Mark used to be the political director for ABC News and a senior political analyst at TIME magazine. He co-managed Bloomberg Politics and co-authored Game Change and Double Down: Game Change 2012. Last year he launched the interactive live-video platform 2WAY, where he serves as editor-in-chief and hosts “The Morning Meeting” and “2WAY Tonight.” He also hosts “Next Up with Mark Halperin” on Megyn Kelly’s MK Media platform.
For two clips of our convo — on the bygone era of bipartisanship, and Bill Clinton’s staggering talent — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: Mark’s dad who worked for Kissinger, LBJ, and Nixon; debating the insularity of DC: liberal media bias; the Bork hearings; Gingrich; Limbaugh; Gennifer Flowers and Bill’s affairs; Perot’s breakthrough; press coverage of Dubya; his speech on stem-cell research; 9/11 and the Iraq War; the unitary executive; the unifying rhetoric of Bush and Obama; the partisan bent of Obama’s stimulus; the ACA campaign; Trump at CPAC at 2011; Obama’s humor and the WHCD with Trump; the crucial role of The Apprentice; the killer issue of immigration in 2016; Hillary’s ineptitude; the Comey factor; the difficulty of covering Trump; the negative incentives of social media; Russiagate; the bullshit Bragg case; the press failure on Biden’s fitness; “cheap fakes”; the shock and awe of Trump 2.0; executive orders and tariffs; his assault on institutions; the pardon machine; the Gaza deal; the Republicans standing up to Trump over Epstein; Newsom as the Dem frontrunner; Josh Shapiro; Death By Lightning; Tocqueville; and “Drain the Swamp” from the swampiest president ever.
Below is a clip we mentioned on the pod — part of the MSM blowback that Mark got for recognizing Trump’s winning potential in 2016:
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Shadi Hamid in defense of US interventionism, Simon Rogoff on the narcissism of pols, Jason Willick on trade and conservatism, Vivek Ramaswamy on the right, George Packer on his Orwell-inspired novel, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
From a fan of last week’s episode with Fiona Hill:
As a paid listener and reader, I appreciate your conservative perspective to temper and modulate my decidedly “liberal” bent. I thoroughly enjoyed your conversation with Fiona Hill. She is marvelously articulate and knowledgeable about Russia and Europe. I learned a lot.
I’m writing simply to share a gentle smile and nod. I take daily walks and have for years. I often listen to books or other podcasts, or just the birds. Something I look forward to on a weekly basis is your podcast theme song, because its beat is the perfect tempo for my natural stride, and I know it will lead into an interesting conversation.
Another fan:
I greatly enjoyed your episode with Fiona Hill and have been a subscriber for many months now. But as awful as Putin is, I believe that we are confronting the consequences of diplomatic mistakes made in the 1990s. Here is George Keenan quoted by Tom Friedman in 1998:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.”
We now live in a world where an attack on one of the Baltic states results in World War III. Does anyone think we made a strategic error in not already being at war over Ukraine?
Much is made of a comparison with the appeasement of the 1930s and today. I think we faced an equal evil in Stalin and his successors post-WWII, but we were clear on the unshakeable bond of our alliance. We reluctantly accepted the loss of freedoms of other nations. (Are gay people in Eastern Europe free now?) We stood aside in 1956 and 1968, and no rational person thinks this was a strategic error. Indeed, everyone looks back to 1950s America as some of the best of times.
I don’t think this argument got made in your last pod, but I think we should accept that the continued existence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania outside of Russian control is not worth the bones of a single British or American soldier. It appears that the current proposed peace deal the US brokered shares this logic. I hope it succeeds.
And another:
I loved this episode with Fiona Hill. I’ve never heard another woman so completely ignore a man trying to get in a word edgewise — fantastic! I also love that you didn’t take offense.
You should have grown up with my mother and sister. They never gave an inch. A few more episodes are mentioned by this listener:
The Fiona episode was such a joy — not just for the sheer force of her intellect and insight, but also because of the simple fact that she didn’t let you interrupt her train of thought and stood her ground. In that alone, she showed more fortitude than many recent guests of your pod.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m your diehard fan, regular listener, and a paying subscriber. But it irks me how your habit of taking the spotlight away from your guests intensified in the recent months. Two glaring examples were your episodes with Charles Murray and Cory Clark. I was eager to learn of Murray’s spiritual journey but ultimately failed to do so fully, since you practically hijacked that episode with your own testimony. (Murray had the polite grace to finish off by saying that the episode was “a learning experience” for him, but the truth is he spent most of its running time politely nodding.)
Same with Cory Clark: each time she started to develop a point, you interrupted her and went on tangents that are all too familiar to us — your regular listeners. Now, I do not mind interruptions when they stem from genuine emotion and/or indignation (as in the fiery Batya Ungar-Sargon episode, which for me became your A Few Good Men, Nicholson-speech moment). But more often than not, you start the episode by questioning the guest about their life story and then treat it as a springboard to your own rumination.
Kudos to Fiona for standing her ground — and to you, as always, for being the amazing guy that you are. Still, do practice the art of letting go of the mic when you share the stage with guests as fascinating as the ones you invite to the Dishcast. We love hearing you, but we want to get to know them too.
I take your points. It’s a balance. I don’t want the Dishcast to be a mere interview; I really do want it to be a conversation. So I’ll add my own thoughts and digressions if it occurs naturally. But, yes, sometimes the balance is off. I’ll work on it. I don’t want to get in the way of a guest.
Another listener has a question:
I don’t get why podcasters seem to believe that subscribers only want to listen to interviews. I, for one, much prefer to read the podcast. I can skip over introductory bantering and content with which I’m disinterested or re-read something that is particularly salient. I can read quicker and retain more than listening. So, kindly help me find transcripts of your Dishcast interviews. They’re not easy to find.
You can find Substack’s auto-transcript at the top of each pod page:
On the recent episode with Karen Hao:
I’m a subscriber to your newsletter and an avid listener of your podcast. I recently came across an excellent article — “‘Empire of AI’ is wildly misleading about AI water use” — by Andy Masley, who has written a lot about the environmental impacts of AI. I wanted to bring this to your attention because you discussed it with Karen Hao, and given the magnitude of the error Masley is suggesting, I think it is extremely important to note this.
Karen replied to the Masley article here. Make up your own minds. On a couple more episodes:
As crazy as Trump is, he was the better choice over Harris. When I listened to your discussion with David Ignatius, you noted his calmness in regards to Trump. He is very aware of everything but does not go crazy. Even Fiona Hill, who must have seen the worst horrors in Trump’s first term, seems at peace but still concerned. It reminds me of a book you should read by Mike Bechtle: People Can’t Drive You Crazy If You Don’t Give Them the Keys.
Looking back at last week’s column, a reader writes, “You deserve a Thurber and a Pulitzer for referring to Fuentes as a ‘dweeby little onanist.’” Another:
I wrote down the phrase “dweeby little onanist” … and put it on my fridge, because it is such an elegant little takedown and I want to see it several times a day, every day, for a couple of weeks. Cheers!
I get my kicks where I can. Here’s a dissent:
In your column “Are the Wheels Finally Falling Off MAGA,” I did have the same reaction to recent events and your analysis of them. Where you lost me was in the last two paragraphs where you talk about the future.
