Claire is an American novelist, essayist, and journalist living in Paris. She’s the editor-in-chief of The Cosmopolitan Globalist — subscribe! — and the author of many books, including There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters, and the novel Loose Lips.
An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the US returning to the Monroe Doctrine via Venezuela, and if Rubio is gunning for Cuba next — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: Claire’s grandpa fleeing Nazi Germany and joining the French Foreign Legion; the new movie Nuremberg; her mom a world-class cellist; Claire raised in California; seeing me debate at Oxford; my 1988 hatchet job on Ben Sherwood; our mutual love of Thatcher and how she wielded femininity; getting the Iraq War wrong; Trump increasingly looking senile; Stephen Miller’s fascism; Michael Anton and the new National Security Strategy; debating the war in Ukraine; Russia’s threats to Europe; NATO and defense spending; the growing isolationism of Americans; conspiracy theories; AI slop; Trump’s threats over Greenland; resource extraction; the Taiwan question; nuclear proliferation and A House of Dynamite; the irrelevant Congress; the poison of the identitarian left; Tom Holland’s Dominion; Keir Starmer less popular than Prince Andrew; migrants in France; the last gasps of Macron; AfD and Reform; the tariff war; and the new McCarthyism.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Charlie Sykes on the GOP ditching conservatism, Jason Willick on trade, Vivek Ramaswamy on the right’s future, and Michael Pollan on consciousness. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
From a fan of the two episodes we aired over the holidays:
Happy New Year! I’m making a resolution to go back and catch up on the Dishcast episodes I’ve missed in 2025; I always learn so much from them … thank you.
I really enjoyed Arthur Brooks’ conversation with you, since it felt like eavesdropping on two old friends who love to gossip, argue, debate, and then give a hug, drink a beer, and go home. So much fun :) I’m also resolving this year to make time for a daily religious devotional, so thanks to you both.
I also very much enjoyed your conversation with Laura Field. I was struck, though, by how you both felt that there’s no unifying cultural touchstone in the US these days — something we all do together, like the Super Bowls of the past or the Cronkite nightly news. I work frequently with children and can attest: two unifying cultural anchors are Paw Patrol and the array of Disney princesses. Everyone has a favorite, is familiar with the cast of characters, and can sing all of the songs.
Maybe these experiences will cut through the adult cultural atomization as they grow up? Who knows. The Brady Bunch, Flintstones, and Scooby Doo did it for us, maybe? Here’s hoping something can glue us together as Americans.
Another Field fan:
This was one of the best interviews yet. I was already familiar with the New Right rogues’ gallery, but hearing someone so steeped in political philosophy frame them within a larger historical dialogue was fascinating. I immediately bought her book.
Another writes:
The last several Dishcasts have been utterly delightful! When you are at your best, you are spectacular, and your conversation with Laura Fields was a prime example. After my gentle chastising of you last June on your episode with Batya, I want to say cheers! on returning to such rarified hosting air.
Another: “I would seriously listen to a weekly political philosophy show cohosted by you and Laura.” I’m way too rusty, I’m afraid. Here’s a shout-out for a pod co-hosted by a dear Dish alum, Matt Sitman:
I liked the podcast with Laura Field on her new book, and whom I had heard before on the “Know Your Enemy” podcast. I do find some of this right-wing stuff pretty esoteric, unless you had a liberal arts education in these areas. When I was a conservative, most of us (and it was a large group) could only point to Rush Limbaugh or Reagan in their arguments, so it’s always interesting to view a historical perspective.
This listener has questions:
As you spoke with Laura Field, you both catalogued all your issues with Trump-supporting intellectuals — from the brilliant (Michael Anton) to the cartoonishly ridiculous (Curtis Yarvin). While it may have been beyond the scope of your discussion, I would have liked to hear your thoughts on some intellectuals you are positively disposed towards and who you think are worth reading once Trump is out of the picture.
I respect that you have been willing to give Trump credit where he is good on policy, to the point that you likely would have voted for him over Biden/Harris if he wasn’t so grossly psychologically unfit. My understanding is that you haven’t supported a Republican in a national election since 2000, and the MAGA base was right to also reject the pre-Trump corporatist right that you abandoned, since it actively worked against what they had been pleading for on immigration. (W Bush was the most pro-mass immigration President since the 1960s.)
The old GOP was downright embarrassed by the base’s views on the culture war; its only reason for existing on the domestic policy front was a tax cut that was decades past being needed; and it sent the base’s sons and daughters to die in pointless foreign crusades.
While there are some dark elements in the MAGA base, most of what they seek is nothing if not eminently reasonable: a slow and controlled immigration policy that prioritizes Western culture and focuses on assimilation; fiscal policy that addresses their needs instead of those of the donor class; pumping the brakes on globalism; a respect for the prominence of Christianity in American culture; an emphasis on strong communities; and a foreign policy that is focused on America’s interests.
And seeking GOP leaders who generally abide by those principles requires one not to go back to the 1700s, but perhaps only one or two generations. The pre-Trump conservative movement not only failed the current MAGA base, but it was politically untenable, as it appealed to an ever-shrinking minority and couldn’t even dream of a popular vote win.
Once the poisonous Trump is out of the way, which political leaders should they look to, and aren’t there any intellectuals who you think can responsibly champion their cause? Or do you think their only reasonable option is to return to the pre-Trump GOP that no longer represented them?
I think some kind of new conservatism needs to emerge. I find American Affairs, edited by Julius Krein, to be serious and imaginative about domestic policy, and its contributors are a good place to start. There are thinkers like Michael Lind or Sohrab Ahmari who could better articulate a non-pathological right. Even Rod Dreher has a role to play — as he has advanced his theo-conservatism while seeing the huge problems with Trump himself. I used to hope that Vance could nurture this along — but his character seems almost as craven as Trump’s, and character matters.
Another digs into deeper history:
Those who say the US has discarded the Constitution are widely exaggerating. It has largely been followed, but there have been significant deviations — and not just recently. While the left was more guilty of it since the New Deal, the right had more significant deviations before that. Both sides like to deviate from the Constitution if their agenda is frustrated by it. The best course is for all parties to live with the fact that if they follow the Constitution, they may get some of their agenda enacted, but will probably not get it all.
The Clare-monsters — like most of those in the conservative movement who started in reaction to the Progressive Era — hold that the only true interpretation of the Constitution is a strict interpretation of the explicit text. However, strict interpretation has never been followed by those in power.
The Founding generation was deeply divided on the Constitution. The ratification vote was close. Many who voted for ratification thought the Constitution made the federal government too strong but voted for it anyway because the country was quickly falling into chaos under the Articles of Confederation. Then after ratification, the opponents and reluctant supporters of the Constitution (the Republicans led by Jefferson) argued for a strict interpretation, so as to limit the power of the federal government. Advocates of a strong federal government (the Federalists, led by Washington and Hamilton) argued for a broad interpretation.
The broad interpretation won out. Even when Jefferson became president, he adapted the broad interpretation view and did not reverse the Federalist laws that he earlier argued had exceeded Constitutional authority.
The Clare-monsters hold that the Constitution was faithfully followed until Woodrow Wilson in the Progressive Era, when the administrative state was established by an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power to the executive branch. However, the Constitution only states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The term “vested” only means that it cannot be taken away, but it does not imply that Congress cannot delegate these powers — a point on which the Constitution is silent.
Under a strict interpretation, this silence means that Congress cannot delegate, but under a broad construction, this silence means that Congress can delegate. SCOTUS has held that delegations are constitutional so long they are limited in scope and Congress gives an “intelligible principle” to guide the exercise of delegated powers.
The Clare-monsters ignore Andrew Jackson’s egregious usurpation of legislative and judicial power when he declared that he did not have to follow laws passed by Congress or orders passed down by the courts (e.g. his Bank War and Indian removal project). Wilson and FDR at least asked Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive. Jackson did not. Nor has Trump.
The current SCOTUS has recently (Dobbs) severely limited the use of substantive due process and should just kill it outright. SCOTUS has also recently trimmed the power of the administrative state. These are positive developments. However, the best thing to promote rule of law and Constitutional government is for all parties to stop trying to read their agenda into the Constitution and instead use the legislative and amendment processes provided by the Constitution to advance their agenda.
From a fan of the recent pod on narcissism:
As a psychiatrist at a prison in California, I encountered my share of the personality disordered. For me, your discussion with Simon Rogoff stands out as your best work.
From another expert in the field:
As a practicing clinical psychologist, I listened with interest to your interview with Rogoff. I share his view that there has been a shift in thinking about personality disorders towards regarding them as strategies to deal with the relational challenges of childhood and adolescence, particularly shame and emotional vulnerability.
As for Trump, the assessment is accurate. As to his attraction to the American voter, however, I believe some context is needed. After four years of the feckless Joe Biden, who ran on bringing us together, his total selling out to the woke left (about whom you have written so well) left many of us wanting a strong president who would stand up to the cancel-culture warriors, address open borders, take on Critical Theories (race, gender, ableism, colonialism), and restore some moderating force to the takeover of our colleges and universities. My preference was Governor DeSantis, but the appeal of the narcissist to the “flyover” voter — to feel a sense of power again — overcame the virtues of DeSantis as a leader.
And, yes, Obama is also a narcissist. It’s somewhat interesting to speculate on Biden’s appeasement of the left as a reaction to his “little brother” relationship to Obama, who reportedly said he could always count on Joe to screw things up.
Looking ahead, you and Rogoff suggest that if the Democrats win the midterms and Trump is foiled at every turn, the more malignant sides of his behavior may take over. We will survive. Terrible policies of previous administrations have left us so dependent on China to supply our military that war with Russia or China is unthinkable, and Trump is enough of a realist to know this. Venezuela is a different story and may suffice for a Trump show of power. Maduro is no choir boy.
More interesting is 2028, as we get closer to a resolution of the Fourth Turning: who will the parties nominate? Vance appears to be the frontrunner, and Rubio or maybe DeSantis has another run, but any of them will be a step in the right direction (would you agree?). But the Democrats! Is there any hope of restoring a moderate wing of the Democratic Party? Will we see the first all-female ticket of AOC and Jasmine Crockett? You think you’ve seen narcissism?
I’ve been thinking that Rahm Emmanuel may give the Democrats their best hope. Staying with the theme of your Rogoff episode, Rahm seems to have had a childhood that encouraged (required?) excellence. And playing second fiddle to brother Zeke may raise a concern. But I was impressed with Rahm’s article on parenting in the weekend Wall Street Journal. And he has experience running an unmanageable city far better than Chicago’s current mayor, serving as ambassador to Japan, and being inside the Obama White House. Narcissistic no doubt, but hopefully not of the malignant variety.
Here’s a guest rec:
Did you ever patch things up with Jeffrey Goldberg? Why not invite him for an interview on the podcast? You guys should have a lot to talk about.
Jeff’s latest piece — on the January 6 anniversary — quotes from my column, “The Question of Decency.” I’m still recovering from the shock.
Yet another episode:
Thank you for a great discussion with Shadi Hamid. (I am a longtime listener of both of your podcasts.) It was good all the way through, but right at the end of the episode, it got super good with your discussion of Israel.
