Tiffany is a cultural historian, writer, and broadcaster. She has been a critic and presenter on BBC Radio 4 and now serves as a trustee of the British Museum. Her latest book is Strangers and Intimates: The Rise and Fall of Private Life. It’s a fascinating book of history and political insight: how privacy is deeply connected to liberal values, and why its abeyance matters.
An auto-transcript is available above (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of the episode — on the first sexual revolution in England, and when privacy strengthened patriarchy — head to our YouTube page.
Other topics: growing up in an Anglo-American household; losing and keeping accents; privacy a rare thing in history; the Greeks and Romans; the human tendency to gossip; the Reformation and private faith; Thomas More against Martin Luther; Cromwell banning Christmas; Hobbes and the right of conscience; Locke and natural rights; Marie Antoinette; Rousseau and self-creation; spying; the emergence of the back stairs; the Romantics and subjectivity; Wollstonecraft and women’s equality; the Sodomites’ Walk; the rise of coffee shops; John Stuart Mill; child abuse; marital rape; Betty Friedan; defending homosexuality based on privacy; outings; Lewinsky and the Starr Report; consent and policing sex; hook-up culture on campus; Obama’s private life; Hunter’s laptop; reality TV and Trump; Harry and Meghan’s worldwide privacy tour; OnlyFans; and a defense of hypocrisy.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Bob Wright on the evolutionary force of AI, John Gray on Trump’s new world, Stephen Grosz on the struggles of love, David Thomson on cinema history, John O’Sullivan on conservatism, Robby George on all our disagreements, and Megan McArdle on everything. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
From a listener on last week’s pod with Daniel McCarthy:
Mr. McCarthy is obviously intelligent and well-read. That is why this interview was so especially nauseating to listen to. Every critique of Trump was met with deflection. Every argument was answered with a “But Obama… But Bush…” No addressing anything Trump has done. No acknowledging his uniquely manic and hypocritical and self-serving conduct.
The discussion on Congress’s inaction was particularly hard to hear. McCarthy argued that Trump’s king-like stance as an executive (with a Duma-esque Congress) is just the culmination of 250 years of progressively stronger executive institutions. Shit happens, he shrugs. But isn’t that a bad thing, McCarthy? I wish you had pushed him further on that topic.
It’s notable that the most effective legislator of the last 25 years, Nancy Pelosi, was not mentioned — perhaps because that proves the point: Congress CAN be powerful; Congress CAN be productive. But it did not serve conservatism under her leadership, and thus this must be forgotten. Let’s have that king already, so long as he’s OUR king.
I think McCarthy got himself tied up too much in name-checking philosophers of the past that he cannot see what’s as plain as day right this instant: Trump is an autocrat who is rapidly degrading and corrupting our institutions an norms in an enduring manner. He. Is. Not. Conservative.
Agreed. Another was “disappointed” with the pod:
I appreciate you pushing Dan, but I think with respect to immigration and conservatives, we are tackling the wrong issues. First, the border was effectively closed under Biden and is now completely shut under Trump, but let’s give some very belated credit to Biden. The real issue to me is how we remove persons in the country without legal status.
If conservatives/Trump were serious about that, they would go to every employer in the country and use E-verify. No masked agents needed: simply go to employers and pick up everyone who does not have a legitimated SS#. Use the detention centers, if needed, to allow employees to correct invalid numbers. That’s not a method I endorse, but it’s certainly better than pulling people out of their home in the underwear.
We need to confront people like Dan with more questions. Why are you not using more efficient methods that do not required masked goons? Electronic tools exist, so why aren’t they being used? Conservatives need to speak up and ask these questions. In a world where every keystroke is monitored somewhere, we have electronic tools to do this. Why aren’t we?
Next, how do you justify this ungodly cost? Conservatives do not like huge bureaucracy, but we are now creating one of the largest in the world. Instead of building detention centers, why not beef up the judicial system and hold legitimate trials for undocumented residents? We do not need detention centers; we need process, and yet most of the funds are going to no-bid centers. They cost a lot of money, and possibly even some fraud and waste — something conservatives hate.
That’s been my position from the get-go. Here’s another clip, on the American founding:
This next listener addresses two pods:
I subscribe to the Dish and appreciate your independent thinking, even if I often disagree. I also understand your concern that the failure of Democrats to move toward the center in their approach to immigration empowers the authoritarian right. However, I oppose your support for a moratorium on immigration that would last for a number of years — something you voiced in the recent episodes with Jerusalem Demsas and Daniel McCarthy.
You suggest that, if a Democratic politician supported a moratorium, they could connect with voters who are suspicious of Dems’ willingness to control immigration — but I don’t think that it’s necessary for them to take such an extreme position. Currently most Americans are not in favor of reducing legal immigration levels, although they do want the government to secure the border. Democrats could get traction with moderate and conservative voters by emphasizing border security while continuing to support normal levels of legal immigration into the country.
You have also talked about pausing immigration in order to focus on aggressively assimilating immigrants already present in the US. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What evidence is there that immigrants are not assimilating? Given the diversity of American culture, how do you even define assimilation?
If you are focusing on political assimilation, which would involve accepting the principles associated with the Declaration and the Constitution, it seems as if immigrants are on average more supportive of those principles than native-born Americans. Naturalized immigrants lean towards the Democratic Party, which is the only one of the two major American parties supporting the rule of law. It was overwhelmingly native-born Americans who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
A moratorium would also be devastating for the many would-be immigrants who would be blocked from immigrating for years, as well as for their family members already in the US. Moreover, there would be an economic opportunity cost associated with the lost labor those immigrants would have provided in the US.
Another listener adds:
You’ve written and spoken repeatedly about the need for immigrants to integrate. As an immigrant, what did you change about yourself to transition from being British to being American?
Oh man, where do I start? My accent, I guess. My commitment to the Constitution, which I swore an oath to. I’m fitter, gayer, more open, less repressed, more free. But I was always kinda American, which is why I rubbed many people the wrong way in my mother country. And I see no reason why others should not seek to emulate the American ethos. So, for example, when I took the oath a decade ago, the person before me had no understanding of the words of the oath and said “no” rather than “yes” before being corrected by relatives. I think proficiency in English should be a condition for a Green Card. But it isn’t.
Another writes, “I had a mixed reaction to your conversation with Jerusalem Demsas”:
On the one hand, I would 100% have a beer with her; she is intelligent and charming. On the other hand, if what she is saying on your podcast passes for bold boundary-pushing on the left, we are fucked. A little less inflation and Kamala would be president? Give me a break.
Yes, I take your point. The Dem bubble is still very tight. Speaking of bubbles, a reader writes:
Your response to one of the dissents about Israel was that “Sam Harris won’t debate it” — and you linked to his Substack post, “Why I Won’t Debate Critics of Israel.” The title alone sounds quite single-minded but, after reading it, I found his argument very compelling, and it eloquently puts into words what I have been feeling and trying to articulate for a long time. I’m assuming you have read the piece, so I’m wondering if you could share your thoughts?
I’ve written a bit about this on Notes. Here’s my most recent take, on Sam’s pointing out a footnote denying he’s giving Israel a blank check for anything it does. The footnote reads:
One can condemn everything that Israel has done wrong without denying that Hamas is a death cult bent on genocide — but, crucially, Israel’s critics can’t seem to manage this. This is why I see no point in debating the specifics of what the IDF has done in Gaza on any given day. War crimes are war crimes, and they should be prosecuted. And Israel is precisely the sort of society that we expect to prosecute such crimes — unlike its enemies, which revel in them.
And it seems to me to prove my point. He is saying here he won’t debate anyone who denies that Hamas is a death cult. Well I don’t deny that. And I still think Israel committed war crimes. And Sam won’t debate me either. As for his denial that he is giving a blank check to Israel, what else can this sentence mean:
I’m not interested in exploring all the ways that Israel has missed the mark.
He’s “not interested” in addressing claims of excessive civilian deaths, torture, ethnic cleansing, etc. Why? Because the Islamists will always be worse. Which must mean a blank check. Or denial. When he refers to the claim of torture — the fact of torture - in Ben-Gvir’s gulag — he waves it off by saying that
War crimes are war crimes, and they should be prosecuted. And Israel is precisely the sort of society that we expect to prosecute such crimes — unlike its enemies, which revel in them.
Has Sam listened to Smotrich lately? Or does he only read the Wall Street Journal ed page? In point of fact, IDF guards recently were caught on tape, beating a prisoner to a pulp, rupturing his rectum, and were subsequently allowed to go free, hailed by Netanyahu as heroes and lionized on television. Sam is “not interested” in even acknowledging, let alone debating that. And I understand why.
This next reader recommends a sparring partner:
If you want to have a good-faith debate about Israel, it seems like Coleman Hughes is ready and willing. He’s debated several people on the subject so far, and they are people I imagine you side with in many respects.
But the key here, if you want to try to get your argument through, is you going on Coleman’s show — not him coming on yours. I’ve heard in several of your episodes debating this subject where you interrupt and play the “This is my show” card and cut people off. If you want to try to get people who don’t agree with you to understand your position, it’s going to have to be in a situation where you don’t control the button because — and I say this with respect — you just can’t control yourself on this issue.
I know, I can fuck off, but it’s true; and people like myself who have enjoyed your writing and opinions for many years but have seen your mind get hijacked would very much like to believe you’re not off your rocker here; and you’re not doing a good job of it when you control the mic. If Coleman won’t or can’t do it, I’m sure there are others out there who would be glad to have you on, but right now he seems free and open to discuss this topic in detail.
TBH I’m tired of this subject and the American obsession with it. With any luck we can move on from it a bit in the future. Here’s another reader on Israel:
I left the Free Press to spend my Substack nickel on the Dish. I appreciated some of what Bari and company published, but their bootlickery regarding Trump was too much for me, and I appreciate your clear-eyed and passionate words about this execrable human being. I’m a bit to the left of you, but no matter: You’re sane. That’s a big advantage in an insane time.
A bit of background: I’m a baby-boomer Jewish American, raised in a largely secular but strongly Jewish home. We were neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist. The blowback after October 7 shocked me out of a certain kind of sleepwalk that’s been amply described by others. In retrospect, it was completely predictable, but what the hell does retrospection get you? (You’ll find my version here, in case you’re interested.)
The AIPAC line consistently pushed by the Free Press also drove me away. If they were your only news source, you would know nothing about the West Bank land-grab and the “religious” thugs terrorizing Palestinians there, or more generally about Bibi’s desecrations — sycophants and racist criminals heading up your key ministries, for example — and his own thuggish, Trumpy ways.
That being said, here’s my dissent: In an age of Mamdani-esque denial of Jewish self-determination, academic dishonesty, and Tucker Carlson’s successful reincarnation of Father Coughlin, your critique of Jewish-American influence on policy feels like very thin ice.
