Hope for Peace, Prepare for War, with Walter Russell Mead | GoodFellows | Hoover Institution

Why has Israel repeatedly disregarded and gone the opposite way from the White House’s entreaties regarding the Middle East? And does the West fully fathom that Ukraine is losing its war of attrition with Russia?

Walter Russell Mead, “Global View” columnist for the Wall Street Journal, joins Hoover senior fellows Niall Ferguson, John Cochrane, and H.R. McMaster to discuss the latest developments in those two combat theaters. Next, the fellows choose policies they feel have gone neglected in America’s presidential election, weigh in on one pundit’s assessment that the US is headed for “the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country” should Donald Trump prevail, and reflect on the passing of Grateful Dead founding member Phil Lesh. 

Recorded on October 28, 2024.

Episode Transcript

>> T.S. Eliot (00:01):
We do not know very much of the future,
except that from generation to generationthe same things happen again and again.
Men learn little from others experience,but in the life of one man,
never the same time returns,sever the cord, shed the scale.

(00:21):
Only the fool fixed in his folly may thinkhe can turn the wheel on which he turns.

>> Bill Whalen (00:30):
It's Monday, October 28, 2024, and welcome back to GoodFellows,
a Hoover Institution broadcast examiningsocial, economic, political and
geopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen, I'ma Hoover's Distinguished Policy Fellow.
I'll be your moderator today, and
I am happy to report that I'm joinedby our full complement of GoodFellows.
That would include the historian NiallFerguson, the economist John Cochrane, and

(00:51):
former presidential National SecurityAdvisor geostrategist historian
Lt-Gen HR McMaster.
Niall, John andHR are Hoover Institution senior fellows.
Gentlemen we gonna do two topics today,
in our B Plock we're gonnalook at the elections.
This is our last show before Americagoes to the polls next week.
So we're gonna talk about issuesthat we wish had been discussed but
didn't come up.
But before that,we're gonna to take a look at the world.

(01:12):
And we have a very special guest today,I know one of our viewers is gonna be
pleased to see him because not too longago we received the following email.
It came from a gentleman namedMark in Northbrook, Illinois,
who wrote the following quote,please invite Walter Russell Mead,
it would be a fascinating discussion.
Well, Mark, your message has beenacknowledged, mission accomplished.
Joining us today, Bard College professorHudson Institute Distinguished Fellow,

(01:34):
the Wall Street Journal's Global Viewcolumnist, the one and
only Walter Russell Mead.
Walter, welcome to Goodfellas, andI guess you have a fan base out there.

>> Walter Russell Mead (01:41):
Well, Grant,
it sounds like Mark isone really smart cookie.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:45):
[LAUGH] It's long overdue, Walter, great to have you here.

>> Walter Russell Mead (01:49):
Good to be here as well.

>> Bill Whalen (01:51):
So, Walter, we're going to look at Israel and Ukraine and
let's start with Israel.
Over the weekend,
the Israelis responded to the Iranianmissile attack with attack of its own.
It was not a shock andawe demonstration necessarily.
What they did do is they hit severaltargets, reportedly a building that was
a part of Iran's defunct nuclearweapons development program.
The Iranian regime quickly saidthat we could expect a, quote,

(02:14):
appropriate response.
I'll leave that to General McMaster todescribe what that might look like.
But let's talk about the timing ofwhat this says about the US Israeli
relationship.
Walter, and
here I wanna turn you to Niall Ferguson'srather brilliant column in the free press.
And here's what Niall noted.
The White House told Israel, don't gointo Gaza, and Israel went into Gaza.
The White House said, don't tend troopsinto Rafah, Israel sent troops into Rafah.

(02:38):
But White House said, don't sendtroops into Lebanon, Israel did so.
And now here we have Israel launching anattack ten days before the election when
we could probably assume thatthe White House would like to have peace
in quiet the Middle eastto help Kamala Harris.
Walter, let's talk about what thissays about the US Israel relationship.
Is this just a byproduct of the odddynamics between Joe Biden and
Benjamin Netanyahu?

(02:59):
Or a decade or so from now we're gonna seethis as something of a turning point in
how Israel and the US get along?

>> Walter Russell Mead (03:05):
Well, actually, I say one thing you realize is that this is
part of a pattern in the sense thatJoe Biden says don't, and people do.
That's not just someunique Israeli phenomenon.
He says to Putin,don't invade, Putin invades.
He says to China,don't mess with the Philippines,
China messes with the Philippines.

(03:26):
There's a general decline ofAmerican sort of dominance,
or at least a Bidenadministration dominance.
And it's a little bit more like gettinga message from the European Union saying
don't than a message from a traditionalpresident, United States saying don't.
I think it's always easy inthe US Israel relationship to sort

(03:50):
of take events, put them in sortof just this unique context,
and then we miss the bigger picture.

>> Bill Whalen (03:58):
One of the things I asserted in my piece for
the Free Press was thatthe Biden administration or
the Biden Harris administration's lackof influence over Israel reflected
the decline of US Aid relative toIsrael's economy and defense capability.

(04:19):
But then having written that,
I read a report that got published justthe other day arguing that actually
US Military aid to Israel is atan extremely high level right now.
And so I now feel a little confused andwonder what your take is on that.

>> Walter Russell Mead (04:36):
Yeah, and I think the US Israel relationship is one of these
things that because it's so politicallyprominent, so many people in America
follow this relationship closely who don'tfollow very much else in foreign affairs.
There's always sort of two facesof the US Israel relationship.

(04:56):
There's the president andothers using statements about
Israel as a way to signaltheir general attitudes.
If you wanna look tough andmove to the center,
you say Israel hasthe right to defend itself.
If you want to look, accommodating andmoving a little bit to the left,
you say Palestinians alsohave a right to live.

(05:19):
Neither one of those involvesspecifically a change of policy.
But you're able to reallyget a lot of attention for
your statements about Israelin a way you're not safe for
your statements about Sudan or Bangladeshor a whole range of other things.
So you've always got a lot of politicalnoise when people are talking
about Israel.

(05:40):
But if you look atthe strategic situation,
it looks to me as if US Israelinterests are not 100% aligned,
but more closely alignedthan they often are.
Where the Biden people really don'twant two things in the Middle East.
One is a war that dragsthe United States into it,

(06:04):
and the other isan Iranian nuclear bomb or
a conflict that just shuts down oil flows.
And so the United States,if it doesn't want a war with Iran itself,
it needs for Israel to be active andstrong and not to be defeated,
say in the war in Gaza orthe war in Lebanon.

(06:26):
So the Biden administration has beencaught with a strategic unity that
leads to actually quite high weapons,weapons deliveries and aid.
And a political signaling problemthat causes it to emit mixed signals.
In fact, the United States isnot giving Israel weapons for

(06:48):
Gaza out of the goodness, or if youprefer, out of the badness of its heart.
It's giving those weapons to Israelbecause it wants Israel to win,
needs Israel to win.

>> Bill Whalen (07:03):
I'm glad we used the word win,
which has been missing froma lot of foreign policy.
So I'm kinda optimistic,I wanna run my optimism by you.
The attacks over the weekendwere spectacular, zero losses.
I mean, compare the Iranianmissile attack to this one.
Once again, it shows something thatlike we learned in the Gulf War,

(07:25):
the amazing superiority of Israel andAmerican weapons and
abilities of our soldiers,especially Israeli.
And the other lesson is,so Iran is a paper tiger.
I guess there's some S300aircraft anti aircraft systems
that will be for sale real cheap,soon [LAUGH] exposed.

(07:47):
And a lesson, a bigger strategic lesson,
here's what happens ifyou actually fight back.
What the US andNATO could do in Ukraine if they chose to.
Maybe we should just outsource ourforeign policy Policy to Israel,
[LAUGH] people who actuallyknow how to get things done.

>> Walter Russell Mead (08:04):
Yeah, there's a lot there and obviously,
this was an incredible demonstration,as were its attacks on Hezbollah,
of just unbelievablemastery of intelligence,
of the integration ofdifferent military arms.
And it is brilliant butI would check my optimism if I were you,

(08:29):
because really, since 1948/49,
Israel has had one incredibly brilliantmilitary victory after another.
And yet it was Napoleon who said orI guess Talion said it to Napoleon,
you can do anything withbayonets except sit on.

(08:51):
And so military victories thatdon't lead to the desired or
a desired political outcome are kindof a fact of life in the Middle East.

>> Bill Whalen (09:05):
I know it's CTAR's turn, but I want to follow up, so
what is the political outcome?
Clearly, Israel is sick of 70 years ofbeing surrounded by people who want to
destroy it, andthat going back to that status quo,
as the Biden administration wants to do,is clearly untenable.
Vast swaths of territory run byterrorist mafias with missiles,

(09:26):
where is the political outcome?
I know that's the big question,but you're the big thinker [LAUGH]

>> Walter Russell Mead (09:32):
Well,
I think probably a lotof people in Israel, and
this should be especially truein Netanyahu's Likud Party,
don't actually believe in permanentpeace in the way we do in the US.
This kind of instinctive Americanapproach to questions of war and
peace is something went wrong,now you have a war, and

(09:54):
then at the end of the war, you build astable structure that will produce peace.
Because, of course, peace isthe natural situation of human beings,
remember what's years ago, I was visitingwhere Troy used to be in northern Turkey,
and you're standing on topof the ruins of 13 different

(10:16):
cities built on that spot,all destroyed by enemies.
And from the hill, you can look across thestraits and see the Gallipoli monument.
So, the idea that somehowthe outcome of war should be
a nice legal peace secured sort ofkind of like after the war will be,

(10:38):
the European Union just may not beon the table in the Middle East.
HR let's turn to the question ofappropriate response from the Iranians and
tell us what you're lookingat next in this chapter,
are you looking at anotherexchange between Israel and Iran?
Are you looking at Yemen,are you looking at Hezbollah,
are you looking at Gaza,what has your attention right now?

>> H.R. McMaster (10:59):
Well, I'd love to hear what Walter thinks about this,
I think what has changed,and it's significantly,
is that Iran's been able to get away withit since 1979, it being its use of Arabs,
Palestinians, others to fighta proxy war against Israel.
And to insulate themselves fromany kind of costs associated with

(11:20):
the use of those proxies and
up to the point in which Iran attackedIsrael with the massive missile and
drone attack in April andfollowed up with a subsequent attack.
They've been able to get away with itin large measure because I think of
the encouragement of the United Statesnot to escalate this kind of mantra or

(11:40):
folly of de escalation.
Well, that changed in April, butthe Biden administration said,
you'll take the win andencouraged just a very meager, really,
demonstration by the Israelis, whichforeshadowed the second attack in which
they took out an integrated air defensesystem in the interior of the country.
You've seen them do this again alongtheir whole path into these strikes of

(12:02):
about 100 aircraft, all of which returnedwithout any damage back to Iran.
So, Iran knows that it's extremelyvulnerable, I think Iran will try to
get back to the way it was, where theycan continue to expend every Arab life,
every Palestinian life,in their effort to destroy Israel.
And the question is,are we going to let them get away with it?

(12:23):
I think what Israel demonstrated isany team that just plays only defense
doesn't make any kind of progress or
doesn't really have any kindof effect in the competition.
Israel went on the offense in a numberof ways against Hamas, obviously,
after October 7th,against Hezbollah and against Syrian,

(12:44):
Iranian proxies in Syria, againstthe Houthis and against Iran directly.
So, I don't know what you think, Walter,but I think what Iran will try to do is
escalate this, maybe horizontally,you might call it.
I think Iraq is vulnerable now,
I think that's where they could tryto create a lot of problems with us.
They'll continue to use the Houthis,
they'll continue to use this proxy army inSyria, but I don't think they're gonna try

(13:06):
another direct attack because theygot nothing left, I don't think.
And so you'll see, I think,more attempts at assassinations,
more attempts at these indirectattacks through proxies.
But I think that's the course it'sgoing to take until Israel decides,
which I think is going tohappen in the next few years,
which is to strike Iran's nuclear andmore of their missile facilities.

(13:30):
Russell, what's your take on whatthe trajectory is from this point on?

>> Walter Russell Mead (13:34):
Yeah, I think I agree with you that Iran is going to sort
of look for asymmetrical andhorizontal ways of responding to this.
That's where they've had the mostsuccess anyway over the years and
there are lots of vulnerable targets.
If you think about all the Israeliembassies around the world and

(13:56):
because the Iranians are insaneanti Semites who identify every Jew
everywhere with the state of Israel,synagogues, schools,
there are just lots of waysthat bad things could happen.

>> H.R. McMaster (14:10):
Even I'm thinking of the attacks in the 90s in Argentina.

>> Walter Russell Mead (14:14):
Yeah, exactly all of those are possible the other thing I
would say, though, is that byteaching Iran that it has a permanent
inferiority in conventional war fightingcapability, you sort of increasing
the strength of people inside Iran whosay, well, it's time to go nuclear.

(14:34):
Because if Iran had nuclear weapons,then the question of whether you bomb
Hezbollah becomes a little bit morecomplicated and certainly the question
of whether you bomb Iran becomesa little bit more complicated.
So I would not be surprised to see insideIran the people who've been arguing

(14:55):
all along, we ought to go ahead anddo this, we ought to go ahead and
do this, might not be winninga few more debates right now.
And then we should understand that,
that would put both Israel andthe United States in
an extremely difficult positionbecause as I understand it,

(15:19):
and HR may have betterinformation than I do on this.
Iran's nuclear program is pretty wellprotected even against conventional,
very powerful attackswith conventional bombs.
And you might, to really be confident thatyou have done what you needed to do, you

(15:41):
might need to have kind of tunnel battleslike you have in South Lebanon and so on.
And that's at the end of a very longair supply line where you have to keep
your forces on the ground supplied andready to evacuate when the job is done and
you're in the middle ofSomebody else's territory.

(16:02):
Whether the Israelis can dothat without American help,
whether they want to dothat without American help.
Whether if you're an Israeli facedwith the prospect of an atom,
Iranian nuclear bomb that you cannot dealwith with purely conventional methods.
And the Americans aren't helpingyou do it, do you then think, well,

(16:24):
maybe I've got enough.
This is why I have my own nuclear weapons.
So, I think we're movinginto darker territory
where everybody's optionsare getting uglier.
But people, so far as I can see,neither the Iranians are not losing their

(16:46):
will to fight and the Israelisaren't losing their will to survive.
And as long as we're in that place,
escalation of various kinds seemsto me to be more likely than not.

>> Niall Ferguson (17:00):
I'm going to join John in the optimists camp.
Rather unusually,I think we're underestimating Israel.
We've been consistently surprisedto the upside in recent weeks and
months by what Israel has been able to do.
And it has eviscerated Hezbollah,it didn't just decapitate it three times,
it's completely evisceratedits organizational structure.

(17:23):
Hamas is essentially buriedin rubble in Gaza, and
Iran can't defend itself againstIsraeli airstrikes at all.
Now, I think the thing we're missing hereis that Supreme Leader Khamenei is at
death's door.
And when Prime Minister Netanyahuwent on air and

(17:45):
addressed the Iranian people sayingthat he anticipated change in Iran,
he wasn't entirely engagedin wishful thinking.
I think Iran is the weak linkin the axis that we face,
and it's much weaker than we thought.
Without its proxies or

(18:06):
with its proxies very compromised,it's wide open to attack.
My expectation is that Israelwill continue to attack Iran and
that this will havedisproportionate success.
So, Walter,I'm going to take the other side of this.
I think we're in a much better place thanany of us dared hope for a year ago when,

(18:26):
if you remember, we were reelingfrom the horrors of October 7th.

>> Walter Russell Mead (18:30):
Well, I hope you're right, Niall.
What is it they say an optimist is someonewho thinks that things are as good as they
could possibly get.
And the pessimist is someone who'safraid the optimist is right.
And I do think that everything that youjust said, if I'm an Iranian official,
makes me think I really wantthose nukes and I want them fast.

(18:53):
And if I'm Putin and I'm worried aboutthe weak link in my chain collapsing.
Then maybe there's some informationI could give the Iranians that would
shorten the time between where theyare now and what it would take to build,
you know, to actually weaponize weaponsgrade uranium into a deliverable bomb.

(19:17):
So->> H.R. McMaster: In a minute to
miniaturize the device.
Yes.

>> H.R. McMaster (19:20):
Walter, I think they're already doing it.
I think the Russians already doing it.
What did the Iranians get forthe Shahed drones and the missiles?
What did the North Koreans get forthat matter for what, 6 or
8 million artillery rounds and now troopsthat are going to be employed in Ukraine.
I think Russia's given them,certainly both of them,

(19:41):
assistance with their missile programs,but I think that
they are also helping them with theirnuclear weapons programs already.

>> Walter Russell Mead (19:48):
So.

>> H.R. McMaster (19:48):
And I've seen no evidence about that.
It's like kind of a gut feel.
I'd like to add anotherslightly pessimistic question.

>> Niall Ferguson (19:57):
We keep focusing on Iran entirely, as if this is just an Iran,
Israel war.
But Arab terrorists havebeen trying to kill Jews and
get rid of Israel since the 1920s.
Fatah was around in the 1970s.
The PLO was in the 1970s whenIran was still under the Shah.
The various terrorist groupsare getting plenty of financing for

(20:18):
Qatar from the European Union,from the United Nations.
There's lots of people willingto send them money and
finance reconstruction of the tunnels.
So is this all entirely about Iran or
is this even when Iran stops beingthe central backer are there not forces.
And Iranians are Shiites,the others are Sunnis.

(20:40):
They can't wait to start tearingeach other apart as well.

>> Walter Russell Mead (20:43):
Well, again, I just think about the ruins of Troy,
and I don't think thatwe are on the brink of
the age of permanentpeace in the Middle East.
But,>> Bill Whalen: I will agree with Niall,
though, also Walter.
I think we could actually agree on allthis that Iran is extremely weak, but
Iran has been able to compensate forthat weakness through the use of proxies.

(21:07):
And its weakness, its profoundweakness that the Supreme Leader and
other leaders recognize will provideadditional impetus to race to a nuclear
weapon, I think that'sthe situation we're in.
And I think realizing that Israelwill feel as if it must act,
even if it's imperfect,to set back the timeline for

(21:29):
Iran to have that nuclear weapon.
And so I think in the next coupleyears maybe at the outside.
Now, you're gonna see even moredirect strikes against Iran and
actually strikes aimed at theirnuclear program, as you know,
which is dispersed, it's protected.
But like any of these systems,there are critical points or

(21:52):
a critical path that could be attackedfrom a military perspective to at
least with the intention of settingback the program in terms of time.
That's right.
And we should not forget toothat the Israelis have very good
connections deep into Iranian society.
Ethnically, I think onlyabout 50 some percent

(22:15):
of the inhabitants ofIran are ethnic versions.
And not while some manyAzeris are integrated,
not all of them are happywith the status quo.
The Arabs in the oil producing province,
feel that the wealth of theirprovince is being sucked out and
pumped into Ayatollah projectsthey don't necessarily go for.

(22:39):
And the Kurds in Iran are no happier withtheir situation than Kurds in other part
of the Middle East.
So it's a volatile entity, Iran.
And if you're looking atlong term possibility of
economic isolation and continuing poverty.

(23:00):
There's one thing, if you think, well,the Ayatollahs are building a mighty
war machine with all of this money andso they're gonna make Iran great.
It's another if every time you comeinto actual contact with the enemy,
they humiliate.
So it's one of thesesituations nobody really
knows how all of these forces play out.

(23:23):
But you can be sure that people inJerusalem are staying up late at night
trying to think this stuff through andgame out different scenarios.

>> Bill Whalen (23:33):
Walter, since HR mentioned North Korean troops deployed to Russia,
let's spend a couple minutes on Ukraine.
That war last week with very littlefanfare, entered its 33rd month.
Tell us if you see an ending to this andmore to the point,
if you see a good ending to this.

>> Walter Russell Mead (23:48):
Well, it's interesting when I go back and
I look at the early months of the war,there was a lot of talk in the West about
should we orshouldn't we offer off ramps to Putin?
To end the war.
I think now the West is hoping thatPutin will give us an off ramp.
And by that what I mean is thathe'd be prepared to accept a deal

(24:12):
where Ukraine loses a chunk of territorybut gets admitted into NATO and the EU.
And if that happened, that would look,for the West, like kind of a face saving
solution, people are talking about it likethe North Korea, South Korea approach.
East Germany, West Germany,not perfect, but

(24:34):
we save what we can andbuild for the future.
I'm not actually sure thatPutin is in the mood to be so
generous andthat in fact humiliating NATO and
testing NATO,that's as much of his warring
as a few more square miles in the Donbas.

(24:58):
So, I would say I don't thinkour side on the West has yet
fully grasped the seriousness andthe reality of the situation that it's in.

>> Niall Ferguson (25:10):
Hey, Walter, I was going to say, look what he just tried to
do in Moldova, they're pullingout all the stops from Moldova,
you've got the elections coming up inBulgaria that they're very active in.
They've been successful in Georgia,not a NATO country obviously,
but in Slovakia, for example, soI mean, he's not diminished in any way.

(25:30):
His efforts to break apartthe cohesion of NATO and the EU And
Ukraine is kind of the linchpin,I think, from his perspective.

>> Walter Russell Mead (25:39):
And you look at the elections in eastern Germany and
you look at where anti-West partieshas had a majority in some places.
And you look at whatpeople now think could be
the outcome in the elections in Czechia,and
you can look at the growing strengthof the far right in France.

(26:05):
The West is not gettingstronger as this war goes on,
not that the war is the primaryforce driving this splintering,
but we are not winning, 33 monthsinto this war, we are not winning.
And go back and replay some ofthe contemptuous things that people

(26:28):
in the West said about how weak Russiawas and how stupid Putin was and
how wonderfully skilled andpurposeful and powerful we were.
And think about how that looks againstthe background of the last 33 months.
We need to pay attention here,we need to up our game significantly.

>> Niall Ferguson (26:50):
I think it needs to be said loud and
clear that this war is being lost.
I was in Kyiv, what,six weeks ago, and there is very
considerable bitterness inUkraine about the big talk and
the grand speeches that havebeen made by Western leaders.

(27:11):
The large sums of moneythat have been pledged, but
the significantly smaller sums ofmoney that have actually been turned
into hardware that Ukrainian troopscan use to defend their country.
And there's a special bitternessthat the Biden administration
continues to place limitson what Ukraine can do, for

(27:32):
example, with Storm Shadowmissiles that Britain provided.
They can't use them against Russianairfields, the location of which we know
from which the Russians launchedtheir attacks on Ukrainian cities,
and electrical infrastructure.
The Ukrainians know thatthis is not going well, and
they are well aware that they cannotsustain this military effort indefinitely.

(27:55):
They are outmanned andoutgunned, and you don't need to
be HR McMaster to know that that'snot a good situation to be in a war.
And yet, Western leaders talkinsouciantly about this conflict,
seemingly unaware of the realitythat Ukraine is losing.
And if we carry on, on the trajectoryof the Biden-Harris administration,

(28:16):
Ukraine will lose the war, andthe consequences of that for
Western security are really horrific.
It's hard to get this thought eveninto the heads of German leaders,
who are a lot closer geographically thanthe good fellows are to the front line.

>> H.R. McMaster (28:29):
But if I may, never in history, and
I say that with trepidation becauseI have my historians with me [LAUGH],
has there been a greater differencebetween capability and outcome.
What the US and NATO could do if wedecided this is our war, we're gonna apply
the principles of the 1991 Gulf War, whichI said we should have on the first day.

(28:49):
This will not stand, we run back tothe Russian border in not one instant,
we could do it in an instant or in a week,
with the kinds of resultsthat Israel is now showing.
It's just amazing that the only reason wedon't do that is we don't regard that as
an important lesson to learn again,and we don't want to do it.
And, the basis, it seems like we're notlearning the lesson of Vietnam, when

(29:14):
you say things are off or when you want tojust play for the status quo, you lose.
Isn't there a certain momentumto war that victory and
advance builds its own momentum,builds support for the war?
If you say we're just going to sit on thedefensive for year after year after year,
eventually morale crumbles,even if you have the capability for

(29:36):
overwhelming success.

>> Walter Russell Mead (29:38):
Yeah, I mean, I think the key in warfare is to seize,
retain and exploit the initiative,as you're getting to John, and
then I think that Walter,I'd like to ask you what you think.
But I'll tell you, when I hearthis mantra of de-escalation and
escalation management, makes me think ofthe war managers during the Vietnam War.
And it sounds to me like it'softentimes [LAUGH] Robert McNamara,

(30:02):
or John McNaughton, orWilliam Bundy throwing their voice.

>> H.R. McMaster (30:07):
Why aren't they worried about us escalating instead of us worried
about them escalating [LAUGH]?

>> Walter Russell Mead (30:11):
Well, it's a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of war.

>> Niall Ferguson (30:14):
I noticed that we're down to using body counts as the chief
measure of Ukraine's success in the war,everybody's saying,
it's not going that well, butif you look at the body counts.
I'm old enough to remember that's whatthey were saying during the Vietnam War,
that was the metric of choice,and this is-

>> Walter Russell Mead (30:35):
I will say,
though, that, we just talkedabout Ukrainian weakness, but
I think the Russians are extremely weak,too.
I mean, we saw that obviouslywith the Wagner offensive,
we saw it again with the Kursk offensive.
And even though they're making grindingprogress, and I agree with Niall,
from what I've heard from Ukrainianfriends, there is sort of a crisis of

(30:58):
confidence at the moment among some, butnot really a lack of determination yet.
And there's angers and resentment,I think as Niall mentioned,
it's building, but->> H.R. McMaster: So
if the West said this will not stand,it would not stand.
Right, but the West doesn't want to say that, okay?
Look at public opinion,not just in Germany, not just in France,

(31:21):
but in the United States of America,and there is no support for this.

>> Bill Whalen (31:27):
Yeah, support.

>> Niall Ferguson (31:29):
Walter, you've made this argument your great essay about
the growing dangers, andwe're just shrugging at these dangers.
What argument do you think thatan American leader should make to
the American public?

>> Walter Russell Mead (31:43):
Well, this is the thing.
I think the thing that Ipersonally find impossible to
forgive the Biden administration foris the absence of
the equivalent ofFranklin Roosevelt's fireside chats.
The American people need to understand the world

(32:06):
situation, they need to understandwhy these things are happening.
And it's not an easy thing to talk aboutbecause, for one thing, the average
American, while they don't followforeign affairs in detail, or whatever.
They have this sense that all the smartpeople told us that bringing China

(32:27):
into the WTO was gonna make Chinademocratic and America rich.
All the smart people told usthat bringing Mexico into
NAFTA was going to stabilizedemocracy in Mexico,
reduce immigration across the frontier,and

(32:48):
create a burst of prosperityin the United States, etc.
And so what you have is a generationalfailure of American strategy.
And I would love to say, well,that was just the other people,
and I was over here alone andpure in my corner the whole time.

(33:11):
But all of us are implicated tosome degree in a period that
I think future historians are gonna lookback to and compare to the 1920s and
30s as a period of strategic collapse andfailure in the West.

>> Bill Whalen (33:29):
Walter, that's a nice segue into the exit question for
this segment.
And I would like to read you something yourecently wrote in the Wall Street Journal,
I want to get the panel'sthoughts on this.
And you said the following, and I quote,
World War three is becomingmore likely in the near term.
And the US Is too weak eitherto prevent it should war come,
to be confident of victory,a more devastating indictment of
a failed generation of nationalleadership could scarcely be Pentagon.

(33:50):
Well, Walter, we're gonna get a 47thpresident the next few days, or
next few weeks.
Is the 47th president gonna change this?

>> Walter Russell Mead (33:58):
Well, of course, we don't know who that is, but
I would say that at the moment, I don'tsee either candidate being ready for
the test that history is about to pose.
But on the other hand, what I will sayis that sometimes people, some are born
great, some achieve greatness, andsome have greatness thrust upon them.

(34:20):
So the next president may be likeMalvolio here in Shakespeare.
But another thing they say is,was that good times create bad men,
bad men create bad times, andbad times create great leaders,
so it may be that we're justgoing around this cycle.

(34:41):
But whoever the next president is,they're gonna face
an international environment that isfar more challenging than either,
I think either Canada orthe American people are prepared.

>> John Cochrane (34:56):
Hey, I'd like to ask Walter,
to just make a comment on one other,I think,
really important topicthat's related to this.
Walter, I remembering you andI having lunch in the White House Navy
mess with Tom Cottonin the spring of 2017.
And I was just beginning at that pointto conceptualize the national security
strategy was published laterthat year in December,
as the President's NationalSecurity Strategy.

(35:18):
And our topic of conversationwas the interconnected nature
of these challenges that we're facing,and of course,
those connections are nowquite apparent to all of us.
There are some who make an argumentthese days that we ought to abandon or
disengage from competitions in Europe andthe Middle East and
focus exclusively, for example,on the Indo-Pacific region.

(35:41):
What's your answer to that argument asyou kinda maybe hearken back with me to
that discussion we had, now,
which I can't believe was that sevenyears ago, Walter, eight years ago?

>> Walter Russell Mead (35:53):
Yeah, look, I think it would be nice if you could say,
okay, well, we don't haveenough chips to go everywhere.
So we're just gonna have to takeour chips off the Europe board and
the Middle East board, andput them all around Taiwan.
I'm not sure that's practical, but

(36:13):
I also think what would then happenwould be things in the Middle East and
Europe so deleterious to our interests andour standing position.
It's like in World War II,at the start of World War II,
our Navy had just been destroyed,or a lot of it at Pearl Harbor.
And Franklin Roosevelt andhis advisors absolutely knew that

(36:35):
the United States did nothave enough forces for
an all out to push to victory in boththe Atlantic and the Pacific theaters.
All right.And they made the correct,
in my view,decision to focus on the Atlantic theater.
But that didn't mean they justabandoned the Pacific theater

(36:56):
because that would have beena catastrophe of a different kind.
So yes, we have under prepared,we do not have the military forces,
the domestic infrastructure needed forthe world situation that we're in.
Well, what that means is we'regonna have to start thinking

(37:19):
a little bit more likeFrederick the Great here,
who was in a similar position withhuge enemies on all sides, and
was dashing back and forth inan effort to stave off catastrophe.
We're gonna have to work very hard,get very smart very fast,
and we will make somechoices that are costly, and

(37:41):
that is the nature ofthe situation that we're in.
But I think to just sort of havea sort of doctrinaire thing of okay,
I'm gonna simplify my life by X and
Y is not an answer to the kindsof problems that we've got.
But the real answer is to startpreparing for what is likely to come,

(38:05):
but may not come,if people see that we are serious
about preparing andthat we are ready to engage.

>> John Cochrane (38:14):
[FOREIGN], we don't have nearly enough Latin on this show.
The last time I saw those wordswas above the bar of a pizza
restaurant in Kyiv that is run byveterans of the war against Russia.
The Ukrainians have learned this the hardway, if you want peace, prepare for war.

(38:38):
I would just say in answer toyour earlier question, Bill,
if you look at the National SecurityStrategy of the Trump administration,
which of course HR dida great part to draft.
And you look at the NationalSecurity Strategy of the Biden,
Harris administration, andyou think this is a difficult choice.
I have to tell you thatthe foreign policy of the Biden,

(39:00):
Harris administration iswhat got us into this mess.
We lost deterrence January 2021,and the only way to get it back,
it seems to me, is to throw thesebombs out, it's as simple as that.
I finally have an answerto Bill's question.

>> Bill Whalen (39:16):
And you get the last word, John.

>> John Cochrane (39:18):
Yeah.
>> [LAUGH]>> Bill Whalen: Christmas comes early.
Yes, it's not just about presidents,
it's about the group who advises them.
HR was a great national security advisor,we need more like that.
CVS pact, I'm gonna blow this one,how do you say, part of the economy?
I have to be the economist, [LAUGH]you want aircraft carriers, how many?
What percent of GDP can youafford to have aircraft carriers?

(39:40):
Better raise that GDP.
And so, in fact, restoring sane economicpolicy is a vital part of being able to
have the means, and then you need the willto have a forceful foreign policy.
Europe is discovering it regulateditself to death, a lot of America wants
to regulate ourselves intoEuropean European stagnation,

(40:03):
that will not be good forour foreign affairs as well.
Putting big tariffs on our allies.
If you have an economy that's global,at least among the people who like us,
you're a much stronger economy than youare if you try to hide and protect our
current habit of industrial policy,massive subsidies down immense rat holes.

(40:26):
Do for the rest of the economywhat we did to EV chargers.
The fact that Boeing is falling apart.
SpaceX is a great wonder of Americaunder huge regulatory assault for
having the wrong politics.
A lot of the rest is falling apart.
So you need the economic underpinnings tohave strength as well as the will to use
that strength.
And there's a lot of forces thatare out to hurt that as well,

(40:49):
that need to be turned around.

>> Bill Whalen (40:52):
Walter, our time is up, but we sure appreciate having you on this,
it was long overdue, andwe hope you come back again.
And Mark in Northbrook, Illinois,you were right, my friend,
it was a fascinating discussion.
Walter, take care.

>> Walter Russell Mead (41:02):
Thanks, good to see you guys.

>> John Cochrane (41:04):
Good to see you, Walter, take care.

>> Bill Whalen (41:07):
Gentlemen, onto our B block, the policy election that wasn't.
We have right now in America, withthe election just a few days ahead, one
candidate calls his opponent a communist,she in turn calls him a fascist.
There has been about $16 billion spentin America on elections top to bottom
on the ballot right now,
and I challenge you to find seriouspolicy debates around the country.
So let's get into a couple policytopics here for a few moments.

(41:31):
I leave it to you to decide if to dosomething in your own policy wheelhouse or
go outside your lane if you want to.
HR, why don't you kick this off?
Do you wanna talk about somethingin the world of defense or
national security that you wish hadbeen discussed in deeper depth?

>> H.R. McMaster (41:44):
Well, how about everything, Bill?
I mean, everything.
And I think in particular,
really just to tie into whatWalter was just sharing with us.
We just don't have the defense capacity,and we have the kind of the triple
whammy in defense these days of a bowwave of deferred modernization,
a lack of just the size,of the force to be able to cope

(42:06):
with the many contingencies thatwe're operating in right now.
Let alone what we might anticipatein terms of additional crises or
an intensification of thesecontingencies and commitments.
And then we have thisrecruiting issue as well.
Nobody really talked aboutthe strengthening of national defense and

(42:26):
what it would take not only from justa increase in the defense budget
perspective.
But also the important typesof reforms that are necessary,
such as multi-year contracting and
the need to incentivize a reinvigorationof our defense industrial base.
So, hey, I mean,that would be number one of
many topics I wish had beendiscussed substantively.

>> Bill Whalen (42:50):
All right, John, the world of economics.

>> John Cochrane (42:52):
Well, I'll do a little economics.
I mean, I'll say the obviousthings about economics.
We need attention on long run growth.
I wish there was any attention to fixingthe things that are obviously broke versus
do we add whipped cream or do we addcherries on top of the ice cream sundae?
When you look at the rhetoric fromthe candidates, it's tiny twiddles,

(43:13):
that would make sense if everythingelse were running smoothly, but
everything else is a screaming mess.
Now, candidates say what they say cuzthat's what the electorate wants, I guess,
but it's shocking that we're nothaving an end of stagnation thing.
But I think the more importantissue is not the economic issue.
I'm turning into one issue voter onlawfare and the politicization of

(43:37):
everything, the intelligence agencies,by deeping into presidential politics.
Tunisia had an election and
they threw the opposing candidates intojail five days before the election.
The fact that America has tried to throw
a presidential candidatein jail is just shocking.

(43:59):
The politicization you saw atthe censorship that's going on.
I'm a little bit annoyed at presidentialcandidates saying they don't like
the First Amendment, they wanna stack theSupreme Court, get rid of the filibuster.
So the sort of central loss of liberty andthe politicization of everything.
The politicization of industry goingafter Elon Musk because of his tweets and

(44:24):
he gets a regulatory onslaught.
There's a reason he'sinvolved in politics.
So really I think that's the major issuethat I wish more people were mad about,
although lots of peopleare pretty darn mad about it.

>> Bill Whalen (44:36):
All right, Niall, choose a policy, any policy.

>> Niall Ferguson (44:39):
Well, I'll say what John thought was so
obvious that it didn't need to be said,but it actually does need to be said.
Neither candidate has a remotelyserious plan to bring
the finances of the federalgovernment into balance.
In fact,it's a competition to see which sailor is
drunker in terms of spendingrelative to revenues.

(45:02):
We're coming into the nextpresidential term with deficits
above 5% of GDP as far as the eye can see.
And the Congressional Budget Officetypically underestimates
the growth of the debt,all its estimates point upwards, but
the reality will be evenworse at this rate.
And as I think I may have said before,
Ferguson's law states that any great powerthat's spending more on interest payments

(45:26):
than on defense won't be great formuch longer, the US is there right now.
This is the year when the lines cross.
And neither candidate hasremotely touched on this.
And everybody who assessesthe fiscal outlook will tell
you it's one really large increasein the federal debt versus one even
larger increase in the federal debt.

(45:47):
That's shocking, and given what we'vejust been discussing with Walter and
what HR just said,the strategic consequences
of fiscal irresponsibilitycould be very serious indeed.
That's the issue that's beenconspicuous by its absence, and
it really should bethe most important issue.
And if I could put intwo cents on that issue,

(46:08):
the choice is not European taxation, whichgives us European stagnation of growth.
Slashing spending through a grandmafrom the back of the train,
those spending can be reinedin lots of [INAUDIBLE].
But growth, the way to get rid is to lowerthe debt to GDP ratio is to raise the GDP.
So it all comes down to growth,which means mostly getting out of the way.
End of sermon.

>> Bill Whalen (46:28):
Okay, gentlemen,
there's a journalist named Mark Halperinwho recently went on Tucker Carlson's
podcast and he said the following withregard to the scenario of a Trump victory.
And he said this election will be,and I quote,
the cause of the greatest mental healthcrisis in the history of the country.
I think tens of millions of willquestion their connection to the nation,
their connection to other human beings,their connection to their vision of what

(46:48):
their future for them andtheir children will be like.
And he added, I think there'll bealcoholism, there'll be broken marriages.
How many of you guys are going out andbuying Prozac between now and
next Tuesday?

>> Niall Ferguson (46:58):
Well, I'm fine.
In fact, I'm impressed at my ownpsychological equilibrium given
how incredibly annoyingthis election has become.
I'm a big fan of Mark Halperin andI think he is onto something that
the backdrop to this election,if you look at the data,
is serious deterioration in public health,especially in mental health.

(47:20):
This applies predominantly inthe literature to young people, but
if you actually look at the data,it's affecting all age groups.
And the most shocking phenomenon inAmerica in our times is surely the rise in
deaths of despair, that is alcohol-relatedor drug-related, firearms-related.
I mean, more Americans have died fromdeaths of despair in the last ten years

(47:44):
than died from COVID,we thought that was a large number.
So I think Mark's onto something here.
For a lot of people,the politicization of everything that John
just spoke about hasa psychologically deranging impact.
Young people think that the The world isgoing to end if Trump wins, America is

(48:04):
going to be plunged into fascism becausethat's the mantra of the Harris campaign.
Donald Trump is Hitler, we're back tothat, I can't believe we're back to that.
But anybody who believes that is gonnabe deeply frightened if Trump wins.
And conversely, if Trump loses, a lotof people who think that the republic

(48:26):
is threatened by the Democratswill also be extremely worried.
So, I think this is the reallyunpleasant shadow side of our very
polarized politicization of everything.

>> Bill Whalen (48:39):
John.

>> John Cochrane (48:40):
I'll agree,
I'm less worried about their mentalhealth than about their actions.
And I think we are seeing what the, all ofus have been for a year now saying, God,
I really don't want that to happen.
A very, very close election, which willthen lead, it will be contested right,
left and center, people who havewhipped themselves up into a frenzy.

(49:00):
I read the New York Times on Sunday,always a mistake.
And the entire review section was, well,
I guess the party linenow is Trump is Hitler.
The entire review session was,Trump is a fascist, Trump is Hitler,
Trump must be stopped at any cost.
Which, once you convince yourself of that,the end of the Constitution,
we all want to stop,be the one who stops Hitler.
So I worry about the actions,I worry about civil unrest,

(49:22):
I worry about lawfare going into it.
I worry about constitutional crisis orwhen it comes,
depending very narrowly onwhat happens in Congress.
Congress doesn't certify the election,if Trump wins now, now what happens?
So I think we're in for a period,
a narrow Trump victory could leadto a period of great unrest.
A narrow Biden victory would also lead toa lot of unhappiness, a lot of, I'm sorry,

(49:45):
a narrow Harris victory,a lot of legal challenges and so forth.
But Trump doesn't holdthe power of government.
Trump, he could say,I wanna call out the National Guard, but
he can't do it because he's not president.
He doesn't run the intelligence agencies,the Justice Department,
all the rest of it.
So he'll make a lot of noise ifit's a narrow loss, but in the end,
I don't think that noise can go very far.

(50:06):
Still, I think it's gonna be an extremelycontentious outcome because of actions
of people whip themselves up intoa frenzy about the end of democracy.

>> Bill Whalen (50:16):
HR I dare you to be an optimist.

>> H.R. McMaster (50:18):
Please.
Sadly, I think what we're talking aboutare centripetal forces that are pulling us
apart from one another.
And, the two extremes,actually feed on each other.
And the reaction to somethingthat Donald Trump says on the far
[LAUGH] left is sometimes much worse thanwhat Donald Trump says and vice versa.

(50:39):
So I think what we really need atthis stage is leadership that brings
us together to restore ourcommon identity as Americans and
gets to the politics of addition and
begins conversations with what we canagree on so we can get a lot done.
But, I don't see either candidatebeing able to deliver on that.
So I agree with Niall, I wanna be moreoptimistic, I agree with Niall and

(51:00):
Mark and John.
I mean,I think that we're all seeing this,
that we are in a time thatdemands a strong leadership.
And I don't think many Americanssee that in either candidate.
Walter talked about this as well earlier,about how these challenging times could
impel either one of those candidates,if they're elected to greatness.

(51:21):
I mean, I would hope that's the case,but we are in need of more effective
leadership that restores ourconfidence in who we are and
restores our confidence in ourdemocratic institutions and processes,
through real reform, not papering it over.
Because as John mentioned,there are some real reasons for
a lack of confidence in our institutions.

(51:44):
But, I wish I'd be more optimistic,[LAUGH] at this moment, guys,
I mean, I'm not super optimistic.

>> John Cochrane (51:51):
There's a real reason for the partisanship.
There was a wonderful Christian Mutharticle in the Wall Street Journal on
Saturday, which made the point,we now have an imperial presidency.
We elect a dictator for four years,we rule by executive order, not by law.
So when the stakes become so high,when you're electing someone for

(52:12):
four years who rules by decree, who canspend hundreds of billions of dollars and
screw you, Supreme Court, [COUGH].
You can't afford to lose a battle becauseyou lose one battle, you've lost the war.
So what that leader needs to do isnot just lead my team to victory and

(52:32):
use these tools, butbring us back to the norms of what
you do is you shiftthe needle in an election.
You don't attempt towipe out the other side.
And that's the fundamentalstructural problem, I think,
leading to the partisanship.
So that's another, a great leaderdoesn't just take us in one direction.

(52:53):
A great leader brings that compromise and
norms back together by limiting his orher own power.

>> Bill Whalen (52:59):
Okay, Niall, let's close out the segment.
Who does elections better,the US or the UK and
tell us one surprising thingyou're looking for next Tuesday.

>> Niall Ferguson (53:07):
Well, the thing that's good about UK elections is that
the technology is very straightforward,and
you vote in your constituency, forthe candidates in that constituency,
and you mark across bythe one that you want to win.
And as the results come in,there is no meaningful debate about

(53:29):
their legitimacy,despite some legislation that was passed,
bipartisan legislation,to improve the US process since 2020.
I think we can all agree thatif it's a very close result,
it will be contested by whicheverside looks like it's losing.
So I think it would be wonderfulif we could, between now and 2028,

(53:53):
address some of the absurditiesin our electoral system and
get voting back to being something that isas straightforward as it is in Britain.
Identification should be necessary forpeople to vote, I can't think of any
other democracy where that's a contestedissue, I could go on and on.

(54:15):
Can I just enter a plug for
a sobering movie that I watched onthe very long flight back from Sydney?
Civil War is a reminder that any country
can descend from stability into chaos.
And as it's happened inthe United States once before,

(54:37):
I think it behooves us to think about whatit would look like if it happened again.
The film does a very good job of imaginingthe United States descending into
a kind of giant Bosnia.
And it has one absolutelyunforgettable scene in it that is
worth watching the whole movie for.
So just maybe, as one's thinking about howto conduct oneself in the wake of this

(55:01):
election, watching that movie mightdisincline you to take extreme action.
How's that helpful man,that's not helpful.
I mean, I watched [CROSSTALK]the gas station scene,
I had to turn it off afterthe gas station scene.
I mean, I think you're gonna encouragethe exact behavior that Mark Helper
was warning about.
I disagree, HR,
I think it's very important thatwe understand the consequences.

(55:22):
Okay, I'll watch it, I'll watch.

>> H.R. McMaster (55:23):
I'll go back and I'll I will [CROSSTALK] for sure.
What you're saying is that whenyou use bombastic rhetoric,
you've gotta think that maybe somepeople will actually listen and take it.
Maybe there are consequences,yeah, I'm just.

>> Niall Ferguson (55:37):
You have to remember, the reason I say this is that people in
America somehow thinkthis can't happen to us.
Remember, Sinclair Lewissays it can't happen here.
But you and I have seen countries whenthey've descended into civil war.
I went to Bosnia, I've seen what happenswhen neighbors turn on neighbors.
And it seems ex anti incredible thatpeople who've lived side by side.

(56:01):
Can kill one another, butit happened there and, of course,
it happened in the United Statesin the 19th century.
I just think in an atmosphere inwhich it seems possible, in fact,
it's cheap to accuse youropponent of being Hitler.
Even after two assassination attempts,there's a desperate need for
Americans to step back from this brink andremind themselves it can happen

(56:25):
here in just the same way thatthe United States could lose Cold War II.
I mean, you'd agree with me, I'm sure,
that Americans don't think enoughabout the consequences of defeat.
Whether it's in Ukraine, whether it'swhat would happen if Iran actually
took out Israel with a nuclear weapon.
We don't think enough about these badscenarios, and I think it's that lack of
awareness of the downside that leadsto irresponsible action in the present.

>> Bill Whalen (56:50):
All right, well, gentlemen, we'll leave it there.
On to the lightning round.
[SOUND] All right, our first questionspeaking of mental health crises,
there appears to be the one inthe upper tiers of American journalism.
I'm referring to the Los Angeles times andthe Washington Post,
having internal meltdowns overthe two publications decisions

(57:10):
not to endorse a presidentialcandidate in this election.
Question for the three of you,does this really matter?
And what I'm interested in,newspapers are a dying breed,
they have failing circulation.
I'd note that Donald Trump went onJoe Rogan's podcast the other day,
he got 26 million views in 24 hours,
that's far more attention you'llget any of those publications.

(57:31):
What do we make of this, Niall?

>> Niall Ferguson (57:33):
I think it's pitiful.
As if it matters what the LA Timessays about an election.
The self importance of journalistsat some of these legacy
periodicals is just breathtaking,who cares?
That's my question.

>> Bill Whalen (57:51):
John, do you care?

>> John Cochrane (57:53):
I think it's actually maybe a step to healthiness.
There used to be a separationbetween news and
editorial at these places that[LAUGH] kinda broke down.
The Wall Street Journal has neverofficially endorsed a candidate.
So, you can go on andbe healthy in that way.
Publishing OP EDS from peoplewho endorse candidates and

(58:15):
explain their versions is a useful thing.
So a small step towards an attempt atinstitutional neutrality, which I see
even at the New York times though Ijust made fun of it earlier in the show,
I think is a welcome step of reform.
We'll see if it works orif they all fall apart as Niall forecasts.

>> Bill Whalen (58:33):
Nature.

>> H.R. McMaster (58:34):
Yeah, I think the mainstream newspapers, the ones
mentioned the New York times othershave lost a great deal of credibility.
I mean, I refer back to Barry Weiss'sessay when she left the New York times.
But there are other venues, right?
[LAUGH] There are other newforms of media, the free press,

(58:54):
where you can read, Niall,reliably now as well.
So I think that everybody's gotto make their own decisions, and
I think we got to let the freemarket decide, John, don't you?
I mean, where people go for their news.
>> [LAUGH]>> Bill Whalen: All right, speaking of
the free market, we have a questions forProfessor Ferguson and Professor Cochrane.
The University of Chicago economist, JamesRobinson, recently went on NPR and said,

(59:18):
quote, it is a well established fact thatevery economist agreed on that free market
model adopted in the 1980s hasgenerated enormous inequality and
basically has done nothing forthe majority of people.
John, Niall, agree or disagree?

>> Niall Ferguson (59:30):
Well, this is Nobel derangement syndrome,
where receiving a Nobel Prizecauses you to become deranged.
It happened to Paul Krugman verytragically, I like Jim Robinson.
And I can only assume that inthe excitement of winning the prize,
along with two co-authors,he was drawn into reckless replies

(59:54):
on an NPR interview,it's easily done, I can imagine.

>> John Cochrane (59:59):
I'll just say three Pinocchio's on the facts.
It's interesting.
>> [LAUGH]>> John Cochrane: This gets repeated over
and over again.
It's simply not true that eitherthe middle class is dying or
that inequality has gotten dramaticallyworse under rapacious capitalism blah,
blah, blah, blah.
We won't get into the facts now.
It is an interesting fact.
Now, I've watched these guys,this is no change in opinion.

(01:00:20):
It's simply when you win a Nobel Prize,people put a microphone in front of your
face and there's a temptation tospout your stupid political opinions.
>> [LAUGH]>> John Cochrane: And
I think a good ethic is,at least between when it's announced and
when you receive a Nobel Prize,
shut up about political matterswould be a good thing to do.

(01:00:41):
And maybe then other people would be lesscritical of you as I was on my blog,
about exactly those political statements.

>> Bill Whalen (01:00:48):
Okay, and finally we're gonna end the show on a somber note.
Phil Lesh,the Grateful Dead co-founder and bassist,
passed away last week at the age of 84.
HR, you're the closest thing we haveon this show to a resident deadhead,
your thoughts on the manof the band's legacy.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:01:01):
Hey, what I think is really notable about Phil Lesh, who was
a founding member of the Grateful Dead,what's notable about the the Grateful Dead
is there's no mediation reallybetween them and their fans.
I mean, they're directlyconnected to their audience.
And that audience is loyal andenthusiastic,

(01:01:22):
because I think there's just genuine witheach other, we could use a lot of that.
It was that kind of empathy andthe ability to connect with one
another the way the Grateful Dead over somany years now and dead in company.
You'll connect, connect with andPhil Lesh did with their audience.
And what I want to read is fromMickey Hart's tribute to Phil Lesh.

(01:01:47):
He said, Phil Lesh changed my life.
There are only a few people who youmeet in your lifetime that are special,
important, who help you grow spiritually,as well as musically.
And I think for all of us,who are teachers, and professors, and
serving as a military officer,I think that's what you can hope for.
I mean, if there's gonna be [LAUGH]something on your gravestone is that

(01:02:09):
you hopefully it's something alongthe lines of being able to make a positive
contribution to other people's lives andto leave behind a legacy in others.
So I just wanted to share that perspectivefrom Mickey and Phil Lesh, rest in peace.

>> Bill Whalen (01:02:25):
John and Niall, the Grateful Dead ever crossed your paths,
John?

>> John Cochrane (01:02:30):
Yes, they were part of the 1970s folk rocky,
universe that I stillinhabit showing my age.
And I think we can have a little bit ofnostalgia for a time when people went to
conference concerts, perhaps underthe influence of some other substances.
But went to concerts, enjoyed them,enjoyed the crowd, enjoyed the band,
and weren't staring at theirphones the whole time.

(01:02:52):
>> [LAUGH]>> Bill Whalen: Niall,
how does the dead tie intoyour musical heritage?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:02:57):
I somehow completely missed the Grateful Dead in my musical
education.
I'm not quite sure why that was,maybe they just weren't big in Britain.
But I do often cite them as an example
of an oxymoron when peopleask me to define oxymoron.

>> Bill Whalen (01:03:15):
[LAUGH] And we're gonna leave it on that note.
Great conversation,gentlemen thanks for doing this today.
Our viewers should know that you'regonna get a lot of good fellows.
In the month of November,in addition to this show,
we're doing one a couple of days.
After election,we're recording on November 7th.
Our guest will be Brett Stevens,the New York Times columnist.
And then shortly before thanksgiving,

(01:03:37):
we're gonna do a show with formerSecretary of State Mike Pompeo.
And in between those two,we're going to give you an episode that we
recorded the other week at the Hoover FallRetreat with the Lord Andrew Roberts doing
historical counterfactuals.
So you don't wanna miss any of those.
On behalf of the good fellows, NiallFerguson, John Cochrane, HR McMaster,
our guest today Walter Russell Mead.
We hope you enjoyed the show,as always we appreciate your viewership,

(01:03:59):
until next time, take care.
Thanks for watching.
[MUSIC]