Introduction

So let's start with the obvious big question, why do you think Trump won? Let's break it down. Before the election, you said that if Trump wins, it's going to be because of immigration. So aside from immigration, what are the maybe less than obvious reasons that Trump won? Yes, we absolutely need to return to immigration, but without that, multifaceted explanation, let's start with the easiest one. There has been a wave of anti-incumbent energy around the world. Financial Times chart recently went viral showing, so the first time, I think since World War II, possibly since 1905, I need to look at the data set, that all anti-incumbent parties all across the world suffered major defeats. So that's a very, very high level analysis, and we can return to that if we talk about Donald Trump's victory in 2016 because there were similar global precursors.

One of the reasons I'm a big fan of yours is you're a student of history, and so, you've recommended a bunch of books to me. And they and others thread the different movements throughout American history. Some movements take off and do hold power for a long time, some don't. And some are started by a small number of people and are controlled by a small number of people, some are mass movements. And it's just fascinating to watch how those movements evolve, and then, fit themselves, maybe, into the constraints of a two-party system. And I'd love to talk about the various perspectives of that. So would it be fair to say that this election was turned into a kind of class struggle? Well, I won't go that far because to say it's a class struggle really implies that things fundamentally align on economic lines, and I don't think that's necessarily accurate. Although, if that's your lens, you could get there. So there's a very big statistic going around right now where Kamala Harris increased her vote share and won households over $100,000 or more, and Donald Trump won households under 100,000. You could view that in an economic lens.

And so, the trivial formulation is the woke-ism and the anti woke-ism a movement? Yeah.

Yeah, I got to go back to Jim Webb in that book. What a badass, fascinating book. Oh my God, it's amazing.

So let's talk about 2024. What happened with the left? What happened with Biden? What's your take on Biden? Biden is, I try to remove myself from it, and I try not to give big history takes while you're in the moment. But it's really hard not to say that he's one of the worst presidents in modern history. And I think the reason why I'm going to go with it is because I want to judge him by the things that he set out to do.

You said a lot of interesting stuff. One, FDR that's really interesting. It's not about the specific policy, it's about fighting for the people and doing that with charisma and just uniting the entire country for a... This is the same with Bernie. Maybe there's a lot of people that disagree with Bernie that's still supporting him because we just want somebody- Feels authentic.

Yeah. To push back against the implied thing that you said. Sure.

There's a famous story of Lady Bird Johnson after Johnson becomes the president and he's talking to the White House Butler. She was like, "Everything in this house revolves around my husband. Whatever's left goes to the girls," her two children, "And I'll take the scraps." Everything revolved around Johnson's political career and his daughters, when they're honest, because they like to paper over some of the things that happened under him, but they didn't spend any time with him. Saturday morning was for breakfast with Richard Russell, I forget. These are all in the Robert A. Caro books. Sunday was for Rayburn. There was no time for his kids. That's what it was. And by the way, he's one of the greatest politicians to ever live. But he also died from a massive heart attack and he was a deeply sad and depressed individual.

Yeah. The book, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis by Graham Allison, it presents three different models of how government works, the Rational Act model, so seeing government as one entity. Trying to maximize the national interest. Also seeing government as through the lens of the momentum of standard operating procedures. So this giant organization that's just doing things how it's always been done. And the government politics model of there's just these individual internal power struggles within government. And all of that is a different way to view, and they're probably all true to a degree, of how decisions are made within this giant machinery of government.

Also, I just realized I did not talk about immigration, which is so insane. One of the reasons Donald Trump won in 2024, of course, was because of the massive change to the immigration status quo. The truth is is that it may actually be second to inflation in terms of the reason that Trump did win the presidency was because Joe Biden fundamentally changed the immigration status quo in this country. That was another thing about the Scots-Irish people and others that we need to understand is that when government machinery and elitism and liberalism appears to be more concerned about people who are coming here in a disorderly and illegal process and about their rights and their ability to "pursue the American dream," while the American dream is dying for the native-born population, that is a huge reason why people are turning against mass immigration. Historically as well, my friend, Reihan Salam, wrote a book called Melting Pot or Civil War? And one of the most important parts about that book is the history of mass migration to the United States. If we think about the transition from Scots-Irish America to the opening of America to the Irish and to mass European immigration, what a lot of people don't realize is it caused a ton of problems. There were mass movements at the time, the no nothings and others in the 1860s who rose up against mass European migration. They were particularly concerned about Catholicism as the religion of a lot of the new immigrants.

That was one of the tensions I had talking to Vivek is he's big on mass deportation and big on making government more efficient, and it really feels like there's a tension between those two in the short-term. Well, yes, absolutely. Also, I mean, this is a good segue. I've been wanting to talk about this. I'm sympathetic to DOGE, to the whole Department of Government Efficiency.

To the degree it's possible to see Trumpism and MAGA as a coherent ideology, what do you think are the central pillars of it? MAGA is a rejection of cultural elitism. That's what I would say. Cultural elitism though has many different categories. Immigration is one, right? Is that cultural elitism and cultural liberalism has a fundamental belief that immigration in and of itself is a natural good at any and all levels, that all immigrants are replacement level, that there is no difference between them. Cultural elitism in a foreign policy context comes back to a lot of that human rights democracy stuff that I was talking about earlier, which divorces American values from American interests and says that actually American values are American interests. Cultural elitism and liberalism leads to the worship of the post-civil rights era of bureaucracy that I talked about from those two books of DEI or, quote-unquote, woke, and of progressive social ideology. So I would put all those together as ultimately what MAGA is. It is a, "Screw you."

Trans, in particular, orientation about... Actually, immigration may be the biggest one. Because if you look at the history of Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders was a person who railed against open borders and against mass migration for years. There are famous interviews of him on YouTube with Lou Dobbs, who's one of the hardcore immigration guys, and they agree with each other. And Lou is like, "Bernie's one of the only guys out there." Bernie, at the end of the day, he had to succumb to the cultural left, and it's changing attitudes on mass immigration. There's some famous clips from 2015 in a Vox interview that he gave where he started... I think he started talking about how open borders is a Koch brothers libertarian concept, right? Because Bernie is basically of a European welfare state tradition. European welfare states are very simply understood. We have high taxes, high services, low rates of immigration. Because we have high taxes and high services, we have a limited pool of people who can experience and take those services. He used to understand that. He changed a lot of his attitude. Bernie also... I will say, look, he's a courageous man and a courageous politician. As late as 2017, he actually endorsed a pro-life candidate because he said that that pro-life candidate was pro-worker. And he's like, "At the end of the day, I care about pro-worker policy." He took a ton of shit for it, and I don't think he's done it since. So the sad part that's really happened is that a lot of left populist agenda and other has become subsumed in the hysteria around cultural leftism, wokeism, whatever the hell you want to call it. And ultimately, that cultural leftism was the thing that really united the two wings of that party. And that's really why MAGA is very opposed to that. They're really not the same, but the left populist can still be anti-establishment. That's the key.

I think also for me, personally, maybe I'm deluded, the great man view of history, I think some of it is in programming circles, the term skills issue. I think some of it just has to do how good you are, how charismatic you are, how good you are as a politician. I maybe disagree with this. I'd love to see what you think. If you were allowed to run for many terms, I think Obama would just keep winning. He would win 2016, he would win 2020, he would win this year, 2024. It's possible. But I would flip it on you, and I would say Obama would never be elected if there were no term limits, because Bill Clinton would've still been president.

All right, speaking about the dirty game of politics, several people, different people told me that of everyone they have ever met in politics, Nancy Pelosi is the best at attaining and wielding political power. Is there any truth to that? In the modern era, yeah, I think that's fair in the last 25 years, definitely. Let's think about it. Number one is longevity. She's had the ability to control the caucus for a long period of time, so that's impressive. Because as I just laid out with Clinton, Obama, these figures come and they go, but over a 25-almost-year period, you've been at the very top and the center of American politics.

Speaking of fundraising, Kamala raised $1 billion- Insane.

Yeah. One of the things I continuously learned from you, when looking back through history, is how crazy American politics has been throughout history. It makes me feel a lot better about the current day.

Speaking of bubbles, Sam Harris. Oh.

You tragically missed the UFO hearings. Oh, man. My brothers, I'm really sad.

Who do you think is the future of the Republican Party after Trump? What happens to Trumpism after Trump? Like you just said, Bayesian. Let's take various theories, right? So let's say it's '04, it's Bush, Cheney. In 2004, the day after the election, I would've told you this. We live in a Bible belt, Jesus land America. This America wants to protect America, a war on terror against Iraq and the axis of evil, and American people who just voted for George W. Bush. So I would've predicted that it would've been somebody in that vein, and they tried that. His name was John McCain. He got blown the fuck out by Barack Obama. So I cannot sit here and confidently say.

I like how you keep saying you're biased as if there's some percent of the population who doesn't like people to read at all. Okay. What about the future? You hinted at it the future of the Democratic Party. Did you see any talent out there that's promising? Is it going to be Obama-like figure that just rolls out of nowhere? Clinton is the better example because the Democratic Party was destroyed for 12 years. From the 1980 election to 1992. They're 12 years out of power. In periods of that long of an era, it takes somebody literally brand new who is not tainted by the previous to convince the base that you can want and convince the country that you're going in a new direction. So I would not put my money on anybody tainted by the Great Awakening, by TDS, by the insanity of the Trump era. There has to be somebody post that and/or somebody who is able to reform themselves. In my opinion, it will likely not be any establishment politician of today who will emerge for the future. Like I said, my dark horse is Dean. I think the Democratic base is going to give Dean a shit ton of credit, and they should, for him being out.

Let's linger on that hope. What is the source of optimism you have for the 21st century, for the century beyond that, for human civilization in general? It's easy to learn cynical lessons from history, right? Mm-hmm.