courts and state legislatures packed with like-minded conservatives, voting districts drawn to favor themselves, and an electorate — approximately half the country — that supports them through thick and thin.It seems to me that cancel culture and its wokeists are simply taking on the same cutthroat tactics. They’re tired of losing and being the nice guys. The culture has taught them to be more cynical, that long-term persuasion is too soft, takes too long, is too vulnerable to being undermined in the short term. Case in point is the example of that Times op-ed. I don’t know if the author is right that gay marriage needed to start threatening opponents’ livelihoods and positions in order to win, but it probably didn’t hurt, at least along with the more typical persuasive techniques. If one side continues to use cutthroat, anti-liberal (in the Rauch sense of the word) tactics that tear to shreds the slow, persuasive, long-term techniques of those following a more traditional, liberal model, what are the Democrats then left with?To be quite frank, I think Sasha’s argument was more good op-ed provocation than serious analysis of how marriage equality won. You win by shifting public opinion, which shifts the incentives of politicians. And, more importantly, that makes the advances stick. A reader dissents over my perspective on the pod:First of all, the Jonathan Rauch podcast was excellent. One of the best in a while. But I was gobsmacked that you could not concede that the danger of Donald Trump and the Republican disinformation campaign was a greater threat than what’s going on at the New York Times. You’ve truly lost the forest for the trees and it’s incredible, but sad, to watch. When you started your podcast I couldn’t imagine that I wouldn’t listen to every episode; I’ve been a fan for 20 years. But I don’t because so much of it is just you ranting against CRT and the NYT. I do believe that the Trump insanity and the GOP degeneracy are bigger threats to liberal democracy. But that doesn’t mean I can’t worry about liberal institutions caving to leftism. Another reader turns to Rauch:Dissent incoming!I like Jonathan Rauch and look forward to reading his new book, but he makes two errors in his apology for journalism’s recent missteps. First, mainstream journalism didn’t simply “get it wrong based upon the facts as known at the time.” Journalists called the Wuhan lab theory “debunked” (which it clearly wasn’t) and some characterized it as a racist theory — a NYT Covid reporter even called it racist just two weeks ago. Journalists never “showed their work” in reporting how this theory was “debunked.” Instead, they just cited Fauci and blindly accepted his version because it contradicted Trump.This leads me to my second point: journalists cannot blame Trump for their own mistakes! The NYT, WashPo, Atlantic, and New Yorker are operated by some of the most

Jon and I go way back to the early days of the marriage movement. In this episode we discuss his important new book, The Constitution of Knowledge, and get into some heated exchanges over Trump, the MSM, and Russiagate — Jon as the optimistic liberal and me as the pessimistic conservative. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. For three clips from my conversation with Jon — on what he calls “the weirdest and craziest social idea ever invented”; on the propaganda of Trump and the NYT; and on the best ways to reform Twitter — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, many readers are responding to my conversation with Charles Murray last week. One quick take:Great to hear Charles Murray! I’m sure Twitter subsequently lost its mind — good. Screw ‘em. Has anyone been more unfairly maligned than this man?Twitter was oddly quiet. Another reader enjoyed the long conversation as well:Oh jeez, Andrew — I can imagine the fun mail you’ll be getting for this one, but it’s the episode I’ve been really looking forward to! I found it both insightful, and emotional. But after one day, what sticks out for me is the section about affirmative action. When Murray says that when he went to Harvard in 1961 there were few Blacks and that you KNEW they absolutely deserved to be there on merit and academic acumen, that rang true. But then … there was no acknowledgement by him or you of the obverse: many of the white kids were there because of legacy or rich parents. I mean, isn’t that how Bush43 ended up at Yale? There MUST be a recognition of that when talking about affirmative action.Absolutely. I don’t want to end affirmative action before ending legacy admissions. They are inextricable acts of unfairness — but the long history of legacy discrimination makes it a higher priority. In the Quotes section of the Dish last week, we cheered the end of legacy preferences in Colorado. A reader dissents over the Murray episode:I find all this talk of race and IQ to be rather insulting to folks I dearly love. I would hope you could find a guest similar to Stephen Jay Gould (who’s dead) to provide a useful counterpoint to Charles Murray. Robert Bieder is still alive — he’s 82 and his book Science Encounters the Indian is a wonderful overview of the racist anthropology of the 19th century. If you’re going to give time to Murray, then you owe it to your readers to give time to the scholars who helped us all understand that intelligence has nothing to do with the melanin content of a person’s skin or how they do on a test.Obviously intelligence has nothing to do with melanin. But it is measurable, and real, and denial of this seems to me to be a denial of science. Another dissent from a reader:First, I’ll lead with my background, which informs my thoughts on this. Brought up by my Ashkenazi Jewish mother with a Yoruba/Nigerian father by blood, though not culturally, I am in an odd space in the race wars. The motivated reasoning on race and intelligence by the white community is something I’ve often observed but rarely have seen commented on. For example, somehow the difference between black and white is portrayed as profound, and yet somehow the difference between the Ashkenazi Jewish and Gentile communities is portrayed as less profound, even though the gaps are similar. It’s about 1 standard deviation between each set of groups. Also, in the case of the Jewish community, which has a lopsided verbal-loaded performance (visuospatial is below average from the Jewish community), if you just look at verbal ability, it’s likely a >1.5 standard deviation difference. Yet somehow the white community is fixated more on the black community, but doesn’t seem to really address the implications relative to the Jewish community.More importantly, the discussion of IQ is too unsophisticated. For example, is it possible that “environmental” factors can cause a >1 standard deviation difference in IQ scores? Actually, the answer is “yes”, even obviously so, but due to reasons of motivated reasoning, this is almost never discussed. I refer to the Flynn Effect, a well-documented phenomenon, where psychologists in the industrialized world have noticed that IQ scores have been creeping upwards, to the extent that every 5-10 years they need to “re-center” their scores to keep the average down at 100. As a result, black Americans in 2020 actually get higher raw IQ scores than white Americans did in 1930. What is the reason that Americans score so much higher today than they did in 1930? Health, education, computers? Who knows, but it is profound enough that if psychologists didn’t recenter scores, today the average IQ score would be something like >120, which is absurd and can’t be right.People like you make life harder for people like me. I am a gifted black American who doesn’t need more bigots wearing the cloak of reasoning from the li

Charles has a new — and probably explosive — book coming out soon, Facing Reality. This conversation is not about that. Instead, I wanted to discuss his last book which received almost no attention, Human Diversity. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. For three clips of my conversation with Charles — on the different career choices that high-IQ women often make; on the “unearned gift” of those with high IQs; and how IQ is irrelevant to the human worth, dignity, and essential equality of all people — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader looks back to last week’s episode:I have long been an avid follower, and I enjoyed your conversation with Niall Ferguson. I write because Niall made a claim during the conversation that I consider dangerously misleading. Indeed there was a serious flu epidemic in 1957-58, and indeed we produced a vaccine very quickly. However, while it is perhaps arguable that one reason for this apparent “remarkable success” compared to Trump’s “Operation WarpSpeed” was lack of bureaucracy, the main factors were not related to that.First, the 1957 vaccine was produced according to well-known and well-understood principles. Flu is a recurrent disease with quite predictable antigenic shifts; once a technique has been developed (which it had ten years earlier), it’s simply a matter of applying exactly the same approach to the new strain. In contrast, today’s mRNA vaccines were entirely novel, produced against a new virus.Second, the 1957 vaccine was only marginally effective, in contrast to the ~95% efficacy of the current mRNA vaccines.Third, the US epidemic in 1957 ended basically independently of the vaccine.Fourth, while a large number of doses were manufactured in 1957, it was nowhere near sufficient to vaccinate the whole population.I realize that this issue is somewhat away from Ferguson’s main point, but I write because I feel there is a trend, especially from a branch of the US Republican party, to discredit a remarkable scientific achievement, and to attribute such success as there may have been exclusively to industry. While complex and inefficient government administration can be a serious problem, I think that citing that as an important factor in delaying production of the mRNA vaccines is factually questionable.Niall responds:There are no footnotes on podcasts! But here are the relevant pages of my book. You can decide for yourself if I have got it wrong. You can also decide if you find the text “glib.” Finally, as you know, the fundamental mRNA breakthroughs that made possible the Moderna and Biontech vaccines were not made last year. I believe mRNA was discovered in 1961.Another reader adds:You briefly mentioned nuclear annihilation on the podcast. An older topic, but there is a hysterical 60-year-old song about it with lyrics like, “There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie...” The song is called “We Will All Go Together When We Go” by Tom Lehrer:Tom Lehrer was a genius. Another reader plugs a brilliant book — and conveys a growing sentiment among Dish dissenters:Your conversation with Niall Ferguson would have been much more substantive and enlightening if you both had read Michael Lewis’s new book on the pandemic, Premonition. It explains a great deal about the reasons for US failures in the crisis, especially at the CDC. A gripping must-read. I couldn’t put it down.The discussion also helped me to understand your instinctive contrarianism. I’ve been an avid Dishhead for about 20 years, and I usually appreciate the insights you gain from your prickly vantage point. However, lately I fear that you have become a one-trick pony regarding “woke authoritarianism” and it’s blinkering you to the many positives of Biden’s administration. As far as I can tell, wokeness is confined to fewer than 10 percent of Americans (mostly university educated whites) and will soon be forced into some synthesis with the views of mainstream society.Wokeness may already be at, or past, its peak. The failure to sell “Latinx” usage is one example, along with the real political cost of “defund the police” and the widespread ridicule of San Francisco’s school renaming. (“They” lost me a long time ago; I simply cannot use a plural pronoun with a singular verb; if necessary, get around it with “the individual” or “the person.”) So, while I agree with you in general, I find your obsessive preoccupation with the topic hyperbolic and tedious. My cousin in Texas, also a long-time Dish fan, recently said the same thing. Anti-woke can be a tiresome as woke.I hear you. I hope my column today helps explain my boring obsession with this. There’s a very important principle involved. Another reader: Your dissenter here might be right that it’s a minority of the left nationwide that means genuine police abolition. But in Seattle, it’s a very large minorit

Niall is one of my oldest and dearest friends, stretching back to our time at Magdalen College. The prolific historian is out with a new book, Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. One of the hardest convos I’ve yet had. Simply because Niall and I go back so far together, and our friendship is deep, it’s tough to interview him without abandoning objectivity — but I hope I did ok.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. For three clips of my conversation with Niall — debating how likely we are screwed as a species; on how the US response to Covid19 differed from its response to the 1957 flu; and on the religious nature of the Black Lives Matter protests last summer — head over to our YouTube page. Meanwhile, many readers are sounding off on our episode with radfem journalist Julie Bindel. A dissenter of mine:Bindel was so astute about feminism, society and what needs to change. I hope, actually, that you will go back and carefully listen to her and the nuance of what she says. Like her, I’m not denying biological determinism; I am experiencing it everyday going through perimenopause. However, I felt Bindel expressed these realities with so much more subtlety than you seem to be able to, Andrew, with all due respect. In Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari points out that what makes humans special is that we tell stories. “Homo Sapiens has been able to revise its behaviour rapidly in accordance with changing needs. This opened a fast lane of cultural evolution, bypassing the traffic jams of genetic evolution.” Or, as the theorist Joan Scott has written, “It is not about whether difference exists, but the meaning we make of that difference.”Humans tell stories, and those stories adapt to our different circumstances more than our evolution determines them. You seem to believe in this biological determinism in which it is ok for women to work in certain professions because it is “natural”. Hogwash. Then gay men would be relegated to being hairdressers and interior designers, and I’m assuming you would like and expect more options for yourself than those? In such a world, the masters of the universe would not be Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos — wimpy men by biological standards — but Hulk Hogan and Steven Seagal. Our circumstances change, our stories change, we adapt. THIS is what makes us human. Difference will always be there, but the meaning we make of it, what it means for people in our society, can and does change.The reader seems to misunderstand where I was coming from when I spoke of the gender-equality paradox of Scandinavian countries. I certainly don’t believe in “biological determinism”, just realism about some deep differences between most men and most women that will never be fully overcome. I strongly support any individual, male and female, who breaks out of those patterns.Another reader found pros and cons with the episode:Once again, I find myself enjoying a podcast with a person — Julie Bindel — whom I had had no interest in. I found myself agreeing with her on some points, but it was clear that she has little understanding of men and testosterone. Testosterone does not make you violent. But most people committing violence have testosterone. Just because a FTM trans person starts to take testosterone does not mean they will turn violent for the same reason the vast majority of men are not violent. I agreed with her on sex work. I also feel it is exploitation. I feel the same about pornography. But I don’t have the right to limit your choices. I did not understand her statement about the prostitute hating her client. Many people, such as lawyers, hate their clients. She should have gone more deeply into how we can offer sex workers economic alternatives.Laura Agustín goes deeper into that last point here, and Julie has a whole book on the subject, The Pimping of Prostitution: Abolishing the Sex Work Myth. Another reader’s two cents:All prostitution is not equal. Pimps, drug addiction, violence and intimidation are all abhorrent, and it is right to condemn them. Anyone who abuses women is immoral and a criminal, and women should be protected from them as much as possible. On the other hand, absent any REAL coercion (money is persuasion, not coercion), any adult should have the option to sell their sexual services if they choose to do so. A person might FEEL like they have no other choice, but that is a sad illusion. We should all do our best to help people in bad situations find better solutions, and to see their own potential.That’s where I’m at as well. On the topic of transgenderism, which Julie and I only briefly touched on, Dr. Dana Beyer, who appeared on the Dishcast last year, writes in:As one of the rational and civil trans women to whom you alluded on this podcast, I’d like to reiterate my previous point that Julie Bindel highlighted: much of the dispute is due to conf

A co-founder of Justice for Women, Julie has a long career campaigning against male violence. She’s the author of many books, and you can pre-order her latest, Feminism for Women, here. I disagree with her on many subjects but found strange agreement on others.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. For three clips of our conversation — on how Julie distinguishes her own “liberation feminism” from “equality feminism”; on the crucial need to focus more on global feminism; and why she views prostitution as “paid rape” — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, many readers are offering up commentary on my discussion with Eric Kaufmann on race and shifting demographics. But first a quick correction from a reader, who clears up my conflation of two similar men featured on Bari Weiss’s substack:Contrary to your passing comment, Paul Rossi (the teacher at Grace Church School who got fired) didn’t say that about systemic racism (“We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s”). It was Andrew Gutmann — a father of a student at Brearley.Bari spoke to both men over Zoom here. And here she featured six takes — from John McWhorter, Lara Bazelon, Glenn Loury, Kmele Foster, Chloé Valdary and Kenny Xu — on the question of “what is systemic racism?” I’m working on my own attempt to answer that question.Back to the Kaufmann pod, a reader offers firsthand perspective on racism outside the United States:I’m glad you made the point that other countries have worse racial oppression. Whenever a CRT activist says the US is terrible on race, I always wonder, “compared to what?”I lived in Africa for years and study it today, and the racism there is pervasive. Majority-clan Somalis treat the ethnically distinct, minority Somali Bantus (historically slaves in Somalia) horribly, to the point that some scholars believe they have suffered genocide. In Central Africa, pygmy peoples are seen as subhuman and have been nearly wiped out by surrounding people groups. The Khoisan in southern Africa were driven from most of their land by Bantu-speaking groups, and the Portuguese discovered that Khoisan made fabulous counterinsurgent fighters in part because they so hated the Bantu-speaking groups that populated the rebel ranks. In Mauritania, the light-skinned Moors to this day enslave many dark-skinned Africans, as much as 20% of the population. Sec. Blinken recently described what is going on in Ethiopia’s Tigray region as “ethnic cleansing.” And it goes on and on.America is not a racial utopia, but no state ever has been or ever will be. It does, however, treat its minorities much better than does the great majority of countries. That is why it has by far the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, why millions of black Africans line up at US consulates for the remotest chance to get a visa, and why hundreds of thousands of people from Latin America head for the US-Mexican border whenever there is an opportunity to get across. The idea that the U.S. is uniquely evil on racial issues is analytically indefensible, but also dangerous. I see in Africa every single day how destructive group grievances are to efforts to build unity, stability, and prosperity, and that is where the CRT crowd is trying to take us.Amen. It takes unimaginable levels of historical ignorance to describe the modern West as uniquely racist, or as somehow “creating” racism in the modern era. And yet this very ignorance is now being taught to children as a “responsible” curriculum. Another reader makes an analogy:While I am no astrophysicist, it seems to me “systemic racism” plays the same role in the liberal/progressive view of American society as dark matter (and dark energy) play in cosmology. Simply put, without positing the existence of massive amounts of unseen dark matter, our standard cosmological model — incorporating our very best understanding of “the science” — cannot stand. We cannot explain the Universe while maintaining the current cosmological paradigm unless dark matter exists.Another reader pushes against my views on wokeness and immigration:Excellent podcast with Eric Kaufmann. Lots of interesting stuff here, but I feel like there are two separate topics you sometimes confuse in the conversation.The first topic is to what degree certain ethnicities or races or other demographic groups are disadvantaged in American society. I think a lot of what you call “neo-racism” is just a belief that right now the disparities are too big. Why aren’t 51% of congresspeople women? Why aren’t 18% Hispanic? Of course there are historical reasons for these disparities, and in theory they will slowly correct themselves over time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth proactively trying to help it along. It’s disingenuous to claim that white liberals are looking to entirely

Eric is a professor of politics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and he most recently wrote the book Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities, which I reviewed here. Be sure to check out his recent report on the social construction of racism in the United States.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. For three excerpts from my conversation with Eric — on the comparatively little racism of the US compared to other countries; on the anti-immigrant views of new immigrants; and on why Barack Obama would be considered “white supremacist” today — head over to our YouTube page.After listening to last week’s episode with Shawn McCreesh, a reader shares his own family experience with opioids:My mother had terminal cancer when I was in college in the mid 1980s, in a far-ish suburb outside of Boston. After the cancer got to a certain point, and only then, she was prescribed morphine. It is my understanding it was only prescribed in terminal cases. Even after getting a prescription, it wasn’t easy to get. I remember my stepfather had to drive about 30 minutes to the nearest pharmacy that sold it, since it wasn’t available everywhere. He went to a pharmacy close to the hospital and handed over his license, and they logged where every drop went.The question is, how did we go to a strictly controlled substance with very specific indications to a very similar class of drugs that was doled out like candy to high school football players with minor neck injuries? I think the answer is that it was a patented pharma product where the owners could make a lot of money. They spent a lot of money lobbying doctors to write scripts and legislators to make sure the scripts could be written. Everyone made money but the patients. Voila. Here is your crisis. It was entirely manufactured because the healthcare system is not designed to keep the population healthy, but to make money for a certain group of people and companies. Health care, like so many other vital services in America, including higher education and housing, has been fully monetized.As people like Shawn McCreesh continue to survey the carnage, the person at McKinsey who designed Perdue’s sales strategy probably made partner and is now a wealthy, respected, and an upstanding member of his community — and you can bet it isn’t Shawn’s hometown, Hatboro.Another reader’s two cents:I found the interview with Shawn McCreesh very interesting. Once again, a subject that I had no interest in turned out to be fascinating.I have children around that same age who have dabbled in drugs. From my experience, this gets down to bad parenting. Leaving prescription drugs where they can be stolen. Being unaware that your medication is missing. Your children becoming addicts without you knowing. Another reader lends his expertise to clarify a point about drug treatment meds:Great conversation with Shawn McCreesh, thanks for doing it. I’m a psychiatrist with significant experience treating substance abuse (though not that much treating opioid addiction). Shawn mentions that Suboxone may be even worse than other opioids, and describes his friends having a very bad reaction. However, Suboxone (really the buprenorphine ingredient in Suboxone) is a “partial agonist”, meaning it binds to the opioid receptors very tightly, but does not stimulate them very strongly. This leads to a ceiling effect where once all the receptors are bound, more Suboxone doesn’t make one any more high, and it is extremely hard to overdose on Suboxone. Other opioids bind less tightly, but stimulate the receptor more strongly, so the more one has in his system the more intoxicated/overdosed one gets. What this also means is if one already has other opioids in the body, Suboxone will kick them off the opioid receptors and that person will go into rapid opioid withdrawal, which is I think what happened to his friends.People can still abuse and get addicted to Suboxone, and it can be very hard to discontinue as well so it is often used for long-term maintenance. But it is much safer than other opioids, and people can live normal lives for decades taking this once per day in the morning to block other opioid cravings and abuse. Basically all addiction specialists think it should be much more widely available.Switching gears, this next reader offers her expertise on our immigration episode with Nick Miroff:I love your stuff, but I can’t help but notice that your immigration conclusions fail to grapple with a huge empirical piece — which I report on these days from Mexico/Central America: the reality of war-zone-levels of insecurity on the ground here (not everywhere, but in vast swathes of territory). The discussion up north centers largely on the narrative that most asylum-seekers are mainly cheating economic migrants. I listened to your recent podcast a

Shawn is a first-generation college grad working at the New York Times and just penned a popular op-ed on his own experience growing up in a culture of opioids in suburban Philly. A more detailed version of his story was published last summer in Liberties. It’s a moving account of a Millennial tragedy.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. For two clips of my conversation with Shawn — on how teen parties became a boring den of zombies; and on how the good intentions of Big Pharma took a reckless deadly turn — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, many readers are responding to last week’s trans/detrans episode with Buck Angel and Helena Kerschner:I thought it was terrific! Buck is a character and Helena is warm and precocious. I had not heard of either of them beforehand, so I nearly skipped the episode. But after I began listening, I quickly appreciated their personalities; they are both open, non-dogmatic, friendly and cheerful. By the end of your discussion, I found myself really rooting for Helena and Buck. It is wonderful that they appear to be thriving despite the difficulties they’ve faced.Another reader was drawn to Buck in particular:Thanks for a particularly good Dishcast! I’m pretty damn close to a Kinsey six or whatever; I may admire women as beautiful and impressive humans, but they do NOTHING for me sexually. I like GUYS: the hairiness, the attitude, the pheromones, the works. Someone like Buck Angel DOES just resonate as a “guy” — the secondary characteristics and attitude matter a lot more than external genitalia. So I guess that’s where I differ from you: the dick, per se, does not make the man — attitude and presentation are far more important. The problem I’ve run into has been that some super-cute trans otter-or-bear men who appeal immensely on visual/“GUY” terms, will then, almost immediately, if not preemptively, throw up a VERY hostile separatist-lesbian wall of critical theory about “I’m not interested if you’re just objectifying me/I’m not your experiment.” If objectification is oppression, then gay men are all dirty pigs! As a 34-years-out gay man, if someone is purporting to BE a gay man, well, isn’t objectification the whole bloody point?! All my 40-50-60ish cis-male gay pals are ALL about the friendly/brotherly gropey-fun objectification. It makes us all feel seen and appreciated in a low key kind of way.Needless to say, I’ve had little luck with the FTM community, at least the young ‘uns. But it’s the antithesis of truth to say that’s because I’m Transphobic.On the other hand, I do get it: That kind of gropey-fun attitude for either straight/cis women or, apparently, for anyone whose youngest formative years were as equipped with female organs and hormones, is problematic, to say the least. And I’m glad you kinda pointed that out: There is a BIG biological divergence here.All of this just makes me REALLY appreciate a guy like Buck, who’s clearly a guy we would all just like to hang out with, and fool around with, as one of the guys. He did it utterly by himself so long ago, not in any Boomer-parent-coddled cocoon or with any internet echo chambers of satirically Orwellian social theory. He’s just … a GUY.Next up, a cis woman brings to bear her experience with hormone therapy:I had stage III ovarian cancer at age 33 and now don’t have ovaries and have been on hormone replacement for the past seven years. If a trans person told me they had gotten surgery or taken hormones, I would support them because I don’t think it’s my place to tell another adult what to do. However, if they asked my opinion on whether to get surgery or take hormones, my answer would be absolutely not.I know that some people might benefit from hormone treatment, as I do. But I know better than anyone the complexity of dealing with hormone changes. And when it comes to elective surgery, that’s just about the dumbest thing a person could ever do. Celebrating the fact that children are doing this is insanity.Over the years, I’ve found myself wandering into conversations where people get very angry at me for sharing my opinions. For example, my brother flipped out on me for saying that I think many of these young people would benefit from not having medical interventions and working toward accepting themselves as they are, however they happen to be, even if this isn’t their preferred gender. Yes, they might feel they “are” another gender, but isn’t it an even higher plane of being to just accept whatever you are and try to be healthy? I still feel like a woman even though my female organs have been removed and I have no natural estrogen/progesterone and went into menopause as a young adult, then back out of menopause on hormone treatment. Losing those hormones didn’t change who I am. It did, however, make me appreciate being healthy and being sane. A hormone upheaval make

Buck Angel was a pioneering porn star — the only trans man to ever win Transsexual Performer of the Year at the AVN Awards — and today he’s a sex educator, motivational speaker, and entrepreneur. Helena Kerschner is a 22-year-old woman who lived as a man on hormone therapy for several years before detransitioning. Buck’s transition saved his life, while Helena’s transition was a bit of a calamity, but they share a resistance to the dogma of the trans activist community and speak forcefully and elegantly against it.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. To hear four excerpts from my conversation with Buck and Helena — on the cult-like behavior of many trans activists; on the risks of puberty blockers; on the profound effects of testosterone; on how the hormone caused Buck, a former lesbian, to become attracted to men for the first time — head over to our YouTube page.This episode is part of an ongoing Dishcast series on the lives of transgender people and the debates surrounding one of the most polarizing subjects of today, especially when it comes to kids transitioning. Our previous episodes welcomed two happily transitioned and brilliant women, Dana Beyer and Mara Keisling, both of whom pushed back against my views, with followup debate led by readers here and here. More to come. I have tried to get today’s more typical trans activists on the show, but they won’t respond to my emails. If you know a trans person both committed to the full-on trans position and willing to enter dialogue with a critic, please get in touch: [email protected] are some pieces we mentioned in this week’s conversation:* Helena’s tweeted photos showing her social worker assessment. “This took less than 30 min and cleared me to take testosterone w/ no blood work or further assessment,” she writes. She also points to “Tweets with my medical records showing that I was prescribed testosterone (at an unusually high dose) with no blood work on the first visit.”* “Gender identity is hard but jumping to medical solutions is worse,” an Economic piece written by Carey Callahan, a detrans woman, about her experience working at a clinic in California (not Chicago, as Helena put it)* A 9-year-old trans kid asking Elizabeth Warren a question at a televised town hall (not a 6 year old, as I mistakenly said)* “When Sons Become Daughters, Part III: Parents of Transitioning Boys Speak Out on Their Own Suffering,” the latest in an ongoing series by Quillette.* “The He Hormone”, my 2000 NYT Magazine piece on testosteroneMentioned in the main Dish today, here’s the full story from the reader who “recently lost my 21-year-old mentally ill, heroin-addicted, trans nephew whom I raised during his teen years”: As a young girl, my niece literally had no friends and couldn’t find her way in the world. Incredibly smart, beautiful, and funny, she was a lost soul and couldn’t make sense of her life. There was so much mental illness in her family, including her parents. In high school, she founded the Equality Alliance Club and became fascinated by the trans kids. Pretty soon, I found boy’s underwear in her laundry. We had a talk and I got her in therapy. From there, things moved way too fast and before I knew it, her mom okayed testosterone treatment — like six months into the process. It just didn’t fit the kid I knew. And he never found happiness and ended up addicted and homeless.I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of this important issue. Anything under the age of 18 needs to be dealt with slowly and carefully and definitely with second opinions.From another parental figure:Thank you so much for “A Truce Proposal in the Trans War.” As the parent of a 20 year old who identifies as trans male, I can say that so much of your piece perfectly resonates with my observations — I may just reference it directly when asked, “What do you think?” For me, the trans identity, or any feelings of non-alignment with externally defined gender designations, has never been an issue. My wife and I adore our son, as he is, and support him any way we can, no strings attached. We are fully supportive of him constructing his own life, defined as he wishes. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean we are required to agree with every one of his decisions. Because of the ideological forces you describe in your article, our thoughts on gender issues are not requested or welcomed. We are always under threat of being lumped in with people who are cruel or indifferent in the type of catch-all thinking you describe — either believe it all or be ostracized to the sideline. Our son is brilliant (quite literally) and has always been extremely independent. However, no amount of raw intelligence or independence can substitute for the wisdom of age and, importantly, the final maturation of the brain. This latter idea — brain maturation — is where I have a minor dis

Nick is the supremely talented reporter at the Washington Post covering immigration and DHS, and before that he was a foreign correspondent based in Mexico City and Havana. We tried to break down what is actually happening on the Southern border, and how likely it is to get exponentially worse.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Nick — on how the U.S. got to “kids in cages” under Trump; on the cruelty of letting in migrants without any support; and how basically no one who enters the U.S. illegally gets deported — head over to our YouTube page. Here is the full long dissent from our main post today:I think you’re becoming a curmudgeon. In your episode with Emily Yoffe and your post on “queer”, you negate any possibility of conceiving of a group of people who are either L, or G, or B, or T, or any of the other sometimes-associated letters. The notion that this group is nonexistent is silly. Here are the characteristics common to the people you want to say have nothing in common:* We don’t conform to the expectations today’s culture has for persons of our gender, whatever that may be. Men aren’t supposed to be attracted to men. Women aren’t supposed to be attracted to women. No one is supposed to be attracted to more than one gender. Everyone is supposed to feel like the gender of their biological sex. I first heard this described as “gender-nonconformity” by — guess who? — a gay man. * Because of the above, or for other reasons, we experience mental and emotional issues at higher rates than the general population. Maybe we’ve experienced homophobia by others. Worse, most of us have experienced homophobia or transphobia from ourselves. * Our childhoods were generally marked by stresses due to our nonconformity that other children didn’t experience. * Many of us have to make a life’s work of reaffirming our own worth in spite of the fact that we’re different from most of the culture. * We can each potentially find support from other non-conforming individuals, even if they are different from the general culture in different ways than we are. I could think of others, but that’s enough for now. If a group can be said to be a collection of individuals that share common characteristics, of course there’s a group here. So there must be a word of some kind for it. Sure, raise the alarm against CRT if you want. Fine. Personally, I think this also speaks to your own experience more than logic. You (understandably) like the idea of the community that gay men represent to you, so don’t muddy the waters by broadening the group. It’s meant something to you to have that community. But this is both/and. It’s true that the community of gay men, or even the individual experience of gay men, is not the same as other communities. I know that as a bisexual man. Polls indicate that the numbers of bisexuals is higher than the numbers of either lesbians or gay men. And we commonly report that we feel both that we are like and unlike lesbians and gay men. That’s been my experience—gay/not-gay, but most certainly not straight.I do agree with you that straight people should not identify with groups they don’t belong in. It’s trendy to be “queer,” but it’s insincere signaling. But what I’d like to know, Andrew, is what word you’d allow me to use to describe broadly the group I belong in, beyond just bisexual (a word that carries an awful lot of stigma)? I used to say “LGBT” or “LGBTQ,” but now I’m to understand that those aren’t available for use. And God forbid I call myself “queer.” Learning from other “rainbow people” has helped me learn about myself. Being supported by them, and supporting them, has helped me heal. So I do identify as [Andrew-approved word]. Can you please help me out here? This is a great question. I’ll think some more on it, but here’s my instant thought. Many kids feel isolated from their peers because they don’t quite fit in with crude gender stereotypes — and that includes many more straight than gay kids. Feelings of lack of self-worth are universal. Non-conformity is so vast a grouping you could fit countless non-gay and non-trans people in it. And feeling you are the opposite sex is completely different than being comfortable with your sex and gender and seeking similar. When persecution was intense, there was a reason to group similarly challenged groups. I’m not so sure that endures. The vast differences between gay and lesbian culture — vive la difference — are greater than those between men and gay men or between women and lesbians. Why do we need a collective noun at all? After listening to our episode with Emily Yoffe, a reader makes a provocative argument:The Title IX guidelines for sexual harassment use the phrase “unwelcome conduct”. What to make of this? Each victim may have her own idea of what is “unwelcom

Emily has been the most fearless reporter on the fraught subject of sexual assault and due process on college campuses, first for Slate and then The Atlantic. She also wrote a hilarious book about a beagle, What the Dog Did.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or just below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts from my conversation with Emily — on the Democrats’ selective defense of due process; on a culture of fear on the left; and on the need for journalists to be misfits and malcontents — head over to our YouTube page.A reader looks back to last week’s Dishcast:Loved the episode with Tim Shipman — not least because of the effortless switching of your attentions back and forth across the Pond. But only an hour?? I could have listened all afternoon ... Same for this reader:As someone whose grandparents emigrated to the US from Ireland, and one who has no interest in Brexit or Boris Johnson, I was surprised how much I enjoyed your podcast with Tim Shipman and in fact was disappointed it was shorter than your other podcasts. I would have liked to hear more from him, particularly his thoughts on Trump, wokeness, and the future of the US media.What was most refreshing was to hear a man whose success and competency as a newsman is based on his knowledge and experience rather than his intersectionality and his related “story”. I can’t imagine anyone having a political discussion like you two had with Maggie Haberman or Jim Acosta — or anyone in the US White House press corp. And Shipman’s gravitas and dignity stand in stark contrast to our young woke writers. Comparing Shipman’s thoughtfulness to Olivia Nuzzi’s profane snarky tone makes clear how young people in the media today — brought up on Twitter — have a long way to go to develop the type of world-view that will allow them to do the type of quality reporting Shipman does. The most important thing I got out of your discussion was how different Trump and Johnson are. Whatever else Johnson may be, he is obviously a bright, well-educated man — something you cannot say about Trump. You can see how Johnson survives to fight another day and Trump is banished to Mar-a-Lago. It also makes clear that if Trump was just a little smarter and less thin-skinned, we would be in his second term right now.A reader in Ireland found the episode wanting:Great piece with Tim, but I’m really surprised neither of you talked about the Irish Border. This became the thorniest issue in Brexit (because of the hard Brexiteers) and exposed Johnson not just as a liar (ask the DUP — no border in the Irish sea), but also as reckless when dealing with the Good Friday Agreement, the most successful piece of conflict resolution arguably anywhere in many years. I live one mile from the Border with Northern Ireland, so the issue was very real for me and many others on this island. Johnson is devoid of real principle, although he has buckets of charm, which makes him wholly untrustworthy and also, ironically, a real danger to the UK union, having left the European one. Anyway, very few British people “get” Ireland (North or South). But aren’t you, Andrew, Irish?Sorry for that omission. Yes, Boris lied. It’s what he does. And I don’t think he ever really thought through the Irish dimension of Brexit. Another reader remarks, “I really loved this episode, and I hope we get to learn more about non-American politics and personalities.” Always open to suggestions: [email protected]. Many readers have been recommending Bryan Caplan:After reading your latest column on immigration (which was excellent as usual), I’m wondering if you’ve had a chance to read Caplan’s book Open Borders. It’s a fun and easy read, so I would recommend doing so if you haven’t. I think he makes a strong case for open borders and while I would not go as far as to endorse the position, he definitely nudged me in his direction.This reader recognizes Mickey’s total aversion to b******t:I was gratified to see Mickey Kaus on the podcast. You two were the first bloggers I followed way back when. Oddly, I was about to send a recommendation that you invite him when he magically appeared. Substack has fulfilled my subliminal wish. MK is one of the clearest social welfare policy thinkers around and is incapable of political posturing.I agree. And hilarious. Another reader digs deep into the issues he and I explored:I enjoyed listening to the podcast with Mickey Kaus. You were both so rational and fair that you didn’t piss me off as much as thought you might because I have strong feelings about “welfare”. For the past 25 years, I have worked as a mental health counselor for a community agency in the Cleveland area. All of my clients, most of them women (white, black, and Latino) are low income (or to use Mickey’s term, “on the dole”). I don’t know how many hundreds of people I have worked with over the years, but I ha

Tim is simply the best political reporter in Britain. He’s their Bob Woodward, but he can also actually write. His two books, Fall Out, and All Out War, are indispensable to understanding the politics of Brexit. He knows the Westminster political class as well as anyone. In this episode, we talk about Boris Johnson’s astonishing luck and charm, as well as the Labour Party’s floundering. For three clips of our conversation — on the Tory leader’s knack for winning over the working class; on his and Brexit’s vindication over the vaccine; and on whether the monarchy might not survive the death of Her Majesty — pop over to our YouTube page. You can listen to the whole episode in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. If you want to understand how the politics of the UK helps us understand the politics of the US right now, have a listen. We had a blast.Looking back to last week’s episode on welfare and immigration in the US, a reader writes:I enjoyed your conversation with Mickey Kaus immensely. I realized I’ve never understood these generational shifts and counter-shifts in government policy emphasis, and that if that’s the case, the vast majority of voters don’t, either. I take issue with one comment, though. Biden has, in fact, harped so incessantly on the “dignity of work” that it invited blowback during his campaign. Do not confuse the activist position with Biden’s. He is the President, and I do not see his acceding to any assistance policy that doesn’t support work. My understanding of even the the child credits argument is that it supports day care, so the parent(s) can work!A sharper dissent comes from this reader:Can you just stop it with the “The Media is monolithically behind Biden” — it’s so lazy and obviously false. Is Fox News behind Biden? NY Post? Washington Examiner? National Review? Townhall.com? Sinclair? Washington Times? Wall Street Journal? Ann Coulter / Hannity in their talk shows? Or are they not part of the media?I get that you had a bad experience with NY Mag and you don’t like Charles Blow, but time to move on and look the world as it is — not some caricature.Over to immigration, another dissent:It’s such a fear-mongering narrative to spin immigration as a conspiracy by shadowy forces on the left to flood the country with non-white racial groups so as to destabilize the structures of white supremacy … you’re sounding like conspiracy theorist! What kind of American politician would invest so much in a strategy that won’t see a pay-off for 20+ years? The waiting list for green cards is backlogged decades, and that’s not even counting the waiting period for becoming a citizen after that. And you even admit that plenty of immigrants don’t automatically vote for one party over the other! This would be the most convoluted conspiracy ever. There are far more effective ways to grow the party than to be pro-immigration.It’s not a conspiracy. It’s out in the open. Almost every argument against mass immigration is instantly stigmatized as racist or “white supremacist.” White liberals have increasingly come to see non-white skin as a sign of moral worth, and opposition to mass or illegal immigration as de facto proof of racism. Another reader on immigration addresses an angle that could divide the left:To your point about there being two primary concerns with mass immigration (the traditional labor concerns Mickey spoke to, and the concerns about social cohesion that you and David Frum share), I would add a third (related) concern: environmental sustainability and quality of life.For the past 50 years, immigration policy has driven the majority of U.S. population growth. Without reductions, the Census Bureau projects the U.S. population to surpass 400 million by 2060. In other words, if current trends (2020 notwithstanding) continue, we will grow by roughly the entire population of France in just a few decades. Biden’s immigration proposal would more than double annual immigration. Some might say that’s a good thing, and others will say it is a bad thing, but either way, immigration-driven population growth will have a profound impact on American life. We are making decisions today for future generations. Not only should we be allowed to talk about it, but we should be encouraged to talk about it.For instance, I don’t know if your environmental concerns extend to biodiversity, natural habitats, or access to open space (I know you are very worried about climate change), but each of these become more difficult to guarantee with Congress mandating population growth through immigration. A quarter century ago, President Clinton’s Task Force on Population and Consumption wrote, “We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.”I agree. I have no problem with a stable or declining population. For the planet, it’s a good thing. I thi

Mickey is an old friend and colleague from way back. His 1992 book, The End of Equality, was hugely influential for welfare reform in the Clinton years. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Mickey — on the history of how neoliberalism gutted the middle class; on whether Joe Biden’s amnesty policy amounts to “open borders”; and our questioning of what Biden actually believes, if anything — head over to our YouTube page.Mickey in the first ten minutes of the episode touches on a much-forgotten history noted by this reader:You wrote in your column last week that Johnson was a radically progressive president. Actually, I think that Nixon was more radically progressive. He might have been the most left-wing president of my lifetime since 1953. Nixon created the EPA and supported environmental legislation. He tried wage and price controls to combat inflation. Nixon’s 1969 Family Assistance Program included a guaranteed income (what we increasingly call UBI), and it passed the House but not the Senate. Nixon and Senator Ted Kennedy were also in negotiations for a federal universal health coverage plan. These negotiations didn’t get too far because of Watergate distractions and other priorities.Peter Beinart sizes up the LBJ-Biden analogy when it comes to foreign policy.Looking back to last week’s episode with addiction expert Sally Satel, a reader writes:Thank you for your incredibly fair treatment of AA, and 12-step programs generally. I’m 21 months sober and active in AA, and honestly my main issue has always been depression (which I largely see as my feelings of hopelessness and meaninglessness in this life). I believe the two are intimately connected for me. And I hear how people speak of the program in popular culture and even people who are in addiction services and they don’t seem to understand it, and I think it serves to actively dissuade people from going, which is a huge disservice to lots of people. I think you really understand it (have you spent some time in 12-step recovery?), and I just want to say thanks for doing it justice, in my mind. I also really appreciated this conversation with Sally generally, and the nuanced treatment of depression and addiction and how they are really social disorders, with biological and psychological and other bases.Never done 12-step myself. But I’ve seen its power in others. Another reader dissents a little:Sally Satel is so close! It’s true that addiction isn’t a disease, it’s a symptom — a symptom of a larger psychological problem, usually trauma of some kind. Something that requires escaping. Dr. Gabor Maté found from working with addicts that every single one of them had some kind of traumatic experience that they seek to escape through chemical means. Check him out:This next reader recommends Gabor Maté for the Dishcast and offers some excellent observations about the opioid crisis — both from a professional perspective and a personal one:Fantastic podcast this week with Sally Satel on a topic that interests me greatly (I edited a book about the opioid crisis). You asked some probing questions that the recovery community hasn’t been able to collectively answer: To what degree should we think of addiction as a brain disease, versus something that a person can control? And where should we assign responsibility for the scourge of addiction that is sweeping our country? Surely, the pharmaceutical companies behave villainously. And as you suggest, there are obvious reasons why addiction epidemics strike hardest where people were already suffering.But there is another issue that your podcast failed to take up, and I fear it is likewise lost in the broader conversation, at least among certain educated, liberal circles. I cannot believe that what I’m about to say should strike anyone as remotely controversial, but people often don’t like hearing it: People should not f**k around with certain dangerous drugs, such as crack, meth, or heroin. Not ever, and even a little bit, not even if they are “responsible grown-ups.” So, I regard Carl Hart, whom Sally mentioned on your show, as a terribly misguided menace.(P.S. I feel differently about MDMA and psilocybin, though that muddles my message.)Studies show that the overwhelming majority of opioid addicts did not, initially, receive narcotics from a careless doctor. They started using opioids recreationally. Furthermore, about 70 percent of opioid addicts started fooling around with other drugs before they got hooked on OxyContin or heroin. When overdose deaths occur, they typically involve combinations of drugs, such as when heroin is laced with fentanyl, or when people mix opioids, cocaine, benzos and booze. That happened about 80,000 times last year. Obviously, this is not an invitation to shame, marginalize, or humiliate drug abusers

Sally Satel, the author of many books, is a psychiatrist and journalist who just came back after spending a year with opioid addicts in Ironton, Ohio. She writes about that experience, and her views on addiction — that it’s not as simple as a “brain disease” — for the journal, Liberties. We also discuss depression, mental illness, and modernity. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with Sally — on the compelling story of how Nixon got Vietnam vets off heroin; and on the tragic impact that meth has had on too many gay men — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back to last week, a reader loved our episode with Glenn Greenwald:Do you have any idea how refreshing that was?! One and a half hours of b******t-free thinking out loud! As much of his stuff I’ve read, I had never heard Greenwald interviewed in depth or even heard his voice. I was just so impressed with this man’s courage. He exemplifies intellectual honesty and integrity, to the point that he puts his body on the line. The dude has big brass balls and I admire the hell out of him even more having heard you two chat. Another reader digs up a YouTube recording from 2013:I finished your podcast with Glenn this morning and went to find and watch the marriage debate in Idaho that you mentioned in the episode:I’m just sending this note to let you know how moving you were in the debate. I don’t cry, but I do let my eyes swell, and over the course of those two hours you made so many statements that moved me to the point of my eyes swelling. Really appreciate your work and everything else.Another reader criticizes my work:Greetings from Afghanistan. I’ve read your work on and off since your days at The New Republic. I credit you for changing my mind on gay marriage, so thank you for that alone. Although we have different views — I’m a Never Trumper, somewhere between Kevin Williamson and George Will — I respect your willingness to debate people who hold different views.I must admit, however, that I vociferously disagree with your thoughts on Iraq/Afghanistan/and the wider war on terrorism. I’m currently on my sixth deployment and I’ve spent nearly five years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will fully admit that I’m probably biased on this subject. I’ve shed a lot of blood here. I’ve lost so many friends — both Afghan/Iraqi and American — so when I hear you and Mr. Greenwald roll your eyes at the thought of staying put in either country, it certainly boils my blood. I’m aware we’ve made egregious errors. I’ve railed against the machine myself, tilting at the proverbial windmills. Nevertheless, I’m quite reluctant to quit (lose) and see hundreds of my Afghan friends get slaughtered, like our South Vietnamese allies did in re-education camps. These wars are just talking points for so many — another cudgel to hit the neo-cons with or put that war-monger W in his place. But for thousands of my brothers and sister-in-arms, it has been our lives’ work. I didn’t intend to be in any respect glib about that. I’m in awe of the way so many service-members have given their lives to this endless war, and it’s impossible to express my respect and admiration for those not in armchairs debating policy. The question is whether to keep this kind of sacrifice going indefinitely, or to end it, however grueling an admission of defeat might be. Another reader sizes up the rapidly shifting mediascape from his vantage point in Boston:Thank you for the wonderful conversation with Glenn Greenwald. I was struck by your mentioning the recent media obsession with violence toward Asian Americans. You are correct — in none of the stories have I seen a word said about the perpetrators. We are supposed to assume that this is collateral damage from Trump’s xenophobic reign, but it appears to me that many of those committing these heinous acts are young black men. For the media to acknowledge that would sort of make the simplistic narrative surrounding BLM that we’ve been spoon fed these past several months a bit more complicated, so therefore we are left with just the storyline that’s there’s been “escalating violence” against Asians.Your attitude towards the New York Times mirrors mine toward the Boston Globe. The Globe was a staple on my morning doorstep throughout my life — I guess I’m a true classic Liberal deep down as well — but I no longer have faith in the paper. Conversely, The Manchester Union Leader has always been my local paper — but growing up gay and reading anti-gay bigotry on its editorial pages throughout my life did little for my self acceptance.A funny thing happened during the Trump era. The Globe ran story after front-page story as part of “the resistance”, and the op-eds all had the same punchline: Trump is evil. (I did not vote for him either time.) The Union Leader did not support Trump; he’

The indefatigable Greenwald needs no introduction for Dishheads. He was once a demon for the pro-war right; and now for the woke left. You can pre-order his book on Brazil under Bolsonaro, Securing Democracy, and you can donate to the animal shelter he started.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Glenn — on the dangers of living as a gay public figure in Bolsonaro’s Brazil; on Trump’s success when it came to foreign policy; and on the ways in which elite journalists punch down with wokeness — head over to our YouTube page. Looking back to last week, many readers enjoyed our episode with trans activist Mara Keisling:Thanks for having the conversation with Mara and kudos to her for having a civil conversation with you. While I agreed with much of what you said, I think “trans women are women” is a much more defensible statement than you seem to believe. You appear to push back against it because you interpret it as a factual statement about how trans women aren’t in any way different from cis women, which would indeed be false. A different way of looking at it: we should define the term “women” to encompass both cis women and trans women. Scott Alexander made this point beautifully in a post on his old blog called “The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories.”As I’ve said repeatedly, I believe that trans women should be treated as women under the law and by decent human beings. But I can’t in good conscience say they are in every way indistinguishable from women, that “biological sex” is a bigoted term, and that where nudity or safety are concerned, we cannot make some small compromises. Another reader:Excellent podcast. I found it telling that Ms. Keisling struggled in three parts of the interview: women’s sports, religious tolerance under the proposed Equality Act, and where do we draw the line with regards to children and transgender therapy/medical procedures. These three topics are where the majority of people supportive of transgender identity often raise legitimate questions of concern, and where they’re often met with the fiercest hostility by activists. Notice how difficult it was to get a straightforward response from Ms. Keisling on these three issues, as if she were walking a tightrope above a sea of egg shells. Could it be that these areas are where much of the current transgender rights argument falls apart? I don’t think it falls apart as a whole. But I do think treating these legitimate, small worries as a form of “hate” is wrong, and counter-productive. In their defense, I don’t think many trans activists have ever engaged these arguments without dismissing them as bigotry, and beneath a response. They mainly chant, deploy maximal emotional blackmail, and intimidate the press, which is already on their side. When you regard debate itself as a form of white supremacy, you tend not to be very good at it.This next reader focuses on the sports issue and illustrates why Dish readers are the absolute best:I have been reading and listening to you since your early New Republic days but have never written to you because I felt I didn’t have enough specific knowledge to jump in. Having listened to your conversation with Mara Keisling, it is odd to me that the topic I do have specific knowledge about is women versus men in billiards, which Mara speculated about.From 2001 to 2005, I was President of the United Poolplayers of America (UPA), the governing body of men’s professional pool in the US. During that time, I promoted the World Summit of Pool that was televised on ESPN from Grand Central Terminal in NYC. In an effort to sell more tickets, I suggested that we let the women compete as well. Well, the guys couldn’t have cared less. It was the women who were adamantly opposed. I had several conversations with Jeanette Lee, aka the Black Widow, the greatest American woman billiards player. She was the one who made the case that the guys have an overwhelming physical advantage. The advantage has nothing to do with the guys being taller, as Mara suggested. (Efren Reyes, the best poolplayer in the world, is 5’7”.) While the women are equal shot-makers and just as cool under pressure, the guys have a big advantage on the break. Because they are stronger and can generate more power, they will pocket a ball on the break more frequently, which allows them to continue shooting. In a “race to eleven”, if a woman fails to pocket a ball just one or two times less than her opponent, then that’s the whole ballgame.Back in 2003, Jeanette actually gave me several academic studies that she had researched. Sorry to say, but Mara is just not correct when she says there aren’t real studies on the topic of the advantages that boys have in sports from an early age. All these years later I have found these articles in my file cabi

Mara is a brilliant transgender rights activist and founding executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. I’m so grateful for her willingness to have a robust exchange of views on some issues, along with much agreement as well. Every few weeks, I hope to add another perspective to the debate over trans identity, a subject that has suffered from the mainstream media’s horror of open debate. Dana Beyer kicked the series off. You can listen to the episode with Mara Keisling right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts of Mara — on the tensions within the new Equality Act; on the conflation of sex and gender in public policy; and on the fairness of trans athletes competing with cis athletes — head over to our YouTube page.Looking back, here’s a question from a reader prompted by our episode with Kmele Foster:You expressed your frustration with terms like “whiteness” or “white values”, which mean nothing more specific than anything the speaker disapproves of at that moment. Whilst I agree, I’m not sure this is a new phenomenon. When I was at university, people on the left would use the phrase “bourgeois values” in the same way. Whilst the points of reference are rooted in identity politics rather than economics, and the underlying ideology is critical race theory rather than Marxism, is it not the same phenomenon? And, if so, do you believe they are interchangeable or is this generation’s activism significantly different?My concern is associating a whole slew of characteristics to a single “race” and erasing all the variety and diversity within that population is, itself, a form of racism. Values are not black white; they are human, and available to all. Last week’s episode with pro-Trump intellectual Michael Anton elicited the most email of any episode we’ve had so far. A reader writes:I appreciated your discussion with Anton, as it can be useful to hear the best defense of even (and perhaps especially) those things one finds largely indefensible (allowing me to check my Trump Derangement Syndrome levels, and all that). But boy, that sure didn’t move the needle. Anton’s defense of Trump boiled down to a combination of relentless whataboutism and what appeared to be, if we’re being extremely generous, highly selective “epistemological humility,” as he puts it. I came away with the impression that, whatever his rationalizations, what was driving him was largely the same motive driving my Trump-supporting relatives: a desire to own the libs/spite the elites/stick it to the Dems. Why that particular tribal motive is so powerful, and what can be done about it — in conservative and liberal circles alike — seems important to figure out if we’re to keep the republic chugging along.Another reader focuses on our fiery exchange over the 2020 election:Thank you for interviewing Michael Anton. I’d never before listened to a person espouse theories of voter fraud who actually has the mental resources and willingness to debate the topic, so the discussion was very revealing. I do wish that you, or someone, would ask him why he feels that our “loosey goosey” voter registration system (to use his words) is being massively exploited only by Democrats. If the fraud is not baked at the voting machine level (which Anton conceded) and is instead organic, then why does this organic fraud only cut in one direction? Anton casually asserts that half of the electorate (his side) is honest, while the other half is widely corrupt on an individual, person-by-person level: millions of people individually deciding to cheat the system. Anton himself has written a response to his Dish experience. Check it out. Another reader is “disturbed by the ongoing ‘bad election’ narrative”:As someone who has worked elections, may I suggest the doubters please work a poll? My experience is people of all political ideologies work together to make free and fair democracy happen. I am in Georgia. Workers here risked their health to open the polls. Then they spent long hours counting and recounting and recounting. Then they reset the whole thing for a 5 January run off. All this during the holiday season! The Senate double run-off is proof Georgia was free and fair. Georgia — a state run by Republicans — spent $100 million between 2016 and 2020 buying new voter-verified paper and digital voting machines. If Senators Purdue and Loeffler had won reelection, the Democrats would not have challenged the result. They would had gone back to discussing why they get 48-49% but never crack 50%.This next reader looks to other parts of the episode:Two things that really stuck out that I would’ve loved to hear Anton address as he played his whataboutism rhetorical games with you:* During his campaign in 2016, Trump promised to not only get rid of the budget deficit, but to eliminate all US debt within 8 years. This wasn

One of the leading intellectuals of Trumpism, Michael was a senior national security official in the Trump administration and is most widely known for writing “The Flight 93 Election”, an essay endorsing Trump in 2016. He’s out with a new essay, “The Continuing Crisis”, and a recent book, “The Stakes”.I think you’ll find our debate, er, lively. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my chat with Michael — on what he believes are Trump’s greatest achievements in office; and how he thinks Trump caved to the GOP establishment — head over to our YouTube page.A lovely note from a reader about the Dishcast:My husband and I listen to your podcast separately. We then discuss it on our weekly date night. I learn something new in each episode. We miss you on Real Time. Thanks for brightening our Covid mindsets.Another reader dissents over the still-new format:One tiny piece of feedback: Please, please, please stop interrupting your interviewees/guests. I found myself thinking during the Kmele Foster podcast, “Andrew stop interrupting him and let him finish his response on the question you JUST asked him!” There are so many platforms (like Bill Maher’s) that are meant to be a more strident debate between commentators where it is more of an interruption and zinger battle between them, and that makes sense. But in a 1:1 interview for an hour-long podcast, I expect the pace to be slower and for the two people to not interrupt each other.This is not the first time a reader has told me this. I get absorbed into the conversation too easily and can forget I’m broadcasting. I will try harder. Another reader “very much enjoyed your discussion with Kmele Foster” and dissents over a passing comment of mine:I particularly enjoyed those parts that touched on the power of words and mob rule; the concepts of “use vs mention”, “intent vs impact” and the power the mob has in exercising its almost ritualistic cancelling of a person’s career.It was interesting to me, therefore, that you stated George Floyd was murdered. Interestingly — actually, surprisingly — your statement ignores the very concepts upon which much of your discussion with Mr. Foster was focused: intent and the need to defend against mob rule.Murder is when one person kills another (unlawfully) with the intention to cause either death or serious injury (UK). In the States, I understand it to be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought — and malice aforethought means the “intention to kill or harm”. Intent matters, and the case of George Floyd has not yet been adjudicated. Mr. Floyd was killed. From what the general public has seen, his killing was appalling, horrific and heinous, but we do not yet know if he was murdered.Defending the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is vital. Intent in all its forms should also be defended. Otherwise the mob rules.Point taken. (There’s also the complicating factor of fentanyl in Floyd’s bloodstream at the time of death — which may be irrelevant but will still doubtless come up at the trial.) Another reader continues on the theme of preventing mob rule:I totally second the concerns of Kmele Foster. Before social media, the methods that political victors could use to suppress the other side in the USA was limited mostly to government structures. The separation of powers and the guarantees of individual rights stymie the urge to suppress others through government. When these rights are violated, individuals can seek redress through the legal system. It is not a perfect system, and it often takes longer than it should, but our civilization depends on most citizens believing the system will ultimately work.Social media has dangerously changed that by bypassing government. I fear that cancel culture and the example of groups like Antifa — which can coordinate on social media and behave as they do with few consequences — is shaking the belief in our system of government. There are new methods of suppression, outside of our legal structures. Many feel a vulnerability they did not feel a few years ago.Another reader illustrates the divisiveness of woke initiatives in the workplace, even among friends:I wanted to share a story with you after listening to your conversation with Kmele Foster. I work for a very well-known big tech company in the Bay Area. (I can hardly stand CA, from Texas originally — two different worlds.) A few weeks ago, the company sponsored a week-long summit for women of color. The summit description invited all groups of women or people who identify as women that were: black, latina, asian, native american, muslim, etc. — all listed there except white. So while they didn’t say “anyone who isn’t white”, the message was clear. I am Lebanese (not a muslim) and have never thought of myself as white until the 2020 census included

Kmele is co-host of the brilliant and funny Fifth Column podcast and the lead producer at Free Think. You may have seen him on a recent episode of Real Time. A friend and an inspiration, Kmele really opens up in this conversation.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear three excerpts from my conversation with Kmele — on the tensions between African-Africans and black immigrants; on the intractable problem of the racial wealth gap; and on the purging of the NYT’s Donald McNeil — head over to our YouTube page.This week we didn’t get many notable responses to our episode with David Wallace-Wells — just lots of praise for David — but here are a handful of good emails from readers on other topics. One writes:The beautiful passage in your latest essay that begins with “I prefer another form of liberation…” should be required reading for students along with the classics. But the term you throw out at the end, “neoracists”, caught my attention as perhaps having greater significance. What reasonable folks need to combat these woke zealots are quick, intuitive arguments, phrases and most of all, labels. The Woken fight their battles chiefly with labels. “Racist” is the big one. Why not “neoracist” for us? That term, especially without a hyphen, is relatively nonexistent on a one-minute Google search. (Hey, I do my research!) It’s perfect. It immediately puts them on the defensive while they scramble to explain why they aren’t racists. It completely turns the table.John McWhorter has seized on “neoracist” for his new book. And speaking of new terms, Charlie Sykes floats “Never Again Trumpers”.Another reader articulates a core philosophical point about being a minority, an outsider, a rebel:As a child of the ‘60s, I came of age during the time when my generation was busy giving the finger to our elders, shocking them with long hair and telling them they could park their sexual repression in their own bedrooms, not in ours. We were content to be outsiders. If we grew our hair long, we did not believe we enjoyed a right to be employed with it. If we identified as free lovers, we did not expect our elders to endorse it, let alone like it. Today it is different. For many so-called rebels, it’s not that they are free to go their own way, but that society must come with them. Their identity is an absolute. Not only may they grow their hair long, but their employer is obligated to accept it. Increasingly the employer is not even allowed to enjoy the right to object to it.This next reader makes an ever-necessary case for classical liberalism — especially needed during impeachment week:I’ve held characteristically liberal positions on most political matters throughout my adult life and I’ve voted almost exclusively for Democrats for 20 years. Yet in recent years I’ve become more of an institutionalist and even a bit of a small ‘c’ conservative. Your recent newsletter, “The Big Lie That Must Die”, reminded me of why I’ve gone down that path in recent years.I’m a Foreign Service Officer. I served in Guatemala from 2014-2016. In reading a book about Guatemalan history, I noticed a disturbing trend. When liberals came to power, they threw conservatives in prison. When a conservative such as Rafael Carrera took power in the mid-1800s, he was named presidente vitalicio — president for life — which effectively locked liberals out of power. This pattern continued for well over a century. Liberals criminalized conservatives until some sort of revolution took place. And then conservatives criminalized liberals until yet another sort of revolution took place. To quote from the book’s description of the Cold War battle between the left and the right: “On neither side was their tolerance or acceptance of the actual game of politics, because tyranny was the only way to ensure the defeat of your opponents.”The implication is clear: Tyranny is the attempt to destroy politics, because politics is the never-ending settlement of power between coalitions of people who have different interests. This is what makes classical liberalism so powerful. Instead of ferocious violence on behalf of the “correct” set of interests, liberalism accepts that there will always be a competition of interests in society. So we create baseline political rights for individuals, we diffuse power across institutions, and we live to fight another day when our side loses an election. Because coalitions will shift and our constitutional rights protect us from those who happen to hold power today.But that arrangement is fragile. It’s precious. And it recalls a line from American Hustle, which I actually saw in a movie theater in Guatemala: “You know what, if the country were run by people like you, Irving Rosenfeld, we’d be living in Eastern Europe or Guatemala.”And perhaps we are. I suspect there is a frightening number of Ameri

David is a deputy editor at New York magazine and one of the sharpest journalists covering the Covid19 pandemic. (He edited my essay on plagues this past summer.) He’s also a clear-headed expert on climate change and the author of The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. This pod is full of fact, insight and speculation on the virus, the vaccines, and the new variants. If you need to get your head wrapped around where we are in this plague, check it out.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To hear two excerpts from my conversation with David — on the threat posed by vaccine skeptics; and on whether lockdowns did more harm than good — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader sounds off on last week’s episode:I was so pleased to hear Christopher Caldwell on your podcast! I agree he is one of the sharpest conservative thinkers and a first-rate stylist. In fact, I’ve become a bit obsessed with his work. I’ve recently written a lengthy review of Age of Entitlement for a specialized scholarly journal, to be published soon. (So, if I'm lucky, maybe a couple dozen people will read it.) You and I have never met, but I am the editor of a book that features essays by both you and Caldwell: American Epidemic: Reporting from the Front Lines of the Opioid Crisis (New Press, 2019).I have a few thoughts about your podcast interview. First, I wish you had pushed back at one point. Caldwell said that Age of Entitlement is “not a manifesto,” but rather “a work of history.” I suspect you will agree that it is often difficult, while reading that book, to separate Caldwell (the historian) from Caldwell (the rancorous, sharp-witted partisan). Age of Entitlement is not just an analysis of the continually broadening scope of civil rights since the 1960s. It is also, very plainly, a jeremiad against the post-1964 civil rights movement. He’s trying to have it both ways. Second, you occasionally talk over your guests when you’re excited about something! Caldwell said he liked the idea of the 1776 Commission, and I think he was about to talk about it more substantively. I would have liked to have heard him assess the Report’s quality and execution. But he didn’t finish his thought. You declared the Report was execrable garbage, then the conversation moved in a different direction.From another reader who listened to the episode:Caldwell claims that civil rights legislation has created a system whereby courts can overrule democratic majorities, but the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent rule by democratic majorities. George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote but got to be president and appoint a bunch of judges that were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. That the resulting court affirmed things Caldwell is uneasy with, like same-sex marriage, is no different than them carving out religious exemptions that I am uneasy with, such as allowing discrimination against same-sex couples trying to adopt children. Importantly, that is the system working as intended. Neither of us gets entirely what we want and so we are motivated to cast our votes for representatives we feel will pass laws and confirm judges that we like, but that tension cannot be resolved because it is fundamental to our system of government. Conservatives like Caldwell seem to be arguing against the entire constitutional system of American representative democracy because it doesn’t always deliver the results a bare majority of people want — in same way Woke critical theory adherents want to tear down the system because it sometimes delivers the results a bare majority of people want. They are both upset about the necessity of empowering minorities in a democracy. How are the two views fundamentally any different?Another reader digs into some legal history:I listened to the podcast and thank you for the gentle challenging you did, which helped illuminate the argument. I was startled by Caldwell’s apparent lack of acknowledgement during the podcast that there might be strong reasons for a civil rights regime in places outside of the South, e.g., in the context of housing policies in northern cities.But the place he really lost me was in his description of the Griggs v. Duke Power ruling, which introduced the legal theory of disparate impact. Yes, nominally, the ruling said a neutral rule that just coincidentally causes a disparate impact could be unconstitutional. But the actual rule employed by the Duke Power Company was in fact no such coincidence, as was transparent to the Court and all litigants. Here's Richard Primus describing the background:The defendant in Griggs, the Duke Power Company, had officially discriminated against blacks until July 2, 1965, which happened to be the date that Title VII became effective. On that date, the company ceased its official

Chris is an old friend and, in my view, one of the sharpest right-of-center writers in journalism. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and contributing editor to the Claremont Review of Books, his latest book, The Age of Entitlement, is a constitutional narrative of the last half-century that is indispensable — especially for liberals — in understanding the roots of our polarization. Here’s a great primer from Sean Illing:Caldwell doesn’t defend racism or the apartheid system the Civil Rights Act dismantled; rather, he argues that the civil rights movement spawned a whole constellation of other liberation struggles — for immigrants, for gay and transgender rights, for sexual freedom — that Americans did not sign up for and did not want. And the result of this steady encroachment is what Caldwell calls a “rival Constitution” that is incompatible with the original one and the source of a great deal of social unrest.It’s a challenging way to understand our tribal divide. You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Christopher — on the exodus of elites from Middle America; and on the dearth of intellectuals on the Republican right — head over to our YouTube page. Meanwhile, a reader remarks on last week’s episode: Your conversation with David Frum was excellent. His perspectives are always worth listening to, and I enjoyed your challenging questions. To think you two are supposed to be on the right side of things (and I, as a left-leaning person, agreed with most of what you said) shows what a strange — nuanced? — world we live in.Another reader focuses on a specific part:I felt the most thought-provoking part of your discussion with David Frum came near the end, where he talks about not having spent any time in a hospital. Does he deserve this good fortune? I suppose the woke answer would be that he is health-privileged and should be forced to do his fair share of hospital time. Perhaps he should intentionally be made sick? Or more likely the less-healthy should be given some other benefit to level the playing field. So indeed Frum’s advantage is undeserved and we should try to take it from him.I think the classic American answer (if it had occurred to anyone to ask the question) is that “deserving” doesn’t enter into it. We want everyone to reach their full potential, aware that ability (i.e. “luck”) is not evenly distributed. We want our best and brightest to fly the highest, and they will elevate the whole country with them. To borrow a phrase, this is what made America great.The left now tells us that “meritocracy” is a code word for racism, but really one of the problems with racism is that it prevents us from having a true meritocracy.This next reader appreciates the Dishcast medium in general:I am new to your commentary, which I got onto after your episode with Sam Harris. I’ve struggled to understand your (and Sam’s) critiques of the left on race since you also make it clear you recognize there is a problem with race in America. Your conversation with Mr. Frum went a long way toward helping me reconcile and better understand your positions. Please keep talking about this stuff, including talking more about what the race problems are, and not just what they aren’t. I’ll stay tuned. Another reader has a recommendation for a future episode:There was a very charming moment at the beginning of this week’s podcast, where David referred to you as a star teaching assistant at Harvard’s government department. People would apparently come out of your section burbling with enthusiasm, and then the next group of David’s students would trudge into his section. (“Another hour with this guy.”)Anyhow, it got me thinking: What was the class? Who was the professor? (Mansfield?) How did you approach teaching those undergraduate sections? (I guess it hadn’t occurred to me that you were once at T.A.)I started reading you in the early 2000s, and even though I’m a huge fan, I’ve never heard you systematically discuss your intellectual origins and development. I know bits and pieces of the story — a provincial kid, debated at Oxford, proud Tory and Reagan supporter, came to the States, courted controversy at The New Republic, was a pioneering supporter of gay marriage, supported the Iraq War and lived to regret it, and so on ...But I bet podcast listeners might enjoy hearing you interviewed thoroughly and in-depth about how you see the trajectory of your intellectual life. (I know I would.) Another impetus for this suggestion is that I recently enjoyed listening to Glenn Loury do something like this on his own podcast. He allowed himself to be interviewed about his intellectual origins for three hours! I loved it and learned a lot. (My other, more prosaic suggestion for an interview subject is Christopher Caldwell, who puzzles and fas

David Frum needs little introduction; he’s a long-time writer at The Atlantic and the author of many books, the latest being Trumpocalypse and Trumpocracy. We cover a range of issues in this episode. You can listen to it right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with David — on the problems of mass immigration; and on our disagreements over Russiagate — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, we got a ton of reader response to our episode with Michael Hirschorn, across a range of opinion. The first reader:Thank you for finally — FINALLY — having a conversation with someone like Michael. I am often maddened by you constantly banging on about wokeness, and though you concede (always as an aside, though) that there are problems with racism in America, you somehow never get around to exploring them. You like to yell at the left for painting everyone on the right as racist, yet you spend A LOT of time painting everyone on the left as “woke.” It’s tiresome, unproductive, and untrue.Which is why your conversation with Michael, who echoes nearly 100% of my own thoughts on these subjects, is a course correction for you that I appreciated. It showed why exploring issues of racism are still necessary and valid and why it isn’t just about “wokeness” or critical theory. It shows how if you got out on to the ground and into communities, and away from Twitter and a handful of people with the loudest microphones, you might find a left that doesn’t comport with your characterization of it. There are a lot of us who don’t care about the cesspool of social media and aren’t trying to get our op-eds into the NY Times, those of us who are honestly trying to right some wrongs without losing sight of the bigger picture — a messy, nuanced, but also hopeful picture. I sincerely hope you have more conversations with Michael or those like him in the future. Keep it up.Thanks. I definitely intend to add more conversations with lefties and critical theory stans. Many, however, don’t want to debate, because they believe that debating is itself a manifestation of “white supremacy”, if it isn’t loaded to compensate for white privilege. Because of my genetics, my views are, to a greater or lesser extent, illegitimate. The premise of my podcasts is that anyone can talk about anything and no one has any authority other than the cogency of their argument. This next reader was less aligned with Michael:Thank you for your courage in challenging some of the woke myths that Mr. Hirschorn seems to think are “obvious” — they absolutely are not. He seemed surprised that you challenged some of these but I am glad you did. These are extremely sensitive topics that many of us are afraid to even talk about. I am glad you did, and I hope you continue to do so.On to specifics, another reader:“A real effort to contend with race and racism in America” means everyone has to share the New Left’s redefinition of racism. Andrew, please don’t listen to Michael Hirschorn. There is nothing naive about you, and the fact that you did not spend your first 20 years in America has nothing to do with your ability to read and analyze what is really happening. I was born and raised here and have been liberal all my life until people like Mr. Hirschorn drove me away with their specious sloganeering. I find it astonishing that he asserts that Trump (whom I despise) is “openly racist”, and when asked for examples proceeds to give examples of Trump engaging in actions that are highly arguable and can only be tangentially disputed as racist. For example, the Muslim ban that may involve some stereotyping based on disproportional involvement in terrorism around the globe (in the same way all cops have been stereotyped as racists) — but it’s not “obviously openly racist”. Mr. Hirschorn then asserts that Trump’s exhortations to crack down on “law and order" cannot be “extricated” from racism. Who says? I am Latino and feel exactly the same way Trump does when it comes to law and order. I have very little sympathy for criminals, be they black or white. I’m with you. It may also be true that those of us who are immigrants can see American more clearly than natives, marinated in white guilt and shame. Another reader compares countries:I’m part of a Puerto Rican diaspora in Ohio and some of my best friends are naturalized Mexicans. We recently discussed how one of the best things about the United States is that one can count on the law and expect the order that American law enforcement (and the courts) provide. My friend added, “In this country, when one says no, it’s respected”. In Mexico, and to some extent in my native Puerto Rico, you either can’t count on the police or you have to actively defend yourself from them. For all the claims that Democrats make about being a voice for the immigrant community, they sure don’t understan

Michael (@hirschorn) is the Emmy-winning CEO of Ish Entertainment, which makes political documentaries, and the founder of The People PAC, which promotes democratic values. He’s also an old friend from Harvard, former house-mate, and one of the smartest people I know. We talk about race, class, the resistance, the Democrats, “deep canvassing,” the woke and the promise of the unwoke left. It gets pretty real at times.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Michael — on whether invoking race undermines liberal economic policy; and on whether Trump is actually “openly” racist or not — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, a reader responds to the latest episode with Shadi Hamid, on the Capitol assault:You’ve put into words everything that I’m feeling. This monster’s misinformation campaign was so successful that even after the assault we witnessed on January 6, I have family members who are still justifying these events, because they remain utterly convinced the election was stolen from them. I am heartbroken for my country, and I’m having a hard time seeing the path forward just now. But please take care of yourself as best you can.Another reader also tries to cheer me up:I just listened to the Dishcast, which I enjoyed as I always do. At the end it was clear how hurt you were by the Ben Smith piece in the NYTimes. Just wanted to say — though I’m not sure it will help — that it was this piece that encouraged me to subscribe to the Weekly Dish. I thought you sounded fascinating, and thoughtful, and Smith wrote you off in a way that was more revealing about him and the new rules at the NYTimes than about you. If you’ve read the most-liked comments on that piece you’ll see this sentiment is widely shared. I say this as a long-time lefty who now feels alienated by the direction this movement has taken, and its puritanism on issues like identity politics. Thanks for all that you do to keep debate alive. Thank you. I’m used to this kind of thing, but obviously when directed by the New York Times, it stings. The solace is that the Times still publishes someone its chief media writer cannot defend, and that this newsletter has been such a huge success — speedily heading toward 100,000 paid and unpaid subscribers.This next reader sees eerie similarities between Trump and another strongman:If you look at Venezuela, the U.S. fits the pattern. First you have a rich, powerful country that for some reason goes in decline. Typically it is financial, like in Venezuela, and in our case, it was 9/11 combined with the 2008 Financial Crisis. This decline gives rise to a populist nationalist demagogue. In Venezuela’s case it was Hugo Chavez, in our case Donald Trump. This demagogue will rise through democratic means but then govern and cling to power through undemocratic means. This is received enthusiastically by the masses, so initially the autocrat’s popularity rises … until the decline is so severe that everybody will rebel. Except by then, it’s too late, and the regime degenerates into a dictatorship. I believe the U.S. is in the beginning stages of this, where Venezuela was with Chavez in 2001/02. Luckily Trump will be out, but we may be here again in four years when the aging Biden has to run for reelection against some Trump wannabe. Speaking of which, one last similarity: Venezuela’s last president elected before Chavez, under the so-called Fourth Republic, was also a past leader — in this case a former president, Rafael Caldera — who was way past his prime at *78 years old* — the same age as Biden. Caldera is still the oldest man Venezuela has ever elected. The similarities are CHILLING!Another reader is grimly hopeful:January 6, 2021 is a date that belongs next to only one other in American history: April 12, 1861, the firing on Ft. Sumter. Astonishingly — and I do mean astonishingly — I cannot think of a second comparable moment to set alongside what can only be described as the first salvos of actual civil war (9/11 and 12/7/41 and the British burning DC in 1814 were all foreign attacks). But as embarrassing as it was as a country on the global stage; as chilling as it was to watch the possible complicity of uniformed officers; as tragic as it was to know that people — possibly elected officials — were about to die; and as heartbreaking as it as to watch the world’s greatest temple to liberal democracy fall, I cannot help but hope against hope that this may break the fever in a way that, quite simply, nothing else could. Americans needed to SEE the inevitable result of all the lies and grievance and fascist cosplaying. It’s possible this country required not only the images of Charlottesville, or recorded phone calls extorting foreigners, or refusals to concede an election, but actual video of our radical tribalism swarming t

A senior fellow at Brookings and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, Shadi runs a podcast and pens articles with Damir Marusic at the Wisdom of Crowds. He’s been a strong advocate of the argument that American democracy is resilient, and that Trump never represented an existential threat to American democracy. We debated this before, so I asked him to come back and defend his case in the wake of the insurrection in Washington this week.I also began the podcast with an extemporaneous rant about Wednesday. I needed to get it off my chest.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Shadi — on the silver linings of the Capitol crisis, and on the hypocrisy of much of the left right now — head over to our YouTube page.Meanwhile, several readers respond to my Black Christmas conversation with Caitlin Flanagan:I hope your Christmas wasn’t too miserable. I thoroughly enjoyed your conversation with Caitlin. You did an excellent job of articulating the underlying philosophical truths and half-truths pervading the far left and Trumpian right. However, I have some criticisms. I agree with you, Douglas Murray and others who have pointed out that Wokeness is filling the Christianity-shaped hole in our society. A decrease in traditional faith has given rise to a new religion led by modern saints. I also agree that it is a faith devoid of the “good” parts of Christianity like forgiveness and individualism. However, this does not mean a return to classical religious thinking is the solution to the deficiencies of intersectionality. By asserting the credibility of the evidence-free foundation of Christian faith, you are providing cover for the equally unfalsifiable dogma of the Woke. By claiming that a belief in God watching over us is justified because it brings meaning, you excuse the belief that the ethereal patriarchy is what keeps women down. We must reject all irrational belief systems if we are to criticize any one of them, even if some are worse than others. Islam is worse than Christianity, but they are both unreasonable. Wokeness is worse than Catholicism, but they are both built on wishful, anti-scientific thinking.Another reader dissents from the other direction:Your articulation of the gift of your Catholic faith and upbringing, your gratitude for the Church’s ancient traditions and ritual, and the powerful paradoxes of the Christian story — these things I embrace, and I share in the wonder. But I confess to wincing when you (not infrequently) make a snide or dismissive remark about the Church of England or the Episcopal Church. As a gay man and “cradle” Episcopalian, who grew up in the American South with nothing but support and acceptance from his parish clergy, I find this brand of Roman Catholic snobbery a bit unattractive.Yes, I know, that the Anglican Church came into being for “political” reasons in Tudor times and that the Episcopal Church was born in Revolutionary America because the Scottish bishops would recognize its episcopacy and the Anglican bishops (for obvious reasons) would not. But the Roman Catholic Church — from the Spanish Inquisition to the brutal colonization of the Americas — has hardly been an apolitical and pure institution.My Anglo-Catholic (Episcopal) parish in Hollywood is ritually more rigorous with the liturgy than any Roman church in the diocese (we even have a Latin Mass on Saturdays, for God’s Sake!) In the Plague years here in LA, it was a singular haven for gay men seeking solace in a traditional church when the local Roman Catholic bishops were disciplining their priests for trying to embrace and minister to suffering and dying gay members.And, in the podcast, when you extolled your wonderfully diverse parish in DC and the Roman Catholic Church in general as being uniquely “inclusive” ... well, I beg to differ, at least a little. Not too many years ago, a Jewish friend of mine returned from a trip back East to visit his ailing father, only to find his 31-year-old Latin-American partner dead in their home from alcohol poisoning. (He had struggled with his addiction for years, sabotaging a promising legal career.) I was among their friends who attended the funeral mass at a huge and packed Roman Catholic parish church where the family had worshiped. The celebrant and members of the family in their homilies praised the many virtues of the deceased young man ... without mention of the partner or their relationship. And the priest extended a welcome to guests — but reminded us that, if we were not baptized Roman Catholics, we were not to come to the altar for communion.It was a strange sensation, being at the mass of a friend in that church — every word, each prayer and movement of the liturgy intimately familiar to me — and yet being uninvited to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. I’ve rar

Caitlin is a longtime writer at The Atlantic and the author of several books — the most recent is “Girl Land” — and she’s a frequent guest-host on the Femsplainers podcast. I’ve long been a super-fan. To see why, here are two recent essays Caitlin wrote — one on the dark lessons of Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer, and one on the abortion debate.We share a Catholic faith and encounters with mortality, but Caitlin’s brushes with near-death have been far more acute than my own. Her extraordinary poise and deep humanity are on full display in our chat. I’m so grateful for her time.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or click the dropdown menu to add the Dishcast to your podcast feed). Read the full transcript here. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Caitlin — on the recent reemergence of her cancer; and on the similarities between the AIDS crisis and back-alley abortions — head over to our YouTube page. Since I’m on Christmas break this week, here’s my new book review for the New York Times, on Edmund Fawcett’s new tour d’horizon of conservatism and its history in the US, Britain, Germany and France. Money quote on the end of Britain’s inclusion in the European Union:Enoch Powell remains a fascinating figure, especially now. A Tory member of Parliament, and briefly in the cabinet in the early 1970s, he insisted, against his party, on the nation-state as inviolable and solely authoritative, held that nonwhites would be forever alien in Britain and profoundly opposed the project of the nascent European Union. His views, hugely popular among the Tory masses but deemed taboo by party elites at the time, were not so much countered as repressed. And like many repressed ideas, they eventually came to the surface, long after his death, in the anti-immigrant, nationalist fervor of the Brexit campaign. As Buchanan was to Trump, Powell was to Brexit.Meanwhile, a reader responds to our latest episode, with Meghan Daum:You two talked about 2015 as the year when Woke culture took off, but I started to see it creep up in 2010. I, an Autistic activist at the time, wanted autistic voices to have a say in our politics. I founded the largest and one of the most active chapters of ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network). One of the things I started to see was an incipient generation of Autistic activists. Just look up Lydia Brown, Kassiane Sibley and Nick Walker. They all write with erudition, and I do agree and have agreed with much of what I read. But between the lines, there were ideas that were highly inane, with some being downright stupid: the idea that an individual can self diagnose themselves autistic; the idea that all “so-called” autistics were the same and part of a distinct group; the idea and insistence that they use autistic “people” as opposed to autistic “individuals” (a word better suited for the historical self-determination movements within the disability communities); and the idea that all autistics were equally impacted by autism (which left out many individuals who were severely impacted).Facebook was our organizing engine (before it was sexy to use Facebook to broadcast politics) and we trafficked in identity politics. We felt a spark of danger and revolution in positing these ideas, and as young people, we knew that we were young and maybe a bit irrational. Almost all of us were burgeoning socialists/anti-capitalists, and many of the ideas were rooted in postmodernism. A lot of this came from a feeling of helplessness in the wake of the austerity of the 2010s, the lagging economy, the lack of opportunity, the lack of social services. For many of us, we felt that if we organized, we could change the world as we know it. Make no mistake: the woke generation started within the margins of the Great Recession. They thought to themselves, if we can’t change the world through government programs, can we at least change the culture.I saw the tides turning when the movement dallied more in how to be as radical as possible, as opposed to how they could get things done. I left the movement in 2013, as I knew that I wasn’t ever fully welcome. Being diagnosed young as autistic, with papers to show, never fit as a future leader in the movement, as I didn’t look the part.That said, we got political work done that positively impacted autistics throughout the United States. I look at the articles that were written about us from time to time in publications such as Truth Out, Huffington Post, and all of the news networks within the state we did business. Things happened. Thanks for the work you do. I’m still progressive, but your ideas bring clarity and understanding to my life, each and every week. Keep being outspoken and without fear. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Meghan is the author of many books — the latest being The Problem with Everything: My Journey Through the New Culture Wars — and she’s the host of her own podcast, Unspeakable. I hadn’t met Meghan until this week, but it was a pleasure. We talked about our generation; what it feels like, if anything, to be a man or woman; the truthful hyperboles of wokeness and Trump, the poison of Twitter, the lessons of facing death early, and the benefits of solitude. It was a blast. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Meghan — on the difference between gender outliers and gender outsiders; and how both of us had near-death experiences — head over to our YouTube page. Listen to the whole episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed on multiple platforms.Meanwhile, a reader looks back at our most recent episode:I feel like Marusic and Hamid were the Colmeses to your Hannity; they were too polite and too bowled over to really respond strongly to your points — though Marusic did rally at the end. I should start by stating my credentials: I have none, aside from the fact that I have been teaching AP Government for about 20 years, and a course in Western political theory for about 15. That being said, I have a few points. 1) While Trump was a norm-busting jerk that has taken complete control of his party, this is only an aberration when we look at modern politics, particularly the centrist consensus of the post-WWII era. Up until the 20th century, all sorts of crazy excesses went on throughout US politics, ranging from cooping to routine brawls on election day to paramilitaries suppressing the votes of blacks in the South. And Andrew Jackson called his defeat a “corrupt bargain” and raged against JQ Adams until defeating him four years later. All this is to say, America survived.2) This brings me to the point of American survival. You have sounded so negative about American democracy and referenced the section of Plato’s Republic where Socrates argues that the tyrant naturally follows the democrat. You also reference the fall of the Roman Republic. But there is a major difference between our modern society and those of the ancients: the overwhelming majority of the people in pre-industrial societies were far poorer than any poor person in a modern democracy. These poor people (still found in developing nations) were one harvest away from watching their children starve to death. These individuals were far more susceptible to tyranny because they were desperate — just look at all the shenanigans that happened with the grain dole during the late years of the Roman Republic. To quote Bob Marley, “them belly full but we hungry / a hungry mob is an angry mob.” This is the reason why democracies were always so unstable prior to the modern era. This is why Rousseau proclaimed that democracy was a government only for angels. But if you want to look at the ancient world, look at Aristotle. Aristotle recognized that the key to building a successful state was a strong and robust middle class. Indeed, Aristotle’s best form of government run by the many isn’t even called a “democracy” at all — he calls it polity or constitutional government. Again, Aristotle takes time to define democracy as rule by the poor. So, while the framers of the US Constitution were very worried about the rise of tyranny, they needn't have feared because the USA would turn out to be the first nation defined by its dominant middle class. This is a long way of saying that we are not nearly as susceptible to tyranny as you say. Our poor are fat and not thin. Can you show me any example of a prosperous democratic nation turning to tyranny? If it does happen, it is only after the nation in question is brutalized economically (and politically) as in the case of Weimar Germany. While the close of factories has decimated blue-collar communities, and while bifurcation of the American populace is something to be feared, our poor are not nearly as desperate and hungry as the poor plebeians of Rome or the hoi polloi of ancient Athens.This takes me to point (3), which is that the antics of Trump turn out to be not fascism but hucksterism. Republicans must participate in his acts of kayfabe, but everyone knows that it’s all b******t. And Trump is the consummate bullshitter. If you haven’t done so, I encourage you to watch this one-minute clip of Trump on Letterman in 2015: There’s one moment when Letterman nails Trump on the source of his ties. I know you are a classics man, so I can tell you that it rivals the scene in Republic where Thrasymachus blushes. This is the real Donald Trump: a bullshitter, a faker, a conman, a huckster. The fact that such a man has succeeded is alarming, but we are still a rich, comfortable, powerful nation. He’ll rant and he’ll rage, but he’ll go — just like the loser in any good professional wrestling match. And then get

This week I did a simulcast episode with Damir and Shadi that will also air on their own podcast, Wisdom of Crowds. We discussed and debated the resilience of American democracy in this fraught time — with some sharp disagreements. (You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my long conversation with Damir and Shadi — on Trump’s missed opportunities to become a dictator; and on the current dangers of authoritarianism — head to our YouTube page.)Looking back at our popular episode with Dana Beyer, a reader writes:I learned so much from this conversation. The information about how a trans individual can be created due to pre-natal pharmacological interference was extremely useful. Beyer’s point that we’re introducing all sorts of endocrine disrupters into the gestational process is really important. We’re imposing all sorts of problems on fetuses that cause lifelong suffering (another example is learning disabilities). This needs to be considered seriously.On a personal note, I would have liked a bit more discussion of the David Reimer case and John Calapinto’s book about Reimer, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as A Girl — which is a different matter, though aligned of course. It’s also a cautionary tale about therapeutic arrogance and its horrific consequences.Another reader:Regarding your guest post by Katie (I’m a huge fan and a BARpod subscriber) and your convo with Dana, it’s so refreshing to hear an honest conversation about the limits of trans ideology and how it relates to how trans people view themselves and the world. I am trans myself, but only at the very beginnings of my journey (okay maybe a bit further than the beginning), and a major stumbling block for me has been my dissent from the dominant narratives of transness:* Identifying as a woman* Born in the wrong body* Trans women are biological women* Trans women have always been womenThose narratives (while surely helpful for some) just strike me as unscientific or grossly essentialist. If you “identify as a woman” and what you identify with is clothes, social roles or behaviors, what does that mean for biological women who don’t identify with those things? How can I as a trans person stake a greater or equal claim to womanhood based on those things?For me, gender is inextricably related to sex; it is how humans signal sex to prospective mates. As a trans person, desire to physically transition requires a belief in the binary in order for that desire to make sense. If the binary isn’t real, what’s the need to change? It’s simply dishonest for me to deny I am biologically male and experience dysphoria since that is exactly what I am. Asking 99 percent of the populace to change its metaphysical understanding of sex and gender to accommodate a very small minority is crazy when there’s no need to do so to ensure trans people are treated with dignity and respect.Another reader touches on a super controversial topic: I attended a panel discussion in 2015, the 40th and final year of the Michigan Women’s Music Festival. It was a panel of detransitioners. Many openly discussed transitioning to avoid the onslaught of unwanted male attention (for many before they were able to understand it, buffer themselves from it, or reject it). Abigail Shrier discusses this, explaining that many of the “transmen” she interviewed had no real desire to be cis men, as much as a desire to not be read as women. They saw being read as male in the public sphere as a way to escape the sexualized response to their existence. Many had already lived through sexual trauma, assault, rape.Another trans reader:There are so many great things in your conversation with Dana Beyer that make this something I want to share with other people in my life who maybe don’t entirely understand “the trans issue”, or conflate it with the whole non-binary/queer thing. I’m just glad that 20 years ago it was relatively straightforward for a middle-class trans person like me to get hormones and reassignment/corrective surgery. In my opinion, the main trans battle outstanding is to make that treatment equally accessible to poor and working-class people.There are aspects of what you and Beyer discussed where I disagree, but for much of the podcast I was practically cheering along. It’s so refreshing to finally be able to hear people speak sensibly on these topics. I can’t tell you how much it means to me to hear this after that miserable black hole of a few weeks ago when supposed trans allies were raging away mindlessly, ignoring what I had to say.In case you are interested, here is a good article on sex/gender segregation in sports. I think it’s a red herring to make this into a trans issue. I think it’s fair to argue that segregation by sex or gender is inherently problematic — it’s not about cis versus trans athletes. Perso

Olivia is the brilliant 27-year-old Washington correspondent for my old haunt, New York Magazine, who has been covering all things Trump. I talked with her about the man who has defined so much of the news these past five years. (You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to two excerpts from my conversation with Olivia — about the first time she met Trump; and on whether he’s a germaphobe or just a snob to the unwashed masses — head over to our YouTube page.)Meanwhile, a reader sounds off on the previous episode with Matt Yglesias, author of the new book, One Billion Americans: The Case For Thinking Bigger:One billion Americans? I shudder to think of it. Has Mr. Yglesias not been to China and India and witnessed the crowds, the trash, the pollution and loss of nature there — much less the environmental devastation that would result from one billion human beings gorging resources with the customary appetite of Americans?Fifty years ago I moved from the Northeast to California to enjoy the wide open spaces of the West: the spacious skies, fruited plains, and amber waves of grain of America the beautiful. Alas, since that time our population has doubled, our exurbs have metastasized, and 70% of our wildlife has disappeared. Practically every problem that haunts California now — homelessness, high prices, electricity blackouts, fires due to global warming — has its roots in overpopulation. So do the immigration and refugee crises that are undermining stability and stirring up nativist backlash worldwide.By all means let’s be more open to immigrants, but enough is enough. There are three times as many human beings on this planet than when I was born. One billion Americans is a recipe for dystopia. Matt responds:California’s problems don’t stem from overpopulation (it’s about a third as dense as Connecticut) but from the underbuilding of housing in its already developed cities. As I discuss in the book, for example, Los Angeles invested a considerable sum of money into building the LA Metro into what’s now actually one of the most extensive rail transit systems in America. But they didn’t change zoning laws in a complementary way to put big apartment buildings near the stations. Consequently ridership is low, and the pattern of housing scarcity, high prices, and sprawl pressure continues. All throughout the hyper-expensive Bay Area, land use is dominated by mandatory single-family zoning that makes rowhouses and even modest sized apartments illegal. This leads, again, to high prices and sprawl with all the attendant problems. Another reader praises “the smart and interesting conversation with Yglesias”:The part of the episode that keeps striking me is how serious publications are disallowing words like “looting” or “rioting” when precisely these things are happening. This “woke” language censoring is, I believe, damaging and undermining the efforts of those who may be marching or protesting for change and doing so in a peaceful way.When the quasi or fully criminal disrupters are not being called out for what they are doing (vandalizing, looting), but we hear that police need to be “defunded,” it appears more and more Americans who otherwise do not align with Trump and his abhorrent rhetoric, go in his/their direction. The Left has/had a perfect opportunity to garner more moderate support in this country, and seem to be doing everything in their power to push it away, precisely because we are being held (cancellation) hostage by the “Woke.” Perhaps we should stop looking at how deranged Trump is, and start seeing that we too are being forced to radicalization under penalty of a social media execution.Thanks for being willing to have THAT conversation. Perhaps it can only be had now by those of us Cancelled, and we need to lead the way. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Dana is a retired surgeon, a mother, a trans rights advocate, and the former executive director (and current board member) of Gender Rights Maryland. She’s also been on the boards of two Jewish LGBT organizations, A Wider Bridge and Keshet, and has blogged extensively for HuffPo. We’ve been friends for a long time, and I thought it could only help the debate a little to have a spirited but also humane debate about trans issues — as they have been, and as they are now, in a “critical theory” world. We need to talk about this civilly. We need to air genuine questions. As this subject is close to under siege in the West, I’m going to try and air it out every now and again, with a variety of guests, trans and non-trans, gender-critical and woke. (You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed. To listen to three excerpts from my conversation with Dana — on the mysteries of gender and the science of sex; on the tensions within “LGBTQ”; and on the excesses of queer activism — head over to our YouTube page.)Coincidentally, last week we got an email from a long-time reader who identifies as a “gender critical trans person”:As you know from previous correspondence, I have been critical of “cancel culture” being much of a threat to society, since it seems to only be an issue in certain small corners of academia and the pundit class. Additionally, many of the canceled writers moved to a self-publishing model which left them at least as popular as they were before, so who cares?But last week I had a “then they came for me” moment.One of the latest journalists who has been canceled is a largely apolitical wargaming- and simulations-focused writer who made the mistake of asking a question about gender in an article about an in-game radio host being removed due to the performer’s alleged real-world transphobia. Apparently that was enough for him to also be declared transphobic, and for his column of 12 years to be suspended. No doubt he will find another place to write — or maybe he won’t — but as a long-time subscriber of the publication who canceled him, I am deeply frustrated at the summary dumping of an otherwise respected writer for not implicitly knowing that to breathe the words “gender critical” is now considered taboo.Please keep writing about this. Personally I still think you focus too much on “wokeness” as the core problem. I don’t think that’s fair. Many of the views in that arena are perfectly reasonable and deserve to be aired. The real problem is silencing of any opposing views. That can only serve to radicalize ordinary people who inadvertently get caught in the crossfire.That reader also contributed to a Dish thread in 2014 called “Engaging The T” (for transgender), dissenting against my initial view that it was perfectly legitimate to ask cover-girl Laverne Cox about whether she had had reassignment surgery:I underwent sex reassignment surgery in my early 20s. For the subsequent 15 years, I have had to field questions about the most intricate details of my sex life and the function and appearance of my new plumbing. Complete strangers have offered me money to see or touch my vagina. Other men propose sex “so I can see what it’s like”. This is the harsh reality of being a MTF trannie — we get to experience all the lecherous advances that regular women do, plus the even more brazen and thoughtless objectification from those who see us as little more than fetish toys. I can completely understand high-profile trannies not wanting to go there.The truth is, although getting surgery seems like the most important thing in the world during transition, after it’s over it becomes such an insignificant part of who we are. We are not defined by our junk. Post-transition we are just normal people with normal lives and everyday problems. I don’t want to talk to strangers about my genitalia any more than any other woman — or man — would. I’m no prude, but honestly, there are way more interesting things going on in my life.As a general rule, I agree with you that the trans-whatever community has become overly neurotic and that it spends way too much energy policing language and trying to distance itself from “gay culture”, but wanting to take the public focus away from surgery is not a part of that. Sure, gay guys f**k other men, but they aren’t asked in high-brow interviews what it’s like to take it up the ass. Why should transsexual women be asked what it’s like to have a vagina? Leave that for the tabloids and the medical journals.I replied to that email at the time:I’m really grateful for my readers explaining this in more detail and I better see now why a trans identity is what matters, not how radically that identity has been implemented physically. And of course I can see how those questions can seem invasive and violating. I get it better now. Which is why a provocative but sincere

Matt Yglesias, contrarian progressive, joins the Dishcast to discuss the fallout of the 2020 election and his new book, “One Billion Americans,” a patriotic case for making America greater by inviting more immigrants. In the episode we talk about the 2020 election, wokeness and media, the cancel culture on the right, the progressives who find patriotism hokey, the black voters who support Biden more than white liberals do, Matt’s dissent over my use of “Christianists,” the importance of real diversity in newsrooms, and the lack of it in places like the NYT. Matt also describes how taken aback he was by the progressive backlash over his piece, “Black Lives Matter activism is working,” which celebrated the fact that police shootings of black Americans declined after Ferguson. To listen to that excerpt, along with another one discussing pro-Trump minorities, head to our YouTube page.(You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed, allowing all future episodes to come right to your smartphone.)Thanks for all the reader feedback over the Dishcast so far. At first we had some complaints over the volume levels, since podcasts tend to run quieter as an industry standard, and it’s awkward talking directly into mics, but we’ve adjusted some things and hope this new episode hits the sweet spot. As with everything Dish, the podcast is a work in progress. Here’s a reader responding to the episode with Coleman Hughes:Best part of the podcast: When you interrupted Coleman. You corrected him and said it was “LGBTQ-PLUS, you bigot!” That’s good times! And it was dialogue. More back-and-forth with the podcast would be nice. At times, it seemed like the conversation was a taking-turns of 4-minute monologues.2nd best part: You talked about how every gay person is born almost with a tabula rasa of what life is like as a gay person in America. And because of that, there's little cultural/historical gay culture passed down to you. And because of that, individual gay people have a unique individual perspective of America’s treatment of minorities.And that got Coleman excited. You could tell his mind perked up at this novel insight. Which led to his best part of the podcast: talking about how it’s not quite the same for a young black person as it is for a young gay person, but it is becoming more so. The level of racism he faces is less than his father faced, which was less than his grandfather faced, etc.Anyway, good job in your 2nd podcast. Advice: More debate. Think of your favorite debates with Hitch. Push your guests’ views. Advice: More lefties. Leftist ideology needs to be challenged, and I nominate you as a champion to do it. Get Ezra. Get Maddow. Get Maher (not a Lefty lefty). Get MSNBC people. Get people with whom you disagree strongly.Good advice, and stay tuned. Hopefully my conversation with Yglesias assuaged this next reader a bit: Your podcast with Coleman Hughes was enjoyable, and I agree with your views around the “woke” movement and how the term “white supremacy” has permeated our society in a way that is damaging to our democracy. However, I kept thinking how powerful the podcast would have been if you had had a moderate progressive voice to add to the conversation. I don’t mean someone like AOC, but maybe Pete Buttigieg or Andrew Yang, or a center-left voice from a red state I haven’t heard of. Lately, I have been drawn to the center right so I can listen and reflect on some persuasive arguments. I am sick and tired of the extremes and just recently canceled my subscription to the NYT. You, more than a lot of people I listen to, could build that bridge between the center left and the center right. We need a movement in this country, and its voices like yours that contribute to that debate.As always, keep the feedback and dissent coming, as well as recommendations for guests and topics: [email protected]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Brian Muraresku is the author of the new book The Immortality Key, currently the #10 audiobook on the NYT Best Seller list and the #9 hardcover on Amazon’s non-fiction list. A collection of reviews can be found on Brian’s website. My own review is here. The Immortality Key, his first book, examines the pivotal role that psychedelics may have played in the origins of Western civilization, first among the ancient Greeks and then early Christians. This is not some kooky-ass book from some hippie who has decided that Jesus was tripping. It is a book of rigorous scholarship, textual analysis, botanical chemistry — you name it — all the skills of modern science to try to understand something that humans have always understood and has been part of humanity forever. I cannot recommend this book enough. And we had a wonderful conversation.(You can listen right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed, allowing all future episodes to come right to your smartphone. If you want to first listen to a four-minute teaser of Brian’s episode, go here.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Coleman Hughes is a brilliant young writer at Quillette on issues related to race, a contributing editor at City Journal, and the host of the podcast Conversations with Coleman. He famously faced off against Ta-Nehisi Coates at a congressional hearing on reparations.In this episode, I begin by wondering what I got wrong about Trump and how the electorate actually views him. We discuss what kind of authoritarian he actually turned out to be, how woke overreach cost the Democrats big this year, and how vulnerable a president Biden could be to the pressures of the identitarian left. After I go off on a rant about “LGBTQ+”, and Coleman, who is half Puerto Rican, tackles the “Latinx” idiocy, we do a deep dive into the philosophical implications of wokeness. (You can listen right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed, allowing all future episodes to come right to your smartphone.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, philosopher, New York Times best-selling author, host of the Making Sense podcast, and creator of the Waking Up App. He’s also an old friend, jousting partner, meditation role model, and all round wonderful man. In thinking who might be an ideal first guest for the first Dishcast, and on the eve of an election, Sam came up immediately. Exactly four years ago, in an episode of his podcast titled “The Lesser Evil”, we had a rambling discussion that went viral, where we confessed how deeply we loathed Hillary Clinton and how vital nonetheless it was to vote for her against the far greater menace of Donald J Trump. In this episode — the inaugural episode of The Dishcast — Sam and I pick up the conversation from 2016 by delving deeper into the incomprehensibly foul nature of Trump and the inability of his cult followers to care, and the danger of woke authoritarianism in the wake of Trump. I hope you have as much fun listening as we did chatting. (You can listen right away in the audio player embedded above, or right below it you can click “Listen in podcast app” — which will connect you to the Dishcast feed, allowing all future episodes to come right to your smartphone.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe