George is a journalist and novelist. He was a long-time staff writer at The New Yorker, now a staff writer at The Atlantic. He’s the author of 10 books, including The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America — which won the National Book Award — and Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century. His new novel is called The Emergency. It’s a parable of our polarized times — and a deeply unsettling one. We had this conversation the afternoon after I finished the book, and, as you’ll see, it really affected me emotionally.
An auto-transcript is available above (click “Transcript” while logged in Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the clarity of Orwell’s writing, and the savior complex of the woke — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: raised by two Stanford professors; his dad accused of fascism by his leftist students and red-baited by the right; his dad’s stroke and subsequent suicide at a young age; George’s time in the Peace Corps; how Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia “saved me”; entering journalism at 40; reporting in Iraq; Orwell’s contempt for elites; Auden and Spender; the ideologies of intellectuals; the young turning on their elders; the summer of 2020; Camus’ La Peste; January 6; Orwell’s bigotries; his love for the countryside and common decency; Animal Farm; Nineteen Eighty-Four; Hitchens; utopianism; Nietzsche and slave morality; Fukuyama and boredom; the collapse of religion; intra-elite competition; Mamdani; the Gaza protests; virtue signaling; struggle sessions; mobs on social media; the loss of gatekeepers; the queer takeover of the gay rights movement; the brutality of meritocracy; Nick Fuentes; Trump’s multi-racial win; his Cabinet picks as trolling; the utter capitulation of Vance; Haidt and smartphones; and our post-literate democracy.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Shadi Hamid in defense of US interventionism, Simon Rogoff on the narcissism of pols, Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness, Vivek Ramaswamy on the right, and Jason Willick on trade and conservatism. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
Here’s a fan of last week’s episode with Michel Paradis:
That discussion on Gen. Eisenhower was a perfect way to end my Thanksgiving weekend. We Americans should be thankful above all for the legacy we inherited from leaders of character like Ike. In order to continue the legacy, we must prioritize character in how we lead our lives and in how we choose our leaders.
Another writes, “That was a fascinating, riveting conversation — I stayed put and soaked it all in.” More props: “One of your best recent episodes. You two were in perfect sync.” A dissent:
You are brilliant and I’ve enjoyed your work for 30 years — but your Churchill imitation needs a lot of work. I’m from the South Bronx and my Churchill voice is better than yours.
Haha. A fan of Michel’s voice:
What a great episode with Michel Paradis, and I was rather surprised that he did not read his book for the audio version (I checked after the pod finished), because he has such a great voice. I would look forward to a followup discussion about Eisenhower’s presidency!
Yeah he has a voice for radio. Another clip of Michel’s baritone:
A related book rec:
I agree with all the accolades you gave Eisenhower on his performance in WWII, including the military planning and his skill in dealing with Britain. However, you never got to his actions as president. Having recently read The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer, I have to say Eisenhower’s foreign policy — aside from ending the Korean War — was very bad, even disastrous in the long term. It’s unclear whether the Dulles brothers pushed Eisenhower into the actions they took, or if they were simply carrying out his policies.
The disastrous policies included overthrowing the governments of Nicaragua and Iran (installing the Shah), undermining Sukarno in Indonesia, mishandling the conflict between the French and Ho Chi Minh, ordering and facilitating the killing of Lumumba in the Republic of the Congo, and planning the Bay of Pigs. By also ordering the assassination of Castro (not successfully of course), Eisenhower was the only president before or since to have ordered the killing of not just one, but two leaders of foreign countries.
Eisenhower understood the British very well, especially Churchill and Monty, but he didn’t at all understand the thinking of the Asians Ho or Sukarno. From his actions, it’s doubtful he had much understanding of the people of Iran either. The installation of the Shah seemed like a good idea at the time, but we all know how that turned out — long after Eisenhower was gone.
Two more book recs:
I read Michel Paradis’ book a few months ago and was overwhelmed with admiration for the manner in which Ike dealt with the pressure, the politics, and the personalities in weaving together all that it took to pull off D-Day. I can’t imagine any other human being who could have pulled off that amazing feat — much like Lincoln and the Civil War. Similarly, the book Eisenhower 1956 presented a brilliant strategist, placed in a terrible situation by his purported allies, Britain and France, having to make a terrible decision to abandon Hungary in order to prevent an armed confrontation in the Middle East.
On the other hand, Rick Atkinson’s book on the European campaign in 1944-1945 showed that every commander has personal flaws that limits his effectiveness. Thousands of frontline troops suffered and died needlessly because of foolish decisions that Ike made in the final year of the war. Perhaps no one could have done any better through such a long, taxing, unprecedented, and traumatic command. Indeed, none of the other major figures involved acquitted themselves any better. But one cannot overlook the price of so many of the mistakes.
Another recent episode:
I often don’t get a chance to listen to your podcasts for a few weeks, so I just finished listening to your conversation with Michael Wolff. Really loved it, since it explores what a truly bizarre oddball Big Orange is.
I must say, I marvel Wolff’s ability to spend so much time in proximity to that toxicity. Oh well, different strokes.
Wolff’s capacity to soak in the company of Epstein — and suck up to him — is also beyond my human understanding. But cometh the hour, I guess.
On another episode:
I am just listening to your pod with Mark Halperin, and the point about how Trump was right to focus extensively on naming individuals murdered by illegal immigrants is just deeply unpersuasive. I think it underlines how immigration issues punch above their weight and can be goosed by demagogic appeals.
It is extremely powerful, and emotionally compelling, to focus on crimes committed by immigrants, but it’s also deeply misleading — in exactly the same way that individual police-brutality cases are extremely emotionally charged and politically potent, while being (thankfully) relatively rare events. In both cases, it’s making hay out of tragedies that appeal to our emotions, and they are easily exploited to capture people’s attention and anger. Trump is very good at stoking this outrage, but the people pouring cold water on this view are more right about the actual facts of the matter.
I say that as someone who thinks the wanton abuse of the asylum system was a catastrophe that gave us Trump II, and I readily concede that people can justifiably be pissed about levels of immigration broadly and the disorder that accompanies huge numbers of new arrivals. In any case, thanks for the episode, and for your efforts to foster a broad discussion with lots of folks with different viewpoints.
I find Trump’s personalization of immigrant crime abhorrent because it is so misleading. But I can also see its pagan power.
Some guest recs:
I don’t think I’ve heard you do a Canada episode. With a looming economic crisis, out-of-control immigration only now being tackled, wokeness on steroids, a failing unrepresentative media now completely on the government dole, rising separatism, indigenous land claims, and a collapse in national identity — but paired with hope in a new prime minister, a commitment to bring the country together, and a reevaluation of itself on the world stage. This could be the most interesting time to talk about the world’s most boring country.
If you’re looking for guest ideas, I recommend the Canadian pollster Darrell Bricker and political journalist John Ibbitson, who have co-authored a new book called Breaking Points. Here’s a podcast episode on the book to give you a flavor:
A worthwhile Canadian initiative. And the country has become more fascinating in the last decade or so.
Here’s a reader email from a “fellow Catholic who has voted for Trump three times — and wrestled so deeply over my choice”:
I really appreciate your latest column, “The Question of Decency.” I so often feel dismissed in my wrestling with regret over Trump (or not? I don’t know?), because of precisely what you pointed out:
