S1 | Entertainment

Eric Gleacher: Risk. Reward. Repeat. | SALT Talks #242

“[When starting my company,] I figured you wanted to own equity, be a partner. You wanted to wake up in the morning and it be your business… To have that culture where people own equity is critical.”

Eric Gleacher is a man with a compelling story. He has always been determined to excel in all that he attempts and has never failed to exceed the very high expectations he sets for himself. His autobiography is the story of a tournament-winning amateur golfer; an officer in the Marine Corps; an investment banker who became one of the half-dozen who dominated the M&A and takeover business that changed Wall Street and American business in the latter part of the last century; and a man who had the courage to leave a position as a senior partner at a famous and immensely successful investment bank to establish his own firm. It's as stirring and interesting as when we lived it. You won't want to stop reading until the last page.

Eric discusses his winding and eclectic career with time in amateur golf, the Marines, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley where he transformed the M&A industry, before starting his own firm. He describes the formative impact amateur golf played in his life and how lessons learned helped in business. When starting his own firm Gleacher & Company, he explains the importance of offering equity to employees in developing a thriving culture.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Eric Gleacher

Author

Risk. Reward. Repeat.

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:54 - Supporting women on Wall Street

6:00 - Winding career path and taking smart risks

13:50 - Time at Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley

19:16 - Revlon M&A

24:20 - Impact and lessons from golf

35:22 - Building a culture at Gleacher & Company

38:21 - Writing his book

42:29 - Favorite golf courses

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:06)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:39)
We're very excited today to welcome Eric Gleacher to SALT Talks. And Eric is a man with a extremely compelling story. He's always been determined to excel in all the attempts and has never failed to exceed the very high expectations that he sets for himself.

John Darsie: (00:55)
His autobiography, which we're going to talk about today, is the story of a tournament winning amateur golfer, an officer in the Marine Corps, an investment banker who became one of the half dozen who dominated the M&A and takeover business that changed Wall Street and American business in the latter part of the last century, and a man who had the courage to leave a position as a senior partner at a famous and immensely successful investment bank to establish his own firm that he ran for almost 25 years.

John Darsie: (01:24)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of SALT. Anthony is successful in business, but he can't golf a link, but we won't hold that against him, Eric. But I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:40)
Why don't you tell Eric I got fired from the White House while you're at it? You might as well [crosstalk 00:01:44].

John Darsie: (01:43)
There's only one slight-

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:43)
It's not like he doesn't know that, but go ahead, John.

John Darsie: (01:47)
There's only one slight per introduction, it's either the fact that you're terrible at golf or the fact you got fired from the White House.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:53)
That could be a compliment to my buddies that don't play golf. You don't know that.

Eric Gleacher: (01:56)
It's a badge of honor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:58)
Well, listen, Eric, first of all, it is a pleasure to do this with you. And you wrote a legendary book. I read a lot, John will tell you that. I've tried to read 60 books a year. This book came to me from my lawyer, Ed Herlihy, who worked on our M&A deal for SkyBridge, another phenomenal world class person. But, I mean, the book is just chock full of great stories and lessons and principles.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:29)
And so, it's called Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too. John always prints out a script for me for these things, because he's keen to at least give me a few questions that he thinks are thoughtful, Eric, because he gets all the praise for asking the thoughtful questions. But I read your book, and one of the things that came out of the book for me is you're a cutting edge thinker. You're somebody that saw the future in our industry and a number of different trends. But I think you've done an amazing amount for a lot of different types of people.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:08)
There are women in our industry that say that you were the great equalizer, that you brought them to the table, and that many places there were glass ceilings for them but you broke... You didn't write that in your book, by the way, you wouldn't give yourself that self praise. But this is actually coming from friends of mine that worked for you, that you mentored, and that you trained, but you also pushed them through the glass ceiling. I want to start there, sir, and then I'm going to go back to other things.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:38)
What was it about these women that you saw? What was it about these women that were drawn to you as they were breaking into what you and I both know, at those times on Wall Street it was a little bit different culture than it is even today?

Eric Gleacher: (03:53)
What it was about these women is that they were very smart. They were tireless, and they wanted it, but they didn't know how to get there. And to me that was a challenge because I...

Eric Gleacher: (04:13)
One thing I learned at the beginning of my life experience, and what I mean by that was, when I was done with college and I chose to enlist in the Marine Corps that's when I really started learning things. And one of the things I learned very quickly is the power of delegating. And so with these women what I did was I put them in situations that were really ahead of where they were in terms of their development in the business. And, of course, they excelled. And that led to other things and other successes.

Eric Gleacher: (04:54)
And there's a lot of them I could pick out. For example, there's one who was a Chinese studies major at Radcliffe or Wellesley. And she was from the West Coast up in Seattle. And she spent her junior year in China. And she knew nothing about business, and yet she picked it up so fast that within a year she was the top analyst that I had in the M&A department at Morgan Stanley. So that just impressed me. And I enjoyed it. There weren't that many women there, but to give a few of them an opportunity to excel and hear feedback like you got, that's a home run as far as I'm concerned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:45)
Look, it's a tribute to you, because it was a different culture and a different time, sir. So tell us about the journey though. Tell us about the journey from high school into the Marine Corps out to Wall Street. Why was that your career arc?

Eric Gleacher: (06:00)
Well, I had an unusual journey because I was born in 1940. My father, obviously, I met him when I was an infant, but before you knew it he was off in the war. He was gone. And he was a CB, which are the Navy construction battalions. And he was working in the Marianas out in the Pacific building the airfields for the bombers to go to Tokyo and back without having to refuel.

Eric Gleacher: (06:29)
And when the war ended he didn't come home for a couple of years. He got jobs outside the country. And the reason I tell you that is because when he did come home I was seven years old, so I was just getting to know him. And he never once would talk to me about what went on. So, it was a very unusual experience for a young kid. But then we found that we started playing golf together when I was 12, and lucky enough I could get up and I could hit the ball and I kind of had an aptitude for it. And we became very close. And so I ended up with a real happy ending in my childhood.

Eric Gleacher: (07:18)
But my dad was a construction engineer. That's what he was doing in the Navy, and that's what he did for the rest of his career. And we moved around. I went to 10 different schools. There'd be a job, and it would end, and he'd find another one, and it didn't matter where it is, and we went there. So when I got to college really I didn't know a lot, it opened my eyes about people and how other people live and things I didn't know. And I didn't know anything about business.

Eric Gleacher: (07:54)
And when I graduated from college back in those days you either had to keep going to school or you had to do military service, and so I decided to do that, and I decided to go into Marine Corps because it seemed to me it would be the most challenging thing I could do and that's what I wanted to do. And that was a great decision, because right away there were all kinds of challenges, and the book goes through them.

Eric Gleacher: (08:23)
And to successfully navigate my way through that was the first thing I ever did in my life, except win a golf tournament, that was really a success, and that's really got me going. I acquired self confidence and went on from there. And I learned a tremendous amount being in the Marine Corps.

Eric Gleacher: (08:46)
You talk about women, I was a rifle platoon commander in the infantry, so I had 45 men. Most of them did not have a high school education, but I found out that plenty of them were smart as hell. And that's where I learned to delegate and to give people an opportunity. And you'd be amazed in terms of what they can do. And so I enjoyed it a lot. I was in for three and a half years and ready to go to school when I get out.

Eric Gleacher: (09:23)
I decided to go to business school because I didn't know anything about business. The one thing I wanted to do, which was a function of what I went through growing up, was I wanted to make money because my family never had any extra money. And so I decided to go to business school because I didn't know anything about business, and fortunately, I got interested in finance at the University of Chicago, which is a great financially oriented school. And I found my way to Lehman Brothers. So that's-

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:56)
Well-

Eric Gleacher: (09:56)
... how it evolved.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:57)
... I want to get to Lehman in a second, but you place a particular emphasis in the book on taking smart risks. So I want you to analyze that decision. You're coming out of business school, you're going to work on Wall Street, you choose Lehman. Take us through that thought process.

Eric Gleacher: (10:13)
Well, the first smart risk I took was since I was going to go into the military I was going to do something that was real, that had some significance. And back in those days there were lots of six months reserver's programs, you could go into Air Force reserve and so forth, and I didn't want to do that, so I said, okay, I'm going to go into Marine Corps and really see what it's all about. And I learned so much. It affected my life so much, and that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't willing to take that risk and sign up for three and a half years instead of some six month reserver's program. And it started there.

Eric Gleacher: (10:57)
And I've said it in the book and I really believe it to the core of my being, is that the world belongs to the aggressive, and you can't just sit back. I have trouble politically with what's going on now because the politicians want to give people things, and most people I know don't want to be given things, they want to earn things, they want to have a job, they want to have self respect, they want to have a home, they want to have a kid, they want to send the kid to school.

Eric Gleacher: (11:31)
And so those values, all those things, I think, I accumulated by how I started. And like I said, deciding to do it right in terms of going into military rather than take the easy way out. And by the way, I can understand why it all changed after Vietnam and why the military establishment wanted to have a volunteer force. But boy, we left a lot on the table doing that. I think that we'd have a very different situation in Chicago, just to pick an example, with what's going on here how if you had compulsory military service at least for men when they turned 18. So, the way I look at it I was lucky to be able to go through it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:26)
Well, let me take it one step further though, the compulsory service, you would have taken a lot of kids off the street, they would have gotten trained, they would have learned some discipline, but they would also have been in esprit de corps and some civic virtue to all of that that would have probably binded the country more closely together. Is that fair to say?

Eric Gleacher: (12:44)
Not only that, it's absolutely fair, but a lot of them would acquire an occupation. I talked to a young guy this week who's going into Marine Corps, he's going to train as an aircraft mechanic, and when he gets out he's going to have that trade. And that was true way back when I was in it. There were opportunities like that. And you're right, if you have an 18 year old kid who all of a sudden he's part of a group, and there is esprit de corps and so forth, and he's bright and motivated, he can take advantage of things like that, whereas now that opportunity does not exist.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:29)
So let, and you and I agree on that, let's shift gears for second, let's talk about Lehman. [inaudible 00:13:35] book many, many years ago, there was a battle there between Lew Glucksman and Pete Peterson. And there was a lot of very smart people in that room, yourself, Steve Schwarzman, etc. Tell us about Lehman Brothers while you were there.

Eric Gleacher: (13:51)
Lehman Brothers was full of really talented people, but in those days it lacked a cultural backbone. And the people, the senior people at Lehman, the partners, were basically competing with each other rather than pulling together. And so you had various fiefdoms and the firm had its ups and downs. It was a place that did well, it went on for many, many years, but everybody knows what the ending was.

Eric Gleacher: (14:33)
And, to some degree, the end was a function of the beginning. But there was just tremendous infighting at Lehman, you had Peterson and people that were with him and Glucksman and Jim Glanville and others that were another group. And it was good for somebody like me because you could move at your own speed there. It wasn't stratified. When I got there I was the 15th guy in the, what they call the industrial department, which would have been the corporate finance department.

Eric Gleacher: (15:10)
There was no M&A. M&A really didn't exist then. And you could move at your own speed. There wasn't a lot of management. When I got there I was 27 years old, and I had a wife and a kid, and I felt the world was leaving me behind because I'd been in the military and I've been to business school, and I could really move, and I did. So there was good and bad, the place survived.

Eric Gleacher: (15:45)
Peterson was good to some degree, he was very smart, he was a great salesman, and Glucksman was a tremendous fixed income guy. He built up a very profitable fixed income business there. But then the whole thing fell apart and they were acquired by American Express. And that didn't work, and then they were spun out. And then Dick Fuld ran it and did a creditable job until the end when somehow he didn't figure out how to get a merger done and let the place survive, and then it caused a lot of problems and was very tough on him and his reputation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:26)
Yeah, I had sold my business to Neuberger Berman, and then it got bought by Lehman, so I knew Dick. I worked for him for three years. I still have a, I would say a close relationship with him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:38)
But when I was at Goldman, I spent the first seven years of my life at Goldman, and the legendary John Weinberg, who had such great aphorisms, one of them was some people grow, Eric, but other people swell, make sure you're not a person that swells and that you're growing, keep your head on straight. But he said something about Goldman's culture, and I want to transition over to Morgan Stanley for a second, he said, "So my job is to train you to take your six shooters and point them out and shoot out. I don't want you turning these six shooters on each other and shooting at each other and turning yourselves on each other. I want there to be esprit de corps."

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
And you describe Lehman differently than that, what about Morgan Stanley? What was the culture like at Morgan Stanley, as you reference in the book?

Eric Gleacher: (17:28)
It was a great culture. It was teamwork from top to bottom, and it was more homogeneous than Lehman. Lehman was eclectic, it had lots of different kinds of people, which also is a big advantage if you can use it correctly, which Lehman really didn't. But they had a tremendous talent pool.

Eric Gleacher: (17:52)
And Morgan Stanley was a little homogeneous. I was the third person that came in from the outside as a partner back in those days. And you can imagine that you had this firm and we're only three people that came in from the outside. And one of the reasons why I think I succeeded there was because I wasn't a captive of the homogeneity. I didn't grow up there. I'd been in Lehman almost 16 years, and I was, by that time, I was who I was. And I came into Morgan Stanley and I did things a little differently.

Eric Gleacher: (18:36)
And Bob Greenhill, who's running an investment bank was a tremendous influence on the M&A business at Morgan Stanley. And after I was there for a few months he told me he wanted me to run M&A, and so I did, and I did it differently, and I did it aggressively. And did things like I brought Ronald Perelman in as the client for the Revlon deal.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:05)
You mention that in the book. And that was a unorthodox client for Morgan Stanley at the time, so tell us why that was and tell us why you recruited him in.

Eric Gleacher: (19:16)
Well, I had gotten to know him on other transactions, and Revlon was basically a conglomerate. It had the cosmetics business and then it had three or four healthcare businesses. And the CEO at the time, Michel Bergerac, he was unhappy with the lack of enthusiasm in the stock price and he decided that he wanted to do a management buyout, but unfortunately for him he didn't know what he was doing and he started to approach various companies and see if they're interested in purchasing the healthcare subsidiaries. And two or three of them came to Morgan Stanley and told us what was going on, and I knew right away that there'd be a transaction here and that it was not going to be the one that he had in mind.

Eric Gleacher: (20:12)
So I decided that Ronald Perelman would be a guy who would stick in there and be aggressive enough to try to get this done because he would be interested in cosmetics business. And we did the numbers, and we told him that we thought if it all worked out that he could buy the company, sell the healthcare businesses, and end up with the cosmetics business for nothing. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened.

Eric Gleacher: (20:45)
But I do have it in the book, it was a scary thing for Morgan Stanley. He was definitely unlike any other client that they'd ever been involved in something that was big and highly publicized. And when the executive committee was thinking about whether they wanted to do this, Parker Gilbert, who was the chairman, called me in, and he said, "Eric, we're going to go along with you because I trust you, " he said, "but please don't embarrass the firm." And my life went past my eyes and I said, "All right. I'm a risk taker, and I'm in, but I'm betting my career."

Eric Gleacher: (21:29)
And it turned out that I was right about Perelman. The deal was very tough. He hung in there. Everybody finally gave up, he bought the company. We sold the subsidiaries at the prices or higher, slightly higher than we had estimated, and he made a tremendous deal. And he's owned Revlon for the last, I don't know, 25 or 30 years.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:54)
Yeah. 30 plus years according to the book.

Eric Gleacher: (21:57)
Yeah. But a lot of people wouldn't have done that. They wouldn't have played their cards like that at Morgan Stanley. But I just did what I believed. And I figured if I stumbled I'd pick myself up and I'd figure out something else to do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:15)
Well, I think that's the real message of the book. I mean, the risk, reward, repeat, because sometimes you take risks and it doesn't work out 100% but you got to get back up on your feet, which you demonstrate.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:25)
Byron Wien was a colleague of yours at Morgan Stanley. I have built a relationship with Byron. He talks about how every person in their adolescence they find something that shapes their approach to life. In his case he was collecting things and he decided that he was going to turn that collection, that stamp collection and a few other things, into stock collecting. And he often asks young people, "Well, what was it from 11 to 18 that you were doing that you were passionate about that you ended up doing for the rest of your life?" What was that for you, Eric? Is that business, golf? [crosstalk 00:23:05].

Eric Gleacher: (23:05)
That was golf, for sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:07)
It was golf. And so golf, that would have been my guess and answered based on the book. So tell us about how golf, in your mind, transformed your business relationships. And this is a question that John Darsie is loving right now, Eric, because all he does is play golf. So tell us about the benefit of it.

Eric Gleacher: (23:30)
John Darsie, when the moment is right, tell your boss that Ed Herlihy, who's your boss's lawyer, spends more time on the golf course than any lawyer in the United States.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:45)
There's no doubt about that.

Eric Gleacher: (23:47)
Yet many people are convinced that he's the most prominent lawyer in the United States. So there's an argument. Now in my case-

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:55)
Not to interrupt you, sir, he is also the most ethical, has the highest integrity, and I'll say something about Ed which he has said about you, which is obvious, that he loves people. And I think that's something, when you ask people that have worked for Eric Gleacher, what do they say about you, and you can see it here in the books, sir, that you love people. I didn't mean to interrupt you, let's go to the golf question though. Tell us about golf.

Eric Gleacher: (24:20)
Well, like I said, I've moved around a lot. When I was a kid I played baseball. Trouble is you make the baseball team and then you move and the baseball team means nothing. But when I started playing golf when I was 12 I liked it right away. And then when I was 13 I played in my first tournament. And we had moved. I started, we were living in Nebraska, and we moved to Norfolk, Virginia. And I played in a tournament, it was for 13 and under, and I won it, and I still have the sterling silver cup.

Eric Gleacher: (24:56)
And when you're 13 and you have an experience like that you want more. So then about a month or so later I played in the Virginia championship for 13 and under and I won it. And so I got a jumpstart in terms of playing golf, and that's what I did. You talk about 11, 18, I started when I was 12, but I played golf. You learn things about playing golf, you learn about competition, and hopefully, you learn about playing by the rules, you learn the satisfaction of doing something right, winning a tournament, and playing by the rules, and that's something that I think I've brought with me for the rest of my life.

Eric Gleacher: (25:42)
But I won a lot of golf tournaments, a lot of junior tournaments, and I would have never gotten myself into Northwestern where I went to college if I hadn't been a really good golfer. I went, my first year of college, to Western Illinois University in a little town in Central Illinois, and we won the national championship. It was called the NAIA. If you're familiar with sports you'll know what the NAIA is. It's a big deal. There's hundreds of smaller colleges around this country.

Eric Gleacher: (26:13)
So I was 18, we were national champions. That was an experience that I've cherished from then on. I had a great coach. But I decided that if I stayed there I was going to be a golf pro. And I was pretty decent player, but there were others who were better, Jack Nicklaus and a few others. And I said if I can't be in the top echelon I'm not interested. So I got myself into Northwestern, and they took me because they wanted me to play golf there. So, golf had a huge influence.

Eric Gleacher: (26:46)
In business, Anthony, I didn't play business golf. There's a difference. Ed Herlihy doesn't go around knocking on doors saying, "Hey, let's go play golf." But most people play golf. And if you get a relationship with somebody you get to be friends, invariably, you're going to spend time together. You might be skiing or you might go out on a yacht in the Mediterranean or go to art galleries or play golf.

Eric Gleacher: (27:15)
And so, in terms of relationships it's a wonderful thing. I've done it all my life. My wife and I compete all the time. We play even. She's a tremendous player. So it's brought a lot of joy in my life. We play for 10 bucks, and we pay right there on the 18th Green. And so it's good. It's a great thing, and it's had a big influence on me and I met a lot of people.

Eric Gleacher: (27:43)
And when I say reward in the title of the book it means reward those who've helped you. So in the case of Western Illinois University they had a nine hole course and I built the other nine so they'd have an 18 year old course. And we named it for my coach when I was there. And repeat means to be philanthropic and hope that others will follow what you did and repeat it. And those things with me, those were not conscious things, they just evolved. The things I did, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

Eric Gleacher: (28:21)
University of Chicago came to me in the mid '90s and they were building a downtown Chicago business school building and I gave them most of the money for the building. And it was a no brainer, because they had affected my life so much. And so that's the way I've lived, and I wouldn't do it any differently.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:47)
John, I'm going to turn it over to you. I know you've got a series of questions for Eric too. But I want to hold up the book one more time, because it's a phenomenal book, Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too. But the elemental thing in this book, Eric, that I got out of it is integrity, is to remain true to yourself, be anchored to your core principles, don't waver. Even if you're taking risks you don't want to shade anything in your life, you just want to go straight forward. And you can see it in everything that you've done, sir.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:20)
You're a big role model for all of us. And I congratulate you on the book. And I know John's got a series of questions as well.

John Darsie: (29:28)
We'll stay on golf for a second just because that's the most fun to talk about. Eric, as a fellow golfer you know that's where we want to stay. But you were a great golfer in your own right, but you also rubbed elbows with some of the greatest golfers in history. You played in all these events with these elite performers. What did you learn about the mentality of great athletes and great golfers in this instance about what it takes to maintain an edge, whether it's on the golf course, in the military, or in business?

Eric Gleacher: (29:57)
Well, the first thing you learn is that they are sticklers for the rules. I give you a really good example, is, I'm a good friend of Raymond Floyd, who's... he won five or six majors, famous golfer. And he won the US Open in 1986, I believe, at Shinnecock. The week before he was playing in the PGA Tour event at Westchester Country Club and he was in contention. He was right up there at the lead and he hit a pot, it didn't go in and it was on the edge of the hole and he just back handed it to knock it in and he missed it.

Eric Gleacher: (30:39)
And nobody saw, you couldn't really tell he did it, but he immediately called a penalty on himself and he lost the tournament by a stroke. But the next week he won the US Open. If he had somehow not done the right thing with the little pot I don't think he would have won the US Open, because it would have bothered him.

Eric Gleacher: (31:05)
The other things I've seen from the pros, and I sure have played with a lot of great ones, particularly Luke Donald is a fellow Northwestern alum, number one in the world for 56 weeks, it's a work ethic, it's a talent, the talent level, the eye-hand coordination is off the charts. And it's just the seriousness of the way they take it, the physical conditioning, the way they play, the way they deal with their fellow competitors. It's very impressive. The PGA Tour is a very, very high level ethical, professional operation.

John Darsie: (31:56)
Yeah, they say you can learn a lot about somebody's character and personality on the golf course. If somebody, it's something so trivial at golf, cuts corners, it certainly tells you something alarming about being in business with him for sure. But I want to transition back to your business career a little bit first, maybe we'll finish with a couple of golf questions. But you led M&A at Lehman and Morgan Stanley, you were almost a pioneer in some ways of this now, what we deem as just normal M&A activity where M&A is just a huge part of corporate strategy to grow.

John Darsie: (32:34)
How has M&A evolved from when you started in the business to what it is today in terms of how frequent and how aggressive people are with M&A versus when you started your career?

Eric Gleacher: (32:46)
That's a really good question, and I've thought about it a lot. Back when, and we're talking about the mid '70s, the Business Roundtable was an important group, all the big CEOs were remembers, and they had an unwritten deal, which was, we're never going to try to take over each other's companies. The world changed, and Morgan Stanley represented a Canadian company, made a bid for an American company, it was very shocking. And at that point I was at Lehman and I had sold and bought some smaller companies.

Eric Gleacher: (33:35)
And my premise was that American businessmen are aggressive, and if they want to build their companies as fast as they can they want to make them as strong as they can, and they want the stocks to do really well. And the way they were going to get there fastest was by acquisition. And I believe that was going to happen, and that's why I founded the M&A department at Lehman, so we'd have a specialized group that could deal with companies. And that all came to fruition, and that was really accelerated in the '80s by Mike Milken in the Milken years.

Eric Gleacher: (34:18)
And the section in the book that talks about the big deals during that period, I put that in there because it's never really been published, the inside story about those deals I think is pretty interesting. And that was a period in American business that had a big effect that goes forward today. And so the M&A business evolved for the basic reasons, I believe, that I said to you that I saw at the beginning, that businessmen want to succeed and they're going to do whatever it takes.

John Darsie: (34:53)
Right. And we talked about culture at the different firms that you worked at earlier. You talked about Lehman, it was sort of the eat what you kill type of environment, but there was maybe a little bit more diversity of people. At Morgan Stanley it was more homogeneous but a more team collaborative environment. If you were to design a culture from scratch for an organization what elements of each of those cultures and other places that you worked or observed, what's that culture that you would look to create?

Eric Gleacher: (35:22)
Well, that's why we had Gleacher & Company. We had this culture, first of all, everybody, when I say everybody, everybody that was with any kind of seniority at Gleacher & Company owned some equity. My secretary owned 1% of the firm. She's still my assistant after 40 years. But everybody did. Not a brand new associate, not an analyst, but a guy who was a vice president above everybody had equity, because that's what I wanted when I started.

Eric Gleacher: (35:59)
I figured I didn't know much about investment banking, but I figured you wanted to own equity, you wanted to be a partner, you want to wake up in the morning and it was your business. So everybody had equity. We had an eclectic group, not a homogeneous group. I didn't think that the homogeneity was necessary to have a teamwork culture. But we had an eclectic group. They were equity owners.

Eric Gleacher: (36:27)
And there's not a single guy that didn't tell me how much different this was than working for a big firm, how great it was to come into work and know it's your business. And that's the way it worked. And it was highly successful. The hardest part, I will say this for me and for any of these boutiques, is succession. It's very tough. And you'll see. Some people have done it right, they've changed their business, but it's really tough. But to have that kind of culture where people own equity, I think, is really critical.

Eric Gleacher: (37:04)
And one of the funniest quotes, Steve Schwarzman and Bruce Wasserstein and I were having a drink one night at a party at Wasserstein's house. And I love Bruce, and he said, "I really like you guys." He says, "I don't understand why everybody hates everybody else at Lehman." And Schwarzman, without hesitation, said, "Bruce, if you were there we'd hate you too." And that was a very perceptive comment about the culture at Lehman. So, you want to have diversity, you want to have women succeeding and so forth, but you don't have to have homogeneity.

John Darsie: (37:48)
Right. And I think a credit to your career is how many people that you helped achieve success on their own terms and inspired them to be great. I want to talk about, before we wrap up with some quick hitter questions, you decided to write this book early in the pandemic, from what I understand, your son helped you edit the manuscript, could you just talk about the process of writing and taking all that life experience and putting it into these pages and really pouring yourself into that project that you wanted to do before you started winding down your career?

Eric Gleacher: (38:21)
Well, I certainly was apprehensive because I had never done anything like that. But I had given lots of talks, at business schools particularly, but elsewhere too. And at the end of whether it was teaching a case or talking about RJR Nabisco or whatever it was, the question was, what did you do to succeed and what do I have to do to succeed? And it's the obvious question. People always ask that. And I thought that I had some interesting things to say and in a narrative.

Eric Gleacher: (38:57)
Some people might get some value out of it. And the books that I always like to read are books like Shoe Dog, Elon Musk biography, which tells what he did. And I'm not comparing what I did to those guys at all, I mean, don't get me wrong. But I think that narratives about business and a person's life and the moves they made, the choices they made, when you say what did you do to succeed, that's the answer. And in a narrative I think a narrative is way more effective than a professorial book based on some kind of research. So that's one of the reasons I wanted to write this book.

Eric Gleacher: (39:38)
So what I did, and my son taught me, he's published four novels and written a movie, and he said he's got to discipline himself, that he cleans his house on Thursday morning and does his laundry and whatever. He said, "You've got to have a schedule."

Eric Gleacher: (39:59)
So I made up my schedule, and that was every day I had to take out my laptop, open it up, and I had to write something. I didn't cure if it was one sentence, I had to write something. And I got into it, and I just... it all came out of me, just poured out of me. I didn't have any notes, I don't have any diaries, but fortunately my long term memory is still pretty good, not my short term memory, my long term memory is good. And I could write this.

Eric Gleacher: (40:27)
And then, of course, with Google search you can do all the facts checking. Anyway, it just poured out of me and then I edited it with Jimmy and we had a ball. And then I found that the editing took as much time as the writing. So it was a good experience for me. It was like a bonus experience. I was so happy I did it.

John Darsie: (40:49)
Yeah. My wife's grandfather is also a great golfer, around your age, routinely shoots his age, he can recall every shot he hit in a member guest or a club championship from the age of 14 to 60, but he can't remember what his wife told him about an hour prior.

Eric Gleacher: (41:09)
Well, that's par for the course.

John Darsie: (41:11)
Yeah, exactly. No pun intended. I want to finish with a couple fun ones related to golf because, yeah, I'm a lover of golf as well, not nearly at the level that you are, but I'm at least in sort of mid single digits. But, what's the best round you ever shot, doesn't have to be score, but where was it, when was it, and what were the circumstances?

Eric Gleacher: (41:34)
Well, that's a question I haven't ever... People ask me what my favorite hole is or whatever, I never have an answer for them.

John Darsie: (41:42)
We'll get to that.

Eric Gleacher: (41:47)
I don't know. I don't have one that sticks out.

John Darsie: (41:52)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (41:52)
I hate to give you a non answer, but I really don't have one.

John Darsie: (41:58)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (41:59)
I've had a lot of good ones, but there's not one that jumps out.

John Darsie: (42:03)
All right. There's no club championship where you shot 64 and stuffed it in somebody's face?

Eric Gleacher: (42:09)
No.

John Darsie: (42:12)
No problem.

Eric Gleacher: (42:14)
I mean, I've won a lot of them. They're all match play. John, I hate to disappoint you really. That's not the way my mind works with respect to golf.

John Darsie: (42:25)
There you go. Well, what's your favorite hole and/or your favorite golf course?

Eric Gleacher: (42:29)
Well, I have three favorite courses. I get this question a lot. One is the National Golf Links out here, one is Seminole down in Florida, and one is Muirfield in Scotland. Those are my favorite courses.

Eric Gleacher: (42:45)
I will say this, that I did have one experience which was one of the things that Nick Faldo thought it was one of the coolest things he ever heard. I took three of my friends to Muirfield in Scotland, and the daylight over there in summer months is pretty phenomenal because you're way, way up north. And it's light until close to 10:30 at night. So we played 72 holes in one day. We played the British Open in one day. And he won the British Open at Muirfield. So he's very, very partial to it. And he thought it was pretty cool.

Eric Gleacher: (43:27)
And I will say that we had a lot of bets. It was very painful. If somebody quit they had to pay a lot of money to the other three. Nobody quit. But anyway, I shot 69 the fourth round. And that one I do remember. It wasn't a meaningful tournament or anything, but it was a pretty cool experience.

John Darsie: (43:50)
There you go. That sounds like a heck of a day. How many holes in one did you have?

Eric Gleacher: (43:54)
Eight.

John Darsie: (43:55)
Eight? Wow. That's pretty good. There's a lot of guys on tour that don't have eight.

Eric Gleacher: (43:59)
If you play from age 12 to age 81 you get a lot of shots at it.

John Darsie: (44:04)
There you go. Well, Eric, we'll let you go there. It's been a pleasure to have you on. You're an absolute legend, both on Wall Street, in the golf world, and just among your friends. Everybody speaks so highly of you. And Anthony, obviously, has a lot more mutual friends than me, but every time we come across somebody and your name comes up they speak in glowing terms. So, it's an honor to have you on. Anthony, you have a final word for Eric before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:29)
Listen, I mean, among everything, Eric, I just think the way you help the younger people in your career, and you talk about repeat, I hope by and I hope John can pay that forward to a continual stream of people that come into our industry. I often think about that in terms of our summer program and how we can help people that are coming up underneath us, and you were a shining example of that, so I just want to thank you for that.

Eric Gleacher: (44:58)
Well, I want to thank you guys very much for inviting me. You've got a terrific business. I love the SALT portfolio that I looked at, and I know SkyBridge is doing well, and I look forward to meeting you both. My wife and I are still hoping we can go to Scotland for a month in September, but if we don't go I will definitely come to the Javits Center when you guys are doing that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:25)
We'd love to have you there. We find a lot of stuff. It's the unfortunate 20th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy and Jimmy Dunn has agreed to be one of our keynote speakers to talk with us there. So, of course, it would be a big honor for us to have you, sir.

Eric Gleacher: (45:46)
Well, great. Yeah. Now, I need to figure out if I'm going to buy some Bitcoin or not, so anyway.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:52)
But we got Byron on the bandwagon, okay, he listens to our Wednesday Bitcoin review. And so, as he says, he's a lot younger than Warren Buffett, so I don't think he thinks [inaudible 00:46:03] he's a junior kid compared to Warren.

Eric Gleacher: (46:07)
Yeah. Well, you guys are great, so thanks a lot. I've enjoyed this, and maybe I'll see you in September. If not I'll create some time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:16)
And honestly, I hope you go get to play golf, because that's your dream stuff, but maybe October, but if it is September we would love to have you. If you can't make it to Scotland we would love to have you.

Eric Gleacher: (46:25)
Right. Okay.

John Darsie: (46:27)
Eric, thanks again for joining us. Again, everyone, the book is Risk. Reward. Repeat.: How I Succeeded and You Can Too, a fantastic book talking about Eric's career and all the lessons embedded in that career that was so filled with integrity and empowering other people, as Anthony mentioned. But, thanks also for tuning into today's SALT talk with Eric. We love spreading the word about inspiring entrepreneurs like him.

John Darsie: (46:52)
And just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks you can access them all on our website at salt.org\talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at Salt Conference. But we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well and ramping up our activity there. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Sasha Issenberg: The Engagement | SALT Talks #238

“Gay people are born to straight people. We know what social scientists call Contact Theory: people’s attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who’s different than them.” 

Sasha Issenberg is the author of "The Engagement: America's Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage" and three previous books, including "The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns". He has covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Businessweek. He is the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor. He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA.

Sasha Issenberg contrasts Donald Trump’s use of celebrity in becoming president versus Joe Biden’s status as a lifetime politician. Issenberg then explains the different variables and stakeholders involved in the fight for marriage equality and why progress moved more rapidly compared to other social movements. He discusses the role of early LGBT activist Bill Woods and the current state of activism, citing NFL player Carl Nassib’s recent coming out. He discusses how President Obama and Trump each approached marriage equality and the significance of the recent Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

MODERATOR

SPEAKER

Sasha Issenberg #238.jpeg

Sasha Issenberg

Author

The Engagement

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:17 - Politics around same sex marriage

4:56 - Professional background

7:49 - Joe Biden vs. celebrity presidential candidates

11:15 - Same sex marriage stakeholders

13:48 - Speed of LBGT rights advancements and acceptance

25:10 - NFL player Carl Nassib’s coming out

28:31 - Gay rights activist Bill Woods

34:58 - Obama’s same sex marriage stance

39:41 - Trump and same sex marriage

42:40 - Bostock v. Clayton County ruling  

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. But that goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Sasha Issenberg to SALT Talks.

John Darsie: (00:50)
Sasha is the author of three prior books including The Victory Lab, The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. He's covered presidential elections as a national political reporter in the Washington bureau of The Boston Globe, he's been a columnist for Slate, and a contributor to Bloomberg Politics and Bloomberg Businessweek. And he's the Washington correspondent at Monocle, and his work has also appeared in New York, The New York Times Magazine, and George, where he served as a contributing editor.

John Darsie: (01:20)
He teaches in the political-science department at UCLA and a very smart man, lives in beautiful Santa Monica out in sunny California. His most recent book is called The Engagement and it's about America's quarter century struggle over same-sex marriage. It's a fantastic, very thorough book on the subject, one that's very near and dear to our hearts and one that Anthony worked on personally along with Rob Reiner which he'll talk about more as he gets into the talk.

John Darsie: (01:49)
But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who's the founder and managing partner of Sky Bridge Capital which is a global alternative investment firm. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:59)
Well, I don't have a copy of the book with me Sasha because I'm out here in sunny California with you, but I have a picture on my phone. There you go. Hold up the book for everybody.

Sasha Issenberg: (02:08)
There it is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:08)
So I received your book. I'm going to tell you. My history with your book is I love books. I received your book. And then I read the New York Times front page book review which I thought was a fascinating review and they gave you a great one. And when I read the book, I'd read Victory Lab prior because I have obviously an interest in politics despite my disastrous 11-day episodic event in politics, and I thought these books were conjoined.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
So we're going to get into your background in a second, but I'm going to tell you why they were conjoined, because in Victory Lab you wrote about the science of winning an election, but there was a scientific process in this book in my opinion in terms of the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage, in many respects, Sasha, I felt there was a political campaign going on at the same time apropos to the civil rights' campaign corollary to that, but also there was a political campaign and an agenda and a quorum very similar to Victory Lab. Did I get that right or did I miss something?

Sasha Issenberg: (03:16)
Yeah. Yeah. I think that there are parts of this book which are very much as you say about innovation and campaigns, figuring out how to persuade people, how to target your persuasion, how to measure your persuasion, and then how to actually make it work in what we're off in these state-level ballot measure campaigns which you've been around a lot of candidate campaigns and it's a very different beast when you have a bunch of non-profits and issue organizations coming together in a state like Minnesota to beat back a constitutional amendment.

Sasha Issenberg: (03:45)
And so yeah. I mean, I think that we tend to think of great campaigns as being candidate-centric or party-centric, but I think that this sort of proves to be one of the great political campaigns of recent memory. I think it'll be really surprising if we talked to somebody 15 years ago because it seemed like such a loser of a cause and that anybody associated with it, elected officials and the like were sort of doomed to be dragged down by it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:12)
Well, I mean there is a scenario here in New York which I know you remember. Several hedge fund managers, Dan Loeb, et cetera gave money to Republican state senators in New York to flip the marriage proposal, same-sex marriage. Those four Republican senators decided to vote for it. They all lost their elections, okay, and that's only I guess 10 or 12 short years ago.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:39)
Before we go completely into the book though, I think your background is also fascinating. What was it like to work at George? Tell us a little bit about how you grew up, why didn't you become a journalist, and then we'll delve more into the book which I'm obviously fascinated by.

Sasha Issenberg: (04:56)
So I grew up in New York, in Westchester County, and I went to a high school in the Bronx at the Horace Mann School. And I got lucky enough to end up at George magazine when I was 15 years old as a basically unofficial summer intern. The magazine was in its ... It launched in September of 1995 and early that summer I got in. One of the things about magazines pre-launch is there's a lot of work to do and nobody really knows who's supposed to do any of it, and it's quite possible they didn't understand child labor laws either. And so an editor told me that if I kept on coming in every day that summer, they couldn't pay me or give me anything official, they'd already hired their official ivy league interns, but I could make myself useful, and then, I guess, like the common cold or herpes or whatever I never went away.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:50)
Toe fungus. It's toe fungus, Sasha. I see myself as toe fungus. Once I'm in the toe, you can't get rid of me. So you were 15 when you started?

Sasha Issenberg: (05:59)
I was 15 when I started and then I gradually got more responsibility doing some my own reporting, a little bit of my own writing and all sorts of things that were less glamorous. And I ended up being the only person who was with the magazine for its whole life. So it lasted about five and a half years until it folded and by the end I was writing for the magazine and while I was in college.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:20)
And it was, I think a lot about this as we look back on what's happened with politics in the last 25 years since John Kennedy launched the magazine, but I think he was incredibly perceptive at noticing the ways that politics and popular culture were not just intersecting but sort of becoming indifferentiable from one another, and the way in which the sort of political media sphere and the entertainment sphere were one and the same.

Sasha Issenberg: (06:48)
That was a pretty radical proposition to build a magazine around in the 1990s, and like the advertising environment didn't quite understand whether it was a political magazine or a pop culture magazine, but I think often about how he would look at certainly the people who are national political figures now let's say and think that it might have been a sort of natural arc from some of the stuff that we were seeing back then.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:14)
You think Joe Biden is the last of the political infrastructure figures to become president? What I mean by that is President Biden became a senator in 1972. He went on to become president, but he was 49 years in the establishment infrastructure of the American political system. Do you think or do you think that we'll have celebrity presidents, apropos to Donald Trump or The Rock, or where do you think that that's going from a genre perspective?

Sasha Issenberg: (07:50)
Yeah. I mean, I think Trump shows that there are far more shortcuts to the presidency than there used to be. I guess we could talk about whether Eisenhower took a shortcut or not, but I think that that's clearly an example that you can build your profile, your sort of base of support outside of the political establishment and international politics at the highest level and have a foundation for it. The Rock, Will Smith, you'll talk about Tom Brokaw running for president 20 years ago, it's all basically the same proposition. That said, I think we can look back at Biden's success as, and I think we've talked for years about how senators or lifelong politicians have a tougher job running for president because they have all this baggage and all these votes and 49 years of clips of things they've said.

Sasha Issenberg: (08:42)
You can also look at Biden's success last year is very much a testament to the fact that he had paid his dues with almost every part of the Democratic coalition. He might not have been beloved by any part of the Democratic coalition, but was liked and trusted enough by just about all of them, and that was a testament to his longevity. I don't know if there's ever like a Democratic fan base for Joe Biden, but you know what? When it came time to run for president, African-Americans he had sort of built a long record of labor unions but he could raise money, the LGBT community and that was like accumulated over years. And I think that there is ... wouldn't surprise me if we see other situations where parties turn to people like that because other candidates are flawed in their way.

Sasha Issenberg: (09:35)
I think the question is how many people are going to be in politics for 49 years? I mean, that's the other thing, is we just don't see that many career politicians. We see people sort of skedaddle when they can make more money or they get frustrated in the senate or whatever else. I'm not sure if we'll see many more lifers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:53)
Sasha, I wanted your perspective because I think you've had your hand on the pulse of this for a quarter of a century. So back to the book, again, a fascinating book, The Engagement about America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. I saw the book as a layered cake. It had three tiers to it in my opinion. I'd like to get your reaction to it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:16)
The first tier was the sentiment on the ground and people in our society, and obviously the biblical society, the Christian society and others that was tier one. The second tier was politicians, and to your point in the book, most of them as recently as 10 or 15 years ago didn't want to touch it with a hot ... anything. It was hot stove to those people. Joe Biden interestingly enough was the first person on the national stage to really open up about it ahead of Barack Obama which is interesting.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:50)
But the top of the cake to me were the court cases, because you had a series of court cases that had to frankly break your way or our way. I'm a same-sex marriage proponent so I'll say our way. And I thought that was fascinating as well. And then of course you brought up the state legislature. I think that's at the top of that cake. What's your reaction to my analysis of the book?

Sasha Issenberg: (11:15)
Yeah. I mean, I'm not much of a baker, so my sense of cake architecture is a little wobbly, but I think one ... I think you have the elements right. I think one thing is that the sort of causal chain, in a lot of cases it was courts forcing politicians to address this issue. My book starts in Hawaii in 1990. At that point there's not a single gay rights organization in the United States that has endorsed marriage as an objective. There's barely a politician in the United States who's been asked his or her opinion on marriage. And there's obviously through '80s a lot of anti-gay activism on the religious right, but they're not trying to stop gay people from marrying because they're trying to stop sometimes gay people from working as teachers, serving in the military, having employment non-discrimination protections.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:03)
And it's a court case in Hawaii that ends up forcing just in Hawaii the legislature and the governor to have to stake out a position on this. And we see versions of that in Vermont and Massachusetts, and eventually part of what's driving senators who are changing their position in 2013 is it's going to the Supreme Court. So I think that the legal ... You're right that I think politicians were sort of followers of public opinion, but the thing that was driving this to the top of the agenda was often lawsuits, sometimes accidental like in Hawaii, and sometimes sort of well plotted civil rights test cases. But those are the elements, yeah. I think that there's a ground level social change that took place, and then I think the legal stuff was sort of the direct engine and then the political class had to respond to this.

Sasha Issenberg: (12:57)
And for a long time what same-sex marriage activists were trying to do was keep politicians out of this, because their feeling was if we won in court, the only thing that could be bad if the state legislature or a governor decided to amend the constitution or try by statute or something to undo a court victory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:16)
When you go back in your intellectual journey on this idea of same-sex marriage, let's start with Bill Clinton in 1996 in the Defense of Marriage Act, and then let's fast forward to 2012. To me that's a pretty short period of time. If you think about the Civil Rights struggle from say 1865 to the introduction of Jackie Robinson in American baseball in 1947, it seems like this moved very fast. Why?

Sasha Issenberg: (13:48)
Yeah. And suffrage would be the other thing. We're looking for 75 years from Seneca Falls to women getting the vote nationwide. I think the biggest difference between the marriage, and I would separate here marriage as opposed to sort of the whole bundle of LGBT related issues, which has been a longer arc and still not won or settled. I think the big thing was that whether the majority or the people with power didn't have to give anything up. I think one way we often talk about sort of civil rights or social movements as these sort of contests over public ideals, justice, freedom, liberty, equality, stuff like that.

Sasha Issenberg: (14:40)
It's also a way to look at where they're basically contests over scarce resources. When women decided to seek property rights, husbands and fathers appropriately recognized that they were going to lose wealth. When men saw that women getting the vote would dilute their own political power, white people saw that black people getting the vote would dilute their own political power. Every push for immigrants rights, native-born population see it as a threat to their jobs. Desegregation was a threat to landlords who didn't want somebody to tell them who they had to rent their buildings to. The disability rights, the ADA burdened landlords with having to spend money on repairs and adjustments. Every time to be more accepting or open, people had to give something up often with a real material value to them.

Sasha Issenberg: (15:38)
And the thing, the sort of counterfactuals I like to play with is like what if there were a limited number of marriage licenses in the state. Would somebody like you or some of those straight hedge fund guys we mentioned, other sort of the moderate straight who came around and supported this? If you knew that you or your child would have to wait six or nine months in line for a marriage license because a gay person was now getting in front of them, would your views have changed? It might. And the other way of asking is sort of like what if the defining LGBT rights issue of the last generation were affirmative action for gays and lesbians in areas where they thought they'd been discriminated against.

Sasha Issenberg: (16:24)
This didn't really create a competition. And almost every other form of increased rights for a minority group creates a form of competition that's a threat to people who have wealth and power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:35)
It doesn't create a competition, but for some reason, Sasha, and you correctly write about this in the book, there is a threat there for some reason. I don't know. It's a threat to someone's sexuality? Is it a threat to what people perceive normalcy, which I find ridiculous? But I'm just letting you know that's a lot of people see it that way. How did we break down those ideas? I mean, we went from 30% of the people supporting gay marriage eight years later 70% of the people, and we went from gay men and women being reluctant to admit that they're gay to an openly gay presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg in 2020.

Sasha Issenberg: (17:26)
So I think on the marriage front in particular, May 17, 2004 is the day that same-sex couples are able to first legally marry in the United States in Massachusetts. And the rhetoric shifts after that day in a really significant way. Before then, people who were opposed to same-sex marriage, and as you said, at that point it's probably 65% of the population was opposed or such. And the things you heard from people I think were, "This is going to be the end of the American family. This is going to be the end of western civilization." Rick Santorum said that, compared the Massachusetts court decision to 9/11, said it's a homeland security crisis.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:17)
Look, I think some of that was like natural hyperbole-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:20)
He's my spiritual advisor, Sasha. I just wanted you to know that-

Sasha Issenberg: (18:23)
Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:23)
No. He's not my spiritual advisor. You didn't catch the sarcasm.

Sasha Issenberg: (18:30)
I've seen your list of bundling. I'm pretty sure that I didn't see you max out to Santorum. Look, some of that's hyperbole, like conscious hyperbole, and some of that I think people were really afraid of something that was new. And before 1999 there wasn't a society on earth that allowed gay couples to marry. And it was a radical proposal. Everybody has ... Unlike a lot of political issues, I don't think there are a lot of people in the United States who are more than one or two degrees of separation from somebody who's married. This isn't abstract. It's real. And people had seen only one type of family structure that was acknowledged under the law, and I think people were really honestly afraid of what would happen.

Sasha Issenberg: (19:18)
What happens after Massachusetts, there are these incredible warnings of like societal decay. And what happens afterwards is nothing. People are ... There's obviously no outward. Schools function the same way. Businesses function the same way the day afterwards. This question of that we sort of heard over the years from a gay or lesbian person, how would my marriage affect yours becomes like a real challenge and there's like nothing, and people are pouring over statistics. Gay couples are not getting divorced at a higher rate. Their kids are not having worse outcomes. Their communities are no weaker or less strong. And if anything, what you start to see is that communities around gays and lesbians were able to build a family on the same terms as straight people or stronger and better off.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:09)
And you know what? Guess what? Their employers like it because they get predictability over who's going to get what benefits and what they get from the government and what they don't. Labor unions like it because now they can negotiate for benefits without having to come up with something crazy. Communities like it because they want full stable families.

Sasha Issenberg: (20:26)
So part of what changes I think with time is that the coalition of people who are opposed to this starts to shrink because nobody is actually feeling any sense of harm. I mean one of the major challenges for maintaining a political coalition on any issue is getting people who are actually invested in an outcome. And the group of people who are invested in stopping this shrinks. There's still people who believe that biblical declarations of what's appropriate and godly, they haven't changed their views of this. But I think people who fear that somehow this would damage society don't have anything to lean on. And at the same time, you have the community of people who are invested in this spreading.

Sasha Issenberg: (21:20)
One thing that's different between, we talked about the sort of efforts at equality over race and sex. Unlike with race and sex, people control the conditions under which they acknowledge and disclose and announce their sexual orientation, and for that matter gender identity. So people can come out, and almost by definition gay people are born to straight people. And that means that there are not a lot of ... Social scientists call it contact theory. We know that people's political attitudes change when they have exposure to somebody who's different than them, whether or not-

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:02)
Senator Rob Portman's son came out.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:04)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:05)
And Vice President Cheney's daughter came out, and all of a sudden their views started to shift.

Sasha Issenberg: (22:11)
And one thing that's important to realize there's like that's something that can happen because of how heredity and sexual orientation work. There are not a lot of Latino kids being born to Jewish parents. There are not a lot of immigrant kids being born to native born parents. It's really important just to realize as best we understand the odds of a gay kid ending up in any household in the country are pretty evenly distributed, whereas racial segregation means that you're not likely to find out that your next-door neighbor has been raising an African-American child all these years. And that just exposes far more people to gays and lesbians, and I think probably transgendered people as well than they would get exposed to people of a different race or religion for example.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:58)
This is an opinion question but I'm curious because you have an informed opinion. Is there a stigma to being gay?

Sasha Issenberg: (23:07)
I mean I think it's ... I mean there certainly was in American society. I think it is greatly receding. And I think some of it's local. I'm a straight guy. If you told me I was a gay man and I had to decide where to start my life, there are probably certain places in the country and certain occupations or certain types of schools where I would feel more welcome than others, and I think that's a result of stigma.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:32)
But the good news is it's receding. The good news is that we're getting past it.

Sasha Issenberg: (23:37)
You mentioned Buttigieg. The fact that he was gay was not that interesting to people. People talked about he was young. He was mayor of a small city. Who did he work for at Bain. We didn't really ... It was not a defining part of his public identity, and I think that's pretty telling. A decade earlier any gay man who ran for president, that would have been the defining aspect of their candidacy at every moment I think.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:04)
Well, he's obviously a very impressive person, and I think that that's what we have to get past, whether it's our sexual orientation, our skin color, our religious preferences, can you do the job or not, I think that's ultimately the thing that we have to look to.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
I have one last question for you before I turn it over to John Darsie, and that's, and I'm probably not going to pronounce the name right but Carl Nassib ... John, did I pronounce that right? I know you ...

John Darsie: (24:32)
Nassib, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:35)
Nassib. He came out and he said that he was gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (24:37)
This is the Oakland Raiders player or LA Raiders?

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:40)
Yes, the LA Raiders player. And the commissioner, Roger Goodell, a good guy might add, know him reasonably well, he applauded it, released a statement from the NFL. It was very well received. A couple of years back Michael Sam came out, less so received. So is this another sign of progress in the fight for equality? How do you think race factored into the reception of these athletes? And these are opinion ... these are ...

Sasha Issenberg: (25:11)
Yeah. I mean, I do think that you look at, I don't remember how long Michael Sam was five years ago. I mean, I think there's been a significant shift in that time. Some of it is, you mentioned the NFL as an organization. And one thing we have seen Pride Month ended a few weeks ago is institutional America and that includes corporate America becoming so unreserved in its not just acceptance of LGBT people but in its sort of active support.

Sasha Issenberg: (25:48)
I think companies falling over each other to be seen as allies or supportive, in part because they recognize that their employee base and their customer base and their investor base want to see that and they're responding to sort of market incentives. But I do think that some of this might be that organizations like the NBA or the NFL in this case want to be seen as leaders on these type of social issues, and so you're getting it from the top down as opposed to just sort of from the community up.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:22)
One thing that's worth in terms of this sort of the decrease of stigma, I think it's really important to realize how our understanding of the science of sexuality has changed over this time. I went back and consumed a lot of media coverage from the '90s while researching this book, and every time you read an article from Time or Newsweek about any gay rights issue, not just marriage from the 1990s, there's like always a paragraph like: To be sure, we don't know whether it's nature or nurture that turns people gay or lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (26:52)
Politicians, activists, preachers, whatever, would talk about lifestyle and choice. And nobody talks that way anymore. And it's because downstream from laboratory research we now have an understanding that basically people are born with a whole lot of stuff that they don't control, and that is not just related to sexuality, but temper, addiction. We talk differently about everything, and we, I think it's now widely accepted. Even the Rick Santorums of the world aren't going to pretend that Michael Sam or Carl Nassib or whoever it is chooses to be gay.

Sasha Issenberg: (27:30)
So then the question is like, in a decent society, if people are being born this way, how do you respond to that? And denying them the opportunity to have a job or play a sport would seem like a pretty harsh response to something if we sort of accept as a society that there will be gay people. So the question is what type of society do we want to be to them?

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:05)
John Darsie.

John Darsie: (28:08)
Yeah. And Sasha, it's a pleasure to have you on. Fantastic book you wrote. A lot of what you wrote about too in the book were colorful characters and consequential characters when it comes to this fight that obviously accelerated in the most recent decades. Could you just talk our audience through some of the people that you came across that you found most interesting and the role they played in this fight for marriage equality?

Sasha Issenberg: (28:31)
Yeah, sure John. So the book starts in Hawaii in 1990 and the main character there is this guy Bill Wood who I never got the chance to meet. He passed away a few years before I started working on this, but I was able to sort of reconstruct his life and activities. He was like the gay activist in Hawaii in the 1970s and '80s. And like a lot of I think first generation activists in any sphere of community, he was incredibly entrepreneurial. He founded the gay community center. He started the gay newspaper. He had the first gay radio show in Hawaii. But not particularly good at building alliances or coalitions or working well with others. Very good about getting attention for himself, but not terribly good about playing well with others.

Sasha Issenberg: (29:20)
And he ends up in this heady rivalry within a Pride planning committee in Honolulu in 1989. He already has a kind of has it out with these two lesbian women who are running this Pride planning committee, because they have launched a magazine Island Lifestyle that competes with his gay community news for what, John, you can only imagine is the large pool of advertisers in Oahu in 1989 who want to be in gay publications. And he wants to have a parade as part of the Pride planning festivities, and they just want to have a picnic and vigil.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:01)
So they give him a subcommittee to research the parade. He comes back with a report. They dismiss the report. So he decides he's going to quit their Pride planning committee and start his own Pride parade planning committee. And now Bill Woods is looking for all these ways to upstage the picnic event. So he invites the governor to be the grand marshal of this parade. He gets the royal Hawaiian jazz band. He gets a chef caterer friend of his to put on an international food festival, and he decides he's going to have a mass wedding, like a mooney style few dozen couples on stage at a rally at the end of this parade, and they're going to exchange vows. And there have been couples who've been doing this at the Metropolitan Community Church which was a local gay-friendly sort of ambiguously protestant denomination, these holy union ceremonies. But people knew it had no force of law. They were just exchanging vows.

Sasha Issenberg: (30:56)
Bill Woods was not a lawyer. It's pretty clear to me he misread the state's family law code, and he came away with the impression that these couples actually exchanged vows on stage that the state might have to recognize them as married. And he went to the Hawaii ACLU to get them to back him up in this sort of legal theory, and they also ... they wanted nothing to do with him, but they also didn't want to say no to him because they knew what's well enough to know that if you pick a fight with him, he would sort of revel in it and it wouldn't work out well. So they spent all of 1990 just sort of like pushing him off, clearly trying to get past June 1990 when Pride Month would happen, hoped that Woods would lose an interest in this marriage thing, go ahead with this parade or whatever and move on to the next thing.

Sasha Issenberg: (31:41)
And he didn't move on. The marriage ceremony didn't happen, but now he was pissed that the ACLU had basically been stringing him along and disrespecting him. So December 17th, 1990 Bill Woods decides he's going to launch this PR stunt basically to in his hopes to jam the ALCU into having to back him up, that once there's media coverage of this, there's no way that the ACLU can say no to actual gay couples who want to fight for marriage rights. So he gets like the Honolulu press corps to follow them into the public health department. These three couples request marriage licenses. They're turned down. The attorney general says that the health director was right under state law to reject them. Woods leads them to the ACLU with all these cameras. The ACLU still says no, we don't want to be part of this.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:33)
A civil rights attorney sues on these couples' behalf the next spring. And so the shock of everybody involved, this long shot lawsuit wins, and the Hawaii Supreme Court becomes the first court anywhere on earth to rule that the fundamental right to marriage could extend to same-sex couples in May of 1993.

Sasha Issenberg: (32:49)
This is what puts marriage on the map as an issue. The Defense of Marriage Act that Anthony mentioned in 1996 is Congress eventually feeling that Hawaii is very close to actually marrying same-sex couples, one trial judge away, and that you need to write it into federal law to basically insulate mainland governments, the other 49 states and the federal government from having to recognize these marriages.

Sasha Issenberg: (33:14)
So Woods ends up being the catalyst for the world we live in right now. This would not have become the issue the way it did if he hadn't launched this. He's both like just an amazing character whom I wish I had the chance to meet, but also just I think sort of telling in our understanding of history, and that once like ends at the Supreme Court and we see a landmark decision that it awards a set of rights to a new group of people, I think are natural instincts [inaudible 00:33:44] because the outcome was momentous and just and it had to be inevitable. And that's often the language we use around civil rights. And there's the fact is like nothing about this was inevitable. It wasn't inevitable it's going to end up at the Supreme Court when it did or turn out the way it did. But it also wasn't inevitable this was going to be a thing that we as a country were fighting over. So I really liked him because it shows how accidental the sort of origins of this was.

John Darsie: (34:09)
Anthony referenced Vice President, then Vice President Biden sort of taking the lead on marriage equality within the Obama Administration, President Obama himself actually for a long time being opposed to marriage equality. Certainly the Trump Administration was hard to discern exactly what their stance was, but they also enabled legislation or certain rulings that certainly didn't enhance the rights of the LGBTQ community, if you will. But can you just compare and contrast what took place in the Obama Administration setting aside maybe his early ... He was opposed to marriage equality at the beginning obviously and changed course there, but then within the Trump Administration, what kind of setbacks did we see in terms of LGBTQ rights?

Sasha Issenberg: (34:58)
Yeah. So Obama as you say, Obama actually in 1996 when he first ran for the state senate said he supported same-sex marriage rights, and then he later backed off and blamed a staffer for having filled out a questionnaire against his will. As he ran for congress, he became basically more conservative on this issue, and he became where the mainstream of Democratic politics were through the 2000s, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton which are saying some version of I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think that gay couples should have all the same rights and benefits through civil unions.

Sasha Issenberg: (35:33)
It became clear through 2011 ... in 2011 Obama sort of recognized he was going to be out of sync with his party on this. I tell the story of him coming to New York for some DNC fundraisers in the summer of 2011 after Cuomo has signed the marriage bill into law, and I think I quote one of Obama's advisers saying he felt like the skunk at the garden party or whatever, which is you sort of had the liberal donor class of the Democratic Party celebrating Andrew Cuomo for having sort of muscled through what they saw as courageously, muscled through this bill and Obama being berated by activists for being on the wrong side of it.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:18)
So there was this process underway in the White House, starting in the summer of 2011 where Obama said basically I want to change my position on this but you guys, my team, need to figure out how and when I do it. I think that one of the things about being president is there's just such scrutiny of your every statement and your opinion that you can't just sort of casually change your position on something and hope no one notices the way. You might be able to if you're a member of congress or something.

Sasha Issenberg: (36:44)
There was a sort of high-level effort to figure out how to do this. There's a decision that he should do it before November 2012, before the re-election, but you don't want to do it too late in the calendar because you don't want this. They wanted to run against Mitt Romney on private equity and the economy, and he did not want to spend the debates or his convention having to explain why he had flip-flopped on marriage.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:09)
I thought it would be a net plus for him running for reelection, but they still did not want this to dominate the campaign. So there are all these plans afoot in the White House. And eventually they settled on the idea there's ... should he give a big speech like the race speech he did in Philadelphia? No, that would make it more of an event than they wanted. So he should do ... He'll do an interview. They decide he should do with female questioners because there's research that suggested that from a messaging perspective it's better that when you talk about this family stuff. So they had plans, sort of tentative plans for him. He was going to be in New York in June for fundraisers. He was going to go on The View. So I guess the only thing better than one female interviewer is four female interviewers, and that's where Obama was going to lay out that he had evolved as he liked to say.

Sasha Issenberg: (37:55)
And Biden was aware of the general contours of this, and Biden basically jumped the gun a month early, said what he did and forced Obama three days later. One of the remarkable things though that's going on for a couple years before that is that the White House counsel's office is ... There's this question of what's Barack Obama's personal position on same-sex marriage. And it's kind of irrelevant what the president's personal position on same-sex marriage is because there's never going to be a piece of legislation that comes before the president's desk about marriage to sign, like it's just not a thing that the president is going to deal with directly. But the White House and Justice Department have a lot of say in how the government especially handles the defense of marriage act but also gets involved in other cases as they move into federal courts.

Sasha Issenberg: (38:50)
So what you see is actually the White House counsel's office starting in 2009 getting ahead of Obama in his public position by, they eventually dropped their ... They say we're going to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act because we think it's unconstitutional, which is a really unusual position for the federal government to take, say we're not going to defend our own laws in court. Basically our whole system of constitutional litigation is based on governments have to defend their own laws, otherwise there's nobody there to do it. So it's one of these things, and I don't know whether Anthony you spend enough days in there to get a good perspective on this, but there are a few different levels at which the White House can operate. There's what the President says publicly, and then there's what his government is doing. And Obama's government was always sort of more aggressive on this marriage question courts than he was.

Sasha Issenberg: (39:41)
I think the Trump years, Trump was always, he was very ambiguous about this throughout the election. He criticized the Supreme Court decision when it happened, the Obergefell decision in 2015 that made same-sex marriage the law of the land, but then he was interviewed by Leslie Stahl a couple days after the election 2016 and he says, "It's settled law, I accept it." I think that there was a real disconnect between Trump's attitudes towards marriage-

John Darsie: (40:09)
His words and action.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:10)
Well, between, I think on marriage where he did not ... I was surprised that this was not a bigger issue in the 2015-2016 election season among Republicans because you had the Supreme Court striking down state bans in some of the reddest states. Bobby Jindal briefly said we should abolish the Supreme Court because of this. There was a moment where Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee went down to Kentucky where where that county clerk, Kim Davis was refusing to issue licenses.

Sasha Issenberg: (40:42)
But for all of the ways in which Donald Trump has an exceptional gift for pitting Americans against each other for his own amusement, political benefit, instinct, whatever, he did not seem interested in pitting gay couples who wanted to get married against his base. That's just not ... was not his thing. That said, I don't think that ... I think there's a real difference between how certain parts of the Republican conservative world now look at gay and lesbian concerns and transgender issues. And Rick Grenell who's probably the administration's leading voice on sort of what gay republicanism should be seems pretty intent on kind of splitting the LGBT coalition between gay men and lesbians and maybe bisexual on one side and then people deal with gender identity issues.

Sasha Issenberg: (41:35)
So the Trump Administration on a rule-making level was set back LGBT rights in a lot of areas, but there wasn't a whole lot that it chose to do or really directly could have done on marriage.

John Darsie: (41:55)
You talked about the Supreme Court, and this will be the last question before we let you go is Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion last summer in a workplace discrimination lawsuit Bostock vs Clayton County. He basically ruled that you cannot fire someone, you probably are more familiar with this case even than I am, on the basis of sexual orientation. It falls under the sex category. And that surprised a lot of people.

John Darsie: (42:20)
There's been various rulings from the Supreme Court when Trump's appointees have been sitting in those chairs that have surprised people and sometimes to the consternation of certain elements of the Republican community. How surprising was that decision and how important was that decision in terms of ridding ourselves of certain workplace discrimination?

Sasha Issenberg: (42:40)
I think it was really important just in the lives of people. There's still 13, 14 states that permit a company to fire somebody because they're gay or lesbian or not hire them or not promote them. And it's been, there have been efforts for almost 50 years, but in earnest for 30 years to pass a federal law that would codify making that illegal and it hasn't gotten through the senate ever.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:11)
So this is important and creates conditions for folks in a lot of those states to bring federal actions. Now it just dealt with employment. There's still a question about housing discrimination, lending discrimination. In a lot of those states you can choose not to rent something to somebody because of their sexual orientation, or you can deny them a mortgage, you can turn them away from your diner or hotel. So Bostock, the logic of Bostok could apply to those other areas, but the actual decision did not.

Sasha Issenberg: (43:44)
Now, it's important to look at how Gorsuch wrote that, the reasoning behind that. Basically he calls himself a textualist. That means that you look at the text of, in this case of a law, of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, blah, blah, blah. And his interpretation was that, "Well, traditionally or in the past we've understood sex to mean biological sex. Sex should be understood to mean sexual orientation, and that just based on that definition of the word sex, that employment discrimination against somebody because they're a woman is the same in legal terms as discriminate against them because they're a lesbian.

Sasha Issenberg: (44:43)
It's notable that that wasn't a Civil Rights decision. It was a momentous decision but it was narrowly applied to that, which is Anthony Kennedy also who was behind four major gay rights decisions also was resistant to kind of traditional civil rights thinking. And that meant that even when he ... There was a way that he could have written the marriage decision that would have affected other areas of interest to LGBT folks under the law and didn't. And Gorsuch's ... one irony, I mean it's an irony of I don't think this is necessarily his strategic plan, but what Gorsuch did was he left it open.

Sasha Issenberg: (45:25)
It wasn't a matter of constitutional interpretation. It was just a matter of interpreting the text of that bill. And it's possible that if you had a Republican house and senate or President Mike Pence in a few years, that they could amend with a majority in the house and whatever gets you through the senate these days the Civil Rights Act to say biological sex and overrule the Supreme Court. So by not making it a matter of constitutional guarantee and just making it a matter of statutory interpretation it was flimsier than it could have been.

Sasha Issenberg: (46:05)
So I think you're right to note that that was a surprise coming from a conservative justice, but it's also that getting there was notable for what it chose not to do and made it possible to get a majority I think of votes on that.

John Darsie: (46:22)
Right. Well, the struggle is ongoing. Again, the book is The Engagement: America's quarter-century struggle over same-sex marriage. A fantastic topic to write about and extremely well-written. Sasha, thank you so much for joining us. Anthony, you have a final word for Sasha before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:39)
What's next Sasha? What book are we writing?

Sasha Issenberg: (46:42)
I've gotten very interested in a historic election fraud scandal that took place in Indiana over 100 years ago that I think is just a hell of a true crime yarn and also shed some light on the conversations we're having now about the nature of election fraud and to what extent it exists or has existed in American history. It'll be shorter and I promise not to spend ... It won't be 900 pages and I won't spend a decade on it. That's my guarantee to you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:08)
Well, we appreciate it. This has been a great conversation for us. Sasha, if you don't mind, hold up the book because mine is in New York. I want to hold it up again for everybody, The Engagement. What a great story about America's quarter-century struggle over the same-sex marriage. Thank God we're through that struggle by the way. I think it's great for our society, and I appreciate you writing that book, and hopefully we'll get you to one of our live events soon.

Sasha Issenberg: (47:37)
I'd really like that. It's great talking to you Anthony. Nice to meet you John.

John Darsie: (47:40)
You as well. And just another piece of trivia before we wrap up here. President Joe Biden spoke at the SALT Conference in 2017. He came there along with the Human Rights campaign, so it's certainly encouraging to see somebody with a very proactive view of marriage equality just general equality. So we continue to hope that arc bends towards equality for everyone. But thank you Sasha, and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Sasha Issenberg.

John Darsie: (48:09)
Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website at salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel which is called salttube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @saltconference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. And please, spread the word about these SALT Talks if you find them interesting. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Daniel Silva: The Cellist | SALT Talks #236

“Gabriel Allon in the last five books has been a key figure in the defense of Western liberty… Restoration is the essential element of the entire series; tikkun olam- repair of the world.”

Daniel Silva is an American journalist and author of thriller and espionage novels. Prior to his novelist career, Daniel became a journalist at the age of thirty-three, directing CNN’s political talks. There is a tremendous amount of historical content worked into all of his novels.

Using the real world as inspiration and backdrop, Daniel Silva’s iconic protagonist Gabriel Allon’s recent storylines have centered around defending Western democracies. This continues in Silva’s latest book The Cellist which revolves around the impact of and defense against dirty foreign money from Russia. Silva recounts watching the January 6th Capitol attack on TV and soon realizing he had to rewrite his already finished book to include the insurrection. Silva worries about the state of America’s democracy and explains the value of the Capitol insurrection to Putin and authoritarians around the world.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Daniel Silva.jpeg

Daniel Silva

Author

The Cellist

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

2:35 - Creating the Gabriel Allon character and series

8:55 - Newest book: The Cellist

11:30 - Using real world events/themes in storytelling

13:00 - January 6th Capitol attack and DC lockdown

20:02 - Restoring liberal democracy in America and the West

26:03 - Western countries vs. Russia and authoritarian regimes

29:49 - Radicalization of Republican party

31:20 - Musical interests

37:12 - Impact of dirty foreign money laundered in the US and Great Britain

41:38 - Book writing process and the theme of tikkun olam

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal in our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York, but our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:46)
And we're very excited to welcome Daniel Silva back to SALT Talks for his second appearance. I think Daniel is only the second guest that we've welcomed for multiple appearances. So we know it's worth it because he's one of the best authors out there today. I know Anthony is one of his biggest fans. So we're excited to have you back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:03)
Danny, I think on the other guests that he's referring to, he allows me to come back on from time to time, so I think it's you and me, Danny.

Daniel Silva: (01:12)
I will try to move up to advanced billing.

John Darsie: (01:15)
I read a little bit more about Daniel for those who haven't tuned into the first episode we did with him or read his fantastic books, but he is an award-winning number one New York Times bestselling author, best known for his long-running thriller series starring spy and art restorer, Gabriel Allon. Silva's books are critically acclaimed bestsellers around the world. They've been translated into more than 30 languages. He resides in Florida with his wife, the wonderful television journalist, Jamie Gangel, and their twins, Lily and Nicholas.

John Darsie: (01:48)
And I will say my parents are now hooked on the Gabriel Allon series. They were not readers before you joined us on SALT Talks the first time and now they can't get enough of Gabriel Allon. And again, hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of Skybridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. And like I mentioned, Anthony might be your biggest fan, Daniel. And he was very excited to get an advanced copy of your book and pour through it. So with no further ado, I'll let Anthony take over.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:15)
Yes, I have to confess there's nothing more delightful than not having to wait for the delivery date of the publisher, Mr. Silva. Getting it from you was fantastic and I do appreciate it, but I got to flip to the back of the book here is a very handsome man. Is this Gabriel Allon, Daniel Silva? That's what I need to know.

Daniel Silva: (02:36)
That is not Gabriel Allon. There are many authors who see themselves in their characters or imagined their characters. I've just never been one of them. I can't do the things that he can do. I wouldn't want to do the things that he can do. Now, does he share certain characteristics of mine? Yeah, lots and lots. But no, I do not imagine myself to be Gabriel Allon. He's much better looking than I am. Not you, but not me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:12)
Did you hear that Darsie? I finally got a compliment from one of our guests.

Daniel Silva: (03:15)
You're one of the few guys around that can give him a run for money in that department.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:22)
All right. Well, that's very sweet and that concludes our SALT Talk. I just want to thank everybody for tuning in. Nothing else that we have to say, Mr. Silva. But in all seriousness, I love these books. This is the 24th book that I've devoured. I find it to be a summer delight for me. Sometimes I pace myself and savor it, as opposed to read it too quickly, but I can read it in a day because of how great a writer you are. It's the 24th book in the series. Did you ever imagine you would become a number one bestselling hero of a long series like this?

Daniel Silva: (04:03)
I didn't. And I think that it's shocking to say this, but Gabriel was never supposed to be a continuing character. He was supposed to appear in one book and one book only. And truth be told, when I finished that book, I knew that I had created a special character. But I didn't think that an Israeli could work long term to be a true mass market, American bestseller. I thought there was too much anti-Israeli sentiment in the world, and frankly, too much antisemitism for him to work long term. And I was talked into writing a second book by a very astute and well-regarded figure in publishing and it sold more than the previous book.

Daniel Silva: (05:02)
It seems difficult to imagine now, but when I made the first notes on The Confessor, which is one of the classics in the series, Gabriel was not supposed to be in that book. And I was told by my publishers and editor, "He must be in that book. It is his book," and that was the case. And so when I finished The Confessor, I felt like, "Okay, [inaudible 00:05:25]," we are 21 books later. No, frankly, I did not anticipate that he would ever be a repeating number one New York Times bestseller [inaudible 00:05:40] more surprised by his success than the person who created him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:45)
Well, he's a brilliant character. And all of us that are entrepreneurs love Gabriel Allon because he is an entrepreneur. There's a candoism about him. There's a creativity about him. He has a love for his country, love of Israel and a love for Western liberty where he'll stop at nothing to protect it. And I think that those things make him a hero, but there's also complexity there, Daniel, in the sense that he's an assassin, but he's also an art restorer. So at the same time, he's about restoration and renaissance and the rebirth, if you will, but he also recognizes that he has to simultaneously eradicate evil. Explain that duality if you will.

Daniel Silva: (06:32)
I want to I want to go back to something that you said earlier, the question, that is really important and that Gabriel in the last three, four or five books has been a key figure in the defense of Western liberty. Gabriel believes in the global order. Gabriel understands how remarkable it is that that we have essentially had peace in Europe since 1945 with some minor wars on the periphery, how as a survivor of the Holocaust he knows how incredible that is, what an achievement that is. And so he has been, since Moscow Rules, which is, gosh, I'm losing track of time, but about 14, 15 years ago now, fighting Russia. And he has been cast himself in that role of the defender of liberal democracy and taking on Putin.

Daniel Silva: (07:45)
And the duality of the character is what makes him special obviously. It's not that he's a magician and can take a beat-up old painting and make it look like new again. Restoration is the essential element of the entire series, Tikkun Olam: Repair of the World, the obligation to not accept the world as it is but to make it better, to gather up the sparks that were lost to creation in Jewish theology. And it's the central part of the story. And it's not just about paintings, it's about injustice, it's about people. He can make old cars run again. He just has this gift to restore and repair. And that's what gives the series its magic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:43)
So I don't want to give away any spoilers, there's a lot-

Daniel Silva: (08:45)
Don't give away lots of spoilers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:47)
There's a lot of plot twists here and a lot a lot of fun in the book, but tell us about The Cellist, the woman that enters of Mr. Allon's life.

Daniel Silva: (08:56)
The Cellist is one of my favorite characters that I've ever created. And she's one of those characters that popped from the instant she opened her mouth. A little side note the cover art, that's my wife. We photographed her for the book. That's Jamie on the cover.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:16)
Looking good, Jamie.

Daniel Silva: (09:17)
Looking good, Jamie.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:18)
I don't want to get in trouble with the He Too or Me Too Movement, but looking good.

Daniel Silva: (09:23)
Looking good. Her name is Isabel Brenner and she was trained at an early age. She's a young German woman. Musical prodigy, can play the piano. Started playing the cello at eight. Won her very important German competition when she was 17 years old, but decided that she didn't quite have what it took to make it in the very difficult music industry. Like many musicians, she's a very gifted mathematician. So she went to a university at London School of Economics and went to work for a German bank called RhineBank.

Daniel Silva: (10:08)
And in short order, she discovered that this bank that she's working for is really the dirtiest bank in the world and that it was serving as, in effect, a laundromat, the Russian laundromat, helping Russians launder ill-gotten assets and hide them in the West. She decides to blow the whistle by leaking documents to a Russian reporter and one thing leads to another. And before she knows it, she's fighting shoulder to shoulder with Gabriel Allon trying to save Western democracy, and ultimately, democracy here in the United States. The book begins in the summer of 2019 and it's effective conclusion is Inauguration Day 2021.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:05)
But you see the future in this book. You're known for seeing around the corner. So tell us about catching history and understanding that. You write about the insurrection. Tell us, in your process of writing this, how you come up with or able to distill what the near future is.

Daniel Silva: (11:30)
Well, the near future that I was trying to distill was, and I've written about this, touched on it in about the last three or four books, is that Western democracy, I don't want to say hanging by a thread, but it is under stress, it is battered, it is in trouble. And we now know, from some great reporting, investigative reporting and brilliant writing from some journalists and authors, from the British government, that the degree to which Russian money, that Russia has used its money as a weapon to weaken Western democracy. And so I wanted to write a book that deals with how to counter that threat.

Daniel Silva: (12:29)
And when I started the knob or the book, it was set in a post-Trump, post-pandemic era. I felt that President Trump would lose the election and that this book would be set in a Joe Biden era and that Gabriel and the new Biden administration would really take it to the Russians financially. And so I was working along with the book, had most of it written. On January 6, Jamie calls me. She's at the office, I'm in my office. I do not have a television in my office. She says, "You need to go upstairs." I said, "I'm really working. Is it important?" "Just go upstairs." And I turn on the TV in the kitchen and our Capitol is overran by supporters of the of the American president. And it became clear that Donald Trump had formed the mob inside of the mob, unleashed the mob and we had ineffective armed insurrection against our capital. Our capital had fallen for the first time in our history.

Daniel Silva: (13:51)
And within a few days, I just realized I had to write about this in the book. It fits so perfectly with what I was already working on, that I said to my wife, I said, "Look, I got to do this. I don't know how quite to do it." So I quickly plotted a new ending to the novel and I started writing that at that point on about January 10th or so. And so I finished a new ending to the novel and got it done, but the first half of the book didn't quite match up. It's in the wrong time. Everything was out of sequence. The beginning of the book was set after the pandemic and after the Trump administration. I had to back the whole thing up.

Daniel Silva: (14:37)
Long story short, I worked for about 14-15 hours a day for weeks and weeks and weeks, getting the book so that everything was synced up properly. It was a painful process. I was heartbroken by what I saw that day. I think that as bad as January 6 was, for me, the Inauguration Day was in many respects worse. If you weren't here in Washington during that period to experience the miles and miles of fences, the 40,000 troops on the streets, the military checkpoints that Jamie had to pass to to get to the office every day, the television cameras did not capture what it was really like here.

Daniel Silva: (15:33)
And I can't imagine what President Trump was thinking when he took that final lap over the city in his helicopter and he looked down on this empty, empty locked down city. And why was it locked down? It was locked down because we were afraid that thousands of armed Trump supporters, Republican voters were going to come storming across the bridges. How did we get to this point?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:01)
Listen, I'm obviously saddened by all of that. January 6th is actually my 57th birthday.

Daniel Silva: (16:08)
Oh, my goodness.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:08)
I was sitting there in my home, looking at it and didn't think it was ever going to come to that, but it obviously did.

Daniel Silva: (16:15)
Well, what were your thoughts? How did you think we got there?

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:18)
Well, I was saddened by it. I didn't see it as ... It wasn't surprising to me, Danny.

Daniel Silva: (16:28)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:29)
It was definitely not surprising to me, but-

Daniel Silva: (16:31)
Well, I'll tell you a little ... I'm going to interrupt you on one thing, so this is how well known it was in Washington that this was coming, okay? On about January 2nd or 3rd, I was talking to a Republican member of Congress. I said, "When's the Reichstag fire?" reference to the fire that burned down the German parliament and led to the Enabling Act in 1933, "When's the Reichstag fire?" And the Republican congressman said, "The Reichstag fire is Wednesday." And so everyone knew that this was coming, but go ahead-

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:02)
Well, just the fact that he would equate it to the Reichstag fire explains to you how much danger we're in and not to go overboard on European history or German history, is it 1924? Is it 1933? Where are we right now? We do know that a good 20% of the people have decided that they are willing to disavow capitalism for whatever they fear in their lives. I'm sorry, democracy, I should say. There's elements of fear in capitalism as well, but well, there's 20% of the people that want to put aside our capitalist system, that has made this creation when Lincoln called the last best hope for mankind, has made this one of the more beautiful stories.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:46)
It's a story marred with tragedy. It's a story marred with biases and racism, of course, but it is a beautiful story of many, many different people coming together off of an idea. And what we know about our great country is that it's a work in progress. And to Gabriel Allon's point, it needs to be improved. I guess there's something I wanted to ask you. It's personal actually because every time I read your books, I close the book and say, "Okay, what did I learn from Daniel Silva?" First of all, it's an amazing summer read. It's a page turner. It's super exciting. I want to yell at you at times because I want to read this on the beach in front of the surf, but I'm not able to do that because I find myself reading at 3:00 AM in the bathroom, where my wife is like, "Turn the light out." I was like, "Yeah, I got to get to chapter 17. I can't turn the light out."

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:39)
But when I close the book, what I learned here, and I want your reaction to it, is that there is a group of forces. It's almost like a sibling rivalry, Cain versus Abel. There's a group of forces that are just frankly jealous of the United States. At the end of the day, they couldn't put it together. They couldn't put it together or they feared it. We know that we have great benefits from our decentralization, our checks and balances. There are countries that are autocracies that would actually never release that kind of power, even though what we know about power, the axiomatic fact about power is when we give it away, we become more powerful. That's the axiomatic irony of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:24)
And I guess what I learned from your book is that we seem to have lost our edge. It's either our complacency. We've had hundreds of years now a vaccine, so people now believe that there's no need for them anymore, but we've gotten to this point of health as a result of these vaccines. The same thing with the democracy, we got here as a result of all these virtues. And I guess what I'm wondering when I close this book, how do you restore it? How do you become the Gabriel Allon of the American democracy and the movement of the West as it relates to individual freedom?

Daniel Silva: (20:07)
It's just in our country. France, for example, its democracy is under great stress right now. We had the yellow vest movement. We have the remote possibility, but maybe not so remote possibility that they could elect Marine Le Pen to be their president. Their parties are in complete disarray. British democracy is struggling. Look, in the United States, but coming back to us, we just got walloped by a succession of big, big unexpected events. 9/11, kaboom. Iraq war did not go as planned. A crippling financial crisis that we eventually recovered from but the recovery was uneven and I would say that it exacerbated some trends that are out there in the workforce. Globalization. And frankly the changing demographics of our country. These are huge, huge developments.

Daniel Silva: (21:26)
And we have a significant portion of the population that is not succeeding in this new economy, this new reality. I guess I have come back to that the demographic changes are ... They seem to come upon us more quickly. When you look back at the Hispanic share of the electorate in 1996, for example, it was minuscule and it happened so quickly. We became much more multiculturally. Diverse more quickly I think than people imagine that would happen. And these are enormous pressures and these are big, big things that we've got to deal with, but I am most concerned in this in the short run about the number of people who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning who no longer believe in democracy and who are willing to or at least they say they're willing to use violence to achieve their political ends.

Daniel Silva: (22:47)
This is what I find alarming in the short term. I find the prospect of even a Trump candidacy in 2024 to be almost too frightening to contemplate because I think it will ultimately lead to pre-election violence, post-election violence and a contested election. We got the ship to shore in 2021, but it was a close call. As Gabriel said, "The power was transferred, but it was not peaceful. It was not peaceful for the first time ever." So I don't want to sound like Chicken Little or Debbie Downer here, but I'm a little nervous. I'm a little nervous.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:36)
Listen, I respect that, but I would add to that, it's not just him. He's got acolytes that want to be him. They view themselves as smarter versions of him and that he has given them a playbook. And of course, through voter suppression and through different types of laws and just the gerrymandering process, remember, these Republicans are now controlling a large swath of the state legislatures. They're very confident they can take back the Senate, I'm sorry, take back the house, even though they may not have the popularity to do so. They know that they may be able to segment the districts in a way that will allow them to do that.

Daniel Silva: (24:26)
They have the ability of Trump to mobilize the darker elements of our society. That's one thing that he did that was just ... It really bottom fed for votes. It became a joke in Washington that white supremists were actually a core part of his constituency, but it's true. It was true. And white nationalists and Christian nationalists, that was the core of Trump's appeal. Look, I hope that they don't go down this road. I'm trying to choose my words carefully, of trying to get into a situation where they use maximalist power at the state level in the Congress to try to force a candidate through and pick and overrule the will of the voters and make them what make a republican president because it will destroy the country. There will be violence in the streets.

Daniel Silva: (25:35)
Imagine what would have happened if Trump had actually won a narrow electoral victory in the last election, losing the popular vote by 7 million votes. Would the country have been governable under those circumstances? Yes, constitutionally. So we have really some dangerous tricky months and years here coming up, whether we make it, whether our democracy survives. And by the way, our divisions are real obviously. I don't need to explain that to you. Our divisions are real. The flames have been fanned at every step of the way for years and years and years now by Russian information operations and Russian propaganda.

Daniel Silva: (26:25)
I invite you to read the Russia report that the British government released last summer, that the extent to which Russian money had rotted their political institutions and financial institutions and it was all planned. It wasn't by accident.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:42)
And I think that's a point that you make in the book and that's one that I have, the great sadness. And so the Russians weren't able to build a great fluid system. They weren't be able to build a multitribal democracy. So a result of which, they set upon destroying the United Kingdom, France and the United States. And so these active measures were perpetrated against people that weren't necessarily their adversaries, but they figured, "Okay, it's a race to the bottom. If we're hitting bottom, we would like to drag down these other"-

Daniel Silva: (27:18)
I was having dinner with an ambassador from a country that I can't identify the other night. And this is an authoritarian country that is under pressure to democratize. And the ambassador was telling me, "What a gift January 6th was to this," just to be able to hold this stuff to their people and say, "This is what democracy looks like. Do you really want this?" January six, Vladimir Putin must have just loved it. All the authoritarians in the world loved it. Because it showed our system to be in disarray, at least on that day. We pulled through, but we did enormous damage to our democracy and enormous damage to our reputation around the world.

Daniel Silva: (28:14)
And I will tell you, here in Washington talking to diplomats from various countries, they're not optimistic about our future. The Europeans are glad to have us back, but they're very wary that the whole thing could swing back again or that we might actually slide off a cliff and not be a democratic country anymore. I would say that even our closest allies are not betting on us right now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:41)
Listen, I agree with that, obviously spending more time in the business realm than politics at this moment, but I look at somebody like Liz Cheney, I look at somebody like Adam Kinzinger or Kinzinger, however you pronounce his name, and I see, "Okay, well, at least they have levels of principle." I think if somebody like Lindsey Graham who I did have a relationship with, who I'm not sure what happened to him, maybe a new book and it could be a nonfiction book, Where is Lindsey Graham? because I don't know where he is. It's like Where's Waldo?. It's just a representation of what he once was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:17)
And what I would say to you, that has me alarmed is Lindsey Graham said, "Trump plus," he wants Trump plus. That means he wants to dig into more of that fearmongering and he wants to dig into more of that hatred and more of that division to hold power as opposed to freshen up the party, break down and rebuild that party and go after a more beautiful mosaic of people with better ideas. And I'm at a loss to understand that, but I want-

Daniel Silva: (29:47)
I can explain it. Their base will not let them tack to the center in order to build that beautiful mosaic. Just ask Speaker Eric Cantor about that. He wanted to do an immigration deal and he's in leadership and he got primary gone. They're just not interested in it. Any party that has not been able to carry a popular vote at one time since 1988, one time, that party should tack to the center where all the votes are, but they're actually going farther and farther and farther and farther. And getting back to your previous point, the only way that out here with this shrinking base and out here to the edge, the only way they're going to get back into power is with voter suppression and maximalist constitutional means to try to get back in. That's what worries me, but I interrupted, I'm sorry.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:53)
No, not at all. I have to turn it over here to my Millennial, John Darsie, so that we get our fantastic ratings, Daniel, but before I do that, let's play Desert Island discs for a second. You've got music abounds in this book and so what are your favorites? Let's go to classical, jazz and rock and roll. Tell us what your favorites are. And also what is your all-time favorite? What was the first song you remember?

Daniel Silva: (31:20)
First song I remember?

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:26)
[crosstalk 00:31:26].

Daniel Silva: (31:27)
I spent the first years of my childhood in Michigan. Wikipedia says that I was born in Detroit. That's not the case. I was actually born in Kalamazoo. So I love, love, love Motown music. I love, love Motown music. Those are the first songs that I really remember. So we do some classical, this is impossible assignment to pick, one thing to listen to on a desert island, but people ask me like, "I don't know anything about classical music. What should I start with? What should I listen to?" If I were to be trapped forever with only one thing to listen to, let's take the Five Piano Concertos of Beethoven. I have piles and piles and piles of different versions. These are some classics, but Beethoven's Piano Concertos is where I would, if I had to pick one.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:28)
And what about jazz?

Daniel Silva: (32:31)
Well, I'm a bit of a jazz fiend and everyone faces this dilemma, "What's your favorite? What's your favorite?" and I think that most of us come back to Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. It's regarded as the greatest jazz album ever recorded and I agree with that. I'm going to put a second one. I'm going to cheat a little bit. I was just listening to it the other night and I'm so saddened by Keith Jarrett's health problems. I love, love, love My Song by Keith Jarrett. I just think it's just one of my favorite records. I'm going to transition to rock and roll by going to a jazz rock album, totally essential, but Steely Dan's Aja.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:15)
I love that, that Deacon Blues.

Daniel Silva: (33:17)
Really great, great, great, great-

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:19)
We're dating ourselves, Silva. We're dating ourselves.

Daniel Silva: (33:23)
I know, and then if I had to pick one, this is what-

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:25)
I love the song Peg. I love Deacon blues. Oh, there you go, The Boss.

Daniel Silva: (33:29)
And then my favorite rock and roll album of all time is Darkness on the Edge of Town [inaudible 00:33:35].

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:36)
It's a gritty, gritty album. I love that album as well. Of course, Darsie has no idea what we're talking about. That's fine, John. Let us live in the moment of our past glory or as Bruce Springsteen would say, "Glory days." Before I turn it over to Darsie, what about Sinatra though?

Daniel Silva: (33:54)
What about Sinatra?

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:55)
Sinatra.

Daniel Silva: (33:56)
I love Sinatra. Live at the Sands, I listen to that record all the time. There's Count Bassie.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:03)
Particularly his breakout into conversations. Sure.

Daniel Silva: (34:06)
Those are exactly the stories [crosstalk 00:34:10]. Some of the stuff that's on that album wouldn't pass muster today, but I love Frank Sinatra.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:20)
So John, what would you like to ask the award-winning bestselling novelist? By the way, before I get there, I have to thank you for the acknowledgement. Of course, I've got Boris and all the other undercover mobsters following me around, but it was a brilliant acknowledgement, so I'm sending you a hug over the phone lines here.

Daniel Silva: (34:45)
Well, I meant it though because I was working through, "What is the goal of this operation? How am I going to take this person down? Am I going to do it criminally or am I just going to do it as an effect?" What I did there is the name and shame type operation. You and I pulled it apart and-

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:05)
The only way you can do it, Daniel. That was my point in terms of our conversations.

Daniel Silva: (35:11)
Otherwise you have to throw the bankers in jail, right? That conversation with you, I meant it, it was pivotal in helping me decide what the operation was going to be, what the goal of the operation was going to be, what the mechanics of the operation were going to be.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:33)
Mr. Darsie.

John Darsie: (35:35)
Well, I'll have to confess, we did some investigative journalism or spy work in the spirit of Gabriel Allon and have some other questions for you, one, about your music. So we investigate and found that you used to go to punk concerts back in the day. What type of attire did you wear to those punk concerts?

Daniel Silva: (35:56)
My punk attire was more of the suit jacket over a t-shirt with jeans. I was that kind of punk. No crazy makeup. No piercings. None of that stuff. I was kind of a dressed-up punk. Actually, little bragging, I saw the first American performance of The Clash actually. I was living in the Bay Area. We had a vital New Wave music scene and I got to see a lot of great aspects.

John Darsie: (36:38)
So going back to the book, you talked about RhineBank is the bank that you mentioned in The Cellist. Did you draw any real-life inspiration from maybe was Germany a random selection in terms of the home of the bank that you mentioned? How much is dirty foreign money which is a big theme in the book? How much is it flowing into the United States and poisoning our democracy? How influential is this campaign by forces, especially emanating from Russia from a monetary perspective?

Daniel Silva: (37:13)
Well, the first part of the question first, as I point out, in the author's note, I did draw from the sins of a certain Frankfurt-based bank and applied them to my fictitious RhineBank. And I was talking to someone, a very important figure in the financial world, who helped me with the book and he described that bank as a rogue bank and that when he called that bank a rogue bank, it stuck in my mind and I ended up calling my bank RhineBank. Deutsche Banks, many, many sins are legendary at this point and its past behavior and conduct certainly helped me create my bank.

Daniel Silva: (38:16)
The truth is, I don't think we really have a grasp on how much money has made its way into the United States. I assume that Vladimir Putin owns property and shares of companies in the United States through intermediaries and cutouts. I'm not sure if Anthony would agree with me, but I think he probably does. People who launder money like the United States in Great Britain, because we have this enormous financial depth, there's just a lot of stuff out there to hide your money in, particularly in real estate. We allow anonymous purchases. We have people in the financial industry who are willing to soil their hands with these kinds of money. Miami and much of Florida are ground zero for this kind of activity.

Daniel Silva: (39:12)
A lot of it is criminal and more and more and more of it are kleptocrats. We have kleptocratic regimes around the world that are stealing money that they should be spending it on their people. And that money almost in most cases and nearly all cases has to be removed from the country that they are ruling and stashed someplace. And ultimately, I think much of it finds its way here. When the British released their report, a lot of the commentary at that time was that the British did a better job at dissecting the impact of money on their democracy and on their financial system, dirty Russian money that we haven't really quite gotten there yet. We haven't gotten our act together on figuring out exactly how much damage has been done by money on our political system.

Daniel Silva: (40:18)
I think if you look at the Trump campaign in a microcosm in 2016, you can see that money and the promise of money and the promise of Russian riches was how they wormed their way into that campaign. Paul Manafort was completely compromised by Russian money. He was in debt to Russians, millions from Russians and was in debt to Russians. It's a recipe for disaster.

John Darsie: (40:44)
And it's a pure coincidence that Trump, no other banking institution would lend to him except for Deutsche Bank. You talked about Florida being ground zero. There were some, let's call them sketchy real estate transactions involving Russian oligarchs and Donald Trump. And also we've discovered that Russian interests were laundering money through the NRA. So all things very relevant that you cover parallel tracks in your book. But moving away from the Russian angle a little bit, again part of our spy journey, talking about your writing process, you write a book every year. So it really means you have about six months to write. That's not a lot of time and you pack amazing stories, amazing amounts of research into that time. What's it like in your house when you're on deadline and what's your process? Do you sit down at your laptop and just type out ideas or what does that process look like?

Daniel Silva: (41:40)
The process is, and I just went through it a couple of weeks ago and the process is I want to be able to see about 100 pages of a novel in my head. When I can see 100 pages or so, I start working on it. I don't necessarily have any clue as to how it's going to end, but just if I have a clear enough vision to get going on something ... I'm not like Raymond Chandler, starting with a sentence or something like that, but I don't outline in detail. And I will tell you that that I'm going through it right now that already that the 100 pages that I started with in my head, two or three weeks ago, it doesn't really look much like that.

Daniel Silva: (42:32)
So I really work on my books, sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, scene to scene. And I get to work nice and slowly for a while in the summertime in September and October, but boy, about Thanksgiving, I'm starting to get a little anxious because I've got a deadline coming up. After New Year, it's full on sprinting for the deadline. And so I decided to give myself another thing this year by throwing out my book. I threw out my ending and wrote a whole new ending. The last months of it are pretty awful, to be honest with you.

John Darsie: (43:18)
Your wife tells us that she sometimes hears laughter coming from your writing room. Is that something where you get into the characters? Do you feel that they're real and you're experiencing that story with them?

Daniel Silva: (43:30)
Yeah, when it's really, really working, when the magic is really, really happening, I'm just writing down what these characters are saying to one another. When I'm really in the moment, when I've really created a scene and put two familiar characters talking to one another, I'm just eavesdropping on them. And I know that sounds crazy. And Anthony right now is calling a medical professional. I can see him in the other shot. But when it's really working, I feel like I'm just eavesdropping on a scene that's going on inside my head. Sometimes, they will say things-

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:08)
I'm actually deflating for the rest of the summer because I can only read this once without knowing everything. You've left me in pain for another 364 days.

Daniel Silva: (44:21)
But the humor does find its way into the novel, I think the novels I should say, of its own accord. I don't necessarily try to make things funny, but one of the things that I discovered and hanging around with Israeli intelligence officers is they're funny guys. They are very, very smart, very worldly, incredibly dark, wonderful senses of humor. And Gabriel has that side to his character. He's quietly darkly funny.

John Darsie: (45:04)
Right. And last question I have before we let you go. There's a theme throughout all your books. It's a Hebrew phrase called Tikkun Olam. It means repair of the world. Talk about what Anthony mentioned earlier. Why is this idea of repairing the world so important to you and so important to Gabriel Allon?

Daniel Silva: (45:24)
Well, gosh, try to imagine the world that turned ... Gabriel should have been born in Berlin. His name should have been Frankel. He should have been living in Berlin, becoming a famous German artist, Gabriel Frankel. And things didn't work out that way because in 1933, Germany's democracy fell to pieces. They elected a madman. The world blew up into war. 6 million Jews at least were murdered. He ends up being born in Israel with a new name into a totally different circumstances and the circumstances that he should have been born into. And so why wouldn't you want to repair the world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world a better place?

Daniel Silva: (46:23)
And we can all do that in our daily lives. Just the smallest gestures, we can make the world a better place. And unfortunately, right now, there's a nihilism that's loose in the world. I would say what is Russia's foreign policy is nihilism. They don't believe in anything except raw power, the exercise of raw power. And we have enormous challenges facing us right now. And I think getting back to the broader point of this discussion, if democracy is going to succeed and Joe Biden has said this many, many times, it's got to prove itself that it can work. And by that it can, it can help people make their daily lives a little better. If we can help that woman who's working two jobs, if we can help her care for her children, that's a little bit of Tikkun Olam.

Daniel Silva: (47:25)
We can help people make their lives a little better, so that they might have a little bit of extra time and a little bit of extra money to be the best that they can be. That is what I think we should be striving for right now. And I think it will take the steam out of this ugly awful, I hate the word populism because I don't think it accurately describes what's going on right now.

John Darsie: (47:50)
Right.

Daniel Silva: (47:50)
If you take the steam out of this thing that's out there loose in our country right now.

John Darsie: (48:00)
Right. Well, Daniel, it's always a pleasure to have you on. Your books are fantastic. Anthony, hold it up one more time before we go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:06)
I'm holding at the front and the back. Also for all of you people there that just want to be green with envy, I have a signed one. Just get to that page before we allow the author to leave. So I was super excited about that. And so I want to appreciate you in a way that-

Daniel Silva: (48:26)
Let's see the sign one though. I saw it on social media.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:29)
I put it up. There it is. I just wanted to thank you for that.

Daniel Silva: (48:33)
469, 469.

Anthony Scaramucci: (48:35)
You're a you're a sensational writer, Daniel, but in addition to that, you're telling us through stories what is really going on and what we all need to contemplate and think about. And so for those reasons, it's an entertaining book. It's a page turner. It's suspenseful, but it's also a brilliant exposition of our current zeitgeist. So thank you for writing it. And I'm looking forward to the next one. And you're going to break the record here, Silva. You're going to be on SALT almost as many times as me. John Darsie is going to let you come back.

Daniel Silva: (49:10)
I hope so. It's my favorite. I just love doing this with you guys. I really appreciate the fact that you had me back because it's just ...

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:19)
The pleasure is ours.

Daniel Silva: (49:19)
... a wonderful conversation and I love you guys and I really appreciate it.

John Darsie: (49:24)
Thank you, Daniel.

Anthony Scaramucci: (49:25)
The feeling is mutual.

John Darsie: (49:27)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Daniel Silva, the fantastic author. We highly recommend, if you haven't read all of the Gabriel Allon series as well as his other three books that you go out and read them. Great summer reads as Anthony mentioned. You'll pour through them. But just a reminder, if you miss any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website@salt.org/talks or on our YouTube channel which is called SALTTube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active @SALTConference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook and please spread the word about the SALT Talks again.

John Darsie: (50:01)
If somebody's looking for a great summer read, they've come to the right place. Pick up one of Daniel's books. So in behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team. This is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gillian Tett: Anthro-Vision | SALT Talks #235

“The other great shakeup in finance, which is in some ways driving the crypto world, is a shift in trust away from institutions and leaders, and towards the peer group, the crowd and technology.”

Gillian Tett is an Editor-at-Large for the Financial Times, where she is chair of the editorial board and editor-at-large, US. She has written about the financial instruments that were part of the cause of the financial crisis that started in the fourth quarter of 2007, such as CDOs, credit default swaps, SIVs, conduits, and SPVs. She became renowned for her early warning that a financial crisis was looming.

As part of her research while earning a PhD in anthropology, Gillian Tett visited and observed customs and rituals at Tajikistan weddings. She applies that same anthropology lens to the world of finance with her new book Anthro-Vision. With the coming AI revolution, Tett stresses the importance of also using a different type of AI, anthropology intelligence, in order to best handle tech disruptions and displacement in finance. Anthropology helps explain how the siloed nature of communities has contributed to the current state of American politics. It also helps explain a shift in trust away from institutions, contributing to the rise of cryptocurrencies and other tech-enabled peer-to-peer technologies.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Gillian Tett.jpeg

Gillian Tett

Editor-at-Large

Financial Times

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

6:07 - Anthropology intelligence

8:15 - Anthropology in finance

14:16 - Cambridge Analytica

17:55 - Anthropology and the pandemic

22:28 - Checks and balances

25:15 - Donald Trump’s communication style

29:50 - Social media effects

32:48 - Societal divide around mask-wearing

34:32 - Tech disruptions in finance

38:09 - Cryptocurrencies

40:54 - Societal anxieties

TRANSCRIPT

John Darcy: (00:07)
Hello, everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 and welcome our guests on SALT Talks today who'll be speaking at that conference as well. But our goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darcy: (00:48)
We're very excited today to welcome Gillian Tett to SALT Talks. Gillian today serves as the Chair of the Editorial Board and Editor at large U.S. of the Financial Times. She writes weekly columns covering a range of economic, financial, political, and social issues. She's also the co-founder of FT's Moral Money, which is a twice weekly newsletter that tracks the ESG revolution in business and finance, which has grown to be a staple Financial Times product.

John Darcy: (01:14)
In 2020 and 2021, Moral Money won the SABEW Best Newsletter Award as well. Gillian is the author of The Silo Effect, which looks at the global economy and financial system through the lens of cultural anthropology. She also authored Fool's Gold, which is a 2009 New York Times bestseller and financial book of the year at the inaugural Spear's Book Awards. Her next book, her most recent book is called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See Life and Business and it was released in June of 2021, again, a fantastic book using Gillian's PhD in anthropology which not every business journalist has and applying that lens to the way we look at business economics and investing.

John Darcy: (01:56)
Gillian has received honorary degrees from the University of Exeter, the University of Miami, St. Andrew's, London University, Carnegie Mellon, Baruch, and an honorary doctorate from Lancaster University in the UK in addition to that PhD from Cambridge in cultural anthropology that I mentioned before. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing Partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony has a couple of nice degrees but not quite as many as Gillian. He also definitely doesn't have a PhD in anthropology.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
And no honorary degrees. Again, we're too politically toxic for an honorary degree in this woke place, John.

John Darcy: (02:34)
They're trying to take away Anthony's degrees at this point, rather than giving him new honorary degrees.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:38)
100%. So far Harvard still wants the donations, Gillian, so I'm okay. They're not quite that woke yet but we'll discuss that on another SALT Talk.

Gillian Tett: (02:49)
But I think you have degrees from the School of Life in every possible sense and the school of political life too, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:55)
Well, so the 11 day PhD in Washington lunacy. But Gillian, thank you so much for joining us. Again, another brilliant book, I've read two of your prior books, the one on JPMorgan and Bear Stearns and the derivative markets before the crash well-timed book, The Silo Effect, which I thought was another brilliant assessment of our living in our own little echo chamber. And now you're taking your life's work in study of anthropology, your work as a journalist and you're synthesizing it for us people. But before you get there, why did you decide to become a journalist and a writer? Where did you grow up? What was your inspiration for your life?

Gillian Tett: (03:39)
Well, if I certainly that, it basically explained a bit why I wrote the book because I am fundamentally completely weird by most people's standards, particularly by the standards of anyone working in finance and market. I spent the last 25 years as a financial journalist writing about finance, business, politics, tech, all the stuff that you've swum in all your life, Anthony but I actually started my career as an anthropologist, someone dedicated to the study of human culture, working in a place called Soviet Tajikistan, that's just north of Afghanistan, looking at the practices, symbols, ceremonies, rituals, belief systems of people in Tajikistan. I looked particularly at marriage rituals.

Gillian Tett: (04:24)
And a lot of people were saying "Well, that's really weird. Why would you go from that kind of cultural analysis, exotic stuff into writing about Wall Street?" And essentially I believe they're intimately connected and that's really what I said I was doing the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:40)
Well, they are connected but expound as to why they are connected.

Gillian Tett: (04:46)
They're connected because basically we are all human and humans everywhere in the world, whether they're on Wall Street, whether they're on a trading floor, whether they're in a C-suite or in the White House, or if they are in a Tajik village. We're all human social creatures, we operate according to all kinds of weird cultural practices that we absorb from our environment that always seems strange to everyone else but natural to ourselves. We're all shaped by rituals and symbols and ceremonies and we need to understand these cultural patterns and assumptions to work out what drives us, because if we ignore them, if we think that we are all as logical and rational as robots, then we are liable to be constantly tripped up by nasty surprises.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:34)
Well, I think that that's a brilliant part of the book. I'm just going to hold the book up for everybody because I like promoting the books of my friends. It's Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life. But I think it's an old way actually. I think that's the most interesting thing about your book. When I read it, it's an old way to look at things. You're basically stripping off the technology, you're stripping off of all the veneer that we put on ourselves today and looking at us from a historical perspective about how we behave with each other. Is that a fair assessment of the book?

Gillian Tett: (06:06)
I think Anthony, if you think on it, in some ways it is a very old way and it suggests that we, ultra modern sophisticated humans aren't that different from our ancestors or from people elsewhere in the world. But although that is in some ways incredibly obvious, it is amazing how often we forget it today, partly because anybody who's working in finance and markets and business has the illusion that they're operating in an ultra sophisticated world shaped by computers, shaped by rational expectations to use the economic framework that's tossed around so much in the markets. And also there's something really important which is the rise of artificial intelligence, big data sets and all the other computerized tools.

Gillian Tett: (06:54)
And one of the core messages in my book is that tools like AI are incredibly important and incredibly useful. They really can revolutionize finance, revolutionize a lot of business processes. But the problem with these tools is that they assume that human beings are rational and consistent, they tend to work by gathering data from the recent past and extrapolating that into the future and assuming that somehow correlation is causation, which of course we all know it isn't and they tend to ignore the context of all the models and all these big data sets. So what I'm really arguing in the book is a world that's being overrun by AI, artificial intelligence, neither another type of AI, anthropology intelligence, just to make sense of the context and consequences and the cultural patterns that shape us all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:49)
You mentioned rituals and I want to go there first before I dive into the book. And you've observed Wall Street and business and Western, Eastern business cultures, tell me a Wall Street ritual. Let's say that you were Jane Goodall and this was National Geographic and you had the binoculars on and you were observing the Wall Street primates in their habitat. And I want you to channel Richard Attenborough and... Tell me about those people. What are they like?

Gillian Tett: (08:17)
A lot of people when they think about Wall Street rituals, think about some of the more dramatic events like going to bars or buying things on trading floors or right in the bottom of stock exchange. And those rituals matter. But one of the most important rituals is something that we've not been able to do for the last year and a half, which was the investment banking conference and investment banking conferences are fascinating as rituals because in many ways, they're very similar to the gigantic ceremonial events that were weddings in the Tajikistan location where I did my PhD research. What investment banking conferences do like ritualistic weddings, is unite a scattered tribe of people, enable people to come together to reaffirm their social ties and to not just recreate social ties but also to share a common world view.

Gillian Tett: (09:12)
They have rituals which essentially reflect their shared core worldview and assumptions and then reproduce it amongst that network. And if you look at the ceremonies and rituals that go with your average investment banking conference, including I would imagine something like the SALT event, you can really see that shared worldview and see both the perils and the promise of that shared worldview. And I used that kind of analysis back in 2005 with an investment banking conference. In fact, it was the European Securitization Forum conference. And I analyzed the conference and what I saw then enabled me to predict the 2008 financial crisis.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:56)
And you did that in your book, more or less that first book that I read, you explained that the derivatives were being layered on top of each other and that the full risk assessment was cloudy at best and that things were being rated AAA and perhaps were not being rated AAA but it was a ritual, meaning there was a-

Gillian Tett: (10:15)
You can sit there and say, well, what went wrong with the 2008 financial crisis? You can look at it in terms of capital flows and numbers and ratings and all that kind of stuff. All you can say, there was a fundamental human process going on. You had a group of banknotes, there was such a tight knit tribe that they spoke in languages no one else understood, no one outside the tribe understood what they were talking about when they talked about things like CDOs and they didn't expect anyone else to understand. It gave them power controlling that language a bit like the priests and the medieval Catholic churches spoke Latin and no one else did, and they expected the congregation just to sit quietly and lap it up.

Gillian Tett: (10:57)
But also the vision they had of finance, that creation mythology, because every group has a creation mythology. The creation mythology essentially implied that they were doing this amazing thing with liquification, creating liquid markets. So, would be good for everyone. But they couldn't see the contradictions in their creation mythology and there were fundamental contradictions there like the fact that the products they were creating were supposed to be making markets more liquid but actually it was so complex and no one could trade them.

Gillian Tett: (11:32)
They couldn't see those contradictions precisely because they were in such a ghetto or a silo and also none of the PowerPoints in their ritualistic events had any faces or people that written people, the end user out of that financial creations. And that reflected a mentality that was absolutely beset with tunnel vision and had no sense of the consequences of what was happening in terms of risk-taking. And there's a wonderful scene in the book, Michael Lewis's book, The Big Short in the movie where the hedge fund trainers go down and meet a lap dancer in Florida who has actually taken out subprime mortgages. You're nodding, Anthony, because you probably remember that scene.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:18)
I do remember that scene, it was one of the better scenes in the book and I read the book 12 years ago, but continue.

Gillian Tett: (12:23)
When the hedge fund traders met that, I think it was a pole dancer or a lap dancer, they realized-

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:30)
That's rituals, John, just so you know, not that I read the book or anything. Okay, keep going.

Gillian Tett: (12:35)
When they met her, they basically said, "Wow, subprime mortgages have been used like that?" This is the kind of shock, this is kind of nuts." And the thing that was nuts was not the fact that the hedge fund traders realized it, it was a fact that no one else did because there were so beset with tunnel vision. So basically my book is simply a call for us to bust out of our tunnel vision, get a sense of lateral vision, look at the wider world like an anthropologist to really get out and meet some real life people, look at the rituals and cultural patterns we normally ignore because that's the only way to guard against risk properly and to get savvy about what could be about to hit us in financial markets or anything else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:20)
Listen, I think it's a brilliant assessment of what is going on. You also mentioned in the book that data is effectively the new oil. It has become this very valuable commodity on planet earth, it's manipulated by people like Oxford Analytica, it's used for forces of good but also for forces of evil. Tell us about what you write about oil being... sorry data being the new oil.

Gillian Tett: (13:48)
Well, I think the data is incredibly important. I do tell a story of it's actually Cambridge Analytica, not Oxford Analytica, but it's all posh English colleges.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:56)
I meant to say Cambridge's Oxford Analytica, my apologies to Oxford Analytica, I'm sorry, but I meant to say Cambridge first. You know, the great thing about me, Gillian, because I'm an Italian kid from Long Island, nobody cares. I don't even bother pronouncing the names right because no one assumes I'm going to pronounce them right anyway, I leave that up to John Darsie to figure out.

Gillian Tett: (14:17)
Well, funnily enough, the reason why the data company was called Cambridge Analytica was precisely because the name Cambridge sounds very auspicious and got a lot of credibility for an American audience. Strangely enough, someone else tried to copy Cambridge Analytica the data company and they based it in the city of Oxford down in Mississippi to try and create the same aura. So your mistake, Anthony, was exactly the same kind of idea that they were trying to capture in the marketing. But Cambridge Analytica was one of the breed of tech companies that arose starting from about 2012 to use data to predict the future through bringing up enormous amounts of information about what we're doing in cyberspace. And not just predict the future, to also try and manipulate people by sending out targeted messages.

Gillian Tett: (15:10)
In some ways, no different from advertising but what Cambridge Analytica did was to apply these tools into the political space, creating some incredible controversy in the 2016 election as you know, Anthony. And one of the things I argued in his book is that what's happening in this world of data is incredibly important not just in political times but also in economic times because this type of activity does not easily fit into any economist models nor into investors models when they're trying to value companies. And the reason is really simple, money is not involved. Money is not involved.

Gillian Tett: (15:53)
And economists are trained to think about everything in terms of money. It's one of the big shortfalls of the whole profession that they can't count things unless it's expressed in monetary forms. And the problem with data is actually what's going on is a back to trade in the sense that every day in cyberspace, we're giving up information in exchange for getting back services like Gmail or Google Maps or anything like that. And we normally express this in terms of a negative, i.e it's free, there's no money involved, but I argue in the book to often use a concept that's very common anthropology which is barter, which is basically what's going on. And so we need to start counting the barter trade, we need to start recognizing it because if nothing else, if you don't start talking openly about barter, you have no hopes of building a tech sector that feels more ethical to consumers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:49)
Yeah. Listen, I think it's well said and I'm going to now synthesize one of your last books with this book, "The Silo Effect about how we tunnel into our own confirmed biases and we live in our new little news silo or cultural eco centric, if you will silo, our ecosystem is quite narrow despite globalization. And one of the weird things in my observation, last book, I was like wow, we're becoming more globalized, the result of which it makes many people fearful and they were retrenched into a silo. And in this book, what I love is that you basically now are explaining because of that, we get a lot of fear related to information, conspiracy theory, disinformation, fake news and this manifested itself with the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragedy of that. So tell us a little bit about your observation of how our society in most, the global society and us as individuals handled the tragedy of COVID-19.

Gillian Tett: (17:56)
Well, in many ways, my book Anthro-Vision tries to provide some answers to the questions I raised in the book of The Silo Effect because the Silo Effect says that we're all incredibly prone to silos, we're all retreating into tunnel vision and tribes and Anthro-Vision says well, yes, as a way to bust out of it and to actually act and think more like an anthropologist and to try and get a sense of lateral vision, to try and look at the entire picture and above all else, what I'm calling for in this book is an effort to try and think yourself into the minds and lives of people who seem different from you, not just so that you can empathize with other people but that you can also flip the lens and look back at yourself with more clarity, because there's a wonderful Chinese proverb which is that a fish can't see water.

Gillian Tett: (18:45)
We can never see ourselves clearly unless we actually make an effort to jump out of our fish bowl, go and swim with other fishery bed or even ask the other fish what they think about our fish bowl and then look back. So it's a kind of win-win having the anthropology mindset, you both understand others better and you understand yourself. And that sounds really abstract, but let me just give you two examples of how this would have played out in the pandemic if we had more policymakers who thought like anthropologists.

Gillian Tett: (19:13)
Firstly, we would not have ignored what was happening on the other side of the world in a strange, weird place called Wu Han, because guess what? Most people did ignore that, it seemed long way away and they just turned their eyes away from it. Most people thought like Donald Trump when he said that African countries were "shitholes" people went, "Ooh, that's horrible, that's terrible." But actually most of us have the same instinct to shy away from places like Africa when they find the epidemics, rather than feel empathy to try and understand what's going on."

Gillian Tett: (19:47)
So a bit of empathy for other experiences would have helped us a lot to understand what to expect with COVID. It would have also shown us some of the possible solutions for how to respond. There's a lot of anthropologists who have studied mask culture, the use of face masks in Asia in relation to the Asian pandemics. I made the point that the reason why masks are useful is not just because of medical science, having that fabric stopping the viruses, it's also useful because of behavioral impacts. A mask is a very powerful, psychological prompt, a ritual, you can actually use each day to remind yourself to change your behavior.

Gillian Tett: (20:28)
And it also has a powerful cultural signaling aspect that if you put a mask on, you signal that you're being respectful to other people and thinking about the wider good. So we could have learned all that beforehand if we'd bothered to get some empathy, but also if people had looked at America with outsider eyes before 2020 and asked whether America was ready to cope with a pandemic or not, they would have seen all of these holes and problems in the healthcare system. And just to cite one tiny example, the problems in having federal structures run some things but local structures run another and they're just not joined up at all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:13)
Listen, I think it's excellent but if there's a core message that you have in this book is that we have intellectual superiority complexes and we don't listen to people. You tell this great story about Paul Otellini, who was the chief executive of Intel, where anthropologists were brought in to try to shake the minds of the engineers and you write in the book that they were dismissed, ignored or derided and the mindset of the highly trained engineers and executives tended to assume that everyone did or should, and I think that's the operative, they did or should think like them. And I think when I read chapter by chapter, it's more of a bunch of blockheads walled off from each other, is basically what the message is, break the walls down. Am I getting the right gist of it?

Gillian Tett: (22:10)
Yeah. Another easy way to say, Anthony, is to invoke a principle which is fundamental to American political structures and I know that you hold very dear, which is checks and balances.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
No question and it saved the civilization, saved the democracy actually, and probably saved people's lives at the end of the day.

Gillian Tett: (22:30)
As in the checks and balances in America's great political system are absolutely something which are fundamental. Checks and balances should be part of anybody's thinking at work, on the trading floor, in business, in the C-suite. And what I mean by that is we all have a tendency to assume that the way that we think is natural and inevitable and how everyone should think if they don't already think that way. It's just part of being human, just like being angry is being part of human. But we don't think that actually just succumbing to anger as a good thing, we realize we have to get over it. And so we have to get over this idea that we can assume that everyone else thinks the way that we can. And in a company like Intel where I cite the Intel engineers who actually brought in an anthropologist to help them, it was a shock for the 25 year old Silicon Valley geeks to realize that the rest of the world didn't think like they do when it came to products.

Gillian Tett: (23:27)
And actually if you're trying to design a device or gadget that might work for an 80 year old Indian grandmother, you cannot have the same assumptions that you have when you're a product designer sitting in Silicon Valley. But that same point is played out over and over again in business. And the simple message of anthropology is, if you have checks and balances, if you have a diversity of views inside a structural office, if you have ways of exposing yourself to the minds of others, if you simply have a way of getting some common sense into your thinking, and by that, I mean a common view of people who are not exactly like you, you will have a better chance of managing risks and also seeing new opportunities and that's as true in the financial world as it is in tech sector, Silicon Valley or anywhere else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:22)
Before I turn it over to my erstwhile cohost who I was told earlier today should have his own show, John Darsie, that's what I was told. He was like stabbing me in the chest, but I do-

John Darcy: (24:35)
I spoke to my mom earlier because I don't know [crosstalk 00:24:37]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:36)
No, no, but I begrudgingly agreed with your fan, I said yes, he's extremely talented and he deserves his own show. Before I turn it over to John Darsie, I want to go to bigly, which is a chapter in the book about understanding Donald Trump. And there are some brilliant insights there. One of them is Mr. Trump's language, the use of his language and the appeal of it. And then secondarily, obviously this whole silo effect where people have these reinforced biases Mr. Trump's very adeptly preyed upon. And so I want you to comment on that before I turn it over to the new television star.

Gillian Tett: (25:15)
Well, I should congratulate you, Anthony, for getting through a whole 20 minutes of conversation without mentioning the T word, Donald Trump.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:22)
Well, I couldn't avoid it actually because it was such an important, I thought a chapter in your book.

Gillian Tett: (25:29)
Yeah, I do have a chapter all about bigly and Trump. And actually I should stress that the chapter actually is not just about Trump, it's actually about journalists and myself, because one of the things I should say upfront and strengths is that journalists are prone to tunnel vision and tribalism as anybody else.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:45)
You do point out that a lot of journalists missed the appeal of him, but I don't mean to interrupt, but I thought that was another brilliant assessment.

Gillian Tett: (25:52)
Well, I would put myself in that category. Hey, I'm human too, like everybody else, I can't always see the water in which I swim in as a journalistic fish. We're all shaped by cochlear assumptions and biases, myself included. And one of the things I think fascinating about journalists is that I tell the story that when Donald Trump said the word bigly during the 2016 campaign, the banks, all the journalists I knew instinctively laughed because we found it funny. And that's like okay, so we find it funny but the question to ask is, why do we find it funny? And in that moment of laughter, we basically all collectively portrayed the fact that we had this in-built arrogance and assumption that the only people in America who have the right to have power are those who have command of words and language.

Gillian Tett: (26:45)
That's one of the few acceptable forms of snobbery in America has been around having to monitor words and education. And that is so baked into us as journalists because guess what? We sweeten words every day, that's our craft, that we assume that everyone else thinks like us. Well, newsflash, they don't. The story of 2016 is actually, there's a lot of people who resent the arrogance or elitism of the educated people who control words. And the type of communication style that Donald Trump was using was very much based on non-verbal forms of communication as much as anything else.

Gillian Tett: (27:21)
I tell the story in the book that I went along on the advice of a friend to see a wrestling match. And of course Donald Trump had originally become well-known to many television viewers in America, not through the apprentice but through wrestling and until you've experienced the wrestling match and seen how visceral and nonverbal the communication is, you see the stage managed aggression and conflict and the name calling, which is so similar to crooked Hillary or Little Marco Rubio, and the chanting and the fact that the audience takes what is happening seriously, but not literally. Until you've seen that, you don't realize that that was a performative style that Donald Trump borrowed lock stock and barrel for his own political campaigns. It worked really well because it connected very deeply with a lot of voters.

Gillian Tett: (28:11)
And the key point is this, most educated links didn't even realize that was going on because they were in their own fishbowl and had never been to a wrestling match. So frankly, journalist like everyone else is a jump out the fishbowls, go and see the world more widely. And frankly, we all need to show a bit more humility to recognize our way of looking at the world thinking is not the only way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:36)
I think it was brilliant. Of course I also fell prey to it when he was attacking me, I called him the fattest president since William Howard Taft, Gillian. And that knocked me off of Twitter for 12 hours. And that wasn't even inspired by you, John Darsie, that was my own editorial commenting. So I'm going to turn it over to you now. Go ahead, Darsie.

John Darcy: (28:58)
Yeah, I can't take credit for that one, but you did get put on Twitter suspension, I remember that was interesting time. But Gillian, thanks so much for joining us, I'm always fascinated by your work. You talked a lot about human nature, obviously the study of anthropology is about human nature and social constructs and our role has obviously been changed by the internet and by the advent of social media. I'm curious your view on how much of social media and the echo chambers that we find there are a reflection of our human nature, they just found a new outlet for which to create these silos or these echo chambers, and how much have we been changed? How much has our society been changed by the internet, by social media, which a lot of people like to refer as is anti-social media where human interaction, especially during the pandemic has waned? How has it changed us or is it merely just a reflection of the ingrained DNA that we always experience?

Gillian Tett: (29:49)
Well, John, I think that's such a fantastic question. And what I think has happened is this, when the internet was started and social media was started, it held out the promise of connecting us all and breaking down silos and giving everyone access to everyone else and information. But what actually happened was that when we went online, we had such information overload that we automatically started re-congregating in silos and tribes just to manage this information overload. And there's something very important about the internet, which is that it creates the ability to customize our individual experiences. We really live in a world of generation scene, generation customization, where we don't just think that the world revolves around us, that where the center of the world, not that we're fitting into the world, but increasingly that we can customize the world using these digital tools.

Gillian Tett: (30:46)
You go back 50 years ago or so when people like myself or Anthony were growing up and we had vital records or cassettes of music which were preselected by someone else. Today's kids want their own playlist. And the same is true about how we get information online and how we present our identities. We customize it all the time and the more we do that, the more we tend to not just reflect the tribalism we have in the real world, we actually intensify it. And we go down these rabbit holes of customized information and customized identity and customized tribalism.

Gillian Tett: (31:22)
And in many ways, the internet, the COVID-19 lockdown has made it worse because not only have we been physically trapped in small spaces, we've been trapped with people who are just like us, i.e our social potable family. We haven't been colliding with different people every five minutes on the street or out and about. And also many of us have actually been more trapped mentally in cyberspace too as a result. And one of the other great messages I really want to stress is after COVID, we need to seize every opportunity we possibly can to bust out of our fishbowls, out of our ghettos, out of our rabbit holes, and go out and encounter the real world and other people who are not like us.

John Darcy: (32:11)
And I think COVID-19 in a number of ways was a manifestation of people's ingrained biases and the echo chambers that they tend to live in or the silos they tend to live in. And you write about the pandemic in the book and you and Anthony talked about it briefly earlier, but in your view, why is there still such a divide? It's almost a political divide between mask wearing, between vaccines, and then on the other side, the vaccine hesitant people that even at the height of the pandemic, viewed wearing a mask is sort of insulting to their own dignity that they would be forced to or asked to wear a mask. Why is there such a divide there? And what does that tell us about human nature?

Gillian Tett: (32:48)
Well, it's partly an issue of misinformation. As Anthony said, there's been tremendous amount of echo chambers and misinformation often deliberately planted. It's partly a question of political tribalism and symbols. For a long period of time, mask wearing became a symbol of your political allegiance, and that is just tragic. And it's partly because there are simply aren't a lot about glitz to enable people to collide with each other in the unexpected and this is really alarming. And we're seeing the very tangible implications and impacts of it. And one of the things that we've learned in COVID is that we are all interconnected, we're all exposed to each other but we don't understand each other, and that's very dangerous.

John Darcy: (33:33)
You talked about investment conferences. Obviously we run a big one, the SALT Conference, there's all kinds of other rituals and constructs that exist in the financial system in the financial industry that are being heavily disrupted by technology FinTech. I listened to a recent podcast with Marc Andreessen from a16z, he was making the analogy of blacksmiths. We used to get around on horses, the blacksmith put horse shoes on horses, they were an integral part of our society. As soon as the automobile was invented, those people either lost a significant portion of their income, lost their jobs, had to reinvent themselves. How much of that do you foresee in the financial industry? We obviously have things like crypto digital assets, blockchain that are reducing number of intermediaries we need for certain financial transactions and elements of the economy. How much of the financial system do you think is just going to shrink and people are going to have to adapt to the times, and what does that do to the psychology of our society?

Gillian Tett: (34:33)
Well, I think the financial industry is indeed undergoing quite a big shake up and change. And ironically back in 2008, everyone thought the financial crisis was going to be this massive shakeout moment. And it shook things up for a bit, but not dramatically. In some ways, the rapid rise of digitization which has been accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic in many ways may end up being more important than 2008 for the shakeout process. So what you are seeing right now is that a number of intermediate jobs are being knocked out, you are seeing rising use of digitalization and AI and other forms of robot finance coming into the markets. You're not seeing a complete dash online into digital. One of the other parts of my book talks about the fact that offices don't exist just because they bring people together to clearly delineate tasks, they're also very important as social spaces.

Gillian Tett: (35:30)
And it's a great irony that anthropologists have studied that although financial traders have had the ability to trade from home on a Bloomberg terminal since the year 2000, in reality, banks are built bigger on bigger trading floors, physical trading floors because they know there's merit in people being in the office together and interacting. And it's no surprise that banks like JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley and others are all saying that their employees need to come back into the office face-to-face now because they know there's value and also the human creatures being together and interacting in nonverbal ways.

Gillian Tett: (36:07)
But in spite of all that, I think the other great shakeup in finance right now which in some way is driving so much the cryptocurrency world is a shift in patterns of trust away from institutional trust and trust in people, trust in institutions and leaders into trust in the peer group, the crowd and trust in technology. And that's really at the heart of a lot of the rise of Ether, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies right now and that's also incredibly important. And also frankly, best understood from an anthropological perspective rather than an economist perspective.

Gillian Tett: (36:43)
Another message in my book is if you want to understand how money works, don't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics. As Richard Feynman once said, the great physicist, if Adams items talked to each other, we couldn't do physics. The reality is if traders and finances talked to each other, you can't treat it like a branch of Newtonian physics, you have to look at how social science and social patterns interact with economics and finance.

John Darcy: (37:09)
And your compatriot, Neil Ferguson has written a lot about this, the history of money and there's a lot of great writings about Bitcoin, bullish cases for Bitcoin about just the evolution of what money has been historically. As a species, we've always collected trinkets and rocks and precious metals and totems and things like that to represent and store value. So if you look at Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies as just the latest evolution of that that's tailored for an internet age in a digital age, and it's not so ridiculous, but Bitcoin is such a polarizing topic and cryptocurrencies are such a polarizing topic. You see a certain group of people that are very obstinate and very resistant to the idea that this is a legitimate asset class and a legitimate part of the future and you see other people that are so rapidly bullish on Bitcoin, that it defies any level of logic. Why do you think those two camps exist and who are those two groups of people and what shapes their view of cryptocurrency?

Gillian Tett: (38:10)
Well, it's partly a question of whether you think that digitalization and technology is good and trustworthy or not, and that's just something that divides people, but it's also frankly about power. And it's very important to recognize that the current system we have is based on trust in institutions as much as anything else, is based on trust in central banks, and to a lesser extent, trust in private sector banks as well. And it's really based on a vertical axis of the trust which is what underpins most of our current society. But there's always been another axis of trust which is a horizontal axis of trust.

Gillian Tett: (38:43)
You can trust in the crowd, trust in your peer group. And that used to just operate on a very small scale in small face-to-face communities where everyone could eyeball everyone else and trust each other, but digitalization has brought around ways of building trust across large groups in terms of trusting either in online peer reviews and ratings systems and that's what drives things like Uber or Airbnb, you get in a stranger's car because you trust that the crowd has rated this person. Or you have trust in collective competing technology and that's really what is driving a lot of cryptocurrency at the moment.

Gillian Tett: (39:24)
So you have this clash between institutional trust and peer group trust, or if you'd like to use Neil Ferguson's metaphor between a tower or the type of towers that used to dominate, medieval European cities or squares, squares where crowds would congregate. And it's a inevitable aspect of human nature that people who benefit from institutional trust, who wield it, control it, shape it, never like being challenged by crowds or by horizontal trust because guess what, they're going to lose power. So that's part of what's going on at the moment as well I think.

John Darcy: (40:01)
That's fantastic. Last question I want to ask you, and it's about anxiety, a feeling of anxiety that feels to be gripping the world right now. And I'm curious whether that's something that as someone who's living in the present day, we feel that anxiety and assign a higher value to it than anxiety has existed throughout civilization. There's anxiety about the levels of debt we have on a national level, on a household level about central banking and all the money they're pumping into the system and what implications that has for the future, the rise of technology, the implications of that on our dignity as workers, whether we're going to be displaced by machines and also about things like terrorism and advanced weaponry and what does that mean for our world? Is that something that throughout history, there's been these levels of anxiety about change and about technological growth, or is it something that today based on your studies, it feels like it's above and beyond what it's been historically?

Gillian Tett: (40:55)
Well, I think that's such a great question, John. I think the issue is this, that profound uncertainty has beset every community in history. The difference today is that we think that because we have these wonderful computers and modeling techniques, that we have the ability to somehow muster the future, muster time, predict what's going to happen. And in many ways, that is exactly what has happened the last few decades. We collectively have developed these fantastic intellectual tools like economic models, big data sets, like corporate balance sheets, medical science, all of which tries to not merely help us navigate where we're going right now but predict the future too. And we put trust in these tools over and over again. And what we realized in the last decade ever since 2008 is they're not perfect, they break down, the world is a lot more uncertain than people expect.

Gillian Tett: (41:51)
We are prone to what the U.S. military calls VUCA, standing for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. And one of the other messages of my book is that if you rely just on those tools like economic models, big data sets, or corporate balance sheets to navigate the world with without recognizing the wider context and consequences and culture, you're like somebody walking through a dark world with a compass. Your compass can be brilliant and navigating, you don't want to throw your compass away, but if you just walked to that world and look down at your compass all the time, staring at the dark and never lift your eyes, you will trip over a tree root or walk into a tree.

Gillian Tett: (42:35)
And so an appeal for Anthro-Vision is really an appeal for people to look up, look around, see the context and the culture in which they're operating, in which they create those tools and see the consequences of what they're doing to get lateral vision instead of the kind of tunnel vision that has so marred so many of us in recent years.

John Darcy: (42:57)
Well, that was very comforting for my anxiety that humanity is still going to play a role in our world despite AI, despite the growth of big data, despite all this technological innovation we're seeing around us. So Gillian, thank you so much for joining us today on SALT Talks. Anthony, hold up her book one more time. It's called Anthro-Vision: A New Way to See in Business and Life.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:18)
It's another brilliant book and a great assessment of what's going on in our world. Gillian, thank you for joining us and we'll see at the SALT Conference in a few months.

Gillian Tett: (43:27)
Absolutely. Well, thank you both very much indeed for your interest. Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:32)
Okay, we'll see you soon.

John Darcy: (43:32)
Thank you, Gillian and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's SALT Talk with Gillian Tett of the FT, fantastic newsletter, I can't recommend highly enough Moral Money that's published twice a week that Gillian leads that team over the Financial Times. But just reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on our website, it's salt.org/talksondemand, as well as on our YouTube channel which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media at SALT Conferences where we're most active. We live tweet all these episodes and broadcast them there. So please follow us on Twitter, follow us on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We love featuring great authors and we think Anthro-Vision is a book that has to be on your must read list for 2021.

John Darcy: (44:16)
But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Gary Ginsberg: First Friends | SALT Talks #234

“I’ve always been fascinated by the American presidency… I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I started to see the influence their closest friends had on them. They could speak to the leader in a way no one else could.”

Gary Ginsberg is the Author of “First Friends: The Powerful, Unsung (And Unelected) People Who Shaped Our Presidents”. He is also a lawyer, American political operative and corporate adviser, serving as a strategist in both the public and private sectors for more than 25 years. He was most recently Senior Vice President and Global Head of Communications at SoftBank Group Corp. before resigning in 2020. Before joining SoftBank, Ginsberg served as Executive Vice President of Corporate Marketing and Communications at Time Warner and as Executive Vice President of Global Marketing and Corporate Affairs at News Corp.

Early in his career, Gary Ginsberg noticed that most political leaders had a at least one friend offering unfiltered thoughts. His latest book, First Friends, takes a look at the outsized roles played by the closest friends and confidantes of American presidents. Ginsberg focuses on a handful of American presidents and the impact each “First Friend” had as informal advisors. In this Salt Talk, Ginsberg evaluates the most influential friends of American presidents: Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, Harry Truman and Joe Biden.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Gary Ginsberg

Author

First Friends

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

4:52 - Presidents’ First Friends

8:27 - Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed

11:44 - FDR and Daisy Suckley

14:27 - JFK and David Ormsby-Gore

18:48 - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

22:01 - Bill Clinton and Vernon Jordan

27:20 - Franklin Pierce and Nathaniel Hawthorne

29:58 - Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson

32:14 - Joe Biden and Ted Kaufman

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 here in our home city of New York for the first time. But our goal at those conferences and on these talks is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big, important ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Gary Ginsberg to SALT Talks. Gary grew up in Buffalo, New York home to two U.S. Presidents.

John Darsie: (00:55)
He's a lawyer by training, but he spent his professional career at the intersection of media, politics, and law. He wrote a great book that we'll talk about in just a second. He previously worked for the Clinton administration, was a senior editor and counsel at the political magazine George, and then spent the next two decades in executive positions in media and technology at News Corp, Time Warner, and then most recently at SoftBank. He's published pieces in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and was an on-air political contributor in the early days of MSNBC. He lives in New York City with his wife and two sons. The book that he just published is called First Friends, and it's a fascinating read about the close friends of several U.S. Presidents that ended up shaping American history and having a big impact on the presidents that they served with.

John Darsie: (01:42)
A netbook comes out July 6th, so if you're out at the beach over the holiday weekend, look in your bookstores for that new book, First Friends. But hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also an author himself. And I have to add, since we're talking about politics today, Anthony spent, what is it? 11 days, Anthony? Working in politics. But we think that's the end of his political career, but you never know.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:13)
Gary, he brings it up all the time. It happened four million years ago. Let me just hold on a second because I'm on the phone with my CFO. I just want to make sure that my W2 is not going to John Darsie right now. He sits in my office. He's taking over. Just please make sure it's not going to John Darsie. Thank you. Okay, hold on a second, Gary. So Gary.

Gary Ginsberg: (02:34)
Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:35)
Buffalo, New York. My wife went to the University of Buffalo. It's the second largest city in this great state, the empire state. It is a unique place, so I want you to describe Buffalo to people that have never been to Buffalo. And I'm going to have a little tell here. I have, obviously, family members in Buffalo visit often, and my family's originally from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which is a lot like Buffalo, as you know. So go ahead, tell us about Buffalo for those that don't know Buffalo, and how you grew up.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:06)
Well, Buffalo gets a bad rap, Anthony, as you know, for being snowbound, hardscrabble, bad luck city. It was the fifth largest city in the United States at the turn of the last century. And then William McKinley gets assassinated and basically, the fortunes of the city go down from there. But I grew up in a city that is the queen city. It's a city of good neighbors, It's a city of hardworking people. It's a blue collar city where people work hard. They play hard. They love their Buffalo Bills. I have loved the Buffalo Bills since I was old enough to breathe. It's a tough team to follow, tough team to love, but I think our fortunes are looking really up, as the city is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:52)
And you got great food. It's a great culture.

Gary Ginsberg: (03:54)
Great food. Great wings. Beef on Weck. City's got everything.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
And listen, as you said, it was-

Gary Ginsberg: (04:02)
And a socialist mayor. A new, socialist mayor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:06)
Well, you probably like that a little bit more than I do. All right. But I just think it's important to bring up your background because Buffalo, when I think of that city, I think of friendship. You're writing a book about First Friends, the new book, which I found fascinating. Obviously, I have an interest in politics and it is illuminating to me that it's a presidency of one man, or soon to be one woman. Eventually, I expect that to happen, but let's just use the masculine term right now because of the last 46 presidents. It's a presidency of one man, but it's really a presidency of many confidants and people that that one person has to rely on. And so tell us why you wrote the book, and give us some of your insights there.

Gary Ginsberg: (04:53)
Yeah, that's a good observation. Well, since I was a little kid, I've always been fascinated by the American presidency. And as I got older and more involved in business and in politics, I started observing leaders and the people they kept around them. I'm sure you did and you get 11 days. And I started to see the influence that their closest friends had on them, how they could speak to the leader in a way that nobody else could, speak the blunt truth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:16)
Well, obviously, I was speaking that way to the leader, which got me blown into Pennsylvania Avenue, but that's a separate topic for a different SALT Talk.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:23)
Usually a first friend of what? A couple of weeks, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:27)
Well, no. If you wrote a book about Trump, it would be no friends. Okay, there's no first friends. The guy literally had no friends, but that's a whole separate book.

Gary Ginsberg: (05:35)
Well, I was going there with that, because that was one of the reasons why I wrote the book. When I was younger, I worked on the Gary Hart campaign, 1984. You're probably too young to remember that campaign, but I watched Warren Beatty, the great Hollywood star, and he'd parachute in for the most important events. And he was the only one around Beatty. And I was 21 years old, so I was very attuned to all this stuff. And he'd say, "Stop talking and acting like a politician, Gary. Come on, you're better than this." And Hart would just... he'd listen, in a way he wouldn't listen to anybody else. But at the same time, they'd have these late night marathon talks and he would loosen him up and liven him in a way nobody else could.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:13)
And then I was worked on Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, and I saw the same effect. I saw the impact that his closest friends had on his campaign. And in particular, the role that Vernon Jordan played. And then, just to fast forward to what you brought up, I was struck by the corollary of what happened with Trump, the lack of any close friend around him, particularly in those last two months of his presidency, when no one dared to speak the hard truth to him to get him off the big lie, and perhaps save him from his second impeachment. And obviously, you could notice... you could see that at the beginning of his presidency. And I talked to somebody very close to the president who will go unnamed, who said, "Frankly, he didn't need it. He didn't need a first friend.

Gary Ginsberg: (06:56)
All he needed was the affirmation of the masses." So in effect, his Twitter feed became his first friend. And I think that had a really pernicious effect on his presidency. So based on all these observations, about three years ago, I decided to, hey, let's see if there's anything on first friends in presidential literature. It turns out, there's nothing. There's books, as you know, about first wives, first sons, first butlers, first chefs, first pets, but no one's ever written a book about first friends. So I looked around, spent about a year doing research, found, I think, I hope, nine good stories of first friendships and wrote the book.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:32)
The stories are great. They're great because they're touching. They bring about the humanity of the situation, the pressure on the American president, the decision-making. For anybody that's never read the Presidential Brief, once you read it, it's a life-changing thing because there's dilemmas. Richard Newstat once said about the presidency, if it gets to the desk of the president, it means that there were 5,000 other people in the executive branch that really could not make the decision. So now you're going from, wow, this could be a really bad outcome to an even worse outcome. Go ahead, sir. You make that decision. And now you're sitting there. I want to switch right away to Abraham Lincoln, who suffered from crippling depression. And before he went on to end slavery and change the country, who was his best friend? And how did that relationship play out? You write such a beautiful story in the book.

Gary Ginsberg: (08:25)
Oh, thank you. So let's go to 1837. This beanpole of a man walks into a store in Springfield, Illinois. He's a new lawyer looking for a place to live, looking for bedding, actually. He walks into the store, says, "You got any bedding?" He says, "Yeah, I got it. But it's 17 bucks." Lincoln doesn't have 17 bucks, but the store owner, Joshua Speed, knows of Lincoln because he's an aspiring politician himself. And he says, "You know what? I got a bed upstairs. Go check it out. If you like it, we can share it." So Lincoln goes upstairs, checks out the bed, comes back down and says, "Speed, I'm moved in." And for the next four years, they share a bed. I don't believe it was sexual. People have tried to suggest it was. There's no evidence to support that. Then in 1841, he falls under this crippling depression and Speed essentially saves his life, takes away all of his sharp objects, ministers to him, gets him back to health.

Gary Ginsberg: (09:20)
And Lincoln says at one point, "If I die now, no one will remember me." Well, Speed made sure that people would remember him. He gets back on his feet. He goes on to obviously, a career as a lawyer. Speed goes on to be a slave owner, a plantation owner, a big businessman in Kentucky. They come back together again in the 1850s, debating slavery. But their relationship is so strong based on what happened in the early 1840s, that one of the first meetings he has as president-elect is with Speed. And he says, "Speed, I need you in my cabinet, need you in my government." But Speed's making too much money. You know what that's like, Anthony. You're making too much money to join the government. So he says, "I'm going to help you in my role as first friend."

Gary Ginsberg: (10:04)
And what he does is he basically keeps Kentucky in the Union. It's one of the six border states. But he does everything he can to keep the state part of the Union. It does. They become even closer friends once Lincoln is in the White House. He spends Thanksgiving with him in 1861. He's one of the first people to hear about the emancipation proclamation. He's with him right at the end before he dies. And it's really one of the great friendships that affected history because without Joshua Speed, we may never have known the name of Abraham Lincoln.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:35)
I just think it's an amazing story, but if you wrote a chapter on Trump, it could be first grifters, because you mentioned about not being able to make money or you're losing money in the White House. These guys were making hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves inside the White House with complete disregard of the ethics laws. When they asked me to serve, I went to go sell the company. Thank God, the company, it didn't sell. I'm back at the company. But I just think it's an interesting thing, the evolution of the presidency, and the friends, and potentially some of the bad people around the president as well. FDR, you describe him in the book as extremely lonely and very overworked. And he had a couple of friends. There was a friend that I think passed away. He was a person that worked with him when he was governor.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:23)
Yes. Louie Howe.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:26)
I think it was Howe. Yep. He passed away.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:30)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:30)
That was a very touching story there. And then of course, the famous Harry Hopkins and the intrigue around Harry Hopkins. And he had a friendship, but a strain in his relationship with Eleanor Roosevelt. So talk about FDR.

Gary Ginsberg: (11:44)
Yeah, well, I think you're absolutely right that he was, I think, consumed with loneliness. Even though he's fighting a world war and a crippling depression, he says to the first friend that I identified in the book, Daisy Suckley, a distant cousin. He says, "I'm either exhibit A or left entirely alone." And what would happen is, he would have 22 meetings in a day, he would then go upstairs, and there was no one around him. His kids were either off to war or ne'er-do-wells, who he just didn't particularly have a close relationship with. His wife, who's one of the great crusaders of the 20th century, brilliant, brilliant woman, has an independent life from him. They are estranged in 1918 when she discovers a trove of letters that reflect a deep relationship with a mistress, who then comes back into his life at the end.

Gary Ginsberg: (12:36)
So he doesn't have a family life, doesn't have a home life. And so he becomes friendly, to the point of, I believe, it's a first friendship with this sixth cousin. And she provides him an emotional balance that he needed during his presidency. He wouldn't have been as natural or as effective a president without Daisy Suckley. John Alter, one of Roosevelt's, I think, most esteemed historians, says that in the book. And I think it's true. She was the antidote to that loneliness. She provided emotional sucker. She provided a constant presence of a really compassionate voice, a listening ear, was with him for every important moment of the last few years of his presidency. And was probably more attuned to his decline in health as anyone, with the exception of his daughter, Anne. And really ministers to him in his last couple of years, and is with him at the end in Warm Springs when he dies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:33)
What an amazing story. And the loneliness is so true because they have to make these decisions by themselves. They're also... people that are coming at them, Gary, and they don't even know if it's a friendship, or it's a manipulation, or what's the angle. Barack and Michelle Obama both write in their books that they stopped creating new friends once they got to the presidency, for this reason. They didn't know what the agendas were for different people.

Gary Ginsberg: (14:02)
Exactly. [crosstalk 00:14:05]. And Kennedy said the same thing. He said, "I have enough friends. I don't need any new friends."

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:08)
Yeah. And it's an interesting point, and I'm going to bring up John Kennedy in a second. He met David Ormsby-Gore in pre-war London. Gore goes on to become a foreign policy advisor for him. Tell us about that story and how influential was Ormsby-Gore on John F. Kennedy?

Gary Ginsberg: (14:26)
Well, I said in the book, and I believe it quite vehemently. He was the most important foreign policy advisor to the President of the United States, despite not being an American citizen. What did anomaly that is. As you said, they met in 1938. They debated right off the bat. There were both second sons of powerful fathers and strong, older brothers. Both of their older brothers die. They both are a little bit lost in 1938, but they bond over their love of carousing, of horse racing, of golfing, of debating. They'd love to go to the House of Commons and see Churchill and action. And they start to really question, what is the role of a leader in a democracy? Is it to follow the dictates of the public and do what the public wants? Or do you take that bold stand as Churchill was doing in the late thirties, and saying, no, we have to rearm in the face of German rearmament, and provide a bulwark against their rising militarism.

Gary Ginsberg: (15:29)
And so that debate carries through for the next 25 years, and when Kennedy becomes president, I think Ormsby-Gore basically calls on that 25 years of friendship to convince Kennedy to do what is right. Both in terms of how he approached the Cuban Missile Crisis... he was a central player throughout those last seven days. And then more importantly, in the adoption of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Without David Ormsby-Gore, his counsel, his friendship, his wisdom, and the 25 years of friendship, I don't think you would have had that first significant piece of legislation, which led to the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:10)
Well, there's a great story in Evan Thomas' book, The Last Hundred Days of John Kennedy, about Ormsby-Gore working with John Kennedy to get the nuclear test ban. And one of the things they have to do is they have to go influence Eisenhower. And of course, Eisenhower's close first friend was his chief-of-staff that was under potential indictment by the Kennedy Justice Department. Of course, it's a very famous story where Ormsby-Gore says to JFK, "Why don't you give Ike a call and let's do a trade. You guys won't push hard on his former first friend, but you'll need his support for the nuclear test ban for the Republicans in Congress." And so Eisenhower doesn't like this. He's not a politician, but he cedes to the request. And a few days later, he writes an op-ed in support of the nuclear test ban, which helps get a done. So first friends in trouble, sometimes are influencing the course of history as well.

Gary Ginsberg: (17:10)
Yes. It's interesting. Eisenhower, after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy's feeling horrible. He calls Eisenhower. Now Eisenhower says, "Didn't you have anybody in the room to argue against this crazy-ass invasion plan?" And Kennedy says, "No," because Kennedy has a three and a half hour meal with Ormsby-Gore at the end of January. And he goes through all the foreign policy crisis he's facing. He doesn't bring up Cuba because at this point, Ormsby-Gore's not even the ambassador. He's just a friend. He's the minister of state. He doesn't feel like he can talk to a foreigner like this. And I think he learns his from that, and that is why he calls Ormsby-Gore on day six of the Cuban Missile Crisis and says, "Come to the White House unseen, and let's debate this thing out, blockade or bombing." And they spend hours, basically. And he listens to Ormsby-Gore, and Ormsby-Gore says, "Blockade. Don't bomb." And then he obviously, I'd say, you probably remember it, yeah. He actually moves the perimeter in from 800 miles to 500 miles and the-

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:14)
I remember.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:15)
... blockade that gave invasions more time, which is just brilliant. And nobody else in the government had thought of it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
And thank God Curtis LeMay, General Curtis LeMay, was not John F. Kennedy's first friend because he was calling for a nuclear strike, which would have probably caused 60 million deaths.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:33)
Oh, yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:34)
So let's switch back a little bit. I want to go to Thomas Jefferson for a second, if you don't mind. In his very interesting and very close relationship with James Madison, two of the founding fathers, both becoming presidents, tell us about their relationship.

Gary Ginsberg: (18:49)
Yeah, that was one of the real wonderful delights of this process, was discovering that friendship. Everybody thinks of Thomas Jefferson as the dominant player of that duo. And very few know that they exchanged 1,250 letters, were intimate friends for literally 50 years, from 1776 to 1826 when Jefferson dies. And I think that it's probably the most consequential friendship in American history. It was more than a friendship. It was a collaboration. It was a power field, because the two of them together could do so much more than they could do individually. And I think for Jefferson to be Jefferson, and Madison to be Madison, they needed that friendship. They were very different in looks, personality, temperament. They were both sons of Virginia. They were joined by that. They were both... came from big, rich families, they were both philosopher statesman. But Jefferson was this big thinker, this idealist.

Gary Ginsberg: (19:52)
Madison was five foot, four and much more pragmatic. And so Jefferson would have these big ideas that he needed Madison to actually execute. And Madison. For his part, I think kept Jefferson in the game on two occasions when we may have lost Thomas Jefferson to history. He was the governor of Virginia in 1781. He was basically run out of the Capitol. He was put on trial, essentially, by the Virginia legislature for abdication of responsibility. And he was acquitted, but he was so distraught by it all that he said, "I'm done. I'm done with politics." This is 1782. And only because of Madison's intercession does Jefferson decide to get back into public life. He ends up going to Paris and that's where he flowers as this diplomat. But the two of them at various moments, keep each other engaged, such that their collaboration at the end of the day, results in so much of what we experience today in our democracy, two parties. They formed the Democrat-Republican Party.

Gary Ginsberg: (20:55)
Madison is really responsible for the Constitution. And a lot of that intellectual framework comes from Jefferson's gifts of books from Paris. They formed the Bill of Rights. That's because Jefferson is pushing Madison hard for a bill of rights immediately after Madison explains what the Constitution is in a letter to him. And then their collaboration results in the Revolution of 1800, which changes Federalist rule to Republican rule, democratic rule, and then the Louisiana Purchase. And ultimately, they collaborate on the University of Virginia in their later years. So it was an amazingly productive friendship, a loving friendship, 1,250 letters between them, and it changes history.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:38)
It's an amazing story about them, but it also speaks to the fact that you'd need people to lean on, particularly when you're having setbacks, which is something that a lot of these guys, of course, have because the trials and tribulations of politics. So you worked for Bill Clinton.

Gary Ginsberg: (21:57)
I did.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:58)
What were you doing for Bill Clinton, Gary? Tell everybody.

Gary Ginsberg: (22:01)
Well, I started as his first advance director way back in January of '92. Actually, the first day I got down there, Anthony, was the day that Jennifer Flowers had her famous press conference at the Plaza Hotel. So I thought, I may not even need to unpack my bags here in Little Rock. I can had right back to my law firm in New York. But he survived it. I did that for three months, until April when he was basically the nominee. And then I went up to Washington to work on the VP selection process. I was one of five lawyers who were holed up in an unmarked, law office in downtown Washington vetting candidates. And then I worked on the presidential transition. And then I was in the White House counsel's office in 1993, and the Justice Department at the end of '93 and '94, and then I went back to New York.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:53)
What would you say about Bill Clinton in his first friends?

Gary Ginsberg: (22:58)
I would say that bill Clinton, of the 46 presidents, probably had the greatest capacity for friendship. When he left law school in 1972, he wrote down his life's goals. And his third goal was to have good friends. And I think he clearly accomplished that. In 1992, when his campaign is floundering a month after I get down there, his best friends go up to New Hampshire to basically attest to his character and save his candidacy. Vernon Jordan, I write about at great length in my final chapter, and I think that was a real, true friendship. A friendship of equals, a friendship of incredible respect, shared interests, shared values, a shared love of politics, and sports, and of women. It has an unfortunate turn toward the end when Vernon Jordan becomes a central witness in the impeachment and investigation of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But I think it shows Clinton's amazing capacity for friendship, which is one of his great traits.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:08)
Yeah. And listen, I admire him. My friend, Rick Lerner, was my roommate. I don't know if you would remember Rick Lerner-

Gary Ginsberg: (24:14)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:15)
... but he worked for you guys.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:16)
Sure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:17)
My first visit to the White House was back in '93 as a result of Rick. But I went to New Hampshire with Rick to see then candidate, Governor Clinton campaign, and I was amazed about his personality. And I'll tell you how old-fashioned we all are. Somebody called them the disk drive presidential candidate. What did he mean by that? Any place that he went, he found the disk to put into his computer to talk about it. He was talking to union leaders, then he was talking to entrepreneurs, then he was talking to governmental officials. He found the disk, okay? Now, of course, we operate off the Cloud today, Gary, but that's what they said about Bill Clinton in 1992. 1991, actually.

Gary Ginsberg: (24:59)
That's funny. Can I just interject for one second?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:01)
Please, please.

Gary Ginsberg: (25:02)
David Gergon had a really interesting observation to that point. He said that his friends served as a basis for his narrative. He would make friends, he would learn as much as he could about the friend's life, and it would fit into this mosaic that he was forming of how to run as president, how to discuss people's travails, their struggles, their challenges, their dreams. Everybody had a story, and every story then fit into that mosaic, and into ultimately, his campaign narrative.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Yeah. A very, very interesting guy, great capacity for learning. He came to our SALT conference in 2010. I was in the green room with him prior to interviewing him. He was trying to assess me. So he said, "So what party are you a member of?" And I reached into my pocket, Gary, and I pulled out a roll of bills, and I said, "I'm a member of the Green Party, Mr. President. I work on Wall Street." What party you think I'm a member of? Okay. But he never forgot that. Every time I run into him, he always says, "Hey, Green Party." He doesn't know my name. He goes, "Hey, Green Party member."

Gary Ginsberg: (26:04)
Amazing memory.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:05)
All right. Well, I have to turn it over to my millennial friend, okay? John Darsie is a first friend of mine, despite the fact that I give him guff, and he's obviously trying to... he's the baby boss at SkyBridge. You see him sitting there?

Gary Ginsberg: (26:17)
Yeah. Corner office.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:19)
Yeah. Yes. And he's mercurial too, Ginsburg. I want to make sure you know that about him, okay? He's going to come across congenial here, but he has a tendency for mercurial behavior. But go ahead, John. I know you have some questions for Gary.

John Darsie: (26:33)
When Anthony's out of the office, I squat in his corner office here. And I think there's squatter's rights in New York, so I don't know if he's going to be welcomed back.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:40)
Well, that's true. That's true, because we also have a socialist mayor. I'm sure that office is yours now. That's true.

John Darsie: (26:47)
Yeah. But there were so many fascinating stories. Anthony got to a lot of them. But I also thought the Franklin Pierce/Nathaniel Hawthorne story was very interesting. Nathaniel Hawthorne is known largely for his romantic works, including the Scarlet Letter. It's probably the one he's most famous for. But he also wrote a very consequential campaign biography of his great friend, Franklin Pierce, much to the dismay of some of his colleagues in the abolitionist movement. But could you talk about their friendship. How much impact Nathaniel Hawthorne had on Franklin Pierce?

Gary Ginsberg: (27:19)
Sure. Yes. When he writes that campaign biography, people said that extensively, it's his first work of nonfiction, but a lot of people believed that it was just a continuation of his fiction work, because it had so glorified a man who, for many, many people, did not think he deserved it. And Franklin Pierce is probably the saddest president in our history. His presidency was sad, his home life was sad, he lost three sons in quick succession, including his last son two months before he's inaugurated. It's essentially two men against the world. As you say, they were both actually in support of slavery because they believed that slavery was enshrined in the constitution, was a right of states to maintain, and they wanted to preserve the Union over pursuing the abolition of slavery. And they became immensely unpopular in their home towns and in their own communities. And Hawthorne, to his credit, stands by Pierce in a way that very few friends would.

Gary Ginsberg: (28:27)
And that's what I found most touching. He actually dedicates a book, his last book in 1863, to Pierce. His book seller says, "We can't sell any books if you dedicate your book to this misbegotten, horrible, former president." And he says, "I don't care. I'm doing it." Pierce also stays incredibly loyal to Hawthorne. Pierce provides all the jobs for Hawthorne when he can't make a dime from these books that he's writing. He writes two books in 1852, House of Seven Gables and Scarlet Letter, both big successes. We have been subjected to the horrors of having to read The Scarlet Letter for 200 years, almost, but it didn't sell. It got great reviews, but didn't sell.

Gary Ginsberg: (29:08)
Pierce made sure he got jobs and Hawthorne in exchange, stayed very loyal to him. Pierce stayed loyal to him. And they end up taking a trip, at the end of Hawthorne's life, up to the woods of New Hampshire. Hawthorne is sick. Pierce checks in on him twice in the night. The final time he checks in on him, Hawthorne is dead. He opens the handbag that he has next to his bed and what does he find in the bag? A picture of himself. Just shows you how loyal and loving the two of them were, really against the world.

John Darsie: (29:38)
Right. The last one I want to ask you about is Harry Truman and Eddie Jacobson. So Israel, it's 1948. Truman's wavering on whether to recognize Israel as a state. His friend, Eddie Jacobson, steps in. How influential was Eddie Jacobson in now what we know as modern history of that region and how it's impacted the world?

Gary Ginsberg: (29:57)
Yeah. This goes to what Anthony was saying earlier. This just shows that it really requires a first friend, somebody who's known a president for decades, and knew him in more humble times when they had a much easier, less formal relationship. And you could say anything you wanted because you shared interests, and values, and really rooted for each other, as the two of them did. So Truman is really annoyed. The Jews in 1848 are hectoring him to recognize the state. He's sick of it. His family's not particularly in love with Jews. They don't let Jews into their home in Independence, Missouri. He's been generally supportive of allowing refugees from the war to go into Israel, but he's just tired of the issue. And he says to Eddie, "Don't come and see me. I don't want to talk about this issue."

Gary Ginsberg: (30:48)
Eddie just says, "To hell with it." Eddie gets on a plane, flies across the country, walks in unannounced, uninvited, into the Oval Office, and he basically says to Harry Truman, "Knock it off. I know you, Harry. I know you're better than this. The fact that you're allowing a few Jews to get under your skin and keep you from doing what you know is right, which is to..." In this case it was to see Haim Weitzman who was waiting in New York to make the final pitch. And everybody knew that Weitzman was the key to convincing Truman because he had great respect for him. He said, "You know you should see him." And he looks over at a little statue of Andrew Jackson and basically says, "Be like Andrew Jackson, your hero. You know what Andrew Jackson would do. You need to do it."

Gary Ginsberg: (31:30)
And Truman's furious. He turns his chair in the Oval Office, he drums his hands on the desk, and then he finally turns around and says, "God damn it, you son of a bitch, you win. I'll see him." And that ultimately leads to this meeting nine days later with Weitzman, and then 11 minutes after the state of Israel is declared in 1948, Harry Truman is the first foreign leader to recognize the state, and it really becomes the foundation for this alliance, this relationship between the two countries for the last 73 years.

John Darsie: (32:00)
All right. Yeah, Eddie Jacobson had a huge impact on history for certain, with that intervention. Last question is about the Biden administration. So as you've examined the Biden administration, does he have a clear-cut first friend who has an outsized impact on his decision making and worldview?

Gary Ginsberg: (32:15)
He does. He does. If you asked 100 people around Biden, who it is, they'll all tell you it's Ted Kaufman. He was a Senator right after Biden becomes vice president. He was his chief of staff for 22 years. The average length of a chief of staff today on the Hill is three years. So for 22 years, he works all day with him in the office, then he takes the train back and forth to Wilmington. So these two form an incredible relationship. They're as close as two people can be. It was Kaufman who told him to drop out of the race in 1987. It's Kaufman who wakes up when Biden wakes up in the hospital in '88, it's Ted Kaufman who's sitting there after his aneurysm. He is the first consoler, the consoler-in-chief when Beau dies, and they speak all the time on the phone, and Ted Kaufman was the first person to sleep in the White House when Biden became president, outside of family. That just shows you how close the two are.

John Darsie: (33:09)
I thought you might say Champ Biden. Rest in peace, the beautiful German shepherd that just passed, but Ted took off. Yeah, from speaking to people in the Biden orbit, they echo what you're saying. But Gary, it's fantastic to have you on. Congratulations on the new book, First Friends. You really covered a topic that, from reading reviews and commentators, it wasn't really something that had been delved into in depth. And so you really broke ground with this book, and I think people will really enjoy reading it. Thanks so much for joining us on SALT Talks.

Gary Ginsberg: (33:37)
Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:40)
It's great to have you on. It's a phenomenal book, it was a great read, and I'm glad to have you. And you paid me a compliment, which I'm hugging you for over the phone, because I'm only a year younger than you, but you made the insinuation that I was a lot younger. Did you catch that, John Darsie? Did you catch that?

John Darsie: (33:59)
It's amazing what Harry and I can do, and I'm not going to go into the other stuff that [crosstalk 00:34:03].

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:02)
And by the way, I don't even have the gel in this morning because I was in such a rush to get to this SALT Talk. I didn't even have gel in. So Ginsberg, you are slowly becoming one of my first friends, okay? If I ever make it back into politics, you'll be stuck with me, okay? I just wanted you to know that.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:18)
I would welcome it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:19)
All right. Well, thank you again for joining us.

Gary Ginsberg: (34:22)
Thanks a lot, guys.

John Darsie: (34:24)
Thank you, everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Gary Ginsberg, author of the new book, First Friends, which is out July 6th. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on demand on our website at salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube. We're also on social media. We're most active on Twitter @saltconference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Nina Burleigh: Anti-Expertise America | SALT Talks #231

“We now have vaccines that protect children from diseases that used to wipe out or cause traumatic illness… We’re spoiled. We don’t actually know what’s on the other side of this shield modern medical science has created.”

Nina Burleigh is a best-selling author, journalist and lecturer. Her latest book, “VIRUS: Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic”, is a brisk, real-life thriller that delves into the malfeasance behind the American pandemic chaos, and the triumph of science in an era of conspiracy theories and contempt for experts.

Nina Burleigh explains why vaccine hesitancy has been caused in part by a lack of Republican leadership with many in the party enabling or propagating misinformation around the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. She details some of the mistakes made by the Trump administration during its COVID response and how it resulted in unnecessarily high death counts. Burleigh notes the game-changing nature of the mRNA vaccines, the first widely experienced example of this breakthrough biotechnology. Despite many of the major errors, she acknowledges the difficulty governments face in striking a balance around lockdown measures.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Headshot+-+Woo,+Willy+-+Cropped.jpeg

Nina Burleigh

Author

VIRUS

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro and background

5:53 - Vaccine hesitancy and misinformation

15:50 - Trump administration’s COVID response

25:38 - Evaluating the WHO

31:28 - mRNA technology

35:05 - Misinformation echo chambers

37:42 - Finding balance in a government response

41:41 - Continuing COVID impact

TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie, I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. Our goal on these talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021, here in our home city of New York for the first time, but that goal is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:45)
We're very excited today to welcome Nina Burleigh to SALT Talks. Nina Burleigh is a national journalist and author most recently of Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic, in addition to many other best-selling books. That's her most recent book obviously, which is highly relevant today. She's most recently covered America under Donald Trump as a National Politics Correspondent at Newsweek, she got her start in journalism covering the Illinois State House in Springfield, and has reported from almost every state in the continental US, and has been based in Italy, France, and the Middle East.

John Darsie: (01:22)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci who is the Founder and Managing at SkyBridge Capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:31)
Well, Nina, first of all, congratulations on the book. I'm going to hold it up here, I like holding up the book of my friends. Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC, and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic. Which is obviously one of the tragedies of our time. Book is fascinating, it's a quick read, but you really go into all of the things that we did wrong.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:57)
So, before we get there though, tell us a little more about your background. You're talking to us from your friend's kitchen in beautiful Michigan, you're from Michigan, right? Tell us where you're from and tell us how you grew up.

Nina Burleigh: (02:11)
Well, first of all, I have to correct our millennial on the pronunciation of my name, it's Burleigh like a football player, not Burleigh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:20)
Good, good, I love the fact that you corrected him, okay, -

Nina Burleigh: (02:24)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:24)
... because let me tell you something, he gets fan mail and I don't get any fan mail. So I just have to tell you, I'm very happy that [crosstalk 00:02:29].

John Darsie: (02:29)
I split the difference, I started Burleigh, and I said, maybe it's Burleigh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:33)
By the way-

Nina Burleigh: (02:33)
I noticed you did that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:33)
... on all of these names, [inaudible 00:02:37] and he's always pronouncing it perfectly and I'm stumbling over myself. So I'm very joyous right now. Continue, Nina, please.

Nina Burleigh: (02:47)
Yeah, so okay, so it's Nina Burleigh, I am a Midwestern, born and bred. I grew up in, as Anthony said, spent lots of my childhood here at Southern Michigan. Played a lot in the woods and just learned to swim here and learned to hang out at the library because there was nothing to do. So it started me off on my writing career, I have strong roots here.

Nina Burleigh: (03:18)
In the Midwest, I got started in journalism as you said, at the Associated Press in Springfield, Illinois, when state capitals still had state houses filled with press rooms with lots of media. Especially Springfield being one of the big states like Albany, tons of corruption, lots of competing interests, and they're microcosms of what's going on in Washington. So I really got a strong grounding and I think covering and understanding the issues of our time as they were developing.

Nina Burleigh: (03:54)
I go all the way back to the Reagan years, and in my view, that period really was the turning point for a lot of things in our country, including how labor was treating, the unions started to go down, and this growing disrespect for expertise, especially scientific knowledge, by the industries because industry of course wanted to make sure that let's say if you were RJ Reynolds, that there would be competing voices against the notion that tobacco and cigarettes cause cancer. Then of course after that, you get to the climate change era which we're in now, in which companies like Exxon have bankrolled these contrarian scientists who will speak up for the 3% of the scientific community that thinks that climate change is not happening and it's not caused by fossil fuels.

Nina Burleigh: (05:01)
So this is stuff that's been in my purview, is covering politics over the last couple decades. Yeah, I'll leave it at that. I could talk on at length about my career, but let's... whatever you want to discuss, Anthony, I'm game.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:21)
All right, well let's go right to the book, then. Okay, the book, Virus, it's a brilliant story of the science of the virus and the history of vaccines and treatments. You and I know each other, you were on Mooch FM with me and we were talking about the phenomenon in the last 150 years as a result of vaccines. We've extended our lifespan, we're living healthier, and people are taking this for granted. Why do you think 25% of the adult population are vaccine deniers?

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:53)
By the way, my wife gets very mad at me, I might add, because some of her friends are actually college educated and will not take the vaccine. I look at them like they're imbeciles, and she gets very mad at me, but go ahead, I'm sorry. [crosstalk 00:06:06].

Nina Burleigh: (06:06)
Well, you know what? But that observation is very important, what you just said, because when we think of science deniers, we think of [inaudible 00:06:18] and people who didn't get very... they're low information, voters or people who will believe conspiracy theories over science, and so on, and we tend to think that they may be aren't as educated. In fact, that 25%, Anthony, a significant percentage of it, maybe not the majority, but a percentage of it certainly is among the educated. I call them the granola crunchy educated people. I've got friends in my circle like that too, where they won't say they aren't taking the vaccine because they know it's not cool, but you can tell where they're at because they won't say anything when you're talking about the vaccine. They go silent, look a little sheepish. Those are the people who believe that chemistry or chemical, manmade things are not as healthy as natural things.

Nina Burleigh: (07:14)
The answer to that, and for my book, I interviewed people who are in this world of medicine and the culture of science and society, the answer is, look, everything you eat is made of chemistry and chemicals. Bananas are chemical, and so and everything has genetic material in it. So that's the answer to them. You don't have to be chemo phobic to look at the world. So that's one segment of it. Maybe not the largest group, but it is a significant percentage.

Nina Burleigh: (07:48)
The other are low information, low information populations. Again, the low information population's in the white communities in the South, let's say, and some urban areas, black and Latino. There are very low vaccination rates among blacks and Latinos, and I think in New York still unfortunately.

Nina Burleigh: (08:12)
Then overall of this, the big umbrella is that you have or had a leader and have leaders still in political elected leaders in the House and the Senate. Of course, the former guy, I'm talking about who's not a leader. He's a leader in name still, but I don't think he's much of a leader, he doesn't exercise leadership, he is defacto a leader, who persist in refusing to correct, to lead their people and to say to correct these pieces of misinformation and to say, "You know what? This is actually really good. In fact, I got it and so did my children." I'm talking about the former guy. They won't step up for science, they don't want to step up for science because part of their MO, and I guess we can talk about the whole Republican Party behaving this way at this point, is to inject doubt into the fact-based world so that you can continue to press on with a big lie like the election lie.

Nina Burleigh: (09:26)
Okay, so that, we're talking about this distrust, the scorn for expertise, that there's always been that stream in Americans. Americans are, we're DIY, we're common sense, ride off in the sunset with the horse, I can fix it myself. That's a myth, but the 2016 election, the 2015 election really brought into the light this world of alternative information that people were living by, and literally making life decisions on. I can talk about some of the people I met at the Republican National Convention in 2016 whose decision making process was based on such false information that I almost wanted to stop. I almost wanted to stop reporting and start correcting them because I was worried about them. I didn't understand where these streams of miss and disinformation were coming from.

Nina Burleigh: (10:27)
The virus descends upon America at a point in time when we have this phenomenon of disinformation, misinformation, silos of information, and this giant challenging effect that's going on everywhere, and the refusal of people to agree on a fact-based reality. My book is I think what I tried to do was memorialize what they did, how this came about, what the last administration did and didn't do. Then also to really celebrate the science, the triumph of science here in the face of all this, that we then got this manmade miracle of a vaccine that's enabled us all to walk around without masks now.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:20)
So let's set the record straight, just you make it very clear in the book. How successful have vaccines been in the modern era?

Nina Burleigh: (11:31)
Okay, so vaccines have been... I mean, we've had vaccine... the first vaccine comes around 250 years ago and it for the smallpox. Before 250 years ago and throughout the entire history of the human species, we had no defense against infectious diseases, nothing, only luck, or you could pray to your god or you can wear garlic or you could... it was sheer luck and supernatural belief. Then this vaccine comes along 250 years ago, they start to fight off, they start to be able to defend against smallpox. Then in the next century, microscopes get invented and humans begin to be able to understand, oh, there are these tiny little things that are in the bodies of cholera victims and tuberculosis victims. Gee, maybe we can attenuate those and you use those as a way to, similar to the cowpox, smallpox vaccine, what doesn't kill you will make you immune. So they would put these dead or weakened viruses and bacterias into people, and that was the vaccine. That is essentially what the platform of the vaccine has been up until this year.

Nina Burleigh: (12:48)
Then we have the 20th century where the developments of vaccines become more and more rapid, more and more effective, and also, mass produced. First big mass vaccination program in the United States, the polio vaccination program in the '50s, which they unfortunately hit a hiccup. One of the companies made a bad batch and they actually injected live virus into kids and that is one of the streams of vaccine... that provokes one of the streams of vaccine distrust that exists to this day.

Nina Burleigh: (13:25)
The vaccine technology or vaccines have like all science, it moves forward in fits and starts. Science, it's not perfect, it is, you experiment and as the data comes in, you alter your understanding. So vaccinations throughout the 20th century are history of these leaps forward, accompanied by on the margins, side effects that were scary, or ineffective vaccines, but overall, Anthony, and this is what we talked about before on your show. Overall, they have been a massive success story. We can see that in, if you were born in 1900, your lifespan in America was 48 and 49 for men and women. It's now 80, so we've doubled our lifespan. Now, of course some of it has to do with antibiotics and the type of food we eat, but most of it, a huge percentage of it has to do with the fact that we now have these vaccines that protect children from diseases, the names of which we can't event pronounce anymore, that used to wipe out or cause traumatic illness that people would remember for a lifetime if they survived it in children. Now we don't have that.

Nina Burleigh: (14:54)
So what's happened is, we have people walking around like your friends who are like, "I don't think I need the vaccine, it's not organic enough," and my friends who are that way, but even educated people walking around going, "Eh, I think I'll decide whether I want to do this or not because it doesn't seem like such a bad..." because we're spoiled, we actually don't know what's on the other side of this shield that modern medical science has created for us.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:20)
I want to go to the politics again for a second because you're mentioning... it's a weird thing, the former administration wants to take credit for Operation Warp Speed. The supporters of that administration want to take credit for it, yet a very large block of those supporters do not want the vaccine. So, I don't understand that at all, I can't get my arms around that. I was wondering if you could help me with that. Go ahead, Nina.

Nina Burleigh: (15:51)
So, Anthony, I'm the... sometimes we get in conversations about the supporters of the former guy and we all just start to sputter in incomprehension because there's no logic to it. There's no logic to this blind following of the leader except for accepting that people do follow leaders blindly. I guess that's what's going on here, because they have turned off the rational logical side of the brain and they're just giving into this emotional reaction to this guy whose behavior and statements, they seem to admire so much.

Nina Burleigh: (16:34)
So no, they should get some credit for Operation Warp Speed, I mean they definitely... Operation Warp Speed was, they threw billions of dollars at these pharma companies and they said, "You, you, you, and you, and you, and you," they picked six of them. No big contracts, nontransparent but hey, it was an emergency. They said, "We're going to give you the money whether it works or not. Make a lot of it, if it works, if it doesn't work, you're still going to get to keep the money. By the way, we're going to shield you from litigation. So it worked, it worked great, they made this. It is a medical milestone.

Nina Burleigh: (17:11)
Now this had been on the drawing board for about 15 years but in medicine in America, the FDA has to approve things and these clinical trials can take years. They call it the Valley of Death in the medical world. They bumped it into Warp Speed and yay, it worked. The problem was, they did that, what they weren't going to be able to distribute it widely because the ideology of the former administration that held sway in their actions was that government should be shrunk to the size of pinhead. They weakened the agencies, and that they didn't really want to activate all the levers of government. They didn't want people to see all the government can do this for you, because they preferred that it be shown that private enterprise can do the job just as well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:08)
So let's go to the malpractice that took place, the public policy malpractice in the... How many lives could've been saved and what were some of the big missteps at the beginning of the pandemic that you write about in the book?

Nina Burleigh: (18:22)
Sure, well okay, we know from Deborah Birx, who was one of the administration top officials in this issue, that she has this since not being in the administration, that 100,000 Americans was probably what the number should've been, in terms of how many people were going to die of this. Instead, we're closing in on 600,000. Something went wrong. What was it?

Nina Burleigh: (18:54)
I think the early missteps were as we know, the... Well, the greatest misstep, the malfeasance that lasted throughout the year was that they put public relations above public health. He liked the numbers low, I like the numbers low, remember that? What's what he said. I like the numbers low.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:22)
He didn't want to test people, he didn't want to bring the cruise ship in off the coast of California.

Nina Burleigh: (19:27)
He said that in relation to the cruise ship.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:28)
He didn't want to increase the numbers of people, yeah.

Nina Burleigh: (19:30)
But he did, he said it also at a... the context of that comment had to do with the, they were at the CDC and this is actually how I open my book, this incredible scene where he's standing there with the MAGA hat and he's making up these numbers like, "Well, four million tests are going to be available to people at the end of the week." There was no such thing, there were not going to be four million tests. In the same press conference, because he has Tourette's syndrome and he blurts out whatever he thinks, which is great because you can track what's going on. He said, "I like the numbers low, I don't want the sick people coming off that cruise ship out there and put them in so we'll have higher numbers of COVID." Well, COVID was already stalking the streets and rooms at homes and hospitals and nursing homes, of New York State by then, and there were no tests to stop it. So that's the number one, that was the first error and first really preventable error.

Nina Burleigh: (20:31)
Then you had the masks issue, which they can share the blame for that with the WHO and other top officials because they were early on, the doctors were not... they were worried about running out of masks themselves so they were saying don't wear masks. They didn't fully understand that this is an airborne virus and that masks really do help. So they were like, eh, don't wear them. Then [inaudible 00:20:54] changed their mind, those who were opposed to any kind of government restrictions related to this crisis seized on that as a, hey, you know what? Look, they don't know what they're talking about.

Nina Burleigh: (21:09)
Again, that's people don't understand how science works. The doctors thought that it was not airborne and that you didn't need it, and then they realized it was. Well then they told you to do it. So you either have a science person in the White House standing next to you who respects that and who can explain it, and it is easily explained, or you have somebody like a man in a red hat on TV every night going, "Look, the scientists don't really know what they're talking about. You know what? I know what's going on and by the way, I'm not going to wear one. They tell you to wear one but I don't think I'm going to wear one." That's not leadership. He was a leader but he wasn't acting as a leader.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:50)
What do you think the big lessons were from all of this?

Nina Burleigh: (21:55)
Oh boy, well, the big lessons are hopefully that you have somebody in the White House. Look, this is the richest country in the world, we are equipped to deal with these types of things, we have experts all over. What you needed was somebody in the White House who had a scientist on speed dial who could activate what was needed, and he didn't. He puts Mike Pence, evangelical in charge of the COVID response. Birx, Redfield, Azar, the head of the HHS, these are evangelical Christians, Anthony. Not that they're not... well, Azar is a pharma exec, but the other two were actually medical people but ultimately they will call on the supernatural in the end. You needed somebody... like what they've put in there today. There's a guy that the... sorry, the science advisor to Biden is an expert in genetic science.

Nina Burleigh: (22:55)
Genetic science is the future, genetic science has in leaps and bounds in the last two decades begun to change how medicine works. This mRNA vaccine is the first widely experienced example. A fruit of all of that knowledge, but it's really hard to understand for the average person. It's like a separate language. I mean, I had a microbiology PhD student at Standard helping me with this book just to keep talking to me, doing genetics for dummies because it's really hard to understand when you start looking at it. You can visualize it, DNA, RNA, made of proteins on a strand, but it's hard to understand it. So you need somebody who really knows what it is and knows what these things are and knows how to speak in that language. Then you need somebody who respects that and says to that person, "You tell the public or you tell me what I need to tell the public. Then you tell the public what the scientists and the medical community are telling you." That's number one.

Nina Burleigh: (24:01)
Number two, what would be another lesson? I mean, to me that's the first lesson. I think the second lesson is, this has to be a global response. We're not there yet but we again, we're the first generation of human beings who carry these things around with us, every single one of us understands using this little machine we have in our pocket, that every other human being on the planet was experiencing the same thing that we were experiencing in real time. We could see that, we can see it right now, we can click on and see what's going on in India or in Africa. It's in real time, we have so much data and so much information that we can't really walk away from this moment without recognizing that we're a linked species. We are one species on this planet and if we can't have a global response to something like... This was a global catastrophe like an asteroid hitting us or like climate change. If you don't start thinking in global terms about responding to challenges like this, you're not going to get out of them. You're always going to be down in the ditch with the lowest, the weakest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:14)
Well, one of the problems is, as you talk about a global response, and this feeds the conspiracists, this feeds [crosstalk 00:25:23]. Normal people in the establishment can make mistakes. As an example, the WHO, the World Health Organization, this probably wasn't its shining moment. Talk a little bit about that and your assessment of it in the book.

Nina Burleigh: (25:38)
Well, you mean about the WHO or about just this-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:42)
Yeah.

Nina Burleigh: (25:42)
... sense of-

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:43)
Yeah, it didn't cover itself [crosstalk 00:25:44].

Nina Burleigh: (25:44)
... [crosstalk 00:25:44] paranoia about global [crosstalk 00:25:47]?

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:46)
Well, there's a combination of things going on. The WHO had some missteps, they had some missteps related to China, they had some missteps related to the protocols, and then that fuels the conspiracy even though they were perhaps, let's call them honest missteps as we were trying to understand what was going on.

Nina Burleigh: (26:04)
Yeah, well I mean the UN, UNISEF, the UNHCR, the WHO, all of these global bodies represent to a certain segment of Americans who supported the former guy, this sensation of our national entity is crumbling, the walls are crumbling, we're no longer a nation, we're now part of this world government. I'm old enough to remember when they were paranoid about black helicopters flying over Wyoming that might be coming from the UN. So this stream of paranoia remains very strong and the former guy provoked it. He also attached himself to it, they immediately when they got in there, immediately started disengaging from these world bodies. They got out of a bunch of them even before the virus, they were disengaging from UNISEF and complaining about the UN taking too much money and so on.

Nina Burleigh: (27:04)
Then the WHO, here comes this crisis that is a public health crisis, it's a global pandemic, and they fail to first of all, to get this mask things straight. They're giving miss or inconclusive certain information, and they are slow to respond. I mean, the whole China thing, the government, our government thought that there was something fishy about the Wuhan lab. They had been getting information for years that the bio safety maybe wasn't particularly up to snuff from their people over there. So they immediately seized on that because you had this Sinophobic, Peter Navarro and Pompeo and these people who had been just banging these drums about the Chinese and we need to stand up to the Chinese. So they did not like the way the WHO went along with what the Chinese were saying about what was happening. To their credit, I mean the Chinese did release the genome quickly, they did admit that there was something going on in January. Was it happening there earlier? I don't know, they claim that there were some sick lab workers but we have seen no proof of that yet.

Nina Burleigh: (28:23)
The point is, the globalization of the world is inescapable, we can't... the reason this thing is a pandemic is because we are linked, everyone is on airplanes all the time, the supply chains are messed up from COVID because we are so into... there are ships sitting in ports over in, I don't know, Portugal or China or Italy that can't go anywhere because there have been people locked down. So we are completely interrelated.

Nina Burleigh: (28:56)
I get why people object to, let's say the way the Chinese government operates, the authoritarianism, the intrusiveness of their... I mean, they'd lock down and they did get rid of their pandemic in a month or two, it was back to normal because of these extreme bio surveillance measures that they instituted, which we would never put up with here. I get that, but I think that when you're faced with a pandemic or global challenges, we need leaders who will sit down with other leaders and put that kind of thing aside and go, let's move on and let's talk about what we can do together to protect ourselves. One of those thing is, let's all get together and share this vaccine. I think that Biden trying to approach the patent issue, it's weak, he's not going to get around, they're not going to get around it because there's so much money in pharma, but people have to come together and look at this.

Nina Burleigh: (29:58)
I know it sounds Pollyanna-ish and like singing Kumbaya and so on, but sooner or later, we have to admit that we are one planet, one world, and it's very small, it's very small. We can have wars all the time and we can fight over borders and so on, but these types of species-wide challenges, we need leadership that will look at that and be willing to negotiate and compromise and work together on these types of issues.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:29)
Well, I really appreciate it, Nina. I'm going to turn it over to John who has questions from our audience and his own questions. The title of the book, Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic, it's a great read, great invested research in it. With that, I'll turn it over to John, who has now learned how to pronounce your name, Nina, which makes me very happy.

Nina Burleigh: (30:56)
[crosstalk 00:30:56].

John Darsie: (30:56)
Nina Burleigh, it's a beautiful name and I'm proud to now be able to pronounce it correctly.

Nina Burleigh: (31:01)
Thank you, John.

John Darsie: (31:03)
But you talked about mRNA vaccines and we should all be thankful for the fact that there was this intersection between research that had been taking place on mRNA vaccines for the flu vaccine, for cancer research, and the perfect application for the coronavirus pandemic. Could you talk about the future of mRNA vaccines and just the potential that they have unleashed, in terms of vaccinations and treating a wide variety of diseases?

Nina Burleigh: (31:29)
I read a lot about it. I think in the book I address it a little bit. I mean, in terms of the possibility. They're even talking about the possibility that this could deal with the common cold, but it is a milestone, it's not as much of a milestone maybe as antibiotics, but it is up there with it because it's a synthetic, manmade little strand that they inject into your system. It's transient, it doesn't change your DNA, transient means it dissolves, it goes away. All it does-

John Darsie: (32:08)
It doesn't make you grow a third arm or leg or anything.

Nina Burleigh: (32:10)
It's not going to change, it's not going to make us grow a third arm, it's not going to make your... as my friend, nutty friend Naomi Wolf is running around saying it's changing women's menstrual cycles or other people are saying it's... god, I get emails now because I had this piece in the Time, an op ed piece, if you put something in the Times, you get this tsunami of responses because that's how many people are looking at it. All the responses that weren't sent to my private email were from anti-vaccine people saying, "You don't know what you're talking about. I know that people are dying of this. There this sensation that..." well anyway, we could talk about that more, these misinformation silos, but in general, yeah, I talk about it a little bit, I read more about it.

Nina Burleigh: (32:59)
I didn't put it all in there, but yes, it's going to change because it is a completely new platform. When we say platform, we mean the previous one was a attenuated virus or a attenuated bacteria platform, to this synthetic molecule, mRNA platform that changes... that tells your cells to make a response to a very specific part of a virus or in general, they're going to be able to do this again and again and again. They're going to be able to do it with other viruses, if another pandemic comes along, if another virus or another imminent or threatening pan... threaten let's say hopefully they'll be able to stop it from becoming a pandemic because they will be able to look at these genome and in this case within three days of the Chinese sending the genome over, within the three days the NIH had this mRNA figured out. They knew what they had to put in within three days.

Nina Burleigh: (34:06)
So I can envision at some point in the future there will be factories that will be able to... you'll just be able to farm up AI, I'll just turn it on and they'll start producing these vaccines within hours. I think that that's the future, and it's exciting and amazing. We should be optimistic about it.

John Darsie: (34:25)
Yep, god willing. You talked about your piece in the Times created all this vitreal that got sent to your private email and obviously that's unfortunate, but there's also an element on the right side of this, the right wing media machine led by Fox News and other outlets that are even more extreme these days, are partly to blame for sewing doubt in the vaccines, in the pandemic in general.

Nina Burleigh: (34:50)
Absolutely.

John Darsie: (34:51)
Calling it a hoax, things like that. How much of a role does that right wing media machine and social media, frankly, and the echo chambers it creates, contribute to the circular nature of a lot of these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?

Nina Burleigh: (35:05)
I like the way you said circular because it just made me think of circular firing squad. That's actually what they're doing because they're killing their own people who are watching and participating in this. It's a huge part of it. I mean, I don't watch Fox News, I don't watch a lot of TV, but when I turn it on now, I am just blown away because these people are... Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham are not ignorant and yet they're spewing this stuff out there to millions upon millions of people who take what they're saying as fact.

Nina Burleigh: (35:43)
So one night I had the TV on and I saw Laura Ingraham just rattling on about faceless bureaucrats in Brussels telling us what to do. I'm like, what are you talking about? Where are the people in Brussels telling us what to do? People in Brussels haven't even gotten out of their lockdowns yet. This was us, we made this vaccine here in America and our government put this out there. Our governors were forced to do state-by-state responses, lockdown or not, because the federal government wouldn't step up. So we're the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.

Nina Burleigh: (36:21)
All of this, yes, the social media, the echo chamber, the siloed off information or misinformation, it's dreadful. I don't know what you're going to do about Fox, I really don't, because I think Roger Ailes, I always say this. Roger Ailes was the tumor and Fox News is the cancer, that it's going to take a generation to get cured of because I don't know. I honestly don't know how they're going to get beyond this, unless the government goes back to regulating that kind of information and we don't live in that kind of society, so.

John Darsie: (37:00)
As a country, the United States has always prided itself on freedom and an extreme free ideology as you write about in the book. The pandemic exposed some of the dangers of that, on the other hand, you have more authoritarian type societies, whether it be in China or other places that maybe were able to have a better pandemic response because of the heavy handedness of the way the government operates. How do you find the balance between those two? Obviously unfettered capitalism and the extreme free ideology that you talk about probably isn't practicable when you have to deal with situations like a global pandemic, but at the same time, people don't want government so heavy handed in their lives the way it is in somewhere like China. So, how do you find a balance between those two going forward?

Nina Burleigh: (37:44)
Well, it's tough, and that's why I'm a journalist and not a policy maker. I'm not Ron Klain, I'm not Biden, obviously I'm not working for them or in that business. As I've covered them over the years, I've become more sympathetic to people who are in those situations. I used to just like to take hot shots at them and look at what they were doing wrong and now I think it's really hard, that's a really hard question.

Nina Burleigh: (38:11)
My answer would be, moderation in all things. Try to find the middle road, try to bring people back around to a fact-based reality, that's the main thing, communications. Look-

John Darsie: (38:31)
Do you think the pandemic is going to change global democracy in the United States and elsewhere where you're going to see more government intervention, more government spending to [crosstalk 00:38:40]?

Nina Burleigh: (38:40)
Well, I don't know. I think obviously that's happening here right now. I mean, the Biden Administration is responded to being the opposite of the antigovernment ideology of the former administration. Now it's, let's throw as much money at this as we can. They're going macro, they're going to throw money at infrastructure, they're throwing money at the social services and so on. We're not getting [inaudible 00:39:03] out of it, which they could've started to but they could've moved the ball on that maybe, but in this country yes, we're swinging to the other side, at least for the moment. Let's see what happens in election 2022.

Nina Burleigh: (39:18)
But I was just talking to some friends of mine, Norwegians and Swedes, and this, what's going on there? I mean, those are societies where the people are much more trusting of each other. That was my, I lived over there lecturing, the months before the pandemic I spent in Norway. We talked a lot about government and democracy. In those societies, one of the reasons they don't have the problems that we're having here at least in terms of the rise of the right, and the breakdown of the democratic processes, is that people don't think that if the other side wins, they're going to be wiped out. There's a trust in your fellow citizens that we all are in this together, we want our country to thrive. Of course now, there is a rise, the right is rising in Germany and in Sweden, and they're having a crisis in Sweden. Part of those crises have to do with the lockdowns and the Norwegians and the Swedes have reacted against the lockdowns.

Nina Burleigh: (40:19)
I mean, so is this... and the French. I mean, you see people, they're just sick of it. They did start off saying, we're confident and that Macron is going to... they're going to figure this out. So they for the first two lockdowns in Paris, people were dealing with it, but then they had rolling more and more lockdowns and people started to resist. So as far as the west and these western democracies, it is a huge challenge to these leaders to figure out what to do. If they don't have the vaccine or they're going to keep telling people to lockdown. We are not going to do bio surveillance the way the Chinese do it, nobody would sit still for that. I don't think any of us would.

John Darsie: (41:03)
Last question I have for you is, the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and also there was socioeconomic issues. Poorer people died and suffered more from COVID than wealthier people, as well as communities of color suffered more. They're also among the most vaccine hesitant, communities of color, frankly. Why do more people of color first of all, die and suffer from COVID-19? How do we educate those portions of the population and build trust with them, in terms of accepting vaccines and the treatments that we need to mitigate these types of pandemics moving forward?

Nina Burleigh: (41:42)
Well, we know that the poverty and diabetes and those types of comorbidities and obesity go together, so there was a lot of that. A lot of communities of color, people work on the front lines. We could all leave our jobs and work from home, if you work at McDonald's or you work at a grocery store checkout, you can't just go and stay home. So they were on the front lines and I mean those are the main reasons. They're frontline workers and they also had a lot of comorbidities, they also tended to live in multi generational households.

Nina Burleigh: (42:26)
As far as the low information or the misinformation that they distrusted the vaccine in communities of color, I think that can be addressed over time. I think the churches, the pastors have to speak out, and as people become... it's really something that has to be dealt with from inside the community but with the help of urging of allies within the medical community.

Nina Burleigh: (42:57)
I will add that I just saw today, I think it's in the Times, red states are COVID states now. They actually are mapping it and they can see that it's really rising in these red states. It's not rising in the blue states, it's going up in all of these pockets, it's absolutely correlative to the support of the former guy. So I think you're going to see that tip a little bit, and I don't know what effect that's going to have on the 2022 election, but I think really the more that these smaller communities or these remote communities or the low information communities start to see that within their communities, oh my god, there's a refrigerator truck outside of our rural hospital, like in that Wisconsin town that the Times did a feature on a while ago, where suddenly all of these people in this little town that had been anti-mask are being fork lifted into refrigerated trucks right before their eyes. I think if... how sad that it's come to that and didn't have to come to that because if they're looking to their leader down there in Florida, their leader, all he has to do is stand up and say, "Get the vaccination," and say it over and over. It would make such a difference, it's such a simple thing, right?

John Darsie: (44:15)
He got the vaccine himself but refuses to encourage.

Nina Burleigh: (44:19)
[crosstalk 00:44:19].

John Darsie: (44:19)
He refuses to encourage his supporters to protect themselves in the same way he did. I think it's a perfect analogy for his presidency, not [crosstalk 00:44:27].

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:26)
What about all the Fox News' hosts? They all got the vaccine, and then they [crosstalk 00:44:31].

John Darsie: (44:31)
[crosstalk 00:44:31].

Nina Burleigh: (44:31)
Similarly, absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:32)
It's very upsetting.

John Darsie: (44:34)
Well, Nina, it's fantastic to have you on. Obviously we love hosting these talks to educate people and your book I think did a great job at just looking at the science, looking at the facts of the pandemic, and drawing a series of conclusions, but it's also challenging as you mentioned, for policy makers to find that right balance in a country that values freedom and liberty the way we do in the United States, but to also make sure we protect people and protect the group. But thank you so much for coming on and doing this and helping to educate people.

Nina Burleigh: (45:01)
Thank you so much for having me.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:02)
Nina, thank you. I'm holding up the book again, Virus, Vaccinations, the CDC and the Hijacking of America's Response to the Pandemic. Thank you again for being on SALT Talks.

Nina Burleigh: (45:13)
You're welcome, take care, guys.

John Darsie: (45:15)
Thank you, thank you, everybody, for tuning into today's SALT Talk with Nina Burleigh. Just a reminder if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access them on-demand on our website, it's salt.org/talks, or on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT too. Please spread the word about these SALT Talks in particular, we think these relating to public health and the pandemic are extremely important, that people learn if they're unfamiliar with the science or the vaccine or they're hesitant to watch talks like this and learn.

John Darsie: (45:44)
We're also on social media, Twitter is where we're most active at SALT Conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. On behalf of Anthony and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie, signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Marc Polymeropoulos: Clarity in Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the CIA | SALT Talks #222

“Adversity is the P.E.D. for success. You have to fail first before you succeed down the line.”

Marc Polymeropoulos talks through his background and what led him to the CIA where he worked around the world thwarting terror plots. Polymeropoulos details an attack he suffered from an apparent targeted microwave-emitting weapon that has left him and countless other US agents and diplomats with lasting health effects termed Havana Syndrome. He explains the high stakes of counter-terrorism and concerns around a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. After an early retirement from the CIA due to the effects of his attack, Polyermeropoulos offers the principles and mindset needed to make effective decisions in moments of crisis, stress and ambiguity.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Marc Polymeropoulos.jpeg

Marc Polymeropoulos

Former Senior Intelligence Service Officer

CIA

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

3:10 - Background and path to CIA

6:08 - CIA training and accurate representations

9:15 - US-Afghan history

11:31 - Decision-making under pressure

14:50 - Suffering a Havana Syndrome attack

18:53 - Preventing terrorist attacks

23:13 - Concerns around an Afghanistan withdrawal

25:18 - Learning from failure

28:12 - Mindset during stressful situations

30:36 - Adapting to massive technological advancements

32:49 - Skills needed for the CIA

35:05 - Sacrifices made in the shadows

38:17 - Mental health post-CIA

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021 in New York city. But that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome mark polymorph Nepalis to salt talks. Mark worked for 26 years at the CIA before retiring in July of 2019 at the senior intelligence service level. He was one of the CIA's most highly decorated operations officers who served in multiple field assignments for the U S government specializing in counter terrorism, the middle east and south Asia, including extensive time in Iraq and Afghanistan, uh, prior to his retirement mark service CIA headquarters, and was in charge of the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and Eurasia.

John Darcie: (01:18)
He's re he's recently out with a new book, uh, which I highly recommend you go out and read, not just because of the great stories from his time in the CIA, but the leadership lessons you can draw from it. The book is called clarity in crisis leadership lessons from the CIA, and it comes out today when we're airing this episode, June 8th, Marcus hone has unique leadership style based on nine core principles each builds on the next and the design for real-world application, uh, where one often operates under time constraints and a lack of complete situational awareness. Uh, Martin describes how one must not fear, but instead wildly embrace this ambiguity. And also he teaches you about how to be resilient, which is I think something that we should touch on today, uh, hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. Anthony has done a couple of us troops support missions to Afghanistan and Iraq, but obviously doesn't have the, uh, the experience there that mark does looking forward to a great conversation. Go ahead and take it away, Anthony.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (02:19)
Well, first of all, it'll hold up the book because I love promoting your book. Okay. Clarity and crisis leadership lessons, the CIA, you know, I, uh, a while back Morgan, that you remember Jose Rodriguez. And so a while back, we had him at the salt conference. He wrote a book I think called hard measures maybe almost 10 years ago now. And your book reminded me of Jose's book in some ways, but I thought you contextualized leadership differently. He was really talking more about nine 11 and the CIA's response to nine 11, I guess, where I want to start the interview, uh, is with your background. I want to go into your first, how you grew up, how you got raised, but then I want to talk about CIA and the CIA and leadership as a field officer, which I think was very fascinating in this book.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (03:11)
Sure. Well, first of all, thanks for having me. This is a, it's a, it's a great honor. And, uh, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, you know, it was pretty interesting after my kind of 26 years living in the shadows that I'm out, talking in public on this, but it's what I've wanted to do because I think, you know, CIA is an indispensable institution and I want to talk to the American people about it and kind of teach people, you know, what I learned there. Tell us about your background though. You grew up where you're obviously you're a Greek American, I'm an Italian American. So, you know, you know, Darcie's not us, let's just put it that way and we'll leave it there. Okay. That's probably not politically correct in these times, but too bad. But go ahead. So I, I have a wild background.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (03:48)
So, you know, first and foremost, I, you know, I spent so much time in the middle east, but before that, you know, I was, uh, I was a middle-class kid from, from Highland park, New Jersey. And, and, you know, I think one of the reasons why I succeeded later on in life is because I had this really unique upbringing. So my mom was a Jewish girl from long island who goes off to Cornell. She meets my dad who on Fulbright from grace, he's as Greek as you can be. And he's at Cornell as well. And they fall in love and it's, it's, you know, it's a, it's, it's, it's kind of a pretty messy, messy situation because each side, I don't think we're too thrilled, uh, uh, with, uh, with kind of crossing over in terms of different kind of, you know, religious lines. But then, so I grew up with this with celebrating everything.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (04:26)
So we celebrated Greek, Easter, Easter, Hanukkah, Passover, you know, Christmas, you name it. Um, uh, and what, what really made that I think important for me is I had such a kind of open-minded open view, um, uh, of the world later on, I married a, uh, Lebanese Catholic. So, you know, it's unbelievable. It kind of, we just need some Buddhists in the family and then, you know, we'd be, we'd be complete. Um, but great upbringing, you know, I love, you know, the, the central Jersey area, you know, my dad still lives there. He was professor at Rutgers for 40 years. Um, and that, you know, while I, while I spent my life running around the world, that really still is, is the place where my kind of my heart. So you, you go, you go into the CIA. Why so growing up, it was interesting.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (05:08)
So my dad ended up doing a sabbatical as a, as a professor. He went to Algeria. So when I was 10 years old, my mom think about, think about it as a parent doing this. Now she put me on an airplane and I flew to meet him in Algeria and my dad and I for an entire month in an old beat up Volkswagen mini bus drove 2000 miles to the Sahara desert. So I thought I was Lawrence of Arabia. And this is what kind of got my itch for the middle east, um, along with, you know, each summer going back to Greece. So my, you know, my dad still had, uh, his family was still there and, you know, the, a house on the island called Mykonos, which is a beautiful place. And so every summer I'd go back to Mykonos. So I'm getting this kind of, you know, view of the world.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (05:45)
Uh, and then I probably watched, you know, a Tom Clancy film or two, and, and, and then off I go and, and, you know, I, when I was, uh, I went to Cornell for undergrad and grad school, but, you know, I, I applied to the CIA and that's the only job literally have ever had you, you, you, you mentioned in the book that you have a kitchen table, knowledge of Greek, that's exactly your words, right. Uh, what other languages do you speak? So I learned Arabic, uh, through the CIA, um, you know, they sent me to school for two years, um, in Spanish as well. Um, and then, you know, and of course now, as I'm, as I'm kind of getting older, I'm retired, it's all jumbled in my head. So I, you know, speak a little bit of everything, but, but on a serious note, what CIA really does well is teach our officers kind of the language skills that are required.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (06:28)
So, and, and the hard target language skills are things like Arabic and Farsi and Russian, uh, uh, and Chinese. And so, you know, I spent two solid years learning Arabic, which was, you know, that's a tough time. Cause you know, you go, then you do this after you're trained as a case officer, then they take you offline for two years. And so that's a lot of patients and a lot of kind of dedication to kind of get to the point. But if you want to go serve in the middle east and, and, and do the stuff that we all did, you got to speak the language. You're, I mean, you just have such an amazing story. You talk about your field operational experience, Doug, about the fact that you're not James Bond, it's a rough and tumble situation. What would you want the American people to take away from this book and your life experience about the CIS?

Marc Polymeropoulos: (07:14)
I think in terms of CIA as a whole look, these are, these are American Patriots. You know, we operate in the shadows. And so, you know, the successes are never talked about in the, and the failures are always kind of highlighted, um, you know, especially where it kept going. It gets caught up in politics, but, but you know, my, my brothers and sisters at CIA, you know, this is the, these are, you know, to me heroes, uh, of the United States cause they operate with so little, little fanfare. These are regular people, you know, it's not like the old, you know, uh, uh, the old days of, of kind of, you know, all kind of, you know, what they called it, you know, white male and Yale, that's, that's the old kind of stereotype of the agency. It's not at all like that. It's a place which is full of different ethnic groups, different kinds of, you know, uh, races, religions.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (07:53)
And so, um, it's, it's a reflection of America. Um, and then people who put their, you know, their, their life on the line and, and, you know, it was, it was a, I think it was an institution in which I, I want more people to kind of understand because there's so many misnomers about it, but it's a, it's a place I believe in, you know, really deeply because, you know, we're the, you know, my colleagues were the ones standing on the ramparts, you know, you know, protecting the United States and it's done with very little fanfare, but, but boy, you know, espionage is, is the, is the world's second oldest.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (08:24)
Yeah. We won't talk about the first soul because that'll also get me in trouble, but, but let's, let's talk about terrorism. Let's talk about our ambiguous relationships in the middle east. And so the CIA back in the, uh, during the, uh, the Russian invasion Afghanistan, we funded what we were calling the mojo mojo Dean, uh, which were holy warriors. Uh, we help them in their fight against the Russian empire, the Soviet, uh, they turned on us effectively, um, and became part of Al-Qaeda and then they, they, fomented a domestic terrorist attack on the United States. And so there's ambiguity there. And I was wondering if you could explain to people in your view what happened and the CIA's role in all of them. So, you know, boy, what a great word you used ambiguity because that, that kind of defines a lot of what I talk about in my book, but defines that's that's the intelligence business right there.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (09:25)
It's we, you know, we live in the world of gray. So look at, in order to push back against the Soviet union, we certainly armed, um, you know, the Afghan Mujahideen, but also groups of, of Africa Arabs. We call them the Afghan Arabs and they came from all over the Arab world, different estimates, some as many as 10,000, uh, who fought and ultimately, uh, you know, pushed the Soviet union out of Afghanistan. And one can make an argument that, that led, that helped, that helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet union. So a tremendous victory, but it came as a, at a cost because what Afghanistan turned into then was a failed state. And so, and, and, and, and that's kind of, you, you can talk about now our worries about our Afghan withdrawal, uh, as well because terrorist groups take advantage of those kinds of those, those empty spaces.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (10:06)
And so that's what happened. And so these Afghan Arabs were certainly trained, but they flopped even more so to Afghanistan when the Soviet union with withdrew, and this is in the nineties and the United States kind of lost interest in that part of the world. And Qaeda found themselves as part of, uh, as part of the base. It's not necessarily the case, you know, cause there was such a great lapse in time. So it's not really that Al-Qaeda that we faced, you know, after nine 11 or the same Afghan Arabs who, who fought the Soviets, um, you know, uh, you know, a decade plus before, but, but fundamentally, you know, I think they, they, you know, they had the same beliefs and they evolved from wanting to kick out the Soviet union to them being opposed to the United States. You know, I think it's, it's a, it's an interesting lesson that the us needs to learn as we, as we support in our covert actions, some indigenous groups who are perhaps doing something we want them to do, you do have to look at kind of the long-term effects and that's, that's fair to say.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (10:59)
And I think that the CIS has taken a hard look at that as well. I think it's a fascinating part of what you talk about in the book is you're dealing with ambiguity, you're dealing with high pressure situations. Uh, I love the title clarity in crisis. Um, you discuss high pressure situations and how you make decisions there. So offer our listeners and viewers a template for what they need to think about when they're forced into a high pressure situation and they've got to make some tough decisions. So, so ultimately, and we'll start with where you want to get to be. You want to get to that place where, where there's ambiguity, w you know, when, when there's, when you have a lack of situational awareness, that's actually your happy place. And that's really hard sometimes because that is, that's kind of counterintuitive. So my book talks about nine core principles that I kind of, that you build over time as you build teams as you lead.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (11:53)
So that inevitably when there is times, um, you know, when times are tough that, you know, you have no fear in this. I mean, that's, that's the whole point. And, and, you know, there's, there's a, uh, a friend of mine once said, as we're kind of going into one of these situations, um, and we're like, boy, know, this is, you know, we're in the gray now. And he actually said to me, he goes, this, this is my happy place. This is where I want to be. So what does this mean? Well, it's, it's building blocks. So, you know, one of the things I talk about, um, consistently in the book is as a principle, I call it adversity is that PD, that performance enhancing drug to success. So the point is you got to fail first before you're ever going to succeed down the line.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (12:28)
And you can think of things like Michael Jordan getting, getting cut from his high school basketball team. But, but in reality, it's that failure that getting kicked in the teeth is going to teach you. You got to learn from that. And the next time you face a similar situation, you know, you're, you're gonna, you're gonna succeed. I think one of the themes in my book is, is, uh, you know, that, that one of the principles I really spousal the time is humility. Um, you know, you can't, you know, I was at the tip of the sphere of the U S government, you know, but you can't believe your own hype. Um, and so you follow these principles, uh, you know, I'll talk about another one. It's, it's one of my favorites. I call it the glue guy or the glue gout. And that's finding the indispensable member of your team that perhaps is not the superstar.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (13:06)
Um, I, you know, I use, I used some great examples. One of them was what I called, um, the, uh, the, our, our, our doctors, our medical staff, you know, we call them doc in the war zones. So I'm a case officer. Maybe you have some of the door kickers, you know, we're trying to take down a high value target. There's the doc in the back. You know, now if that person has not taken care of us, it's not doing kind of the right things, that team is not going to perform up to its capabilities. And so you kind of think through these principles, um, and as you, as you build these teams to get to the point where you gotta make those tough decisions, you're really comfortable doing so, and you can learn this. And that's the thing I really try to put forward in the book.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (13:43)
Yeah. I, I heard John Darcie's feelings before we opened up the Saul talk by telling him he was not the glue guy at SkyBridge, but that was actually a backhanded compliment Darcie, because you like mark are at the tip of the spear. This is more about somebody that in the background, tying things together, I thought it was a fascinating discussion about selfless people. And again, John Darcie is a team player. I like teasing him on these salt talks, but he's exceptionally talented at what he does. Uh, that'll be all the compliments you give from me though to the remainder of the year. So we'll just leave it there. I want to go to something that you write about, uh, you're in a hotel room in Moscow, it's December of 2017, and you were debilitated with severe nausea ringing in your ears and what ultimately is known as Havana syndrome.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (14:38)
Uh, did that tell, tell us about that? Tell us what it is. Did, did they hit you inside the building, or they got to get you outside to create that kind of, uh, illness? What there, so that was a, you know, early December of 2017, I was on what we call, you know, uh, uh, you know, uh, a temporary duty assignment, a short trip to Moscow. I'm at a, a, you know, a five star hotel, just two blocks to the embassy. It's the middle of the night. And I was kind of awakened to it to a start. I had incredible vertigo. Um, tonight is ringing in my ears. I felt like I was going to be sick. I had a splitting headache, and I knew something really bad happened. So it was inside, uh, the hotel room, which is frankly, consistent to what you hear about some other victims of this.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (15:19)
No. So the, the people above you and below you also probably got it then, right. Because you hit it or they, they can isolate it. I think, you know, the, the kind of the running theory now is that it can be very, it can be really directed at you. Um, and so, so, but, you know, so I think it was directed right at me in the hotel room. The fact of the matter is when you go to a place like Moscow, you know, there was, there was no one to the left of me in the room and no one to the right. It was pretty clear. I was under heavy surveillance. I'd go down to the gym and I'd have some guy in a black leather jacket following me down there. So, you know, I think, you know, my theory is that certainly it was, it was set up for it kind of a directed, uh, attack at me.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (15:57)
And that's very consistent with other intelligence officers and diplomats who I've talked to subsequently who have been, uh, been, been hit by this. And it's, you know, it's a pretty insidious, you know, uh, uh, kind of event it's pretty insidious weapon. Cause it's, it's designed to impasse and capacitate not to kill. And it derailed my career. And I had to retire at 50, which was not a lot, a lot of gas left in the tank. Um, but, uh, but I had to retire, you know, in, uh, in July of 2019. So, but you, you, but you also, there, there are other members it's called the Havana syndrome because many of our diplomats and, uh, uh, governmental workers, et cetera, have been afflicted by this in a Vana. Uh, we think this is Russian inspire. Is that fair to say? I think that's, that's fair to say, you know, there is a microwave pulse, they hit your skull with.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (16:45)
So the theory is it's a directed energy weapon, which by the way, we know the Russians have had before. And, and frankly, this technology is something that the us government has as well. For example, there's companies that use directed energy weapons to knock drones out of the sky. And so, so this technology exists. It's just a matter of using it against another human being is, you know, there's a question on morality there, but, but yeah, there's, you know, it's a, it's a, uh, so far, so one of the things is I eventually got treatment at Walter Reed, national Intrepid center of excellence, which is the world's most renowned traumatic brain injury program. And they died at diagnose me with a TBI, with a traumatic brain injury based on an, you know, an, an exposure event. And the theory is, you know, whatever, this kind of energy was kind of got me in the back of my head. It's closer to its closest to the occipital nerve. And so, and it's, you're right. There's something that, that, you know, I can undergo treatment for meaning, you know, there are things I can do to make myself feel better. Uh, but ultimately it's, it's something that we haven't found yet that can in any way be curious.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (17:44)
Well, all right, well, we wish you great success with that and I'm sorry that you're going through that, but I appreciate and admire your courage and talking about it because by raising the awareness, hopefully it will reduce the number of our people that are exposed. Um, let me, let me switch gears. I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey in a second because he always, what he does at this point, mark, is that he tries to out shine me by asking better questions than me, but then of course our, our guests say, oh John, that's a great question, which always horrifies me and upsets me, but that's fine. We'll get there in a second. I have two last questions. Okay. Um, uh, quiet question. Number one, which is important to me is terror plots. You and I both know the United States has to be Dessa go 100 for a hundred, a thousand for a thousand.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (18:36)
They only have to get it right once, uh, without giving up anything that's classified. Uh, have we disrupted a lot of terror plots in the United States since nine 11? And, uh, where do you think we are today in terms of our safety here in the country? So, uh, I will say that is a great question. There you go. I'll preempt the front, uh, saying that for John knows, there's no doubt that we have, we have, uh, prevented numerous terrorist plots is nine 11. That's what CIA did. I think if you see I personnel, you know, right after nine 11, we took this personally because you have to be, you have to be perfect. You have to, you know, you have to bat a thousand, you gotta be a soccer goalie and you can't let a single Golan. And we felt that we failed. And so the efforts we made post nine 11 were really extraordinary and not allowing for a future attack.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (19:23)
And there is, I do that as success. America was not hit again. And whether you look at, you know, core Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda in the peninsula, if you recall, and the 2000, what, uh, uh, you know, 12 to 2014 timeframe, there was all this threat streams became in public about threats against civilian, us airliners, um, serious stuff. And the CIA did incredible work to prevent Americans from dying. And, you know, that's what we do. And I'm, you know, I'm, I'm incredibly proud of it. The key counter-terrorism is you can't take your eye off the ball. And right now, if you take a look at our, you know, our national security posture, we have China as an existential threat. I think people agree on that. You have Russia as a country that wants to do us harm, and counter-terrorism has taken a bit of a backseat, but we've gotta be really careful on that because just like, you know, in the period before nine 11, um, you know, w you know, we w we, we have to kind of continue to put kind of, you know, money people, you know, resources, um, towards the, towards the CTF root cause.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (20:18)
Cause you know, you can't fail. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's hard to say that that in any endeavor you need to have a zero fail mentality, but in counter terrorism, that's what you gotta have. And that's frankly, what the American people demand. Where are we today in terms of safety? I think we're far better off, I think core Al-Qaeda has been degraded, um, to a significant extent where, what worries me, of course, you know, you still have ISIS out there. Um, and then, and then the kind of the key part now I'm not as concerned about kind of a mass terrorist, like we saw, uh, you know, uh, nine 11, but it's more of kind of either homegrown, inspired, you know, individuals or, or, or kind of smaller, smaller units that carry out an attack. And I'll tell you one thing, you know, uh, you know, if one person does something, you know, in times square or the New York subway system, or the DC Metro, you know, not only think about the loss of life, even if it was small, it's tragic to think about the economic costs that it, that that would come at the United States.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (21:13)
Um, so I, you know, I think you can never take your ball eye off the ball of counter-terrorism. And I worry about the withdrawal from Afghanistan, frankly. Um, because I think that, you know, we're asking again, uh, you know, kind of giving terrorists an opportunity to look for those empty spaces, those ungoverned spaces to reconstitute. So there's a lot of work that the United States still has got to do on counter-terrorism. And, you know, even if we talk a lot about China and Russia, you know, that the CT fight, which was that, that was really was what I did most of my career. Um, and I'm really passionate about, I mean, that's got to continue and you never take your eye off the ball. All right, I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey before I do that, I want to hold the book up again. It's a clarity and crisis. Market's a tremendous book. Uh, it's a, it's a brief, concise book, but it hits on a lot of different elements of what people need to think about when they're dealing with pressure situations, leadership, utility, glue, John Dorsey, glue, holding things together. Okay. With that, I'm gonna turn it over to John.

John Darcie: (22:13)
Thank you. You touched on Afghanistan, mark, and it's great to have you on the program. Um, but I think it's an interesting topic. You know, Anthony, as I mentioned, the opening has been on troop support missions where he, after the trip, got these really detailed briefings, uh, obviously no classified information, but detailed briefings from the generals on the ground about the situation Afghanistan, obviously we'd been there for almost 20 years. Um, you know, there's no real end in sight in terms of putting a neat bow on the entire situation. But at the same time, a withdrawal does create a vacuum whereby the Taliban probably regain some level of power and potentially create another Haven, uh, for terrorist plots. If you were talking to the American people and they're coming to you and saying, well, you know, we've been there for 20 years with nothing really to show for it. We continue to lose American lives and spend money, uh, with no end in sight. Why would we continue to pour money into that situation? I'm not saying that you necessarily disagree with them, but how would you explain to them the benefit of staying in Afghanistan, the benefit of not retrenching as a country, our borders.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (23:13)
So it would be kind of with a simple phrase that I like to say is defend forward. And so, you know, we can't sit back, you know, just because we're, you know, we're across the pond. When I say defend Ford is we have to have a forward presence. Does that mean a hundred thousand us troops? Of course not. But I think the, the, the issue of kind of troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq has been taken over by politics because ultimately we're talking about leaving 2,500 to 5,000 troops on the ground. That's nothing, we've got 30,000 troops in Korea. We have, you know, similar numbers in, in Germany. And the idea of, of, you know, this need to go to zero, which is what they're talking about. That's where we're going to, to me, that that seemed to be, uh, you know, really misguided. And it's almost a political, uh, decision to do this.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (23:57)
Cause it sounds good rather than keeping us very small residual force where we then can have the, you know, the, the special operations and intelligence forces necessarily on the ground with 2,500 to 5,000 us troops that's enough, um, to kind of keep a lid on that on a counter-terrorism situation. And so I would, I would argue that the defend forward concept is not putting forward tens of thousands or a hundred thousand us troops believing small number of us forces. That's what we do all over the world. That's what we could have done in Afghanistan. Um, you know, I just, I don't agree with the decision to go down to zero. Um, I certainly would not advocate going up to 50,000, but I think a, you know, a small residual force where we can keep enough of a footprint to, to continue our counter-terrorism missions is absolutely essential.

John Darcie: (24:42)
You talked in your book and you alluded to this earlier about how adversity in your mind is a performance enhancing drug. And I think Anthony says something nice about me. So I'm going to say something nice about him. He, in the business world, he is a very resilient person in my mind. He's been through ups and downs, talks about it a lot in his books. Uh, you know, obviously the gravity of some of the ups and downs that he's experienced might not compare to the things that you've been through. Could you talk about specific examples of failures, you know, really deep grave failures, even that you've experienced that you talk about in the book that affected you and how you train yourself to be resilient and to become better as a result of those mistakes.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (25:18)
Sure. And so I think the story is, you know, the story goes from Iraq and then ends in Afghanistan. And it starts in Iraq when I was up on, you know, one of our teams that was living in the mountains of Kurdistan before the invasion of Iraq. And we had re you know, we were running and recruiting in a Rocky agent. I was handling him. So it was a penetration of Iraqi government and, and he had what we call, you know, very good, uh, order of battle information. So these are the, the, the disposition of Saddam Hussein's forces. And I pushed them. I was handling my, pushed him too hard. So he was crossing the border, crossing the, the, the, kind of the line between a Rocky Kurdistan and Rocky regime controlled rock, but we had him cross too much. And this is my fault.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (25:58)
This is, this is on me. And he ends up getting caught, um, and tortured and executed. And that really weighed on me heavily because it was my fault. Cause I pushed him too hard. You know, I was looking good back home in DC cause the Intel was flowing. Everyone was loving me and I did something. I made a mistake and I got someone, someone hurt, um, when it was, you know, likely not necessary. I fast forward that in part of my leadership principles, I fast forward to my time in Afghanistan and this was in 2011 and we were going after a high value target and an individual who had killed two CIA officers, but I was much more patient this time. And there was tremendous interest back home, but over time and, you know, and, and maybe some, a lot of false starts and, um, uh, uh, we just patiently built the picture where finally we could put this, this high-value target where we call on the X, um, where he met his demise, that doesn't happen, that's success.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (26:51)
And I'll say it was a success. Cause we, we killed a high value target who was responsible for the deaths of CIA officers. Um, that doesn't happen if I hadn't failed earlier. And failure for me earlier was pretty dramatic as you said, and that's not necessarily going to be, you know, happened in every instance, uh, in the business community or elsewhere. Um, but boy, I don't have that. We don't have that success later on if I didn't fail that first time. And I didn't really learn that that lesson went, that was ingrained in me. And the story ends, it's pretty remarkable where we, that night from a fire pit along the PAC Afghan border, um, we call the widow of one of our officers who was killed by this individual, this high-value target. And we, we told her that, you know, justice was served and then that we avenged her, her, you know, her, her husband's death. And you know, to me, that was really powerful moment as, as you know, we thought about what we had.

John Darcie: (27:39)
Yeah. I mean, P powerful is right. I'm sure you can't talk about a lot of things that you've done and seen, but just, uh, you know, the, the gravity of a lot of the stuff that you dealt with is just remarkable. But when you're in the heat of battle and you talk about this in the book and you're having to make decisions on the fly that are life or death decisions, what type of mindset, and you can apply some of this to business, which you write about in the book, what type of mindset or strategies or concrete steps do you recommend for people that are in the middle of a intense or a stressful situation to make sure they're thinking clearly and making sound decisions.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (28:12)
Sure. And so, so my principals kind of lead up to this cause if you've done several of the things that I talk about, that, that period of time where it seemed to be the most stress, actually, you, you find some calm. That's why I caught it. You find that you find that clarity. Um, and so, so ultimately, you know, most of the time in, in high stress situations, you're going to have a basis you're going to have kind of a core foundation of, of what you believe, uh, can be done. Now, for example, what I would do is as I build teams and so think about, you know, the end point, the high stress call you have to make, but I've built a team. I trust these other members of the team. They trust me, I've developed them, I've mentored them. You know, I've given them opportunities to lead, uh, you know, in other situations, um, there's processes, I've put in place.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (28:56)
One of the, one of the keys I talk about, I call it the process monkey, but there's core foundational processes in the intelligence business that we've done. Um, and so, so if you have, if you build that foundation, ultimately when it comes down to it, uh, the decision's not going to be difficult. I always talk about, you know, emergency rooms, such as scenarios, my stepbrother, um, his name is Matt Kaufman. He's a, he's a doctorate, Brooklyn. Um, he runs an ER there and, you know, and he's been on the frontline with COVID. And so, you know, when I, when I call and I ask him and I kind of explained to him the principles, the book, he said, this is exactly what we face all the time, but what have they done? You know, they have nurses, the glue guy, or the glue gal. They have processes, you have to do things to prepare someone before an operation, or if someone's coming in with a gunshot wound, you know, you're going to do a couple of things that are absolutely critical to ensure that person's survival. Um, and so, so you build those teams, you build those foundations then ultimately when there is time to make a tough call, it actually isn't that tough. Uh, and, and, you know, that's, that's what I, I now I learned this, I, I realized this at the end of my career after a lot of failing, but I think it's really important because it can apply to the business world, uh, you know, in, in really in tremendous fashion.

John Darcie: (30:01)
Right? How has technology, so you had a 26 year career and you got to the very senior levels of the CIA during that 26 year period of time, you lived through amazing technological innovation and change. How did your job change and how has the job of the CIA changed in general? Uh, as it relates to technology, has it made it harder, uh, to combat terrorism because the threats are getting, you know, greater, um, and there's more ways that people can hurt you using technology or as it become easier because you have the ability to track people using, you know, technology, or how has it affected the job. So

Marc Polymeropoulos: (30:37)
That's, you know, I think that you have to look at it from a couple of different ways. You look at it from technology on, you know, offensive standpoint, how do we use it more effectively? And then our defensive standpoint, because our adversaries can learn how to track us much more closely. Um, and so both are really important. And then you kind of, you kind of juxtapose that on top of the intelligence businesses about humans. And so the one thing that hasn't changed is the relationship that I have with a source. You know, it's an agent, someone, an agent is a forerunner we've recruited you spot, assess, develop, recruit, and handle someone. And that's a, that's a class on psychology, 5 0 1. So that never changes. You know, that's a deeply personal relationship. And I talk about it in the book because it's extraordinary. I had all the time, especially as a junior officer, I had other people's lives in my hands.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (31:20)
So that's going to remain the same, but how we innovate, um, you know, offensively and defensively is absolutely critical. And I think that's where, you know, especially when you see how our adversaries have the ability to track us, for example, I mean, look at biometrics, look at smart cities, smart cities sounds really good. Smart cities is the bane of the existence of intelligence officer. That means there's cameras everywhere. Well, I don't want, I don't want that. So if I'm going out in the street to try to meet someone, I have to defeat that camera system. What does that mean? I can't look like the way I'm looking. Like even my gate, even the way I walk has to be different. Obviously, physically I have to look different as well. I can't be carrying a cell phone. Um, whereas my cell phone during this time. So all these things to kind of think of so technology, we have to evolve with it, but don't forget.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (32:03)
It's, uh, it's, you know, the human intelligence profession is a, is a personal one. And that's what I really love, love the most. I mean, when you sit down with someone, you know, you're sitting across the, you know, maybe a hotel room, um, and this person says to you, you know, mark, your life is in my hands and if you mess up, I'm going to die. And that happened. I talk about it in the book, boy, that's a, that's a, that's a pretty weighty feeling on you. And it's, it's something that you actually then kind of that you learned that, that that's what drives you. Uh, you know, and so, so, um, yeah, it's a, it's a psychology 5 0 1 class. That's why I love talking

John Darcie: (32:33)
About it. Is that something that you feel like you were born with certain, a certain skill set or a certain disposition enabled you to be very effective in that job? Or does the CIA able to mold people and teach people the skills necessary to engage in that interpersonal aspect of being an officer?

Marc Polymeropoulos: (32:50)
So I think it's both, you know, you know, first look, you got to love people. So, you know, I joke like I'm a Greek American, I'm outgoing, you know, I'm, you know, I'm always, you know, in people's faces and loud and, and all of sudden you have, like, you can be an introvert, you got to love people. That's what you do. Um, now we are taught, you know, how to conduct Tradecraft. So we'll go to, you know, we go to our secret base somewhere and you'd go off for a year and you're taught how to run a surveillance detection route and how to, you know, put down a dead drop or make a mark a signal. Those are things that are taught. Um, but, but you know, the, I think the, the best CIA officers are those, um, who are kind of intellectually curious. Um, they certainly want to know about the world.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (33:27)
You know, my job was not to inter interact with Americans. It was interact with foreigners. Um, and, and, and just to kind of have that thirst for knowledge, and then kind of the last part. Um, obviously the people part is like, I never served, you know, in Paris or London, I was serving in, in, in the middle east. So, you know, you gotta be able to deal with some hardships and, you know, sometimes your family's coming with you too. So whether I have great stories, you know, we had no power or the water runs out, or, you know, the, the apartment in the middle Eastern city is infested with cockroaches. I mean, just crazy stuff that then you have this resilient family that kind of hangs on with you. But, um, uh, I think that the most successful CIA officers are just able to kind of roll with it. Uh, and, uh, and, and I I'll tell you one thing that, and maybe you, you both we'll, we'll relate this. I mean, growing up in, in, in central Jersey, it's, that was a great lesson and had a, had a joined the CIA because, uh, you know, my childhood was, uh, was a fun and exciting and loud, and, you know, that's what, that's what I kind of rolled into in my career.

John Darcie: (34:20)
Yeah. So you, you write for the Washington examiner, you write a frequent column, which I love reading, especially as we started preparing for this talk, I dug into a lot of your writing since you're a fantastic writer, but you talked about in one of the pieces in the last two weeks, I think it might've been last week, another four stars were added to the agency's famous Memorial wall for a total of 137. You talked about how you operate a lot in secrecy. Uh, you know, you had to call a widow to tell her about avenging her husband's death, but the world doesn't even know what he did and what you did, frankly, to thwart terrorism or other threats to the country. How hard is it to operate in that secret type of environment and make those types of sacrifices for the country? What type of comradery develops within individuals in, in something like the CIA?

Marc Polymeropoulos: (35:06)
So, you know, camaraderie is the, is the kind of the best term that, that, that you used. That was a really good question. Okay. I'll even admit to that. Go ahead, mark. I'm sorry. I had to just jump in there. Comradery is everything, you know, one of the principles I talk about in building these teams is, you know, it's family values and, and just that means, you know, having this love for one another and taking care of each other. And, and so, you know, comradery to me means, um, things like, you know, each year I still gather with the team that I was, that I led in Afghanistan, you know, at a little dive bar in Northern Virginia called the BNN. Um, camaraderie means when I came back from Iraq, the chief at the time, a guy by the name of Charlie Sydell, uh, uh, who, who has passed away, but he knew that a lot of us were suffering for some PTSD.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (35:53)
And so he, he hosted us at his, at his house on Cape Cod just to make sure we're all okay. I mean, it's a brotherhood and sisterhood. It, you know, it's not a nine to five job. And so, so th th th the aspect of, of this being, you know, not just a job, but it's, uh, it, you know, it's part of your identity. It's part of your way of life is really true. Um, you know, we are, you're a, doctrinated a little bit about that because, you know, or you're considered the tip of the spirits hard to get in, you know, it's hard. And then you have to kind of go through the selection to become an operations officer. Um, but it's a, it's a pretty small fraternity that clandestine service is actually quite small. Um, and so, you know, there, there is, there is a feeling that, that, you know, not necessarily that you're special, but you were part of something, uh, special.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (36:33)
And so, you know, when we, when, you know, we are, we are, uh, uh, you know, uh, teams of officers, individuals, but it's also teams of families. Um, I'll give you one story and I love telling these kinds of these stories, but, you know, I, I was, when I was in Afghanistan in 2012, my mom passed away in New Jersey suddenly, and I had to get home. And it was amazing. I was on the border. I was, I was 7,000 miles away and I had to take multiple helicopter flights and then a fixed wing to get home, to bury my mom. And I remember the flight out of my frontline base. It was, it was socked in with weather yet. Our helicopter pilots were like, we're getting out of here. And I remember, you know, we're hovering in a, in a mountain pass and I'm on, you know, where I'm in night vision, uh, goggles and, and, you know, on comms with them.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (37:13)
And I'm like, turn around, like this is too dangerous. And we didn't, and we eventually got to the next, the next space is to eventually get home. And I, and I, and these are, these are veterans that, you know, uh, uh, us military special operations, the best pilots in the world. And I went through them. I said, why don't you do this? Like, that was dangerous. And they said, chief, not. So they called me cause I was a base. She said, chief, you know, your mom died and we're getting you home, period, that's it. So how do you not have this affinity for your fellow men and women who you serve with when that's the kind of ethos that that has been developed? And, and that's what I talk about when I, when I talk about, you know, family values, you kind of build that love and camaraderie, um, and dedication to one another. And it's, uh, it's, it's pretty spectacular, but that's the part that, you know, people ask me, what do I miss in retirement? That certainly is, that is the part that I really missed even today.

John Darcie: (37:57)
Right. You know, from a mental health perspective, I think a lot of people that are in the military, they come out of service and they struggle to find that meaning, uh, that exists when you're in the throws of it, um, from a mental health perspective, is that a challenge for, for ex CIA that come out, uh, both finding that meaning and also coping with, you know, some of the obviously heavy things that you see. Gotcha.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (38:17)
So, you know, the answer is, is, is a hundred percent. Yes. And one of the things that I've seen happen, and I don't like it, and I've actually talked to, and I've written about this in my examiner column, but I've talked to, are the new CIO for CIA director, bill burns about it is, is why you so many kinds of formers end up, we would call them formers, are the people that retired, why are they leaving kind of bitter and disgruntled? Um, and that's, and so I think that, that, you know, that's not a good thing. And I think that a lot of it has to do with the transition to the outside world is so difficult. And so one of the things that, that I, you know, that I'm going to try to do is try to, you know, find ways to kind of keep the formers more engaged with the building, because all of a sudden you go from having, you know, the, the keys to the secrets of the planet to going out there and looking at the New York times in the morning and wondering, scratching your head, wondering if that's actually what is happened.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (39:05)
Cause you know, a lot of times it's not. And so that transition is, is certainly difficult. One of the things that I think has been helpful for me is I decided, and I, after, you know, some consultation with some, some other, you know, uh, former senior officials like, like Mike Morrell, uh, we talked, you know, we talked earlier about former acting director of the CIA, a good friend of mine. I said, I said, look, I think I want to talk and write about the agency. And it might be a little controversial, but this is an institution that the American people have to have to learn about for us to stay relevant and, and, and, uh, and to educate American people, but for me by doing so, I also still feel connected. So that's kind of how I have dealt with it as I wrote this book on leadership.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (39:42)
Um, and I liked talking to the American people about the CIA. And so that transition for me was not as difficult probably, but certainly for many others. Um, uh, it is. And, and it's, it's some of the, some of the, my kind of columns that are, that are coming in the future are going to talk about kind of the mental health challenges, um, that, uh, that many kinds of intelligence community and, and, and, you know, former military, um, face when they learn and when they leave service, because there's nothing like being on the tip of the spear, the us government, but then it's gone. And then, you know, and then it's time to kind of hang up your cleats and then you don't, you don't, you don't have that anymore. And that's for many, that's really tough.

John Darcie: (40:16)
Yeah. It's hard to go from being a tip of the sphere and thorning terrorist plots to being, and this is no offense to it consultants, but being an it consultant for some large corporation. And we work with a variety of organizations, um, uh, at the salt conference, frankly, that, that help both help veterans find meaning when they come home team Rubicon is one of them, Jake woods, uh, help veterans find meaning when they come home and also deploy this special skillset, uh, that CIA officers and special forces have when they come home to the maximum benefit of society. So I think what you're doing in terms of talking about these things openly, not in a way that reveals sources and methods and things like that, but talking about them, I think it's valuable, uh, for people that have served and also for our society to make sure that we're learning from people like you. So, uh, mark poly mirabilis, thank you so much for joining us here on salt talks. Again, the book is called clarity in crisis leadership lessons from the CIA Anthony, come in and hold that book up again. He's a better person.

Marc Polymeropoulos: (41:14)
The book, the book, the book is awesome. Mark. I really enjoyed reading it. It's a quick read, but it's got a lot of terrific content and we want to get the word out and, uh, we'll be, we'll be doing a lot of social media alongside of you to help promote the book. And so, so thank you. Thank you for your service to the, and we want you to get better with, uh, the Havana syndrome and, uh, you know, we, we're very grateful to you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. It's a great being here. Thank you.

John Darcie: (41:46)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with mark. Polymorph Nepalis talking about his new book, clarity and crisis. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on demand on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. Anthony mentioned social media. We're on Twitter at salt conferences where we're most active, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks. Again, this is a subject matter that we think is very important for people to learn more about, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: Battle for the Soul | SALT Talks #217

“Voters make decisions based on how they feel in their gut. Biden speaks to people’s guts, always has.”

Edward-Isaac Dovere is the Lead Political Correspondent at The Atlantic. He has covered Democratic politics for 15 years, beginning in his native New York City and carrying him through the Obama White House and then across 29 states during the 2020 election cycle. His reporting has won the White House Correspondents Association’s Merriman Smith Award for Excellence and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Daniel Pearl Award for Investigative Reporting, among other awards.

Edward-Isaac Dovere’s Battle for the Soul is the searing, fly-on-the-wall account of the Democrats’ journey through recalibration and rebirth. Dovere traces this process from the early days in the wilderness of the post-Obama era, though the jockeying of potential candidates, to the backroom battles and exhausting campaigns, to the unlikely triumph of the man few expected to win, and through the inauguration and insurrection at the Capitol.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Edward-Isaac Dovere.jpeg

Edward-Isaac Dovere

Staff Writer & Lead Political Correspondent

The Atlantic

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

TIMESTAMPS

0:00 - Intro

6:55 - Democratic presidential primary and Joe Biden’s bumpy road to victory

16:35 - The state of the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of 2022 and 2024

22:42 - Predicting whether Joe Biden and/or Donald Trump will run in 2024

25:20 - Biden’s appeal vs. the left wing of his party

29:40 - Shift among Hispanic voters

31:48 - Biden’s presidency so far and future Democratic party leaders

39:29 - Relationship dynamic between Biden and Obama

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Soul talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, uh, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. And that is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome another author to salt talks. And that is Edward Isaac Dover. Uh, Isaac is a staff writer for the Atlantic and its lead political correspondent. He's covered democratic politics for 15 years beginning in his native New York city and carrying him through the Obama white house.

John Darcie: (01:02)
And then across 29 states during the 2020 election cycle, his reporting has won the white house correspondent associations, Merriman Smith award for excellence and the society of professional journalists, Daniel Pearl award for investigative reporting among many other awards. He attended John Hopkins, Johns Hopkins university, and the university of Chicago. And he's out with a fantastic new book, which is what we're going to talk about today. It's called battle for the soul inside Democrats campaign to defeat Trump hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And since we're talking about politics, I always have to add in another piece of his bio, he had a cup of coffee as well, uh, for 11 days as Donald Trump's communications director. So looking forward to a fantastic conversation about the 2020 election, uh, between Anthony, he always

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:57)
Brings it up. He thinks it's like a shot in the shorts that I got fired by Trump. I mean the good news is over Darcie. It's over, okay. It's over

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (02:06)
Really a character in this book. So, so I don't even have to mention the part, the part where you were working for him.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:12)
Let's see there, there, and go. So even better, even better yet all these other guys that come on, there's like five paragraphs of my ridiculousness in their books, which is totally fine. But Isaac, first of all, congratulations. And, uh, I want to, before we get into the book though, I think it's important for everybody to lay out your background, your life and career. Why did you get into political journalism? And then we'll, we'll dive into the book, but I want people to know who you are.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (02:36)
Well, first of all, thanks for having me to do this. It's really great. And, uh, I would say right before we started that the salt audiences, uh, full of some of the best people, uh, that I'd want to have reading this book, uh, anyway, and, and that you had me on to talk about is really great. So I appreciate it. Um, as for me, I grew up in New York city in Manhattan, uh, and when off to college thinking, I'm kind of interested in politics and I'm kind of interested in writing. I didn't know what to do with any of that. Um, got involved with various things, uh, did a couple of internships in college, uh, at the hill newspaper, um, back when it came out once a week and that seemed like a big deal. Uh, and after I graduated college, I actually, I had the nerdiest form of peer pressure, which is that everybody that I knew was applying to PhD programs.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (03:28)
And so I applied to PhD programs. I got into none of them, uh, but I did get into a program for a master's degree at the university of Chicago. And I decided that I would go do that and see if that would lead me into a PhD program. The year that I was there was oh, 2 0 3. So now you can figure out exactly how old I am. Um, and, uh, I think that basically what happened was I had not realized how much thing September 11th and the aftermath of it had really hit me and hit me as a new Yorker. I didn't know anyone personally who, uh, was killed, but I didn't know, uh, uh, the father of, one of my best friends, uh, was in one of the towers and escaped, um, and oh 2 0 3 that March to the Iraq war kind of shook me.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (04:15)
And I thought I can't be in academia. I can't be, I got to get really into this. I moved back home to New York, uh, and started, uh, getting involved in community newspapers work my way up, uh, was the founding editor of a publication. That's now gone. It was called city hall. Uh, news did a lot of political, uh, New York city and New York state focused stuff. Uh, and did that until 2011, moved to Washington, uh, was recruited by Politico and moved to Washington and be at first and editor there. And then I was, uh, the lead white house correspondent for basically Obama's second term. Um, I, uh, after Trump won, not because of any political reasons, but because I felt like I wanted to actually get to an understanding of what was going on that produced Trump's win. Um, I came off white house coverage and was doing, um, political coverage of all sorts of things around the country at Politico.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (05:12)
In 2018, I moved to the Atlantic, uh, ran in the fall of 2018, the first day that I was on staff at the Atlantic. I flew out to Iowa for the first candidate who went to Iowa officially. And that was Corey Booker. Um, obviously a, uh, never quite became more than that first trip to Iowa. Uh, and, uh, and then I was, as John was saying, it was in 29 states over the course of the campaign working, uh, covering the race day to day for the Atlantic. But in the summer of 2018 already, I, uh, signed a contract for this book because I had a sense that this was going to be a crazy election, that a lot was riding on. And that, um, in fact it was going to be an election that was going to be a lot about the democratic party, trying to sort out what the hell it was supposed to be and how it was going to survive. I, I, yeah. And, and so I was just going to say, I never anticipated obviously the pandemic and all the things that came out of, uh, 20, 20 itself. But, uh, uh, so the campaign, the campaign was crazy, but not, uh, much more crazy than I anticipated. It was going to be,

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:18)
I have a couple of questions. So, um, you writing about the democratic party and you're writing about the factionalism in that party and how they, they picked an elder statesmen effectively to try to do the best that he possibly could to unify that party. And the flip side is you have a very factionalized Republican party as well. It seems like both of these parties are no longer reaching what I would call the bell curve of a center of the country. It seems like most people are centrists and moderates, and you've got hard left people and hard, right? People, am I right about that? Am I missing that you traveled to 29 states? That's my observation.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (06:54)
Tell me if I'm right or wrong. No, I think you are right. And the Electrum results kind of bear that out, right? Uh, by then, if this were, if the primary campaign were one based on who ran the best campaign by the campaign mechanics, Joe Biden wouldn't have won, probably Elizabeth Warren would've won. Uh, but that was not, that's not how campaigns end up going on on the presidential level. Uh, someone once said to me that when you run for city council or for mayor, or for governor Senate, whatever, any position other than president, it's like going in for a job interview, people look at your resume to, okay, what it's done. I think you'd be good, but the running for president voters make that decision based on how they feel in their guts and Biden speaks to people's guts. And he always has, um, it's, I think his real strength as a politician is that he has that emotional connection with people,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:44)
But he, he didn't start off. Well, you know, he's behind the eight ball. You got hurt in Iowa. He got hurt in New Hampshire. Uh, tell us your on the ground field experience about what was going on and how he was able to pull it off. And I should also point out to you that we interviewed the two authors of lucky. They wrote their book lucky, because they said it was a close win for Joe Biden. People see the seven or $8 million in the pot say seven or 8 million votes in the popular vote. And they're like, oh, no problem. But he really only won the election by 43,000 votes in the swing states. So tell us, tell us what was going on and how he was able to recover.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (08:26)
Yeah, the first time that I was in Iowa with Biden was at the beginning of June, 2019, and it was his second trip there. I had missed the first trip. Um, and the first event that I went to is in a town called a tumbler. Uh, and I went to small town, uh, run on some rough times and there's a theater there that they had said the event's going to be happy. So we'll go into the theater. And, uh, they have chairs set up in a hallway on the side of the theater, like outside. Um, and I thought, oh, this is where they're putting the reporters, uh, to wait until we go into the theater. And then they wouldn't let us sit in any of the seats because they said that's for the audience. And there were, uh, I can't remember the count was, I think it was about 80 seats, right?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (09:13)
Uh, for the former vice president United States, uh, the man was leading the polls, um, and that really carried through most of this campaign, really all of the campaign through, uh, super Tuesday when he won the nomination. This was not a well put together campaign. This was a candidate who was often stumbling through speeches and trying to figure out what exactly he was saying and, uh, how he stood out in the field. It didn't feel comfortable attacking other Democrats. That was always a problem for him. So the debates were always bad. Uh, and, uh, and it was what happened as, uh, a lot of the rest of the field coalesced in the way that it did. And certain, some of the people dropped out, um, because they ran out of money or they ran out of support. Um, usually it's when you run out of money that you drop out of a presidential campaign, uh, and also, uh, like if he hadn't been at the end, the option other than Bernie Sanders, I'm not sure that his campaign would have taken off. And in that final stretch like it did. I don't think he was lucky though. I think that there were things that were going on and, and the book gets into, uh, some of the strategic decisions in addition to tracking what was going on in some of the other campaigns. But it was sort of, uh, I said to someone with Biden, if you look at the way that he won the presidency, it's almost as if it were written in the stars. And also the book tracks about 50 different ways where it almost came apart completely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:44)
You know, there's a former, a former president of the United States. You just do a lot of tweeting. He doesn't have a Twitter account anymore, but he tweeted on the day that, uh, Elizabeth Warren and, uh, mayor Pete Buddha, Jay came out of the race or there about that. They were giving the election to Joe Biden then. And do you think that that was actually the case? I was wondering, I looked at it and said, well, that's a reasonably astute political insight that the moderates don't want Bernie Sanders to run away with this. And so they're going to drop out. So that they're number two, who happened to be Joe Biden becomes their number one. What did, what did the former president miss? Well, like

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (11:30)
The former president is, uh, many things, uh, but he is a pretty good observer of like basic politics. Right. And, and I don't think that, so

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:38)
He had great, he had great political instincts politically in 2016. Fortunately, unfortunately what his instincts were. We opened up the onion. There was a lot of rotten folds inside the onion, which obviously we all were worried about

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (11:53)
That. He, uh, sometimes I assumed that there was machinations going on when there, when there weren't, it was not that, uh, Buddha judge dropped out just to, uh, screw Bernie Sanders. Um, although he knew that that would be part of what happened. He dropped out because he knew he was about to get embarrassed and, uh, and not win any votes. But it was, as I pointed out in the book, Udon judge endorsing Biden the night before super Tuesday is the first time in the history of presidential politics that somebody with more delegates, um, and a primary endorsed somebody with fewer delegates, um, and dropped out, uh, Sanders. What if one of the key moments for Sanders is in the debate in Las Vegas, in February, uh that's right before the Nevada primary or the Nevada caucuses, I'm sorry. Uh, all the candidates are asked whether they think a majority of delegates should, would be what was necessary to win the nomination at the convention.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (12:51)
Uh, and it was a question that Chuck Todd put to them and all the candidates said, they thought the majority except for Sanders. And he said, he'd be fine with the plurality. And this lit up, uh, a backlash in the party against him that was sort of the, the gunpowder was already, um, in the barrel. Um, but that was the match. Uh, for a lot of people, I talked to a guy named Larry Cohen is one of, uh, Sanders, his closest friends and, uh, political advisor was not working on this campaign, but runs, uh, that our revolution group that has inspired by the standards folks. Uh, and he said to me, it's the, it was the stupidest thing Bernie Sanders ever said. Uh, and, and it goes from there to, you know, the, the, the basic discomfort that a lot of Democrats had with Sanders. Some of it was leftover from the Clinton, uh, showdown in 2016. And some of it was thinking, are we really going to put up a socialist, uh, Senator from Vermont against Donald Trump? Um, th th these factors all ended up working in Biden's favor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:53)
Anybody else on that field could have beaten Donald Trump?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (13:58)
I mean, it's great. What if, right. Uh, and, uh, it's funny when the pandemic hit, uh, I started to get from a lot of the campaigns can remember this. The sequencing of the pandemic is the bind is basically wrapped up the nomination right before everything shuts down, uh, and a number of the candidates, uh, aids were pushing, oh, this actually would have been a good moment for Elizabeth Warren because she has a lot of plans. Um, it would have been a good moment for Mike Bloomberg cause people like management experience, it would have been a good moment for Bernie Sanders because everybody was thinking, should we have healthcare for everybody? It does not seem to me that there is a strong argument that one of the other candidates could have won. Um, and, uh, when you look at it, there there's some focus groups, uh, uh, that I quote at the end of the book that were done with the famed Obama, Trump voters, right.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (14:50)
People who for Obama twice, and then for Trump in 2016. And, uh, they were deciding, but under Trump in 2020, and the read that they gave was on Trump, uh, basically I can't stand them, but he knows what to do with the economy. It's not really fair to him. What happened to the economy that, you know, it's like a meteorite hit here, uh, with the pandemic and probably when the pandemic Staten, the key would be better to get us out of it, but I don't think he can get us out of it. Uh, the read on Biden was, is a good man. I don't know that he knows what he's doing with the economy. I'm a little spoked with what's going on. Uh, and the, the defund, the police and all that, it seems very strange what's happening in the democratic party, but we need to get out of the pandemic. And I think he can get us through it. And that kind of, that, that comfort that people have with Biden, uh, and the, the, uh, comfort in his experience and his personality there, isn't another candidate who really had

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:48)
That. I want you to, I want you to be the objective consultant. I'm hiring you, Isaac. Okay. And you get a higher report. You have two jobs over, you're not a reporter in this gate, you're this objective, innocent well-researched Politico. And then you're coming in and I'm asking you to please evaluate for me the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic party going into 2022 and 2024. And if you were the party chair or you were the guru for the party, what would you recommend to them? And then subsequently, I'm going to ask you that same question related to the Democrats, the Democrats first, and then Republicans, whatever you want. You're the guru, you're the guru,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (16:35)
It's about the Democrats. So I'll start with the Democrats. Um, uh, the, the Saturday before the election, I was in Miami, uh, Kamala Harris was doing a bunch of stops, uh, trying to, um, get Florida where they want it to be. And she kept on saying this line that was, uh, towards the beginning of her speech. So it was something like, and I just want you to know Joe Biden. And I are both proud Americans. And at one point after she'd said three or four events, someone who was working on the campaign said to me, did you notice that, that line? And I said, yeah. And the person said, that's pushing back on the socialist stuff that they're saying down here in Florida. Now, my response to that was that was a little too subtle for me to sit here. And I'm the reporter who was paid to be paying very close attention to this.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (17:22)
And second of all, if that's all that they have as the pushback, uh, that really didn't seem like enough. They underestimated in Florida how powerful that argument would be, especially with, uh, people from, uh, central and Latin America who either came themselves or have relatives there, uh, and, uh, are very suspicious of anything that says socialism, right? Um, and that's maybe more powerful when there's a closer connection to a socialist country, but it is a real issue for voters all around the country to think that Democrats are turning towards socialism. And the truth is at this point, the, uh, most of the people who are the most prominent most often on TV characters in the democratic party are people who say that they tend toward socialism other than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the rest of the administration itself. But Bernie Sanders out Sandra causer Cortez, other activists I've these that makes a lot of people who are not socialists or socialists inclined themselves uncomfortable, whether or not that's fair. And that's something that the party really needs to deal with. But let me

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:34)
Interrupt for a second. Is that a mainstream thought socialism in America, is that a thought for 10, 20, 30% of the people and the mainstream with that thinking?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (18:45)
I mean, look, elections are lost in one, uh, usually by, at most 20% in the middle of going back and forth, and there's probably less than that really it's, uh, you know, uh, 45% of people are one way are going to go with the Democrat, no matter what and 45 with the Republican, no matter what. Uh, and it's that 10% that you're trying to find now that 10% can also be, uh, accounted for by new voters turning out. And that's one of the arguments that's been going on in the democratic party. But, uh, one of the things that, uh, towards the end of the book that I get into is, um, there was a protest a couple of weeks after the election in favor of the green new deal that was held right outside of the DNC headquarters in Washington. And, uh, it was led by all the members of the squad and Ilhan Omar, the Congressman from Minnesota comes and she, uh, was, she was giving a speech that said, you know, I had the highest turnout in America in my district. Uh, and people say to me, Ilhan, how do you do it? Ilhan? What, and it's because I gave them something to believe in and she's standing there and she says, and you know, it's true. She did have the highest rent. That's a district by the way that George Floyd was killed in, um, it's a district in a swing state of Minnesota. Uh, it's a district that, um, uh, was represented by Keith Ellison, the attorney general now, before he was, uh, attorney general, there's a lot going on in that district. Um, sorry. Um, the, uh, he

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:11)
Sees that, so our YouTube bubble moment, right. There you go, stuff flying around. I usually get my young kids coming into karate, chopping me on live television. And that's fine. Um,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (20:23)
The point that I was making is that she, uh, what, she, I'm not sure she realized, uh, it certainly, wasn't what she said that day is that her district was the biggest drop-off between, uh, the votes for president and, uh, and a house member in the entire country. So it's true that people turned out and they felt like they had something they believed in, they were turning out for Joe Biden. They were not turning out for her.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:48)
So, and quickly because the book is about the Democrats, what would you say for the,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (20:55)
I don't see how there is a winning strategy to lash yourself to not just somebody from the past as Donald Trump is at this point, but someone who has proven that he will never be satisfied, then no matter what, it's never enough. And, uh, he enjoys making people squirm. You can see that he's doing that with Kevin McCarthy, uh, and we'll,

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:23)
And when you're talking about a battle for the soul yet ASA, do these, any of these people have any souls I'm just to find Kevin. So I liked Kevin. I mean, I gave Kevin money. I was obviously a lifelong Republican, but I mean, these guys are, uh, they've decided that they're just going to completely distort the facts and guests like the country. So, I mean, we can go in that direction, but I don't think it's very healthy. Okay.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (21:46)
And that's, that's its own question, right? Like, is it the good thing to do? Is it the politically smart thing to do is also, I think very much in the air. Um, obviously the, the reasons of where the trends are historically a midterm for the incumbent presidents, rarely good. Um, and there are a lot of, uh, factors about gerrymandering and certain states that are going to give Republicans a leg up going into next year in the house races. So the Republicans are going to win the house. I don't know that that's a done deal. It, it almost like it, it shouldn't be a question and I don't think it would be, if not for these bigger factors going on, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:26)
Play the party, not in power wins the house, but in this case, because they're so screwed up, blow it. Yeah. It's

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (22:32)
Sort of like if the Republicans don't win the house, it's next year, it will, I think be more because they lose it, then that the Democrats

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:41)
Hold on to it and running for reelection.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (22:44)
It's hard to tell. I mean, he is working really hard every day at that job. Um, and, uh, he'll be 82. There are, you know, actuary, IRL things that are there for him, but he really wanted to be president. And, you know, the book ends with an interview that I did with him, uh, at the beginning of February. And there's a level of confidence in him of like, yeah, I'm here, I'm finally in charge. I'm going to do it this way. That was striking to me. And I've talked with other people who've been around him since he's been sworn in. And they said the same thing. Uh, I don't know if that means that by the time that he gets to the end of the first term and probably won't be all the way at the end, he'd have to make a decision in another, let's say, 18 months, uh, to let the party prepare, but it's not going to be him. He may look at them and say like, I want to give it another shot. I may be the only one who can win. That's how that, yeah, I think he's

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:37)
Going to run again. It's very hard to run away from this sort of power, but I've got to turn it over to the Earth's wild blonde millennials, because the reason why you're going to be able to sell books is that all of his fan base tunes in to see him, you and I are just a side show of distraction. Uh, but I have one last question. Okay. Is Trump running

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (23:58)
Again? I don't think so. Okay. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:03)
Orange oranges is the new black, as you know, he may be in an orange jumpsuit before this is over off the seat. I mean that part, uh, I guess, let me tell you something that I, I don't think you bring a criminal case against the former president and his former organization or his current organization, unless you're pretty confident. I don't think you go, I don't think you take those steps, but we'll have to see, I got to turn it over to Darcie cause I really want you to sell books. Um, and, uh, it's the battle for the soul and the, uh, the underlying pretext is what happened inside the Democrats' campaign to defeat Trump. And I gotta tell you, uh, I'm so excited for you because I think you're right at the edge of where things are right now. And I want people to go out and buy your book, but I got to turn it over to John Dorsey, which will guarantee Isaac, that people buy.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (24:52)
And do you need to stop talking then? So we get to that part.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:56)
I got to put myself on mute for that to happen. My lips are going to be moving on. John's talking to you a whole lot of sex. Isaac.

John Darcie: (25:02)
I just want to clarify the point on Ilhan Omar. Cause I think it's a fascinating discussion points. So she talked about how she had high turnout. Uh, and you talked about the discrepancy between Joe Biden's, uh, share of the vote in her district and Hershey or the vote. Are you saying that it was the biggest drop-off between the presidential candidate and the, the house representatives?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (25:20)
Yeah, the biggest it's. So, uh, I don't remember the percentages off hand, but, uh, the, the most Biden got whatever it was, let's say 85% in the district. This is roughly where it was high eighties. Uh, and she got something like 66% or 62%. And in most districts it closely matches, um, that the same number of people vote Democrat all the way down the line. That means that there are people who are, who went into vote for Joe Biden. A lot of them who voted for him. And by the time they got to her either didn't vote for her voted for someone else.

John Darcie: (25:57)
Right. And you think that's evidence that the more progressive and give you something to believe in notion within the democratic party is misplaced. So going back to the point about, you know, whether somebody like Bernie with a more energetic populous message you think would have lost and that's the wrong direction for the party.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (26:13)
I mean, like, I'm not sure he would have lost. I think it would have been a much harder thing. Uh, and, uh, I think what that shows is that you see how one of the things, by the way that it shows us is Biden's own strong connection to black voters, especially older black voters that carried him through South Carolina and just, uh, floated him when everything else was going wrong for his campaign. But I think it, the democratic party right now is, uh, sort of at a crossroads, right. Of figuring out, do they see themselves as trying to be the party that, uh, folks like Ilhan Omar in Ocasio Cortez would like it to be and what Bernie Sanders would like it to be? Do they, for those folks, do they look at the Biden win and say, oh, you know, people just, they were so scared of Trump or they liked him, whatever it was a fluke essentially.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (27:08)
Right. Do you look at the election results and say, you know what, like there was something to Biden that people connected with. And, uh, it may not quite make sense by the usual political science calculations, but you see, I mean, I track a lot of moments in this book of it is human connections that he was making with people and the way that people feel about him and the way that people feel about his, his approach to politics. I think there's a great example. If you look at what happened a couple of weeks ago, um, when the all-star game, the bay, the baseball all star game, uh, was deciding whether to move out of Atlanta when Georgia passes new voting clause and Biden was asked about it. And he said something like, you know, I think that's something that people should consider it, didn't say, okay, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump just go in recent history here had said anything like that.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (27:59)
It would have exploded. And people would have gotten to their separate barricades. We have to have the game there. We can't have a game. Instead. What happened with when Biden said that is certainly there was a lot of pushback to moving the game. And there are a lot of people who said, actually I had to remove a certain layer of people that it was, huh, maybe we should consider it. And that's something that is a power that Biden alone has, I think because the connection people have to him and that's powering him through very well. Now, I don't think most people see him as like, uh, acting in this super partisan way. And if you look at the polls, they don't, but the American rescue plan passed with only democratic votes infrastructure plan passes. It'll probably pass with mostly democratic votes, uh, if not entirely. Right. And, and the same thing for any of the other things,

John Darcie: (28:49)
Right? You talked about how black voters essentially rescued Biden during the primary and basically rescued the country from Trump more or less in the general election, but the Hispanic vote was a fascinating phenomenon. So people just sort of took for granted or assumed that Biden in the democratic party had a stranglehold on Hispanic votes because of some of the rhetoric coming from Trump and his administration, their actions around immigration. But actually we saw a big move from, from the Hispanic demographic, towards Trump, especially in, in Miami Dade county, other counties in Florida, in El Paso, Texas, for example, do you think that's going to be part of a more longterm shift within both parties or you're going to see more Hispanic voters gravitate towards Republicans and, you know, using the, the messaging on socialism and, and the idea that, you know, maybe unfettered immigration isn't a positive thing, or do you think that was just a blip on the radar?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (29:41)
I think the socialism, uh, argument that, uh, Republicans make against Democrats is very powerful with a lot of voters. And I think it, it, it seems to be particularly powerful with, uh, with people who, as I was saying earlier, have a connection, not just are Latino or Hispanic, uh, but if they, if they themselves, or they have parents or relatives who come from a country that has had bad experiences with socialism that resonates, and you saw that happen in Florida, um, it's really hard to argue that if the Democrats had been able to quash the socialism thing that they wouldn't have done better in Florida might be maybe even it. Um, Donald Trump is very smart. As I said about certain things in politics, he knows how to get to the basins sinks with people. There was a reason why they kept saying socialism and why he kept talking about socialism.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (30:30)
It worked. Uh, and, uh, I, I do think that that long-term is a problem for Democrats. Uh, I'm not sure that you will see, uh, any clear movement of Hispanics overall, but that that's bad news for Democrats who assumed that more Hispanic, more Latino population, um, more voters who were Latino, uh, means more both for them. Uh, and particularly in a place like Texas, that Democrats have been thinking for, I don't know how many election cycles have we done? There's like, this is the one that text is going to be democratic. Well, like it's not, it's not happening. And now where's the interest in, in, uh, Texas for 2022, it's in, uh, Matthew McConaughey running. Right. I, we can check on. All right. All right. I don't think that there's any Latino blood in that magic economy. I believe his wife is Latina, but, uh, I'm not, I'm not, I'm asking. We've got an expert.

John Darcie: (31:28)
Yeah. Yeah. The, the, the celebrity thing they're trying to repurpose that, uh, that strategy, but in terms of how president Biden has governed, do you think that he's governed in the same vein that he campaigned and been a moderate and been restrained? Or do you think that he's moved to the left and what do you think the country's response to the way he's governed has been so

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (31:48)
Far? Uh, this is one of the things that I track in the book a lot. Um, I don't think the presidency that he is having, uh, is anywhere like the presidency or anything like the presidency that he thought he was going to have. And that is because of the pandemic and, uh, what was exposed by the pandemic and the opportunities that were created by the pandemic. Uh, he sees himself now in a special and perhaps unique moment in history, uh, to change the way that things go in this country. Uh, he has, when I was talking to him, he pointed out the Franklin Roosevelt portrait is hanging over the fireplace in the oval office. I can pretty much guarantee you that that would not have been, uh, the, the, uh, main portrait that he would have hung in the oval office, uh, before I don't know who it would have been, but, uh, seeing himself as this new Roosevelt is because of what happened here.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (32:46)
Right. Um, and now I think that what he is doing is very reasonably making the assumption and the argument that there is a difference between the kind of pushback that he gets from Republicans in Congress versus Republicans out in the country. And you see that, that the American rescue plan had a much higher poll numbers than you would have guessed based on that. It didn't get a single Republican vote in the house or Senate, um, and among Republicans, right? Higher poll numbers, that's the pitch that he's making to the country. Um, and it seems to be working. People just look at him and, and seem to think like he can't be that far out there. Even though when you look at the substance of what he's talking about here, this is major legislation, major structural change to this country. And, uh, things that Progressive's a couple of years ago would never have thought could be possible. And definitely didn't think it would be possible in a Joe Biden prison.

John Darcie: (33:46)
Right. It seems like the punches that, uh, the Republicans are throwing at Biden right now, in terms of trying to criticize this administration are not landing. They're trying to liken this to Jimmy Carter, 2.0, where you have fuel prices went up. But that was because of just a black Swan event, the hack that happened on the pipeline, uh, they're talking about lumber prices and the inflation that's being caused by all this fiscal irresponsibility. But if you were the Democrats right now, and you're, you're sitting in their strategic seat, what candidate, uh, on the Republican side, would you be most worried about based on where your party is?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (34:19)
So I'm not sure what the answer to that is. And again, um, I, I think that history will have a pretty clear judgment on, uh, Trump's presidency. Uh, but whatever you think of him, good or bad or whatever, um, especially for Democrats who found him at foreign, they sort of tend to overlook how skilled he was politically and how good he was a connecting with people. And I'm not sure that you see anyone of the prospective Republican candidates who has anywhere near that skillset. Um, whether it's Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Rhonda Santas, Nikki Haley, uh, the, the Mo the names that we've talked about so far, like it's not, they have other skills. They're just not as good at the political part of it. Uh, as, as Trump was, I think we all underestimated how good Trump would be at connecting with people. But that's, I think in retrospect, because we didn't appreciate how much he had sort of trained by all the ways that he was out there and all the ways that he had embedded himself into people's psyches.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (35:23)
I mean, I've spent a lot of time in the pandemic, uh, cooking as we've many of us have, uh, and I've watched, uh, too many, uh, old sitcoms on like Amazon prime and Hulu and whatever else. And it is astounding to me how much Trump shows up as just throw away jokes. Um, I will tell you, I've found an episode of perfect strangers, which he used to watch when I was a kid and I was watching it on Hulu. And there's like, they think that they, when they won the lottery and a cousin Larry says, like, take that Donald Trump. That's crazy. There's no one else who has that kind of connection to us all. Culturally, the only other person I think does, uh, is Oprah Oprah's politics are not going to put her in a good place in a Republican primary. I don't think.

John Darcie: (36:08)
Yeah. I mean, he's a brilliant marketer. And as his business career shown that as a real estate developer, or as a governing politician, he doesn't necessarily Excel, but in terms of marketing the message and building his brand, he does a fantastic job on the democratic side. Let's say, Joe Biden serves one term. He decides not to run, or even if he does run in, in seven years from now, what does the bench look like in the democratic party? Who do you think are going to be ascendent stars, uh, that are going to take this, this Baton from Biden and lead the party forward?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (36:40)
Although the most obvious one of course is Camila Harris, um, incoming vice president. It's always going to be where things are. Uh, Harris does seem to represent, uh, what the face of the party, uh, more, uh, ethnically racially diverse a woman, right? Like that's where the base of the party is going. Uh, and,

John Darcie: (37:01)
Uh, people within the party don't like her, you know, they, they think that she comes off as unlikable. She comes from California, that's, you know, experienced some issues. You see some, you know, we work in the financial industry, you see people from Silicon valley moving to places like Miami because of their dissatisfaction, with things that are going on in California. Is she likable? Is she the one? Just because by default, she's the incumbent

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (37:22)
And likable, then we learned that that's a word that, uh, when it was used about Hillary Clinton has a little bit to do with, uh, sexism misogyny, right. Um, I'll get some hate mail. I will quote, uh, something that Jennifer Palmieri, who was the communications director for Hillary Clinton has said. And it's that it's very hard for us to think of a woman in power and a woman being present because a woman has never been president. Um, so we don't have that frame of reference. Right. And I think that Harris is, uh, trying out how that looks for, uh, the right and getting people used to that. Uh, she's the one who's the most likely to, uh, be in that position because she's, vice-president, there are other ones out there too. Of course, a lot of, uh, attention has gone to people who to judge you, even though it's transportation secretary.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (38:10)
Um, and, uh, and I think you'll see other senators and governors come up. One of the things that happened very much in the Obama years is that there was a just ravaging of the bench, uh, and not a lot of Democrats that are, uh, left, uh, in, uh, in the up-and-coming generation, uh, from, uh, the pre 2012, 2000 years. So you've just had, you know, five, six years of new people coming up. And of course, Harris is one of them and she she's the vice president now, but she was elected to the Senate for the first time in 2016 on the night that Trump won that's in the book to her credit, trying to figure out, uh, what it is to be elected to the Senate and being happy about it. But also like Trump wins. She's completely spooked by it. And there's a scene at the early, in the book of her coming to her party and wanting to like speak to all the people there and celebrate. And her staff is like, we gotta get you out of the building. You can't answer any

John Darcie: (39:07)
Questions. Did Obama want Biden to be president? We've covered this with a couple other authors that we've had on that, of that, of Chronicle, uh, the lead up to, and the 20, 20 election about some frostiness that might exist between the two of them, uh, based on the handling of 2016 and then 2020 that Obama wasn't buying to be president, or how do you think he's evaluating the party right now?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (39:29)
So I want, is it a complicated question? Right? Um, I keep did not, he was not convinced that Biden could be president, um, there or could win the presidency, not going to be president. Um, there's a, a moment early in the book, uh, when he's flying back from a Christmas party at the end of 2017, uh, that was in Chicago for the Obama foundation, and they're talking on the plane and he says, okay, in your head and in your heart, who do you think in your head could win? Who do you think in your heart could win? And who, or who do you want in your head to run and in your heart to run, and who do you think could win? And he, uh, himself picks bill McRaven, the Navy seal commander for the bin lawn raid for his head,

John Darcie: (40:16)
Admiral McRaven. He spoke, spoken Salta in 20 minutes.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (40:20)
Um, he and his heart says of course by it, and I love Biden he'll could win. I'm not sure. I don't know. He was talking a lot about how, uh, physically taxing the job of president is, uh, and that it's hard for older people when people would hear him say that and be like, okay, we get it. We know who you're talking about. Uh, uh, he would talk about, uh, that he didn't know if Biden would be able to connect with people. There is a moment from when Biden is still vice-president and he's flying in air force two. And he says to somebody, uh, he's talking about Obama. And he says, I've never seen somebody who's better at talking to 10,000 people into one, uh, right. That's what he says about Obama and Obama feeling about that. It was like the reverse of that, right.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (41:05)
It was like, yeah, Bob is great, like Todd jumping around, but like, he can't like put lots of people in a rally and rev them up. Um, and you know, there are realistic factors of wood Biden's campaign have looked, uh, worse in contrast to Trump's if he had been spending all of last year doing rallies, instead of not because of the coronavirus. Uh, so your question was Obama by then to run. I think it comes down to skepticism. Uh, he loves him, but he, he's not convinced. Um, and you see that all the way through the end of the campaign, this feeling of like, okay, like, I guess this is working better and better work, but like,

John Darcie: (41:55)
Yeah, he certainly waited until sort of the last hour or two to make that formal endorsement, which Biden said that he asked Obama not to endorse him. And I think people definitely believe that version of events, wink, wink, um, but Edward, Isaac Dover, it's been fantastic to have you on salt talks. The book is called battle for the soul inside Democrats campaigns to defeat Trump. Maybe there'll be another one of those campaigns, uh, in four years you say no, but you, you never know.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (42:24)
I'm not, I'm not convinced.

John Darcie: (42:27)
All right. Well, uh, I, I'm not going to comment on that, but, um, it'll be interesting if it does happen, but I think there's, there's at least one person on this, this, uh, salt talk that, that hopes it doesn't. But, um, and I'll leave people guessing about who that is, but thank you so much for joining Anthony have a final word before we let Isaac leave. First of

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:45)
All, how do you know that? I don't want that because you knew that would be a lot of fun for me. Okay. You know, Isaac,

Speaker 4: (42:51)
[inaudible]

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:53)
My wife, Isaac. My wife says to me, now that Trump's gone, who the hell are you going to fight with and make sure it's not me. Okay. So that's why I pick on Dorsey on every cycle. Exactly. Exactly. So how do you know that? I don't want Trump to run again. I mean, I'm just asking you, Isaac, God bless and congratulations on the book. And hopefully we can get, you know, uh, one of our live events, I'd love to go a little clears up a little bit rooting for you. We are too, and we're rooting for you. And, uh, I look forward to reading the book. I apologize that I didn't get it. I didn't get access to it before the talk, but I will definitely read it and I'll let you know what I think. Well, and I wish the best of luck with it.

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (43:38)
I appreciate that. I know you're usually

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:40)
Really, we also, I also want to apologize for the way we're dressed. Okay. Because even though we're in the office, for whatever reason, we weren't wearing the fancy pants, clothing,

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (43:52)
You know, the reverse for me. Cause I'm sitting in my home. Um, what time for you? I've had a tie on, I don't know, maybe six times since the pandemic hit, but for you, Anthony, I'm

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:02)
Good. Are you, are you, are you wearing champion shorts?

Edward-Isaac Dovere: (44:06)
I'll tell you. I'll admit I'm not wearing shoes, but I am wearing pants. Um, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:10)
No, that, I mean, that's, that's, that's congruent to other COVID fashion. So God blessed, uh, congratulations on the book. We wish you well, we'll see you soon. Thanks.

John Darcie: (44:21)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with Edward Isaac. Dovera talking about his book battle for the soul. Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. And we're continuing to build out our website. We have full transcripts available. There links to subscribe to our YouTube channel as well as some key quotes that we pull from every episode. So definitely a salt.org. And we also have salt in New York, our conference coming up in September registration for that will open in June. So we hope as many of you, uh, as, as, as possible and safe can join us there. Uh, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here against them.

Zach Karabell: Inside Money | SALT Talks #214

“What you want at the center of the financial world is a degree of awareness of the destructive capacity of money.”

Zach Karabell is an author, columnist and podcast host. Karabell is also founder of Possibility Project at New America and president at River Twice Research and River Twice Capital. His latest book is Inside Money: Brown Brothers Harriman and the American Way of Power.

In his book Inside Money, Karabell describes the early stages of American capitalism powered by WASP men and its evolution into modern times. The book looks at the history of the banking institution Brown Brothers Harriman and its influential role shaping the 19th and 20th century world order. Karabell is concerned with modern elites, particularly tech company founders, and their unwillingness to assume more responsibility that comes with their newfound power. He wants to see tech leaders take more active roles in the larger debate about the role their creations play and how they should be positioned appropriately.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Zach Karabell.jpeg

Zach Karabell

Author

Inside Money

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume here in September of 2021. And that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome, uh, another great author to salt talks, Zach Caravel, who wrote a fantastic book. Uh, that's coming out here in a couple of days. Uh, Zach is an author and columnist and founder of the progress network at new America and president of river, twice research and river twice capital previously.

John Darcie: (01:05)
He was the head of global strategies at Envestnet, a pub publicly traded financial services firm. And prior to that, he was the president of Fred Alger and company. His next book, again, that's coming out here shortly is called inside money, brown brothers Harriman and the American way of power. And that's published by penguin press. Uh, here again in the next couple of days, uh, as a commentator, Zach is a contributing editor for wired and for Politico. And he's the host of the podcast. What could go right? Uh, previously he wrote the edgy optimist, a column for slate Reuters and the Atlantic hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and I would also in some ways call Anthony and edgy optimist. So I think it'll be a good chemistry here today, uh, on, on this salt talk. But with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview. And

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:59)
Zach, I'm also a best-selling author. If you don't believe me, you can come into this basement right here. You can see every book that I had to buy in order for me to get that equitation. Okay. Well,

Zach Karabell: (02:08)
If you've got any room in the basement, by all means,

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:13)
The good news for you is you actually, you actually sell books because you are a brilliant writer. Uh, I want to go to a couple of things that I think people need to know about you because in a lot of ways you predict a future, you see things, uh, you wrote a book almost 23 years ago. Now what's college for it turns out that, uh, we're discovering the college may be for lots of things and may not be for certain people. Uh, more or less you wrote that in that book, 23 years ago, you wrote a book called superfusion how China and America became one economy and why the world's prosperity depends on it. That was about 10 or 11 years ago. Uh, but it correctly assessed what was going on in that bilateral relationship and why that bilateral relationship is arguably the most important bilateral relationship in the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:02)
Uh, you wrote a book about leading indicators, uh, basically a short history of numbers and how we know the cliche lies. There are, there are lies, lies, and there are statistics. And you point out that sometimes we're made to believe certain things that may or may not be true. Um, one of your more fascinating books, which I read, and then I went on to read other books about this was the Harry Truman book. You remember the Harry Truman book, Zack, how he won that 1948 election and what was going on in the United States at that period of time, uh, which is interesting because you have a lot of Truman people in inside money, uh, that then ended up in the Truman administration. Um, and the reason I'm bringing all these different books up, all of which were best sellers, is that you have a pressure point instinct for what is going on. And so now let me push back after I just praised you. Why the hell are we writing about brown brothers Harriman? That seems like an old WAFs investment bank that doesn't have any relevance to today. Now, of course, Dorsey that's a setup because we know it does. Please continue Mr. Caravelle.

Zach Karabell: (04:14)
So it is a, it is a great question. And just for corrective, unfortunately, the books were not bestsellers except for in my mother's, you know, conception of my career

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:25)
This way. Maybe they weren't best sellers, but they were brilliant books. I got introduced to you by Gary convinced skating. And 2013 was Dez 13. I'm a reader. I went back and read your books. I read your column. I encourage everybody listening to this Saul talk cast to read your column a, because they're always loaded with insights and they're always loaded with non-conventional thinking, but I'm doing too much talking now. So I'm going

Zach Karabell: (04:49)
To show you, so the, so the reason the brand brothers book, um, first of all, it's just a good way to write the history of how money made America over a 200 year period, but separate from that in terms of its relevance to the moment. And you never know when a book is going to be published relative to them when you start writing it. So sometimes books land with a thud because I have no residents. And sometimes they, they unlock something in the moment. And I think the book is frankly, more relevant now than I thought it would be when I sat down to write it. And part of it is this idea of, you know, when I told people I was writing the book, a lot of the responses in the, in the financial world for people who actually knew the name of the firm was, huh, are they still around or kind of shaking their heads?

Zach Karabell: (05:35)
You know, what, what a great story, what a great firm that used to be. And it occurred to me that a firm that has 5,000 employees today, $2 billion in revenue, about $500 billion in profit, uh, that has lasted 200 years. When did that stop being a success story? Right? When, when did the aperture, particularly on wall street become much more lionize? The Goldman Sachs is the world. I know that's a sensitive topic, Anthony for you. Um, and I was saying that he's at a sensitive time, I'm teasing because I know your Goldman experience was a formative moment in the, in the arc of your career. That's all I was nodding. No,

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:19)
Listen, I, I, I like Goldman. I mean, I think, I think at the end of the day, I wasn't the right fit for Goldman. They, they correctly figured that out. So did I, but I do like, oh, well, go ahead. I'm sorry.

Zach Karabell: (06:30)
And so, but I just made that, that has become the model, right? Bigger, better, more. Um, whereas the words was a model and it was true more of that kind of self-effacing genteel wasp establishment of which brown brothers is totally exhibit a, um, where there was, uh, a greater sense of sometimes enough is enough. And I'm very clear in the book that I do not believe that all of wall street, all of finance should embrace that mantra. Right? Brown brothers Harriman would never have underwritten Elon Musk or many of the technology innovations that have great, you know, have unlocked great potential, but also have great risks. So you don't want a world composed only of brown brothers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:13)
Let me push back a little bit. This was a parochial white world, a white male world. It was a white wasp male world. Uh, when my Italian immigrant grandparents got here, there were signs in the windows that said, Nina, no Italians need apply that also for the Irish, no Irish need apply. And so is it a case where, and again, I'm speaking from the prism of a wool coach culture today, um, is it the case that these guys directly benefited from that and directly benefited from the lack of asset access and assets for that matter that people didn't have, and that allowed them to flourish the way they did

Zach Karabell: (07:54)
It is a great and important question. This is unequivocally a history of white men and what they did, and, you know, in a woke time that may not be the kind of history that a lot of people are, are willing to embrace. I suppose my general point about that is a lot of American history was made by white men for better and for worse and understanding who we are with a, maybe an, a Gimlet eye about all of the devices. And the virtues is kind of an essential aspect of understanding, literally who we are. So, you know, this is not a celebration or a condemnation. I don't, I don't believe the role of the historian overlay should be to sit in judgment. You know, there's whole there's whole passages and times in the book where the brown fortune was made initially on facilitating the cotton trade, they were the largest cotton broker.

Zach Karabell: (08:48)
They underwrote much of the import and export of cotton between New York, Baltimore liberal, uh, and you know, you cannot get rich from the cotton trade in the 19th century without being complicit in slavery, full stop. You know, there's no ands ifs or buts, but almost everybody was complicit in the slave system in the United States leading up to the civil war, William Lloyd Garrison. One of the great abolitionist did not absor wearing cotton, uh, even as he was fighting that system because you, it was almost impossible to opt out just like, it's almost impossible to opt out of the carbon economy today, even if you believe it's destroying the planet. So it is not saying, oh, we should, this was some golden age we should return to. Um, but I do think the past offers select lessons as applied to a different reality, right? I'm not saying, wouldn't it be great if there was a closed tight knit establishment that went to a few Ivy league schools and what it made it impossible for you or for me to participate in. And, uh, that's not, that's not the point.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:54)
Was the world better back then? Zack, was it simple or was it easier?

Zach Karabell: (09:58)
I think the idea that there was a cohesive elite that believed they had a responsibility to address the commons, meaning that they believed that unless society overall thrived, that they individually would ultimately not thrive. That was an important ingredient. And maybe it begins a little bit with, with Andrew Carnegie and the gospel of wealth. You know, this idea that those with great means have a responsibility to give back. Um, but I do think that that as an ingredient in a constructive society is, is certainly absent amongst a lot of elites today. Not all, uh, certainly absent amongst a lot of tech elites today. You know, all you get now in tech land as a kind of crickets in the face of huge public pressure to be more responsible and more diligent about the effects of their business and their wealth on the overall society in a way that those financial elites at the, uh, during the cold war really did step up. You know, they really did function with an understanding of the commons.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:01)
Let me ask you a different question and we come at it from a different angle. Um, you're suggesting that no police oblige this sort of notion that too much is given much as expected as a result of which there was a culture among those elites that they were going to do things for others. The current leads seem more selfish. Is that fair

Zach Karabell: (11:22)
To say? I think that's fair to say. Okay.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:24)
And so then what could the kernel leads the lead learn from inside money?

Zach Karabell: (11:33)
Well, one the idea that the boundless pursuit of more is unbelievably potent, um, but carries with it the potential for unbelievable disruption, right? So one of the things that brown brothers that allows it to survive and thrive, and I also am very clear, living long is not in and of itself. A virtue living well is so the fact that a firm or any individual has a long life is not a reason to go, wow, that's, let's celebrate it. Um, but within their culture was an understanding that every thing you do that strives for more and more and more creates the possibility for more and more risks and more and more risks should be measured, measured doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken. It just means you should be aware of the fact. And I do think there's something that I, by no means the first person to say this, that there's something about publicly traded financial companies, shareholder, capital driven that removes some of that sensitivity to risk versus reward so that if you're not personally exposed to the risk, but you are absolutely personally exposed to the reward, it changes your incentive structure. I don't think it's fair. I mean, I don't think that that's healthy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:48)
I used to say that they'd say that, you know, we were long right after the garden hose in our garage. So they would, they were more cautious right. About the risks that they were taking. Um, I want to switch to something fun for a second Avril Harriman, who was the Seon of the Herrmann of brown brothers Harriman, the great railroad enterprise. And these were the merger of an investment bank and a railroad family, as you point out in the book, um, uh, he married, she's having an affair with, uh, Pamela Churchill, uh, who became Pamela Harris. Paramin was having an affair with her during the war. He reconnected with her 30 years, hence, and, uh, he was at a cocktail party in Georgetown, in DC. Somebody said to him, wow, your 85 year old, there's only you look great. Do you remember what he said?

Zach Karabell: (13:38)
I don't, but I, I mean, I know he said something pithy. I just don't remember.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:41)
It was very pithy. He said, well, of course, I'd look great. I've spent my entire life playing polo and shagging young women effectively. That's what he said. And so I want you to react to that. Um, man of privilege, Getty went on to do great things. He's ambassador to Moscow, governor of New York. Uh, tell me a little bit about Admiral Howell. I mean, heroin's

Zach Karabell: (14:05)
A bit of a cipher, right? He has this glamorous external life. He's clearly totally to the Manor born. And this is a man who did not lose one wink of sleep to his inherited privilege and belief that, that, that placed him in a position. She's a member

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:23)
Of his country club. I just thought I would point that out while we're fair enough. Um, now he'll have a chance to react to it. He's not wrong.

Zach Karabell: (14:31)
I think he was immensely charming with women, but I also think not overly interesting. You know, maybe this was not a curious man. This was a man who believed that his position in society gave him privilege, but he also believed that, you know, he's taught this by his father over and over again, that, that those with more have a responsibility to, um, to serve society, which I don't think ever means that they're not also self-serving right. The two or the two are not, um, in inherent contradiction. Right. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:00)
Know, and, and by the way, I think you make the case in the book, this, this, uh, firm was very close to the U S government, both on domestic and foreign issues. Um, is that you think there are any companies today that are as close to the American government as brown brothers Harriman was back in the day? No,

Zach Karabell: (15:20)
I mean, you did have that period of Goldman from like early nineties with Robert Rubin and then Paulson and, and, you know, a whole series of others who really were central in government. So you had a kind of a, I don't know, 20 year Goldman period, that was pretty pronounced. Um, and I think in many ways, emulated that brown brothers model in the sense of, you know, we, we are, we are bound to take a role in shaping the commons, um, much more controversial. And I think in a way that many people are more ambivalent about, although frankly, they became deeply ambivalent about the role of the wasp elite in the sixties. You know, the world that we grew up in was a world that was reacting against that pretty dramatically.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:04)
So if I had a book club of Elon Musk and Tim cook and Jeff Bezos, and you picked three or four other people that should be in that book club, and I said, I want you to read inside money, brown brothers Harriman and the American way of power. Uh, what's my pitch to them. Why should they read it? Well,

Zach Karabell: (16:26)
First it is, where are you right now? Right? Where are you

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:31)
Working on? My first sentence would be Zach Carol is an amazing writer. And so she's read it for that reason, but now you give the pitch, go ahead.

Zach Karabell: (16:39)
I would be, where are you? You know, what, what, where are you in the debate other than fighting a series of intense rear guard actions, hiring lobbyists to try to prevent regulation or shaping the regulation that's coming, where are you front and center in the what's the value of technology to society? What's the balance between privacy and all the things that the lack of privacy provide for all of us, you know, the ease of which our information is used also as the ease of which our lives become somewhat simpler and less friction full. But where are you in that public discussion? Partly governmental, partly, you know, using the convening power of these platforms. And in my view, they are absent. They're absent partly because they score in government and they're absent, partly because they don't, I think they're somewhat tone deaf to the, to the reality of you do something that has great consequence to the world around you, you benefit mightily from it.

Zach Karabell: (17:40)
Um, you had better be in the fray, in the mix of shaping what the rules are, what the framework is, right? So part of the point about brown is every single institution that exists globally today, the world trade organization, the United nations, all the, you know, the world health, every ancillary group, as well as the, the architecture of a lot of our government, the Pentagon, the CIA, the national security council, none of these things are without, you know, massive flaws, but, but they are the world. They are the architecture of the world we live in and they shaped it. You can say, look, we should reshape it. And that's totally fair. Where's tech land now in, in shaping that architecture around these new technologies about, you know, why are we using a hundred year old antitrust statute to even think about these symphonies and where are they in reframing these things? So I would say to them, read this book to understand the role of, you know, those with power and the comments, and there's a self-interest in it. You know, you've gotta be in the mix.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:38)
I think that you are writing in the book that yes, some of it could have been too close for comfort in certain areas. We'll talk about that in a second. But in general, the nexus between a private enterprise company, Mike Brown brothers Harriman in the U S government was beneficial to both, but the government was able to get lots of insight and knowledge about the economy and capitalism and how to put the right policies in place to further that. And then secondarily, and I think this is important. I want you to address it. Uh, brown brothers and the people at brown brothers had a role in what I would call the post-World war II order. What was that role and how did it shape up?

Zach Karabell: (19:22)
So you mentioned Harriman before the other two major individuals was that a man named Robert Lovett who was intertwined with Harmon and the Browns, um, who becomes assistant secretary of war or world war II, and basically helps create the modern air force with John McCoy was, was, was twined with McCoy. They were known as the heavenly twins who supported Henry Stimson, who was then secretary of war, you know, creates the B 29 bomber funds. Boeing then becomes under secretary of state under George Marshall. And one of the main implementers of the Marshall plan Herrmann is even more central to that moves to Europe, becomes the aid administrator, and then love, it becomes secretary of defense, the renamed war department, uh, in 1950 when Marshall retires and he oversees the last years of the Korean war. And then you've mentioned Harman, and then there's Prescott Bush. So, you know, one of the many reasons why brown brothers has had a less than clear reputation is this whole notion of where did the Bush family fortune come from? Was there complicity with the rise of Germany in the thirties? So Prescott is a junior partner,

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:31)
Russia, the Russian revolution, and that the Russians got, uh,

Zach Karabell: (20:36)
And then Harmon [inaudible], that's also in the bulk. Okay. So these, you know, those individuals and actually Harmon's younger brother as well, role in Ted, some had some role were know part of what we call the establishment. Um, and, and for the coterie of what Walter Isaacson, once dubbed, uh, the wise men, I mean, they were called that in the sixties too. So again, they create this world that we're in now where we are living in that architecture. It much the way, you know, we're living in the constitutional architecture of the founding fathers saying that is not a validation or a, an encomium. It's just a recognition of, you want to understand the world we're in, you have to understand the framework that these individuals had. And a lot of that comes out of the world

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:21)
Of money. So tell us about the framework.

Zach Karabell: (21:24)
You know, they, they believed in the dollar, they believed that American capitalism was a unique formula that had made America rich and powerful, even with, with a massive hiccup and disruption of the great depression. They believed, therefore that the dollar was a, was a governing factor, right? And that the more the dollar govern the world and not the British pound, the better it would be for the United States and the better it would be for the world. And they believed in institutions and rules, and they believed that those with more power had a responsibility globally to keep the peace, right. And that's the whole point of the security council in the UN, but it's also the point of, of the world. What was then the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and they believed in trade. They believed that more commerce was better, partly because it was fight against communism. And partly because it would make everyone more affluent

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:15)
During, during the 2016 campaign, the former president who I obviously worked for not just for the short period of time in the white house, but during the campaign said to me, why the hell are we paying for the basis in South Korea? Why are they paying for the base? And I tried to take him through Robert Lovitz explanation of that, that this was in fact, an insurance policy. This was a global insurance policy. Moreover, Mr. Candidate, you want the Americans to pay for this stuff because the more we pay for it, if we can create a vibrant economy, we're going to push out all the other people that we don't want to militarize. Ultimately, those men and they were white men made a decision. And by the way, it was the right decision because we've had great prosperity despite proxy wars over the 80 or so years is American supremacy because of the benevolence of the American democracy would lead to more global peace and more prosperity. And so you don't necessarily need the NATO people that contributed to 2%, uh, because you want to maintain the supremacy of what the Americans AV on the ground around the world. What did I miss?

Zach Karabell: (23:27)
No. I mean, that is totally the argument for it. I mean, there's clearly an argument today of has it's useful on this ended, has the statute of limitations of those reasons, has it come to an end? Um, I would argue that it probably has in so far as, uh, you know, NATO in particular, you know, Putin is, is a threat because of his, the way in which he maintains power. Uh, it, it seems deeply unlikely that he's a threat at the level of invading Western Europe. If you really were going to maximize NATO, you would be protecting Eastern Ukraine, which seems to not be what NATO is geared to do right now. The Korean peninsula is probably, uh, a separate issue given the north Korean regime. The question more is, is it necessary for the world and is a good for the United States? Uh, and as an American, I'm frankly more focused on what's good for the United States.

Zach Karabell: (24:30)
And I don't think that being, this was always supposed to be transitory, right? It was always supposed to be, we will do this until the rest of the world can do it for itself. And I, and I do think the idea that we have a soul and unique capacity to maintain the peace and that the rest of the world is some sort of a narcotic jungle, which many have argued. Um, I think infantilizes 7.8 billion people at, at our own expense, uh, and that we would be better off saying, look, your region, your issues. We will support what we think we should support, but we're not the prima enterprise. We're, we're not the arbiter and we're not the access of global peace, highly debatable. You know, these are, these are legitimately hard. It's a, it's

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:15)
A grand debate currently. Uh, that's going to rage in Washington as to where we should be. Um, you know, but I'm also super worried about the bilateral relationship that we have with China. And while the Chinese have problems and human rights issues, we have our own racial tension here in the country. There's no system that's perfect. We can argue that our system is better than their system. Um, but I don't think that's going to make a lot of hay, uh, us arguing that I think we have to be practical about how we approach these things. I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey, the Harriman golf club member at the sands point country club out here on long island, which

Zach Karabell: (25:56)
I write about the beginning of and the book, the origins of

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:00)
Yeah. See that,

John Darcie: (26:03)
Not lying well, Anthony, Greg actually grew up in port Washington, so he knows, you know, the full

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:07)
Landscape club Carabella. I just want to make sure you know, that, although I suspect that given Darcie's influence, I may, I may even have a shadow the membership there at this point.

John Darcie: (26:20)
Yeah. I mean the, the annual tournament that we have it at Sam's point, uh, is called the, the Herrmann bowl. Uh, the, the club is off of Herrmann drive. So he certainly has influence on the origins of that club, but I'm a native, uh, North Carolina, Anthony likes to categorize me in this, you know, uh, Mayflower wasp category. But really my family came over from Scotland in the 18 hundreds actually came into New York, but I grew up in North Carolina if people, a little personal history, if you're a avid viewer of salt talks. But anyways, um, you know, one of the fascinating things I found, uh, when going through the topics that you covered in your book was the fact that brown brothers Harriman, as we referred to a little bit earlier, acted almost as like a proxy, uh, you know, secretary of state or, or strategic puzzle piece that the U S government used abroad. You talk more for people that are less familiar with the role they played in places like Nicaragua in places like Russia to contain, you know, the rise of communism, you know, what role brown brothers Harriman played.

Zach Karabell: (27:19)
So there's a whole chapter of the book about what goes on in Nicaragua in 1912, where the us sends Marines that basically occupied the country, but they do it almost entirely, um, to preserve loans that brown brothers and JW Solomon had made to the Nicaraguan government. And, uh, the result of that is, is a decade plus of financial stewardship, which basically means brown brothers takes over the national bank of Nicaragua and owns the national railroad. And in fact, issue's a new paper currency in Nicaragua that is signed by James Brown, one of the brown brothers partners to the point where the nation, which was not then quite what the, the nation magazine is today, um, refers to Nicaragua was the Republic of brown brothers. But it was an example of what was then called dollar diplomacy, but it set a template for a lot of the as really, even till today, which is the way in which the United States extends its influence globally on the backs of the U S dollar.

Zach Karabell: (28:20)
And that sometimes that global influence is, is enforced and maintained by military presence. But it's often actually enforced and maintained by dollar supremacy. Um, lots of people recognize this, but you cannot overstate it enough that a lot of American power is a product of the dollar, which is then a manifestation of the strength of the American economy. And the military is, is an add on to that, but it's not the initial foundation and it, and, and that remains true today. And it's sort of this continual argument of, have we abused that power? Have we used it? You know, you take over a country because you want to get repaid on your loans. It'd be like Elliot management today, invading Argentina so that its bonds would be honored at par, which is essentially what happens in Nicaragua. You know, they buy the bonds from someone else at a discount. The government can't pay the troops, occupied the country and then brown brothers gets repaid.

John Darcie: (29:21)
Right. So I'm going to ask you a very medic question here. And

Zach Karabell: (29:26)
I was an academic for awhile and I just, you say the word Metta and my heart leaps.

John Darcie: (29:31)
Um, and, uh, you know, you, you've been, you're involved in the financial industry as well as being a great author and commentator. Um, so, you know, I'm sure you've been studying these things as well, but we're involved in the digital space. So at SkyBridge we have 600 plus million dollars invested into Bitcoin. We bought into that story, especially in 2020, as the world moves to more of a digital world. And also the U S government created 25% more dollars out of thin air to address the economic fallout from the pandemic. There's been a lot said about the role that cryptocurrencies and digital assets could play in the destruction of the U S dollars hegemony around the world. And whether China could potentially be playing a long game by helping the rise of something like Bitcoin and digital assets to chip away at the U S dollars dominance. Stan Druckenmiller was on CNBC this week, talking about how he believes in 15 years, the us dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency. And cryptocurrencies could be part of that story. Have you studied that space, especially in the context of what you've written about in your various books, including this book about the importance of the U S dollar, do you think that we're going to see a major shift in the U S dollars roll around the world over the next decade plus? And what impact will that have on the United States?

Zach Karabell: (30:43)
Look, I think assuming the eternal continuance of the dollar is a mistake, um, mostly because that creates complacency in American policy and laziness. Uh, so assuming anything is going to be true tomorrow because it was true today is a mistake. And frankly, you know, part of the brown brothers lesson is you better go to sleep every night prepared for something being totally different tomorrow. Um, and I don't know if the time is 15 years, I don't know at the time was 20. I don't know whether, you know, Bitcoin or Ethereum or any of the digital assets or, you know, Elon Musk favorite. Those coin will be the thing that is the hinge point, um, in a Franklin until there's an app that makes the utilization of digital currencies easier. Uh, it's, it's a bit theoretical right now, right? The transaction part is really complicated and you guys know this better than, than anyone I'm sure a lot of people listening know that quite well, but the idea that, you know, everyone's going to use the dollar, maybe they will just the way English remains the lingua franca and Indi yeah, 70 years after the British empire departs somebody because they have to have a common language and it, and using English is actually less Laden than using other things.

Zach Karabell: (31:58)
Um, although Hindi is quickly supplanting that as well. So I think that is what we should be thinking, which is we have this window, we don't know how long this window will be open. Uh, and we should use it well, which means we shouldn't be lazy. And we shouldn't assume. And I mean, I have a real issue with the way in which over the past 10 years plus, and this is not a Republican or democratic thing. It's the way the United States security establishment has used. The dollar has used swift has used our clearing in a far more coercive way than we, than we did before. Um, because we know that we can force other countries to basically tow our foreign policy line at the expense of we're going to cut you off from, from dollar assets and dollar currency. And that's where digital becomes incredibly attractive, right? Because it's a non-governmental currency in theory. And therefore I think the great, the greatest threat to it is governments,

John Darcie: (32:57)
Right? What are some examples, uh, of, you know, we, there's a man by the name of Michael Greenwald. He worked at us treasury, a friend of ours. He now works at a advisory firm called Cheatham and advisors, but he basically worked on us dollar diplomacy related issues, including the implementation of sanctions on countries like Iran and other places around the world. You know how just to crystallize it a little bit more in people's head, how do we use the dollar, um, building on what you were talking about before? What are some specific examples of times we've used it in recent history and throughout history to achieve our foreign policy goals?

Zach Karabell: (33:32)
So, you know, the way this worked in the coal board is a lot of countries actually did depend on USAID. So you could basically say, look, you either structure your government and create laws, create contract laws, give our com your, our company's privileged position in your economy, or we'll cut you off from aid and potentially cut you off from American companies. That was a powerful statement and the globalization of commerce and the multinational reality of companies. You can't do that as easily, but you can say even to your powerful and close allies like France or Italy, meaning those are powerful countries, relatively economically to lots of the rest of the world. Um, if you do business with a Chinese company, X, you know, Huawei or, or a Chinese bank, um, we will potentially prevent your government or your companies from using, uh, global clearing exchanges for dollars.

Zach Karabell: (34:28)
And if, if X percentage of your economy is tethered to dollars, that is an untenable risk. Now we don't always go so far. Um, but in, in many of our sanctions, we have insisted on allies who do not agree with sanctions, whether it's against Iran, whether it's against Chinese companies to follow our regime at the, at the, at the threat of, we will cut you off, uh, from being able to transact in dollars. And there's a whole, you know, as you know, there's a whole part of the treasury department called OFAC that really is able to use this. I'm not saying, you know, we do this quite clearly and quite intentionally, and it's often quite effective. I just think if you want to accelerate blowback against the dollar, the resentment, that that causes is not to be underestimated.

John Darcie: (35:15)
Right. And, and at that time, you know, we were almost the only game in town and we do a lot of business in places like the middle east in Europe. And increasingly you're seeing by their actions, you know, that they have an alternative. And in a lot of cases, especially given the U S is rise from an energy perspective. We now produce enough oil and gas to, to service ourselves. That's not to that. We don't import oil and gas. Um, but there's less dependence. We have less dependence on foreign oil and thus, you know, there, there's more natural partnerships that are being formed throughout sort of east Asia, um, through, through to the middle east, um, that are reshaping sort of the global world order. And then Europe, you know, is obviously stuck in a period of stagnation. And, um, they, they can't really afford to, to shut off the pipeline, so to speak the economic pipeline, uh, through to China.

John Darcie: (36:05)
So we're having a tough time sort of implementing our goals related to that geopolitical relationship. But I want to go back again to the overarching lesson of your book, which would support I took away was that, you know, slow and steady in a world where, you know, uh, obviously you have cryptocurrencies that are exploding and you have companies like Tesla and, and space X and Amazon that are growing at such rapid rates and investment returns are so high. Uh, you sometimes have to resist that temptation to, to jump onboard that train and take excess risk. Do you worry at all about the U S stock market, the economy and where we're headed? And we could potentially he'd lessons from brown brothers Harriman and, and, uh, you know, pull things back a little bit, so a more sustainable level. So

Zach Karabell: (36:49)
I think part of it is it's like a hub and spoke idea. So I do not think that a world composed only of a brown brothers sensibility would be an economic. It would be an economically vibrant or dynamic one nest at, or not vibrant or dynamic enough. Uh, but, but what you want at the center, particularly the financial world is a degree of awareness of the destructive capacity of money. You know, it is the power, the Quicksilver power in an atom, and you want to be mindful of its capacity to destroy, even as you are aware of its capacity to unlock immense wealth. So I think at the center, you want a degree of small state conservatism and on the periphery, you want a degree of risk-taking, right? Like go to town, buy doge coin, you know, do what do whatever you want. You just don't want that to inhabit the core, because if it's the core, it's not just boundaryless it's heedless. So I'm not suggesting that everything be,

John Darcie: (37:50)
Do think it's become the core traditional metrics of whether it's stock valuations or this, this rise of meme cryptocurrencies now are the market cap of those currencies is larger than every us bank,

Zach Karabell: (38:03)
Right? So I think, I think you have to distinguish between those things, right. There are bubbles in, there are bubbles. I don't happen to believe the stock market is anywhere near a bubble. And I don't think valuation is nearly as sanctified as as many on wall street. Believe it is, you know, valuation is just an average at which certain assets have traded over a hundred years. There's nothing, you know, the hand of God did not come down and said, that's all traded to 17 PE or fifth, whatever the number is, um, you know, non fungible tokens and millions of dollars being spent for those. And, uh, my friend, Gary Vaynerchuk, going to town. I mean, I have no idea whether that will retain value, but I have no idea why some modern art retains value. Uh, so there's certainly pockets of immense liquidity. I think it's more of a mentality and a culture, uh, and yes, wall street, you know, in terms of highly regulated banks is no longer what it was 20 years ago, because they are so intensely regulated in a way that creates huge inefficiencies, but it also tamps down untrammeled, greed, or tamps down on examined risk.

Zach Karabell: (39:07)
Although, as we know, from the, the blow up of, um, of, of, uh, flying's fund a few weeks ago, via credit Swiss and Deutsche bank, it does not prevent risks from being taken. I know that is not a coherently simple answer to your question. I don't, I don't think painting culture with too broad, a brush stroke. I I'm totally comfortable painting the tech world as being largely absent from its role in shaping the comments as it applies to privacy and money and commerce. Right? Most of us, I think it's hard to point to anyone who's actually deeply active in that,

John Darcie: (39:41)
Right? And it sort of reinforces our house. You have the importance of diversification, you know, you can't really afford not to have a foot in the future, uh, whether it be digital currencies or these companies that are really disrupting old models of banking or technology or automobiles or energy. Um, but you also don't necessarily want to go all in. Um, but Zach, it's been great to have you on salt talks. Again, the book is called inside money, brown brothers Harriman, and the American way of power, fantastic book it's out, uh, Tuesday. So go out and get the book. We couldn't recommend it highly enough. Anthony, you want to hold, hold it up. If you have it next to you,

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:18)
Because I don't have the book, I'm disappointed. I zag you hold the book up, but I as jog and tell you, I read these books before we get started. I will be reading this book next week when I get a copy of it from my bookseller, but I want to thank you for writing it. And I'm looking forward to reading it. And I think it's a cautionary tale as well. You know, where do you, where do you want to be today versus where we were in the past? What are we doing next act before I let you go

Zach Karabell: (40:47)
Next? As in like next book or next thing

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:50)
I know you got to know the book and your brain there. I do.

Zach Karabell: (40:52)
I'm going to, I'm going to write about how the world solve for the problem of scarcity, basically. Why did Malthus and the population bomb never happened, right? How do we, so I'm going to write about food and the, and the economy

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:07)
Essentially in a linear world. Okay. I like that. All right. So I'll look forward to reading that as well. I'd love to get you back on for that. We'll see you at our conference at the Javits center. Love it in September. And, uh, and John Dorsey, if, if, if we're nice to John's Zach, you and I may get invited to that country club. It is okay. That'd

Zach Karabell: (41:26)
Be good. And then Darcie could say to us, that is a truth universally acknowledged that a young man in possession of a large portion of it must be in search of a

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:32)
Wife. Well, he's already figured that out as well. All right, God bless be well, thank you, man.

John Darcie: (41:40)
Take care. And just, I must state for the record here on salt talks that the club that Anthony is referring to a very diverse in terms of the ethnicity of our members, uh, Jewish devalue, and lots of

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:53)
News here. Okay. There's no fake news, but the truth of the matter is that is true. I am a resident of the town and it is a diverse club and it is a great club by the way, Darcie and the food is great. And if Darcie ever is nice enough to invite you, you want to get the, uh, Buffalo, chicken wings, Zack spectacular at that club. Good

John Darcie: (42:15)
To know April Herrmann, I think love the Buffalo chicken wings as well, but, uh, thank you everybody for joining us here on today's salt. Talk with Zach Caravel, talking about his new book inside money about brown brothers Harriman. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media at salt conference, uh, is where we're most active on Twitter. And we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well, where I'm half of Anthony and the entire salt team. This is John Dorsey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Walter Isaacson: “The Code Breaker” | SALT Talks #212

"Jennifer Doudna invented, with her colleagues, a way to edit our genes. I think that’ll be the most useful but also most morally challenging technology of the 21st century."

Walter Isaacson is the Author of “The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race”. The novel provides a gripping account of how Nobel Prize winner Jennifer Doudna and her colleagues launched a revolution that will allow us to cure diseases, fend off viruses, and have healthier babies.

Isaacson is a Professor of History at Tulane and an advisory partner at Perella Weinberg, a financial services firm based in New York City. He is the past CEO of the Aspen Institute, where he is now a Distinguished Fellow, and has been the chairman of CNN and the editor of TIME magazine.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

There is no video for this episode.

Video Block
Double-click here to add a video by URL or embed code. Learn more
 

SPEAKER

Walter Isaacson.jpeg

Walter Isaacson

Professor of History

Tulane University

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Ed Hajim: "On the Road Less Traveled" | SALT Talks #202

“Failure early in life is a gift. Doing everything right and having things go wrong is a gift. You learn from that.”

Ed Hajim, the son of a Syrian immigrant, is a seasoned Wall Street executive with more than 50 years of investment experience. He is now chairman of High Vista, a Boston-based money management company. He recently published his memoir On the Road Less Traveled: An Unlikely Journey from the Orphanage to the Boardroom.

A tumultuous and nomadic childhood saw Ed Hajim bounce around the country, living in hotels, YMCA’s, orphanages and foster homes- 15-20 different places in his first 18 years. From it, a determination grew to attend a private college and hide that troubled childhood. From a wide-ranging and successful career came the understanding and development of the Four P’s: Passions, Principles, Partner(s) and Plans. For Hajim, finding his partner, his wife Barbara, was key to his life. “If you can truly find someone in life you can support and will support you, who you can share your life with, solves at least half the problem.”

It is important to never become a victim or give in to self-pity. This means always asking ‘what’s next?’ after a failure. “Failure early in life is a gift. Doing everything right and having things go wrong is a gift. You learn from that.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Ed Hajim.jpeg

Ed Hajim

Author

On The Road Less Traveled

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we're excited to resume in September of 2021 in New York city. And that's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome ed Hagan to salt talks. Ed is the son of a Syrian immigrant and as a seasoned wall street executive with more than 50 years of investment experience, he's held senior management positions with Capitol group EF Hutton Lehman brothers all before becoming chairman and CEO of Ferman cells.

John Darcie: (01:06)
Hey, Jim has been the co-chairman of ING Barings, the America's region chairman and CEO of ING Altus group. And I N G Ferman sells asset management after that acquisition and chairman and CEO of M L H capital today, he is the chairman of high Vista, a Boston-based money management company hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And I believe, you know, it's been something like 20 years. Anthony, you mentioned since you stepped into Ed's office, when you were at your previous business, Oscar capital,

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:43)
All right, John Darcie, I've been lying about my age. Okay. Yeah. Let everybody know that I know age them for that long in truth truth be told right before nine 11. Uh, I went to see ed, uh, he probably won't remember the visit as well as I do, because at that time he was still is a legendary person on wall street. And you know what I, what I, after reading your book, one of my reactions to you, ed, and I said this to my old professor, Sol Gittleman, you are the O positive of relationships, meaning you're like the universal donor. You can meet people, find something in common with them and build a relationship. Uh, and that's one of the big takeaways from your book. But I remember our meeting very vividly because we were in the process of selling our company. Uh, one of your colleagues, bill Turgeon brought us into your, your office and you gave me great advice, uh, which I often give to other people, which was, you know, do the right thing for your employees, pick the place, uh, to land them in a way where, you know, it'll help their careers.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:53)
Uh, and that'll turn out to be a good decision. We ultimately sold that business to Neuberger Berman. Uh, Jeff Lane, uh, uh, was running Neuberger at that time. Um, but, but onto you, I want to hold up the book, uh, it's on the road, less traveled. Uh, the book is an unlikely journey from the orphanage to the boardroom. I got to tell you, sir, it was a brilliant read. I'm not saying that the flatter you, I read a lot of books. We have a lot of authors on, but your story is remarkable and unique. So I'd like to ask you that first question, tell us how you grew up in

Ed Hajim: (03:32)
It. Uh, it's a story that starts prior to my birth when my father came over and as an immigrant in 1900 and, uh, they, they settled in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. Uh, dad became fascinated as young men with something called radio and by 1918 had, you know, taken a number of technical courses, got involved in RCA. And for the next, you know, the one roaring twenties did very, very well. I've a picture of him with an airplane. You supposedly own buildings on a hundred 10th street. And then in 29, he was obviously, margined a 10 to one like everybody else. And in the next four years, between 1929 and 33 lost everything. And those of us who know friends who have declined in, in, in personal wealth and so forth, not it has an enormous impact. And when you lose everything, I mean everything the same time, his most important parent, his mother died, and she supposedly died of a broken heart.

Ed Hajim: (04:35)
She was involved in the community and community winded difficulty, and she died in 1933. He decided that basically, uh, he was either going to commit suicide or drive across country with his last possession, which was his car lucky for me, decided not to commit suicide and drive across country. Uh, uh, he stopped at a cousin's home in St. Louis. And, uh, he was, he met their fifth child who was an 18 year old, young lady, 15 years, his junior, and they got married in two weeks with just another story. Anyway, they proceeded to California that I found that the streets were not paid to gold at a couple of finding a job. Supposedly the only happiness happened three years later when I was born 1936 at the queen of angels hospital. Uh, and it lasted a few a few months and they found out that having, uh, uh, you know, no amount to feed was not a good deal.

Ed Hajim: (05:29)
Three years later, uh, difficulty really with my wife's father was a very difficult man, having all the demons from his decline and wealth. Uh, my mother at 24 years old, divorced my father and got custody of me and took me from Los Angeles back to her home in St. Louis. She was not welcomed in St. Louis. Her father had 5, 6, 5 children at the time, and he was not glad to see a divorced 24 year old woman with a three-year-old child. My father got $5 a week alimony and child support, and he got Sunday visiting rights on the book cover. You'll see the picture of my father and I in a car, 1936 Roadster driving on highway 66, 1 of the visiting rights he got there. He found me so called unkept. And instead of taking me to a movie or to the playground, he got back on highway 36 and kept driving to Los Angeles, uh, told me that, uh, I never seen my mother again a few weeks later.

Ed Hajim: (06:28)
He said she died. And that's how I kept it for another, uh, 57 years thinking that she had passed away. Uh, dad and I spent a couple of years together, although he was a merchant Marine at the time radio operator. I spent time with, uh, with a neighbor most of the time. And when the war started, he was either, either volunteered or became, was, uh, drafted as an officer in the merchant Marines. And I didn't see him for four and a half years. Uh, he put me with a Catholic welfare agency, which resulted in my being at five Catholic, uh, foster homes, five schools, uh, which was an interesting experience. The war ended. Dad came back on the east coast. I made the trip across country. We spent some time in the Sloan house on 34th street, Y YMCA, which still exists. Wasn't a pleasant place at the time.

Ed Hajim: (07:19)
Then a hotel room in Coney island while he saw Atlanta based work, it didn't work. He had to go back to see. Then I went, ended up in two Jewish orphanages, one in far Rockaway. When I aged out of that one, I ended up in a better, a very good orphanage in Yonkers, New York, about four blocks from next to the high school. So 15 or 20 different places in the first 18 years, uh, you know, a real eager as they call it a trip from, from, you know, from Mecca to Medina and many stops along the way. And the, the relationships from the Forrester homes were ranged from being abusive and cold, to warm and caring. So, you know, what I got out of that were a lot of disadvantages, which in my book, I try to put across to people like me resulted in some of the advantages.

Ed Hajim: (08:05)
And that's sort of the thumbnail sketch it's it's in the book. It's, it's better. Well done to me, just running to all those pages very quickly, but the child, it was very difficult and it, you know, some people call it Dicksonian, but it, it, I, I, as I say, it wasn't my fault. And I, I had people along the way that did help me writing the book made me recognize there was some very good people along the way, which basically helped me get through the period. Uh, dad came in and out of my life and, uh, at 17 I make one of the key decisions in my life. I decided that one, I was going to go to a private college, no matter what it took. And I just shackled the clock. He got that done. And two, I was going to take my background and hide it, which the psychologist with today would say, it'd be a disaster. But for me was the answer. I was going to draw that line at 18 years old, go to a college and tell everybody that never tell anybody my, my story. And I kept that a secret for 55 years. And that's another story.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:07)
So I want to go directly to what you attributed to be one of the cornerstones of your success. And that's your wife, Barbara, and you write some beautiful passages about her in the book. But one of the things that is, uh, uh, striking to people that are married is the unconditionality of love between a spouse or two spouses. I should say. We see that relationship often with children, but you have that relationship with your wife. And since we're here to also embarrass you, just give me one, there's a beautiful picture of you right here. So I'm looking at this strapping young man in 19.

Ed Hajim: (09:47)
Well, I'll go ahead. I don't have my hunk.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:49)
Yeah, I'm going to come on. That's 1959. Okay. There you are. Uh, looking like a super honk there. So tell us about the courtship with Barbara, how she came into your life and her influence.

Ed Hajim: (10:02)
It's a long story, and I hope you can put up with it, but that picture was taken. I was at an it's an incident Navy, our first trip requests, the ocean stopped in Hawaii and somebody took that picture. I thought it was kind of humorous, uh, Barbara, the story about Barbara and I are really, is it that you can't, you really can't tell a story like this in my, and by the way, at the end of the book, I have my four PS and the third P is partnership partners. And there's a thing called P one. If you truly can find P one early in life, someone new you can support who will support you. Someone who you can share your life with it's really solves at least half the problem. And I met the Barbara situation is that it's unfortunately a long story. It starts in 1957.

Ed Hajim: (10:46)
When I was the editor of F I founded, I was founding editor of a humor magazine at the university of Rochester. I felt that the school was a place where fun went to die, and I was going to get a human magazine. That's a whole story. Anyway, the next editor was a boy named David Melnick, who was a year behind me. And in order to transfer the information on this under human magazine, I went to his house in Staten island. And while I was there talking about the human magazine is 13 or 14 year old, little pigtail sister was buzzing around and we kept chasing her away. After I left the house, she told her mother and father that she was going to marry me. Of course, she ever had a teenage crush. They didn't think twice about it. Seven years later, I was at the business school.

Ed Hajim: (11:31)
My second year phone rang spring, who was David Melnick. He said, well, I'm getting married and I want you to be my best man. I said, great, hung the phone up realized I did not have the money to fly to San Francisco where he was in school. So I quickly call it the placement officer. I said, have you got anything in California? I don't care what they do. I need a, and the girl lady, there was a buddy of mine. Actually, we had dated for awhile. And so she said, come on over. There's nobody. There's no availability, but there's a company here called capital research. This is in a mutual fund business. I'd never taken an investment course. I wanted to manage a business. I didn't want to go in the investment business. I mean, they said, we'll put you outside the chairman's door and you can cost them and see if you can get the invitation to the dinner.

Ed Hajim: (12:17)
They invite a bunch of people that dinner. Then they cut the group in half and they invited half out to, for no, the interview in Los Angeles. Uh, I got there stood outside the door, Jim Fullerton, the chairman came out and the way he tells the story is I, he learned more about me in 10 minutes than he learned all day long by anybody, any hour interview. Anyway, they invited me to dinner. I made the cut, I got the chance to go to California. I was on my way to the airport and I got a phone call from Barbara's mother who said, would I take a little Barbara to the wedding? And I said, sure, at Idlewild airport, which is now Kennedy, we passed each other a dozen times. I finally had PA system and the little 13 year old turned out to be a 20 year old striking young lady.

Ed Hajim: (12:59)
And we got an airplane. She fell asleep on my shoulder. We went to the wedding. We danced, we had a good time. And I appeared the next morning. And Monday morning at Capitol research hung over, not interested, only interested in one thing, which was to get out of there. The first thing he did was give me a battery of psychological tests, which I flunked. I can spend my time on capital research for, because it was a great, great day. Anyway, I finally got out of there back to Harvard, uh, and a couple of weeks later, I invited her up for a weekend and she quickly said, yes. And I said, okay, I'll fix you up with somebody your own age. And I did. And then a couple of weeks later, I didn't have a date. So I think I invited her up and she came up and she spent a weekend with me very innocent weekend.

Ed Hajim: (13:41)
And I'm thinking anything of it. She's a nice little girl, much younger, you know, seven years younger than I was. So we were all set, ready to take a job on wall street. I'd interviewed all the usuals, Goldman Sachs and Kuhn, Loeb, and Lehman brothers and, and Eastman, Dillon, and so forth. And I was going to take one of those jobs. And, uh, there's a long story in there. Anyway, I decided last minute to take a job in California capital research, this company that I had no interest in, by the way I worked for him for 10 years, Barbara was a teacher in Connecticut. She immediately canceled her job and applied to graduate school at San Francisco state, university of California, San Francisco got in. And what does San Francisco we dated for about a year and somewhere along the line, under the, under the golden gate bridge I proposed and we were married. So it was, it was a, it's a, it's an Odyssey. Uh, I ended up spending 10 years with the company. I had no interest in the only reason I went out there was to be the wedding for her brother. And we're now married 55 years. And we have three wonderful children and eight grandchildren, which is really my legacy, uh, seven grand sons, by the way, that's too long. A but unfortunately,

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:53)
Please, it's a brilliant story, which is why I didn't want to interrupt one second of it. And you've regaled some of it in the book. Uh, I'm not a pop psychologist. Um, but I, I, when I read your book, I made an observation of myself and a note, and I'm going to ask you this. And, and, you know, I just want you to react to it. You know, some people that grow up the way you did in a fractured situation, moving about, uh, can develop trust issues, can develop a fear based, uh, relationships, not want to wait deeply into the pool. Uh, but you manage to overcome all of that, uh, as it relates to your marriage, but also the business relationships. And, and I'd like you to get into the four PS. If you don't mind, I don't want to ruin the book for people, cause I certainly want them to read it, but I want them to get a sense for your ethos. How are you able to, um, break out of the shifting winds and sands of your childhood to live this anchored in such a stable, great, uh, career arc and family arc?

Ed Hajim: (16:03)
Well, I can go into it in depth, but I want if I want to simply say why the problem with most people have backgrounds like me, that spiraled down as they become victims, they come victims of their circumstance. I refused no matter what happened to me. And by the way, my entire life not to be a victim, always asks what's next. I've tried to delve in why I took that Oster possibly because my, my father was a victim. He always complained. It was always somebody else's fault and children tend to do the opposite of their parents. So maybe that was the reason, but all through my life, no matter what happened to me. And I had a wonderful question last night at Alfred university, a young man asked me what was the hardest thing that I've ever had to do in my life. And I said, it's basically something where you do everything right? And it still comes out wrong. Spend seven years with Lehman, brothers turned two divisions around and they still throw you out in the street because you don't get along with the boss or, you know, you go to it, then tuck it and you apply to the golf club and they reject you. You know, even though you're a good guy and you sit next to the, the guy who's a trustee, you know, who recommends you and so forth. So in many respects, don't I just I'm pitching this. Well, John John Dorsey

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:18)
Wants me to landscape the golf club that he's a member of. I just want to point that out to you and I'll tell you what we're up against. We're going to keep going, but you built a golf club on Nantucket. So we'll go into that in a second too, but I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I had a throat Darcie under the bus there temporarily, go ahead.

Ed Hajim: (17:35)
Don't be a victim, no matter what anybody does to you try to think of how to, what to do next and get out of it. You know, whatever it is. And in my case, it really has paid off because in many respects, you know, getting thrown at you, Lehman my brothers story is a great story because I really did everything right for the first time in my life. And I communicate with people at Xtra, made the first woman vice president at Lindsey management company, blah, blah, blah, but Glucksman, and I didn't get along. And he forced me out of my division and I, I left there and I got my dream job and the same thing with the golf course, being rejected as the best thing that ever happened to me, because I don't know you're doing John, but building a golf course is one of the great experiences of all times. I can talk about legacy, you know, all the companies I worked for except for capitalism.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
Well, it's also, it's also the best golf course on Nantucket. I don't know. I don't know if you remember to say that. Okay. All right. I'm sorry. Well, I'm not really much of a golfer, but I don't know if you remember Jack Schneider now and a company. Uh, he, he took me there. He had several, uh, friends of his that were members there. Uh, and, uh, it was absolutely breathtaking.

John Darcie: (18:40)
And Anthony shot, I think a 1 43. Well, and that was,

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:44)
That was on the first nine. And I made the 1 43 on the first nine. Let's not talk about the entire score. Of course, I did think that you had a score. You were scoring points by swinging. I didn't realize it was the opposite, but what we can talk about that later go to the four piece. So, so it'll be a book by one of the things I want to emphasize. We have a lot of young people listening to our Saul talks, no victim hood, no self pity. Uh, you know, you take life as it comes and you, you, you do your best to see the good things in life. And you come in from a position of gratitude, which you obviously have indicated in the book, but tell us about the four piece. Let me give you the

Ed Hajim: (19:24)
Mic. Give me just again, you, you said it so well, don't be a victim. Don't look for self pity. Don't look, don't look for anything. Special failure early in life is a gift. Think about that, doing everything right, and have things go wrong is a gift you learn from that. And because in many respects, all of those mistakes, the problem that I had turned out much better because they occurred before piece in my mind. And this is really, you got to buy me a bottle of good red wine. We could spend the evening on it. I truly believe. And this is, this is my own way down deep thought process. You only have one constant in your life. It's your inner voice. And you must have a language for your inner voice. This is what I want young people to be talking to them. They talk to themselves, but a lot of it's noise.

Ed Hajim: (20:10)
That's why I developed the four piece. If you say to yourself, what am I passions and passions are an overused word. I know that it's what are your talents? What are your interests and how do they frame with today's world? What are your principles? What are your principles? You know, what, what, what lines won't you cross? I mean, I started in the Catholic schools. So, you know, I got the golden rule with the golden rule or on the knuckles, you know, and they basically made me understand what the good Lord wanted me to do. So that was very good. But principles change throughout your entire life, just like passions, passions, evolve. And I make the point and passions. I started out with, you know, baseball, basketball, math, science, and girls, and, you know, morphed at college. And I can go through that in length if you'd like principals, same way more.

Ed Hajim: (20:56)
But I, you know, early on I had the second golden rule, which is he who has the gold rules. I had great desire become financially independent. And everybody formed that faces that fork in the road. How much of your effort you want to spend on achieving financial resources? And I spent a lot of effort on until I was about 47 and ended up leaving bows. I kind of had just enough money to sort of get through. And I would take a job that I really wanted, which was to be worked with a small firm and have fun. Freedom became more important than money at that point. And of course later on the most important thing, which is tonight is gratitude. Really gratitude is very important. Now the third Pete partners and besides finding [inaudible] you find you're only as good as the people you surround yourself with.

Ed Hajim: (21:42)
I look back at my failures is because I either didn't have a partner or the wrong partner. Whenever I had the right partners, a big tall, six foot, five guy from Dartmouth, his name is Steve Fletcher, who constantly came my office and said, don't do that. You can do this. It's okay. And he took care of the old four-letter firms. And you would have, he would have been associated with this SCC and ASD New York stock exchange. Anybody who came in, he handled it. I was able to do the things I use my partner. One thing, find partners who can do things you can't do, but need to be done. Find partners that things that you can do, but they do it better than you do. Then find partners who do things that you can do very well, but you don't want to do so. What you ended up with is things you like to do that you do well.

Ed Hajim: (22:26)
Think about that. And that's why I structured my partners. Now I have a secret for them that none of four thing is plans, uh, plans, you know, God, you know, man plans and God laughs that's a Chinese expression that the Yiddish people took on. But you know, in many respects, it's not true. I want people to write plans because at least they know where they want it to go. And then take those plans and think about the context of your life. You want to have some fun, spend an evening thinking about somebody born in 1900, like my father and someone born in 1936, like me, the difference in our life context, context, you know, find a waiver, a cycle for our trend or something that basically is going to go up during your lifetime. And if you can find that and get the wind at your back and it fits with your passions and your principles and your partners, you know, boy, you've got like to marry those first three to the fourth one.

Ed Hajim: (23:24)
And I always kid about this friend of mine, you know, loved Alaska, loved gold mining was helping the Indians up there. Everything was going fine. He married someone who hated the coal, you know, does it work? You know, is that kind of thing that you sort of have to deal with? Those are the four piece I used it at Rochester, almost in every one of my graduate. I made 70 graduation speeches. I use most of the time. Cause I really thought that those even missed missing, not necessarily the four piece, but use a language with yourself that you can go back to. And of course the fifth piece is purpose, which all those things, you know, undermine, undermine the underlying purpose for everything you're doing. And so I find this and if you can concentrate on looking at your passion to your eye, my passion changed.

Ed Hajim: (24:06)
I mean, in college I was a very, I'm honored to be a physicist for awhile, but by my junior year, I started to recognize what really turned me on my real passion was helping people. I started the human magazine and I took on partners, helping people be better than they think they can help them to exceed their own expectations. That really got me excited. I didn't know it at the time, looking back, my business grew, I started to recognize that's what turned me on. And you say, why have I made good relationships? Because if people believe that you're really interested in them makes life a lot easier, not easy. And then of course you marry that with the most difficult thing that people do in our businesses. You know, you can reach great Heights if you don't worry about who gets the credit. So if someone feels that you're really interested in them and they're going to get the credit, you have a couple of hundred of those people surrounding you, you will do really well.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:02)
So I mean, again, these are all, these are great pieces of advice. I want to go back to the book for a second because, uh, you live this, you live this in the book. Um, take me back to the Nantucket story because you're 56, 58 years old. You're in that ballpark it's 1994, you're opening, uh, the golf course, uh, take us through the process of getting the zoning approval on that ancient, uh, new England island, if you will, uh, and how you were able to make it all happen.

Ed Hajim: (25:39)
It's one of the things I left out of the book and men respect because we were bidding against the very prominent other person in getting the property. And we had to pay a little more than we, we bought a knock out bid at $8 million for the property. And we had constant covenants in there. And in our bid, which we'll ask one was, you know, if we didn't get golf, golf, permitted, then we would basically not buy the property. Well, he took that out in his last bid. So we had to take it out and I had, uh, you know, raised $10 million with 50 people or $200,000 a piece. And I'd go back to them and say, we may not have a golf course. We'll just give you five acres a piece anyway. And so we started the process with, with, uh, with all the agencies.

Ed Hajim: (26:22)
And of course Nantucket was easy because this property was zoned with a goal or two. We could have put 150 units on that property. And we decided we showed them a, uh, a program. We said, here's what we can do 128 units. Here's what we should do. 60 units. Here's what we're going to do. Five units, a clubhouse was four cottages. And so that in tuck us, ran us through pretty quickly. Uh, but Massachusetts, we got caught finally with that endangered species woman who was in charge of that. And she was worried about the Harrier Hawk. And so we had to spend about $800,000 doing all kinds of things for the Harrier Hawk, which went on for 10 years. But anyway, we had about four foot of paper in the permitting process and, you know, $2 million, but we got the job done, took us about almost over a year to get the thing done.

Ed Hajim: (27:15)
And finally, we started with the bulldozers, April the eighth, 1995. It looked like the landing not landing on D-Day with all the backhoes in front hoes and bulldozers coming down, milestone drive. And I still say one of the great things. I'm not, I click a little bit of art, but building a golf course is art with a bulldozer and moving as little dirt as you can. And using as much of the natural undulation, which we could Fred and I stood up Fred green, who deserves all the credit for building the golf course. He's built, we built three golf courses together. One in Vale. Second was Nantucket. The third was in London, but Fred did a fantastic job. He brought in Reese Jones and the whole thing was covered with four or five foot of scrub Oak. We couldn't even see it when we drove through it.

Ed Hajim: (28:02)
And one day we were standing in the middle of it all. He said, why don't we take it all down? I said, what will it cost? He said, well, probably a quarter to a half, a million dollars. We took it all down and found one of the great, just natural undulation. And so we took the bulldozers. Didn't have to do too much work. Anyway, we, uh, we spent two years building the golf course with Reese. It turned out to be the number one private golf course built in 1997. Our clubhouse also won the number one award in golf magazine. And it was a great experience. And I have been hugged by more women because their husband has moved them to Nantucket than anybody in the Western world, because, you know, because nobody would come to golf, come to Nana, took it just as I went, when I got turned down by sanctity, I went back to Barbara's ethic.

Ed Hajim: (28:49)
We're going to have to sell a house. You said, no, can sell a house. Why don't you build a golf course? You built one avail. I said, Bale's got land. Nantucket, doesn't have land. So I went out and I found the land invited Fred out, and the rest is history. We have basically changed the island. We've in fact, I get gave good credit to the, the membership goes about two years. Well, first year we had our first charity event and we raised $400,000. People went crazy, oh, it's 13 requests. The next year we said, stop. We started something called the children's charity a couple of years later, which is the only charitable event at the island. You know, anything else? Nobody can come to the island, raise money except that one night. And now we're into this almost 20 years. We've put 25 kids through college with the largest charity on the island.

Ed Hajim: (29:34)
We support 40 or 50 different charities. Every year. We've made a contribution to the new boys and girls clubs, new hospital. And we now started my new mini crusade, which is vocational education. We now have through vocational scholarships, welders shifts to go to Thompsons. Wells have cost $40,000 a year. So we have two college scholarships and three or four vocational scholarships. Every year we hold one gala. And I think we raised more money per, per capita than almost any place I've ever been in. And it's something it's a model I'd love if I had time to take it to other clubs around the country, because you really become instead of golf club, you come in institution and that really changes everything. And the island, you know, accepts us now as part of it for them. And I think it's very important. And if I wasn't rejected, we probably never would have built the club. And, you know, and I still say one of the great opportunities at all times, all times after to finish nine holes, you go up to the snack bar. You tell Kelly, you want to, you want a muscle milk or a smoothie or something. And she says, what's your number? And you say number one. And that's the best. That's the greatest compliment anyone could ever.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:46)
I love, I love, I love the story for so many different reasons has been a lot of clubs that I frankly have been rejected from over my life at, but, but I will say this about Nantucket. Uh, my first trip to Nantucket, uh, I was at a Tufts university, um, and I obviously had gone to Cape Cod. I took the ferry over to Nantucket, uh, fell in love with the island and my wife, my first date with her was on the island of Nantucket. And, uh, I took her there. Uh, we went to the white elephant for breakfast and then, and the white elephants

Ed Hajim: (31:19)
Right there. It's actually down the block from my house. Yeah,

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:22)
The white elephant. Beautiful. Um, and so a few years back, she presented me a map of the island, uh, which was, uh, made in the 1870s. It's a beautiful map, uh, of, uh, and it's in my house here. So I have a lot of fondness for Nantucket. Well,

Ed Hajim: (31:39)
My wife, we got there in 86. We were there for two hours, should get a real estate agent being an island lady. It's that now Nantucket with you just fell in love. And she was one of the prime movers on the whaling museum, but we have a map, but you have to come to our house. We have a map in our house from 1775 of Nantucket, which I bought in London and I have it up there. And another one, we have a couple of maps. I used to collect maps for awhile, but, uh, my wife fell in love with it and talk and she can sit there in our living room, in the rain with a smile on her face. So she's just a happy lady at Nantucket.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:17)
Well, I got to let John in here. He's got some questions from our audience, but, um, I love the stories at, and I love, I love your life story and I'm so happy that you were able to put it down into words on the road, less traveled, and I'm encouraging all the young people that listen to us, please go out and buy this book. Um, but John, go ahead. Yeah. So you

John Darcie: (32:40)
Obviously had a storied career on wall street at a lot of great organizations, capital group F Hutton, uh, Lehman brothers firm. And Seltz, what did you learn at, at any of those stops about things that, that worked well in terms of organizational culture and process, and some things that you encountered that, uh, that you wish you could have fixed or that you observed that didn't work?

Ed Hajim: (33:02)
Well, I learned, I learned to process. I mean, I'm an engineer by background, so it's, it's observed design do analyze the results. And so you've got to have sort of things you focus on. I do believe the following process it's and Lehman brothers wouldn't agree with this it's culture. First strategy, people, numbers and Lehman rose always, but you know, it was more focused on the numbers. That's why they made me hire. And thank God that did this fell asleep, lectured all the numbers for me, but I work on culture and strategy. Those two, you could do strategy first and culture second, but it's important culture. Usually each strategy, if you don't have the right culture, it doesn't work. And in each case, that's what I try to do. Try to produce a culture by being, by being willing. And a Navy taught me to be willing to do anything that anybody in your shop has done.

Ed Hajim: (33:55)
I was sat in the trading desk. I made sales. I sure as heck did research. I was a research analyst. So running institutional business was really easy. I could relate to any one of them now what I didn't learn. And I, this is the what's next question. Especially in our day and age, got to keep asking that. And each time I changed jobs or made a move was because what's next I left because foaming would not marry my fabulous research department, this banking business. He was an Alice in a gopher as their statisticians and our bankers, you know, they're, they're, you know, they're the people that really work with important people. I said, no, they don't understand analysts know more than anybody about companies. And that's what companies want today and tomorrow. And they also want trading. And so he didn't buy that because he was a retail guy.

Ed Hajim: (34:44)
And I, and I understood that because he wanted enough institutional business not to be embarrassed. And I did that. He wanted me to take over retail and I said, retail is okay. The new game in town, institutional Lehman bros is building a 44, a 400 seat trading room. And that just, that was the next step in our business. And so I knew that and foam is not willing to do it. So I went to Lehman brothers and of course, Lehman brothers, the story's been written too many times. You know, the problems there is cultural complete. They're the smartest guys in the world. I mean, I will never forget getting a phone call from one of our talent partners. He says, you've got to tell me about the economy. I said, where are you? He said, I'm on the Pope's plane. I mean, and I remember working with Peterson, he had it.

Ed Hajim: (35:31)
He would have the federal reserve chairman on hold, talking to somebody else, Kissinger or somebody else. I mean, at lunchtime, you looked at the people coming to lunch. I mean, it was unbelievable. And so it was, it was a sad, sad story when Lehman went down. But what I learned constantly and with Ferman cells, it was what my message was very simple. We're sitting on a Lily pad, we're a bunch of frogs. And if it's a good Lily pad, other people are gonna jump on a slip ed as slowly but surely it's going to sink. We better jump to another one. So we constantly had to stay moving during my 15 years there, before we got bought by ING almost half the firms like us went out of business or more merged out. So we stayed in business by continuing to add businesses by continuing.

Ed Hajim: (36:13)
I mean, I, I built the money management business, really 40, 40 million to 12 billion in that braid before money management was really important to investment banks and so forth. But I learned constantly to keep moving. And by the way, also to constantly give people reason to do their own thing. I mean, they would kill me about another guy. You're bringing them in. You're giving them a desk and telephone. You're going to check them in six months and what are you doing? But that's what really happened. And all my guys really were. And I also credit myself with the compensation problem on wall street for 20 years, I was the highest paid person in the firm. One year, that was a year we sold to Xerox because I really felt I did that when I deserved being paid the most. But then I was not because I think that, and Bob, David Kerns at Xerox told me that when I merged me, he said, you know, I've never been the highest paid person at Xerox. And he was one of the classic guys of all times I've over asked, answered your question. I think it's what's next. Yeah,

John Darcie: (37:14)
It was exactly what I was looking for. And I think it explains a lot of why you were so successful is that, you know, you, you hire good people and you put your trust in them to do what they're expected to do. You create a culture, uh, that, that aligns everyone's incentives and you're willing to do everything within the organization. You're not asking people to do something that you're not willing to do yourself. I think it's also a credit to your, your modest upbringing and how you lifted yourself up by your bootstraps, uh, that, that you're not afraid to get in the hands. You

Ed Hajim: (37:43)
Know, I could have empathy with almost anybody, you know, going, going, you know, having been as poor as I was a kid with my background or a young person, my background, we have, we had, you know, shared experiences. We're in Harvard business school where everybody graduated from Princeton, you know, I had that experience as well. You know, it's an interesting, you know, so you're really lucky. I tell people, young people, I get a lot of questions about people from good, bad, you know, from fine backgrounds. What do I do to make my kids, you know, learn to put him in an uncomfortable position, send them to NOLs, send them to outward bound, nos, natural leadership school, get them a job in a, in a psychiatric hospital in Kentucky, or one of the dads that you know, or, you know, send them to Bangladesh. You know, uh, I got a friend who does, does a spinal surgery in Ethiopia.

Ed Hajim: (38:30)
I would be as assistant for the summer. You know, that kind of thing, but you're right. You make you, John, your Virgo, you picked out all the things I said, I kind of strung them all together. It's truly, and being able to give people credit, you know, make sure they understand that you're not trying to take the credit, give them the credit. And also the compensation. One of the problems is he even give him the credit. They say, well, thanks for the credit. Where's the money. And so you've got to give him the money to, of course I did the one thing, which I still think ties everybody together. Everybody owned a piece of the rock,

John Darcie: (39:01)
Right? Yeah. I think, you know, and I usually give Anthony a hard time on these talks, but two of the things that you just mentioned are things that he drills into us here at SkyBridge one, he has a plaque. I'm actually sitting in his office in our New York headquarters right now. There's a plaque. Ronald Reagan said, it's amazing what you can accomplish, essentially, if you don't care who gets the credit. Um, and, and also leave, you know, he, I

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:23)
Know I don't like John getting the credit for all these good ratings on Saul talks though. Hey Jim, I got a B no enough is enough, right? That's exactly. You can only go so far. Okay. I just want to make that clear, but go ahead, John. John took it a little bit too, literally agent.

John Darcie: (39:41)
And then, uh, the second piece is from Lee caching. He writes about this in one of his books is, you know, he, he asked Lee Kushing, what is one lesson that you would give me in my career to help me be successful? And, and Lee Kashink told him, leave money on the table for your partners. Don't try to squeeze every dime or every penny out of every transaction that you do with your partners, give them more than they even might expect. And you're going to have, you know, a partner for life and somebody who's going to be a lifelong advocate for you and someone who can unlock value for you. I'll give

Ed Hajim: (40:11)
You another idea or on which I, I did unconsciously deflect credit. They try to give it to you. I w when I was the chairman of president of the alumni association, Harvard business school, they wanted to throw a day for me after I was on the board for 10 years. And we did do, we did do a lot of night, really good things. We did this long, uh, lifelong, lifelong, lifelong learning process, which really actually was very spectacular. You're going to give me a day. So that, that day was my day. I developed a video for Christine who was the assistant director of alumni relations, who was absolutely fantastic. And so I did a video on her and her life and how she helped us and everything else. And after that session, which I did get a lot of credit. One of the women, very senior ladies that are abysmal came up and said, that's the classiest thing I've ever seen.

Ed Hajim: (41:06)
And I did it unconsciously because I really thought that Christine was, she was Christine and Fairchild fabulous lady. And she basically, I quit the board because originally, because I thought it was just a resume builder, she came after me. So you got to come back on the board. It's more than a resume builder. I went on those first two years at another eight years, and I became this president of alumni association, but I deflected it. Same thing I did when I left as the chairman of board of trustees at Rochester, I did something which I think, you know, I think you should copy. And I asked the president for 40 minutes and I gave him a book called, this is, this is the, my moment, which is a book about gratitude. I also got crystal pieces on and I put each person's name, university of Rochester.

Ed Hajim: (41:53)
And thanks, ed. And I said, this is a thank you that can never be destroyed. I can never go away. What you've done for me as a board, we raised 1,000,000,003, which was unbelievable. That's an old historic, what you've done for me and for the school should be remembered forever. And that's why I want to say, thanks for everybody. You know, deflecting credit, you really cashing is exactly right. Leave something on the table, by the way on deals. It's the same way. You know, I, I remember the Xerox deal. I didn't push that. I did push the push, the, the, uh, the ING deal a little bit because I felt they were undervaluing me. I knew what the price they willing to pay for one of my competitors. So I was, I knew that was in their pockets. So I figured I'd, I'd take that.

Ed Hajim: (42:33)
Uh, but you know, I, I left that on the table and also I feel very, very confident. I tried to give back to both Xerox and Diane G, if you read the book, both people, you felt that it was an overpaid deal. In each case, they both did just fine. You read the book. So I'm kind of excited about that, but those are the kinds of a little bit less, but marry those two things, helping people do better than they think they can and not taking the credit and even deflecting the credit want. I tell you it really works and is unconscious. It sounds like manipulation. I did it unconsciously and writing this book and thinking back as a biscuit, Rochester, when I started the book, I started to realize that was what I was doing unconsciously. And I, by the way, I did it because I got a kick out of when someone comes into your office and says, I just did this unbelievable deal that you may have really helped him with or her with, you know, and you see him light up that really turns you on, or, or in the case of kids with, at college.

Ed Hajim: (43:35)
When I got this, by the way, the book looks like to me, could be, I'm hoping I got some emails back from some, some what we call a, a foster home foster home kids up in Boston, who basically, uh, with a group called Wiley. They, they, they, they, they are counseled by this group called wildly. And they're in places like MIT and Harvard and Tufts and so forth. And I got a couple of letters and emails after one of my talks saying, ed, you really inspired me to keep going. That pays all the bills, pays all the bills. You get so much more than you give. No

John Darcie: (44:09)
Matter what, Jonathan, he's pretty good there. Don't he, I don't know about you finally get somebody on, ask the good questions. You know,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:19)
This is the last time you'll see him on Saul talk. You're fired Darcie. You're fired the, your book again in all seriousness though, ed, not only is he good at this, but he's the head curator of our salt conference, uh, which are two live events that we were doing prior to the pandemic. And so, yeah, no, we've, we've, we've, we've downloaded a lot of responsibility to John. He's done a brilliant job. Yeah. Hey

Ed Hajim: (44:45)
John, I, I give you a great empathy. My daughter is that as a curator for Ted talks, the business or our Ted talks, it's one of the toughest jobs ever. It's like being a Broadway producer with only one night stands. Really. It's very tough. No, I

John Darcie: (44:57)
Mean, we, we strive to be in the stratosphere of Ted talks. You know, salt talks is what we call our series and it's modeled after Ted talks. I think obviously what she's done there to contribute to the success of that organization. I'm sure is amazing. I want to ask you one more question. There's too much wisdom here for me to let you go early. So we're going to go right up to, uh, the end of our allotted time here, but it's about the future. And you know, um, you've talked a lot about how you talked about the Lily pad. You talked about, you know, if you don't jump off the Lily pad to the next Lily pad, you're going to get left behind. And I think generationally, there's a lot of people on wall street in the industry who don't think that way and are trying to hold onto the past.

John Darcie: (45:34)
You see companies like a Coinbase. I don't know how familiar you are with digital currency and all that stuff. That's going to go live and be a hundred plus billion dollar company. You have Stripe, which is a private, you know, payments company that is worth a hundred billion already in private markets. Both of those either bumping into or exceeding the market cap of a company like Goldman Sachs. But as you look out into the landscape, uh, where do you see the puck moving to use an overused cliche in terms of wall street, in terms of fintechs disruption of old wall street. And how would you give advice to CEOs of some of these, uh, legacy organizations in terms of how not to get left behind,

Ed Hajim: (46:14)
You know, change is, is it's corny, but change is accelerating, but there's more opportunity now than ever before, but you've got to keep changing. I mean, the fact that foam one would not accept the fact that institutional was going to take over from retail and be more important, whether they wouldn't marry the, the, the, the, the research department, you know, to us bankers and so forth. And the fact that, that, that Glucksman, wouldn't recognize that that investment, that asset management was the next step. You know, I don't know how big we could have been. We went from 2 billion to 10 billion to two and a half years with the Lima name. I could have been Larry. I could have been black BlackRock. You know, if you left, it left us alone, maybe anyway, today, AI VR, AR genomics biotech, all this stuff that wall street has to finance over the next, you know, 20, 30 years, there's a book by Julian Paul 2030, which is terribly statistical.

Ed Hajim: (47:12)
And after reading, I'm reading fiction for the first time in my life, so that some of the non-fiction memory is not as, quite as, as, as, as, uh, you know, it's not as juicy as that as fiction, but you know, 20, 30, the next 10 years, what he talks about, the kinds of changes that are going on wall street has to accept. You know, I'm not, you know, I'm not an owner of cryptocurrency because I'm an, I'm an old fogy, you know, you know, but I now recognize that's very, very important, you know, and people, but I traded it in the, over the counter market in the sixties. People said, what are you doing? Hang on. I can trade over the counter stocks. The spreads were so wonderful that my over the counter desk made more money than anybody else, because I had these 40 guys from Staten island, all trading over the counter stuff, you know, anyway.

Ed Hajim: (47:55)
So I think that today wall street has more opportunity than ever before, but it's going to be different that the problem with wall street today is that you have too many, very large companies. And, you know, when you're competing against very large companies, it's just very difficult to operate, but you're getting some new companies like Coinbase. I mean, there'll be other programs like that. I'm recommending most young people, unless they're really fantastic. This the really fight, you know, really, really get excited about finance. Just there's so many other opportunities that I plus the world is now three or four times, as big as it's been before international possible. And internet gives you access to all of that, finding a way, find a cycle, find a wine day, a trend, find an unsatisfied demand, or find a need. That's going to be satisfied. Then the next 20 years you're going to have a lot of fun wall street is, is very, you know, JP Morgan is a fantastic company.

Ed Hajim: (48:50)
It just hard to compete against, and Coinbase has done it, but it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but it's going to be, I think that in many respects, the financial business has have topped out to some extent. I mean, automobiles have not been so good for a very long time, except for Tesla. You know, it's been a tough one. You know, there were, I mean, how many automobile companies now there are so few of the only two or three in America today. So I think that working for the financial business shouldn't be drawing as many young people as it drew when I was in school. So I think that basically what my advice would be. You should have some group of people in every large company in a skunkworks like Minnesota mining, thinking about what's next and be willing to spend money on it and don't throw out anything.

Ed Hajim: (49:37)
Don't throw out any idea and have it separate from your company. And basically say here's, and this is what capital research did with me. They threw me on this. So you got to go to Greenwich to do a growth fund. We can't have that here, you know, in Los Angeles, I mean, growth fund income fund income, only over there, Greenwich, you know, and they did that. And, and of course I flunked badly. You'll see that in the book I, I got, I got the terminal disease called hubris and they brought back in, but the growth fund of America, which I found and started, ended up being the largest mutual fund in the country at one point, Don, even bigger than fidelity for one period of time and income fund got, I think it was really a hundred billions a day, but that was the completion of that product line.

Ed Hajim: (50:24)
So today let's get those snuck works, working, don't throw out anything. And unfortunately, which is one of the most difficult thing it's international, you must be international. And unfortunately New York has given away its prominence. I, I, I complained about America, a couple of veins. We should've never given away that marketplace. We should have kept it. We should have sponsored it now. You know, when it was a point in time, you couldn't do a hundred million dollar bigger than a hundred million dollar deal outside the United States. Now Hong Kong could do it. London can do it. So you've gotta be international and you gotta get people that are willing to get on the plane and get out and go, go see those places. And you have to have international. You have to have international, uh, uh, you know, employees constantly. And there are two ways to do that. Even for a little firm in sales, ended up with offices in Tokyo, uh, Sydney and San Francisco. There was all those foreign places and London. We had big offices in London. I remember going to the Tokyo to visit, visit my office. And I bumped into Bob Greenhill from Morgan Stanley and he said, uh, you're here. What are you doing? I said, I'm busy. My office is so much. I said, how many people do you have? You said 800. How many do you have? I said one.

Ed Hajim: (51:37)
And in the world of remote work,

John Darcie: (51:39)
You know, having a global distributed workforce has gotten easier. That's the last thing.

Ed Hajim: (51:44)
That's the last thing today? People in the financial business recognized the COVID like every other difficult situation has huge positives. Tell them that telemedicine is going to explode FinTech, just what you mentioned. But ed tech, FinTech and med tech are going to be just huge explosive areas. And it may not require as much capital. We may have to sort of change things. A bit funding may have to be smaller and maybe some new businesses that, that all these companies go into and some may be too small with some of the big companies. So some of the smaller companies can do a better job.

John Darcie: (52:18)
All right. Well, ed, it's been an absolute pleasure having you on, um, you know, we'll have to meet up on the golf course or at the salt conference. I know Anthony's not much of a golfer, but uh, yeah, I'd love to tee it up with you either down there on ocean, read for Nan talk or you can come see us on long island. Uh, I'm up actually in the town that Anthony grew up in port Washington. Um, the club, uh, the, the club that I play is called sands point and golf club. A Tillinghast beautiful, a Linksys style course. Um, it's great. Just, just around the corner from my house.

Ed Hajim: (52:51)
Well, if you get to then talk and I'll give you an afternoon at the Nantucket golf club, uh, uh, Anthony, you can come, we, we can sit and let them play and we can sit and watch him, but

John Darcie: (53:00)
Then he can do the landscaping, see that he's,

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:03)
He's gonna want me out there pulling the weeds and that's how these guys are. Yeah, no,

Ed Hajim: (53:07)
But it, it it's a sanctuary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (53:10)
It's an absolutely breathtaking course. Uh, I was up there, uh, with Wayne high zag now, uh, legendary Wayne Isaiah, uh, in 1997. Uh, and it was the year that he had won the world series. I remember he had the, he took the Florida Marlins when he owned it to the world series in 97 and then eventually sold the team. But, uh, yeah, absolutely legendary, beautiful course, ed, uh, on the road, less traveled, uh, amazing book, an unlikely journey from an orphanage to the boardroom. And, uh, I love the cover ed, but I love more of the content of what's in this book and I'm recommending it to everybody. And I want to thank you personally, on behalf of all of us, for joining salt talk today.

Ed Hajim: (53:56)
Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. And the good questions was a lot of fun. Thanks

John Darcie: (54:01)
Very much. Likewise. And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with the great ed. Hey Jim, just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We've made all of these episodes free and available for everyone to watch. So please spread the word. We love educating people, uh, young and old from great people like ed who have incredible lessons to teach from their long careers, successful careers on wall street and elsewhere. Uh, just a reminder. We're also on social media at salt conferences where we're most active on Twitter, and we'd love for you to give us a follow up, but we're also on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well. But on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here again soon.

Brooke Baldwin: "Huddle: How Women Unlock Their Collective Power" | SALT Talks #196

“I was in the middle of the Women’s March, seeing women come together for a multitude of reasons. For the first time in my life, I was basically in the middle of this giant huddle. I realized something special was happening with women in America and I wanted to dedicate the next chapter of my career to it.”

Brooke Baldwin is the anchor of the 3pm edition of CNN Newsroom and also creator and host of CNN’s digital series American Woman. She recently authored Huddle: How Women Unlock Their Collective Power.

The Women’s March the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration was a major inflection point in society. While Trump was not the singular force behind it, he may have served as the tipping point that brought millions of participants together all across the country. These marches acted as a huddle, a way for women to collectively make their voices heard. “I was in the middle of the Women’s March, seeing women come together for a multitude of reasons. For the first time in my life, I was basically in the middle of this giant huddle. I realized something special was happening with women in America and I wanted to dedicate the next chapter of my career to it.”

In competitive professions like journalism, there can be women who adopt sharper elbows, opting to see other women as the opposition. This can result from limited opportunities for women. The goal of a huddle-driven world is to create greater cooperation where successful women drop the ladder back down to help the next generation.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Brooke Baldwin.jpeg

Brooke Baldwin

Anchor

CNN Newsroom

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Brooke Baldwin to salt talks. Uh, Brooke is a Peabody award finalist who anchors the 3:00 PM edition of CNN newsroom. She's also the creator and host of CNN's digital series, American woman, which focuses on the stories of trailblazing women who have broken barriers in their respective fields and are now helping other women do the same.

John Darcie: (00:59)
Brooke's new book huddle, how women unlocked their collective power is a blend of journalism and personal narrative. Examining how women have come together in a wide variety of times and places to provide each other with support, empowerment, inspiration, and the strength to solve problems and enact meaningful change. Uh, Brooke is crisscrossed the country to research and write this book revealing how huddling helps women achieve success in the workplace affect grassroots change, build confidence during girlhood, maintain better physical and mental health survive, racial and gender based oppression and weather. The COVID-19 pandemic by speaking with historians and researchers, uh, Brooke also learned ways that huddling has often been key to women's survival across multiple generations hosting today's talk making her debut here on salt talks is a Scaramucci, but not Anthony Scaramucci. It's Anthony's wife, dear Jeff, who formerly was a director of investor relations at SkyBridge.

John Darcie: (02:00)
She left that role to help raise a family. Uh, but she, she also hosted the MOOC and the Mrs. Podcasts alongside Anthony and as a intellectual heavyweight in her own. Right. And we're very excited to have here, have her here on salt talks, and then also want to say, shout out to Brooke for being a North Carolina Tarheel. I grew up, I had to give that shout out. So it's all my north Carolinians out there, but now that introduce Dierdre Scaramucci, this'll be my last Saul talk Brook. Okay. I'm going to be blocked out of this. Thank everybody for listening to me during this salt talk series was very nice. It's been a fun ride. I look forward to be being replaced by Deirdre Scaramucci, but in the meantime, it's all been good, but Dierdre Scaramucci taken away. What a book. Congratulations.

Deidre Scaramucci: (02:52)
Oh, he's still talking. He's always talking, still

Brooke Baldwin: (02:54)
Talking, still talking,

Deidre Scaramucci: (02:57)
Having me two years since I've had like an adult conversation. So this is very special for me. So I'm honored that you asked me to join you. Of

Brooke Baldwin: (03:06)
Course. I said to your husband, it's a book about, you know, unlocking the power among women. Thank you. Shout out of the book cover. And not that I don't love your husband to death, but you know, I thought Mrs. Mooch could join.

Deidre Scaramucci: (03:18)
Yeah, of course I bring the funk. You do. So I love the forward by the way. Cause moms go to bed

Brooke Baldwin: (03:26)
Who, by the way, does any of it's just texting with her? The book has not landed at her front door step yet. So she doesn't even know. I dedicated,

Deidre Scaramucci: (03:32)
Let me not say anything, but that's very sweet. Thank you. It will make her life. She's my original huddle. Right. And that will make her life. And also she dedicated on the second half to James loving that. Anthony, did you say that?

Brooke Baldwin: (03:47)
What did, what did I re read what? I said,

Deidre Scaramucci: (03:50)
James, my husband, thank you for loving me and Pugsley. And for being one of many good men who support women huddling, we

Brooke Baldwin: (03:56)
Need the men to support the ladies. Right. It's

John Darcie: (03:59)
Very beautiful. And you know, you know, you know, James is our kind of guy he's, but it's usually helpful to us and salt stuff in 2019,

Deidre Scaramucci: (04:07)
I crack up because I watched, you know, I follow you on Instagram. So I watch you like stalk him and annoy him.

Brooke Baldwin: (04:16)
It's like really, Brooke, do we need to do another ID story? Like I just, can I just make your breakfast or can I just eat my food? And you know, me, I just have

Deidre Scaramucci: (04:25)
Like very fun, uh, dynamics. Cause he's so and English and you are just spunky. So it's funny. Um, okay, so getting out, let's get to it. So tell us about the book, obviously the huddle, how women unlock their collective power. And so how did you come up with this idea of a huddle?

Brooke Baldwin: (04:43)
So I think growing up in Atlanta, um, I I'm, I am, I'm a Georgian, but yes, chapel thrill, undergrad. So growing up in Atlanta, I had, um, I had just a really happy girlhood. I was involved in all kinds of things, whether it was everything from gymnastics before I realized I would be five, nine, whoops, or, you know, tap dancing or soccer, whatever, I was like, I was all about it. And I had lots of awesome huddles as a girl. And I think ultimately then played sports in high school, had huddles, went off to college and then made career my number one. And so when I was graduating Carolina and all of my girlfriends were moving off to New York city and living in, you know, like the east village with like illegally with five women and then having a good time and living their best sex and the city life, I was moving to small town America where I was pursuing my dream of journalism and, you know, growing up too, I admired women journalists like Jane Pauley and Katie Craig and Barbara Walters.

Brooke Baldwin: (05:39)
And of course Oprah, like we're all still living in the, in the era of Oprah. And I just assume that it would, it was a women friendly profession, little did I know that, you know, when I got into my first job would just be some women with some really sharp elbows. And so I w that's like my, my early arc. And then after I'm just going to skip a bunch of years and a lot of hard work and sacrifice and crappy hours. Um, you know, I wound my way up do with my dream job at CNN and I was covering the Trump inauguration and, and w the one day, like on the back of the sweat peg truck and embedded in this Trump motorcade is he's going to the white house for the first time. And then the very next day there I am in the middle of the women's March and seeing women coming together for a multitude of reasons for the first time in my life, I was basically in the middle of this giant huddle.

Brooke Baldwin: (06:26)
So number one, I realized something special was happening with women in America. And I wanted in on it, and I wanted to dedicate the next chapter of my career to it. And then two, I had my own like took my reporter hat off and was like, well, do what I show up here with a bunch of women do even do even have a huddle of women who would have shared a tank of gas to go to Washington with me. And the answer Dierdra is I didn't. And I knew that in that moment forward, I would need to activate my own huddle. And I want readers to learn how to do the same.

Deidre Scaramucci: (06:55)
Right. It's an important balance. My mom always tells me no matter what you do, make sure you keep your girlfriends. And I, I mean, it's important, but when you're building your career, when you're working super hard, I remember, you know, when I first started working, I never saw my friends. Um, and it's a really hard thing to maintain, but I think as we get older, um, it hits home and you probably become more focused on it, but it is something we need for hard times. I mean, there's just some things, a husband or a friend that's a guy, or they just can't

Brooke Baldwin: (07:26)
Everything to us at all times. And also, like, I think looking back to my twenties and early thirties when I was super lonely and putting career first, and I don't regret that time, but I had amazing singular girlfriends, but they were living all over the country and they were becoming first-time mothers or working on their own careers. And we just didn't have, I didn't have a huddle. I did not have a girl group, a tribe, a sisterhood in the way that I do now. And it has changed my life.

Deidre Scaramucci: (07:54)
Right. I mean, time, time does help that out though. You meet people as you go along and then you kind of introduce them and they come together. You know, we don't, we're not born with a huddle, you know? I mean, I have a bunch of girlfriends from high school that are still friends and that's like a one in a million thing. Most people don't have that. I'm very fortunate, but as time goes on, I have a friends of, um, that I've made through my kids and school and, and you build it as you go along. But, um, Anthony, are you there? What do you think about a girl huddle? Because I'm surrounded broke. I don't know what your siblings are.

Brooke Baldwin: (08:33)
I have a younger brother, so it's

Deidre Scaramucci: (08:35)
Another, it's just a guy, another guy I got, I'm surrounded by only guys. I have brothers, sons and nephews. So yeah, it's a lot of testosterone, man. That's what I'm saying. Um, so I'm interested in knowing what Anthony thinks about girl huddles, because I don't have any of that going on in the home place. And now Brooke is stuck with James is boy. Oh,

John Darcie: (08:56)
You know, I'm going to say something that's obviously going to get, it's going to obviously get me in trouble. I feel that like, there is a different way that women bond with each other than men. So obviously that will probably get me in trouble perhaps as politically.

Brooke Baldwin: (09:13)
This is super interesting. This is interesting. I, I, I bet you came from, I mean, I think it traditionally, right? I think men have for so long gotten together, whether it's playing sports or, you know, going and having a golf game and networking or having that happy hour, I think it just kind of has come naturally to you guys.

John Darcie: (09:33)
So let me, let me say something that's very stereotypical and very general. And then the, both of you, you can yell at me, but this has been my 57 year observation that men sort of bond in like sort of a hunter gathering mode. And so we're fighting with each other. We sort of get over it pretty quickly. I feel like women have a little bit of a shell in the beginning, but then once they've shared some level of vulnerability with each other, Katie coming credibly close, and in some ways their bond, their sororal bond is tighter than a fraternal bond because they've, they've seen each other's vulnerability and then they fuse together and are in a complete huddle. And I feel like men are more in like a bee swarm. Anyway, I don't know if that's going to get me talk anyway. Darcie knows that deer just out shiny me every second of this. So this is my last salt, but I just thought I would just point out that. And what is your observation to that, Brooke? Am I wrong in saying

Brooke Baldwin: (10:31)
That, listen, I can only speak from my own experience, but I think you hit on the key word on vulnerability. And that is one of the key pillars of, of having a huddle is showing up vulnerably. And also I would argue that, yeah, man, I

John Darcie: (10:43)
Got that out of your book, by the way.

Brooke Baldwin: (10:45)
Yeah. But I think that's key. I mean, I'm a big Bernay brown follower and she talks a lot about vulnerability and courage. And I think you have to show up vulnerably authentically. Um, and you have to ask for help, which I think we as women, especially I look to my, my women, friends who are mothers. I mean, women wear a lot of hats, right? Especially now in the pandemic mothers caretakers, in some cases, breadwinners community leaders, suddenly at home teachers, there there's a lot happening for women. And so I just think women, uh, aren't really good at raising their hands and saying, Hey, can you help me? But that's the whole, that's part of the, the, the, the magic within the huddle is when you decide to link arms with one another and help one another and show up vulnerably and ask for help. And if you've lost a job because of this horrible time we've been living in, like, I believe your, your sisters will truly want to share the wealth and help you out. I think our culture loves to pit women against one another, like think of all the movies and the Broadway shows and everything else, but that's not the, that's not the whole story. And that's, that's not the focus for me. It's the opposite.

Deidre Scaramucci: (11:56)
Do you think COVID, um, kind of shined more of a light on this kind of thing, given the crisis that we're all in and the help we probably need more than

Brooke Baldwin: (12:05)
Ever now. I think it's shine two lights. Number one, it showed that, you know, women and especially women of color were disproportionately affected by this pandemic and losing jobs and having to give something up as they were, you know, spinning a lot of plates at home. Number one, and acknowledging that. And just number two, I don't know about you Dierdre, but for me, I've never been closer with my girlfriends than this pandemic. I totally took for granted the gift of connection and physically hanging out and taking girl trips and, you know, networking with a group of women in person. And so for me, I've really had this opportunity as if we've been sitting still at home and flexing my huddling muscle flexing, the muscles of, you know, doing, doing things like zooming in Marco polo and these technology things. I was super not hip to prior to the pandemic. And now I think once we, I, my hope is then when we come out of this thing that ultimately after flexing these muscles, women will really have space to kick and bring about change. And I'm really hopeful for that. What do you think?

Deidre Scaramucci: (13:11)
Well, I think so. I mean, I've never spoken to my friends as much as I have now. Isn't that interesting? Yeah, because we're at home and we're like, Hey, this is going on. My, my son is going through this or my daughter's going through this, are you going through this? Or, you know, you're around your husband all the time. He's home all day. Like, are you guys, are you okay? Are you, you know, on each other's nerves, just bouncing stuff off of each other, um, just ways to make like best

John Darcie: (13:37)
You shouldn't as permanent broke ball. One desperation is

Deidre Scaramucci: (13:42)
In the Scaramucci. Yeah. But we've really uplifted each other. We've maneuvered and found ways to eventually see each other after many months. Um, and it was just so nice. And your girlfriends. Yeah. And, you know, just to have to come together safely and have our kids interact and just for me, or for them, or for anyone just to talk to an adult, like I said, in the beginning, I was half joking, but half not. I mean, um, it could be worse, but I spend most of the time talking to young people, which is great, but you need to have adult conversations. I mean, to stay stimulated, to stay alive and happy. Um, so I've, I've looked to them for that, a lie,

Brooke Baldwin: (14:22)
A follow up on that, which is to, to your husband's point about vulnerability. Like what kinds of, because I think of my own text chain, which I didn't even have a group text chain with my, with the ladies in my life before this, before, right. Like the journey that was huddle. And I mean, we text about everything from, are we too old for Jean shorts? What we think about the election to, you know, mental health and depression through the pandemic, to the racial reckoning in this country, like nothing is off limits to our marriage.

Deidre Scaramucci: (14:55)
We talk about all of that. And the interesting thing is we are coming from many different places, ideologically, surprisingly interesting. So we have had some really interesting conversations, whether it be about the vaccine, about quarantining, about how we're handling school. I mean, everything has been so interesting to hear people because we're so similar and in many ways, and we grew up around each other, but life has brought us to different places and we've made completely different choices during this whole thing. And she's been so interesting to see. And also you're saying about vulnerability being vulnerable, to be honest about how we feel about certain things, whether it's the riots, um, you know, women's empowerment, whatever it is, um, the election. Um, and we've just been really honest, without judgment, which I think judgment, judgment, judgment is another thing. Vulnerability is one and people are afraid to be vulnerable because of judgment.

Deidre Scaramucci: (15:52)
And I'm not when you're in a safe space, like a huddle. Right. But to be honest, um, as an adult, um, navigating the waters of adulthood and meeting people, I have yet to meet many people at this stage in life that I've been able to break through. I think people assume things about each other. Um, they prejudge and I think it's really inhibiting. I really do. Um, I think it stops a lot of people from gaining relationships and also just making differences. Cause they're like, so bound up that you don't, you don't get past a certain point. I don't know if you've ever witnessed that cause you're pretty open and

Brooke Baldwin: (16:30)
Try to be really open. And I, and I think I attract other women in my circles too, are equally open. I, I don't, I'm trying to think of, I don't have any friends who are just sort of like myopic or singularly minded. I can't, I don't have time for that. And I come from, you know, I, I come from Georgia. I come from, you know, a lot of Republicans in my family and here I'm living in Manhattan, you know, surrounded by a lot of like left-leaning folks. And I, and I, I remember my mom, when I was a kid, she was always like, Brooke, you should be a judge. That was what she always thought I should become. And instead I became this journalist, but similarly, like trying to maintain my objectivity and always listening to the different sides and believing the truths in some cases lies somewhere in between. But I want to come back to a point you said about like your, so your huddle is comprised of women who are of various ideological backgrounds. Because that to me is another key point of a huddle is either a diverse ideological backgrounds or making sure, you know, members of your huddle. Don't all look like you. Yeah.

Deidre Scaramucci: (17:34)
Yeah. Well, it makes things more interesting to be, I mean, obvious. Yeah. But, um, yeah, I mean, we're just, we're the same, but we're not, and it's been trying at some points, like I'll, I'll tell Anthony, you know, like, I don't know if we could see so-and-so cause they think differently than weed and it's, you know, sometimes it's thrown up some obstacles, but at the end of the day you still remain close. Um, and, and that's basically what we've done, but it's just interesting. We're very different. And um, one thing to say about you is following you on Instagram, you do attract that because you're very open, uh, transparent. You're not always trying to, um, play a character. You're, you're very real. Like, you'll go on after a workout. There'll be like, you know, you know what I mean? But like, that's cool because that makes people know that they can be real around you or they can, you know, they can pick up something from you. I always pick up something from your posts because they're just, there's honest and I'm authentic. And I like that obviously. Thank you sister fan. So,

John Darcie: (18:40)
So Brooke, I want to ask something, you know, I, uh, Don lemon wrote a book as well. Uh, and John and I interviewed Don, he said something about the Trump era. It's not a political question. It's a sociological one. He said that the Trump era exposed levels of racism that was probably passive aggressive, rip the cover off of it. Now we've gotten to see things and in a weird way, he thinks that will actually make things better because now we're having a full frontal conversation. Do you think something like that also happened for women and in terms of the progress that women are making in the country? Well,

Brooke Baldwin: (19:18)
Totally. I, I, I go back to the women's March in 2017, a day after he was inaugurated and went to the white house for the first time. And I, I do, I am mindful of activists, Tamika Mallory, who was on the stage, who said something to the effect of, you know, we are not here just because of one man. So I, I do agree with that. I think like any sort of moment in momentum is not all because of Donald Trump. I think having covered the 20 15, 20 16 presidential race and crisscrossing the country and being rallies and showing up for various candidates. I just noticed women were showing up in ways. I had never noticed in my career. And it wasn't just because they all were in it for Hillary. A lot of people were showing up for a lot of women were showing up for Bernie Sanders.

Brooke Baldwin: (20:03)
A lot of women were showing up for Donald Trump. I think that the, what was the final vote, it was like 52% of white women voted for Donald Trump. So I just noticed women showing up. And then I think at the end of the day, you had this like wave as a, as a result of the election and then came, you know, me too, and time's up. And then we had never seen more women run for office in the 2018 midterms as we had before. And I remember going on Stephen Colbert and the wake of that. And we were talking about, um, my series that I'd done here at CNN about how many of those women are Democrats. And I remember going on TV and saying, you know, we need more women in office left or right. And I was in touch with a couple of Republican women at the time and were saying it was really in the Republican party.

Brooke Baldwin: (20:49)
This was like 2018, a really breakthrough because there were so many older white men in those dark smoky rooms who weren't as progressive. And open-minded for these women candidates coming up and sharing the power with them. And they wouldn't even tell me anecdotes about how they were the candidate. And they would be sitting at the table at a, at a rally for themselves. And some of these guys would come up to the table and they'd be like, hi, what's your name? And where's the candidate. You know, they just it's, it's, uh, they, this is their own personal experience. And so I think it was wonderful that after the 2020 election, that a number of Republican women won seats, uh, on Capitol hill. And so I, I do think that that momentum is shifting for Republican women as well. At the end of the day, we only make up a quarter of the seats in Congress and that number needs to improve as well. I feel like we're

Deidre Scaramucci: (21:41)
Living in a weird time though. It's like, I'm not sure what's going on, but there seems to be a shift in many ways. Health-related, um, women's rights, just all these things. And so I'm just trying to figure out, are we living in the transitional period where we go through all the mess?

Brooke Baldwin: (21:57)
Like, are we in the mess right now to make it better for the next generation, right? Or

Deidre Scaramucci: (22:02)
Will we ever, will we ever be living in a time where it's less messy and just don't matter the mess,

Brooke Baldwin: (22:10)
Like the mess a little bit, like the change.

Deidre Scaramucci: (22:13)
I mean, I like the mess. I like the change, but I would like it to be this, the situation and the circle to be settled and more natural because I feel like right now there's a tug of war and a push and pull with a lot of things. And I just feel like it's very unsettled. So I'm just wondering if we'll ever live in that time or will we see that time?

Brooke Baldwin: (22:34)
And who's got a crystal ball. Who's got a crystal ball. I don't know.

Deidre Scaramucci: (22:38)
Do you think we can make enough, um, of a debt? Yeah,

Brooke Baldwin: (22:43)
I hope so. Dierdre I hope so. Um, I hope that women will it at the end of the day for, for me and for this book, what I heard from various, everyone from CEOs to politicians, to Hollywood, actresses, to women athletes at the end of the day, they want to make sure that women have a bigger table, that it's no longer women fighting for few seats at the, the male table. But in fact, like let's just build our own down at your table. And, um, I think that slowly but surely that is happening. And I think one of the secrets to doing that is being a Huddler and subscribing to this abundance mentality, ethos. And I do hope that if I really want to create a movement of women subscribing to this versus the sharp elbow mentality, so that I do believe we can reach what you're describing, where we do build this table. And we have a table full of women from all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, ethnicities, everything, and it's sort of like adjacent to the men and we need, you know, we started they'll go the whole conversation, or you were reading the dedication to my husband because we need our men and we need our men to support the huddle. So hopefully yes, in our lifetime, we will, we will have built this big, beautiful table for, for women. Um, it's just a matter of everyone jumping on and going with it.

Deidre Scaramucci: (24:10)
Do you think women that are in power right now are doing enough to, to make that kind of happen? Or do you think it's still could be worked on? I mean, I know there are obviously people that stick out in our mind that are always moving forward with this, but, um, I feel like there could be more

Brooke Baldwin: (24:28)
Sure there's a mix. I can only speak to the women I interviewed in this book. And so the women I interviewed in this book are all in it for everyone to win it. You know, they're all, if they're not, you know, many of them have the access to power and her, then, you know, as Megan Arpino famously said are throwing down their, their ladders for, for younger women coming along. Um, but sure. I mean, haven't you like in, in my own career, I have experienced those women who are not the women's women who are icy and wanna have their sharp elbows and hold on to that lone woman position up top. And it's like, on the one hand you sort of were like, listen, man, I understand where you are and why you're so icy and, and don't want to help other women because you've had that claw girlfriend, you have had to work your off to, to get to where you are. But then I think why aren't you, now that you have this power, like help others help others achieve just a slice of what you have. Yeah. I think there's still an, if I'm just being realistic, I think there's still a mix. What do you think?

Deidre Scaramucci: (25:33)
Oh yeah. A hundred percent. No, that's what I was saying. Even just right now, I'm not working. I did experience that when I was working. Um, but even just navigating, um, moms or whatever, I don't know, not to stereotype or whatever, but just interesting. You know, it's very hard for me to understand. And Anthony, you know, I talked to him about it all the time and he's like, well, for some reason, women are intimidated by other women. And I don't know what it is. Like they automatically assume you are not going to be nice or you, they automatically assume that you don't like them. And there's something that we are, I don't know. Women

Brooke Baldwin: (26:10)
Can be the worst to one, another account. We,

Deidre Scaramucci: (26:13)
But I am not under, um, I'm always trying to figure out, is it a taut or are we, is it like a survival thing or is it something innate or something that we're taught? Um, but I I'm, I'm sure it's a combination of all those things, but I just wish we could, but people like you are because you have a platform you're showing people how to be successful. Um, brilliant, attractive and not, um, too cool for school. Like still approach you.

John Darcie: (26:42)
Imagine if I calling Brooke brawl one successful and attractive on the assaults, I mean, that would be it for me. Right? Anthony's the head of HR here. I would take it as a compliment. Mr. [inaudible]. I appreciate that, Brooke.

Deidre Scaramucci: (26:57)
Um, obviously that's an interesting thing I wanted to ask Brooke about. Um, I think sometimes we are striking, we're not striking enough of a balance between, um, and I'll get all Tony Robbins here, but like female energy and male energy, because I do believe, um, and you and I are born around the same time that there is a distinct difference. And sometimes, and it doesn't mean any difference between male, energy and female energy. And I think sometimes we need to keep a little bit of that because sometimes I feel like we have like an overbite where we're trying to make everybody exactly the same. Um, so like what Anthony was saying, if he complimented you, I personally would never get offended. If somebody come home, I wouldn't take it as a compliment. Right. But I feel like, you know, when I was coming on to this, I'm thinking, what can people say? Not particularly in this conversation, but what doesn't offend somebody, what is still funny? You know, I was just thinking about the time we live in and you face that every day. Cause you have to be on TV every day and, and ask questions off the cuff. Like, how do you know you're not offending somebody now? I feel like we are overly sensitive in some ways, right?

Brooke Baldwin: (28:08)
I mean, that's a whole other conversation and I am certainly not an expert in it, but, um, I mean I try to just maintain objectivity and you know, I, my, my, my, my gut just knows if I'm being offended. And, and I think the bigger thing for me is if I'm being offended to just speak up and say something about it, but I think you're asking like, is the, has the pendulum swung too far? And that people are getting so offended and it's this like hyper PC culture. And when did that become a thing and when can the pendulum swing back? And

Deidre Scaramucci: (28:44)
It's a, it's a weird thing because we're you and I are living in a zone and the zip code where we transferred somewhere in between, where, when we first started our careers, it was like borderline mad men, Nish still, still acceptable. Um, I worked on a trading floor and it was insane. Um, and then now

Brooke Baldwin: (29:04)
You've experienced it totally.

Deidre Scaramucci: (29:08)
And, um, and now I'm like, I don't think anybody could say anything anymore. And I haven't been in an office environment, but it's just, it's really at the opposite end of the spectrum. So I just find it fascinating that that has happened in probably a time pair, a period of 15 years.

Brooke Baldwin: (29:26)
Do you think that it Lee and I, and I hear you loud and clear, and I feel like what I'm hearing is a little bit of an eye roll of like, come on, you know, can somebody just say somebody as attractive? I think that there are many, many shades of what you're describing, but at least I would prefer the pendulum be swinging more on the let's be appropriate side versus the, Hey, you're a hot chick working on the floor and I'm going to be really inappropriate right now. And it's gonna be swept under the rug because it's 1987, you know, like,

Deidre Scaramucci: (29:53)
Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Yeah, no, I agree,

John Darcie: (29:57)
Brooke, 2007 and possibly 2017 on wall

Deidre Scaramucci: (30:01)
Street. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 4: (30:03)
I've just not been around the wall street culture.

Brooke Baldwin: (30:06)
I mean, I can't even imagine. I can't,

John Darcie: (30:09)
When you say that there's a, there's a, when you talking about like, you know, intuitively when you're being offended or not, I've we, we have four, we have four sons and I tell my adult sons, a woman knows right away, charming versus creepy right away. You can tell a woman, her dress looks great. You look great tonight. You're saying it totally complimentary out any, you know, a front or anything like that. But then you could say this same sort of thing in this sort of leering weirdo

Brooke Baldwin: (30:41)
In the wrong places.

John Darcie: (30:43)
And then all of a sudden the woman is like, okay, this guy is out the lunch. You know, I, I'm hoping that we can keep the 5,000 year conversation between men and women. Yeah. Make it more appropriate, make women feel comfortable and make women feel safe. But the flip side is we also should be able to talk to each other in a way that is authentic without agreeing offensive. Does that make sense? Totally, totally.

Deidre Scaramucci: (31:09)
Perfectly. Totally agree. Yeah.

John Darcie: (31:11)
Right. In the book about growing up and learning in an all woman's environment, tell us about that because I think it's a fascinating thing and I think it's somewhat helpful to women to think about it in that perspective. What, tell us that your insights

Brooke Baldwin: (31:26)
There? Well, I think I wrote, I wrote, I wanted to make sure I wrote a whole chapter about all girls learning environments, um, and mentioned a little bit about my own. And I tell this story. I did gymnastics for years and years, and there was one point when I was, I dunno, I was probably like eight or nine when I'm just like, I'm a sweater. I sweat, I work hard sweat. It's not cute. It's still not cute, but I've embraced it. All right. And I'm this eight or nine year old and my, my leotard and my spandex or whatever. Um, you know, doing the things around the bars and I'm soaking wet. And I remember this like precious bun in her hair, not a hair out of place, not the sweat stains under her armpits that I was rocking at the time. And I remember her saying to the coach, like, coach, why does Brooks sweat so much?

Brooke Baldwin: (32:14)
And I was mortified. I mean, I could still feel it now. And she turns to the girl and just quips back because Brooke works twice as hard as you. And that was just a snapshot of what I remember from my youth, but being surrounded by girls, doing gymnastics or girls in dance or whatever other sports I was I was doing at the time. And, and what I, what I write about in the book is how now, if you're, if you have little girls, how there is such a broader spectrum of opportunities for them to step up to bat and fail and try, try again. Rushman, Sujani amazing woman, incredible Ted talk, founded girls who code. She talks a lot in her Ted. Talk about how, when boy boys are brought up to jump to the fifth rung of the monkey bar fall and jump up again, like be messy, fail, it's fine.

Brooke Baldwin: (33:05)
Try again. And girls are brought up to be a bit more perfect and she wanted to start girls who code. So to create a safe space for just girls who would do something really, really hard, like learn, learn to code and fail and, and create that space in which they can do that. And, and also build that like precious, you know, those early days of confidence in, in girls. And so I read about in my book, other examples of that, where I talked to Karlie Kloss, the famous supermodel, who is such a hustler too, and I'd have her whole backstory, but she took me inside. One of her coding camps, Kode with Klossy. And I met all these girls who were doing something very similar. I mean, they'd never, some of them didn't have access to computers. Certainly none of them had learned to code before and creating a safe space where they can raise the, raise their hand without boys around and, you know, feeling, feeling like they could fail and then succeed.

Brooke Baldwin: (34:01)
And similarly, Reese Witherspoon does this awesome film, young filmmaker lab with a bunch of girls in LA once a year with the help of at and T. And so all these girls get to come out and they they're carrying around all this fancy equipment and they shoot a film and they all take turns, playing different roles, um, hosting the thing, shooting the thing, editing the thing. And it's the similar, it's the similar idea. And just how nowadays having girls, and I know you guys have boys, but having, having girls, having these opportunities to fail and, and, you know, just from the, all the spectrum of things that are out there, it's just awesome.

Deidre Scaramucci: (34:40)
Well, having boys, I feel like we're part of this. Like you said, we have men to support. Yes. And, um, I was reading something yesterday. It was, um, somebody wrote about their husband and they were saying, thank you to his mom for teaching him to be somebody who, uh, supported her and let her fail, cheered her on when she succeeded. And it made me think, you know, we have our responsibility as parents of boys to raise people. We'll do that. And also, um, you know, cheer on the girl, like do what I'm doing, go for it. You know? Um, like our young son is seven and he always says, I love this girl in my class. Like she plays Fortnite, you know, so cool. And she's like, I don't know any girls that do that mom. And that is so cool. And, um, she's the one girly invited to his birthday party. And I want to always be that way, like do what I'm. That's awesome. So, um, I think as parents, as adults, we just have to always set an example, whether you're raising, uh, girls or boys, or whether you have nieces and nephews, whatever it is, you have to set them straight, you know, that they can all do the same stuff. W Rudy, each other root each other on. Yep. So, um,

John Darcie: (35:58)
We want you to talk a little bit about your mom. Tell us about your mom.

Deidre Scaramucci: (36:04)
Let's the original huddle, as she said,

Brooke Baldwin: (36:07)
Christy B was born in 1949. No, she's one of five sisters, grandfather. My grandfather, her, her father was a Presbyterian minister and they grew up in Miami and yeah, my mom met my dad. He was at Georgia tech. She was at Agnes Scott to Atlanta, Atlanta colleges. They met dated married voila here I am. And, um, I've always been really, really tight with her. And my dad was a management consultant with Deloitte. He was out of town Monday through Friday, and I just totally grew up thinking that was normal to have a dad on a plane somewhere exotic Monday through Friday. And I remember he would come home and I would like rifle through his bags for all the little trinkets from hotel rooms and the change. And my mom was my, my original huddle. And she was someone who, you know, I was like a four year old kid doing backflips off the neighborhood pool.

Brooke Baldwin: (36:58)
And I'm sure the parents were like, who is this girl? And where are her parents? But my mom supported it and cheered me on. And, you know, as a little girl would, you know, let me, she'd crawl into bed with me and tell me stories in which I was the protagonist. And I was, you know, I'm being brave and whatever story she would tell me. And that's the stuff that matters. Those are the building blocks of that. The confidence is a young girl. And then just coming through this crazy, amazing, challenging profession of TV news, and having a moment when I was living back at my parents' house at the age of 29, because I moved to take this chance on becoming a correspondent at CNN. And, um, of course it was right in the middle of the recession. It was 2008. So I landed in Atlanta and CNN basically said, Hey, we think you're really great.

Brooke Baldwin: (37:53)
And we're really excited to have you work for us. But yeah, although all the positions are frozen. So hang tight. And I ended up working odd hours at various other networks within the building for awhile and had a moment which I described in the end of my book, which my mom and I affectionately refer to as the yellow chair moment where I'm living at my parents' house. And I'm having a giant cry in this sunshine, yellow chair in her bedroom. And I'm not a quitter, but I was on the precipice of quitting. I just thought I left a perfectly good job in Washington DC for this to take this leap. And it wasn't really panning out for me. And she refused to let me quit. And that is my mom in a nutshell. And we've had several yellow chair moments since, um, and she's even become closer to her sisters in the later years. And she's my

Deidre Scaramucci: (38:46)
She's the best. Do you think coming from a family with that many sisters, she was so, um, aware of what it took to be like a brave girl, because she was surrounded by so many girls. I'm sure that used to help her. Right.

Brooke Baldwin: (39:03)
I think she came from a time where they didn't have much, he was a Presbyterian minister. The church would provide the house. She had to bunk with another sister at all times. They had to take care of the younger sisters. It was very Southern in the way of, okay, don't make a fuss if something's going on. Like, just keep it under the surface. You know, it was of the, like child of the fifties, just don't talk about it, that kind of thing. And she actually wasn't super close with her sisters, like growing up. I remember she had, we had this one neighbor who she was really close with, but beyond that, I never remember having huddles of women over to our home to drink wine or anything like that. And so I didn't grow up seeing that, unlike maybe some of my other girlfriends moms who did have that. And I think only later in life, has she, um, grown in her own way. And then of course having her daughter writing an entire book about this, I think she's become much more intentional about really becoming close with her sisters and having a, an all women's Agnes got book club and things like that. So now she, she really walks the walk.

Deidre Scaramucci: (40:10)
It's so interesting as we keep changing as we go along. Yeah. Which brings me to my next question. So what are you doing now? I know you're leaving CNN soon. What do you go off to do?

Brooke Baldwin: (40:26)
I'm trying to figure it out. If you guys know anyone in executive positions at streaming networks, um, I, a couple, a couple of things. I, first of all, this has been such a privilege position and truly a dream job that I have earned every single day and has been like beyond I'm going to be waterworks walking out of this building next week. Um, but I have surrounded myself with these trailblazing women and they have, I can't, I can't hold space with them and not be the bravest version of myself and the bravest version of myself. I remember my dad telling me when I was like, just starting out in TV. He was like, Brooke, when you, as soon as you get too comfortable somewhere, you gotta go. And while this has been such a privilege to have this platform, I gotta go, I gotta take a leap.

Brooke Baldwin: (41:13)
I gotta do my back, flip off the high dive, and I want to stay, stay in journalism, stay in the space of storytelling, like the deep end of storytelling, having time to really sit with whomever. It may be, um, famous people, ordinary, extraordinary Americans, uh, tell their stories, shine lights in places where it's not so bright. And, um, do I do believe that streaming is like the next generation of storytelling and having that space to do that. So I have been working with a production company. I am pitching some folks very soon, some ideas. Um, so that number one is a dream. The next dream. And number two, after I announced I was leaving, um, the Ellen degenerate show called me up and asked me to come to LA, to guest host that talk show. And it was such a bucket list check. And I would love to be able to go back. And I think something in that space could be interesting to stay tuned.

Deidre Scaramucci: (42:13)
That's a major thing if you're going to they'll do it on Ellen, right? It's

John Darcie: (42:17)
Ms. Ms. Dierdre hold up the book. Let's show off the book before we blast out of here. So this is the book title by Brooke Baldwin and Brooke. We are, uh, super proud to know you. We're super proud to be friends with you. Love you guys. And, uh, you know, I sometimes get out shined by John Dorsey and it me off the fact that I have the two of you out shining me today. Doesn't me off at all. I just want to point that out that John Dorsey, before we break, I'm glad there was some makeup left for Dierdre in the house. You know, you're going to be on cameras at the barely any makeup. And there certainly wasn't any Botox left for Dierdre Brooke. I can D I can assure you that. Okay.

Deidre Scaramucci: (42:59)
Oh my God. I

John Darcie: (43:02)
Can't drink without a straw, but the top of my forehead doesn't move. I just want to make sure everybody knows that in all seriousness, Brooke, we wish you great success with the book. Thank you so much for joining us on. Thank you guys so much and going forward to the next career. Can't wait, John, you want to take us out of here? Yep. Uh, thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt talk for Dierdra Scaramucci is a steamed debut here on salt talks. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access them all on our website, salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. Uh, please follow us on social media. We're most active on Twitter. You should also follow Brooke by the way. Uh, she's a great follow on social media as Dierdre I think alluded to before long the show or during the show.

John Darcie: (43:52)
Uh, but we're at Saul conference on Twitter. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks. I'm the proud father of a daughter with another daughter on the way. So I love seeing these types of resources and we'll make this required reading for my daughters as they grow up. So please spread the word about these salt talks and topics like this are especially dear to our heart. You know, Anthony has a daughter as well. So these issues are very important to us, but no question on behalf of Anthony, dear Joe, the entire salt team, uh, signing off for today, we hope to see you back here soon again on salt socks.

Josh Rogin: "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi & the Battle for the 21st Century" | SALT Talks #195

“I don’t think the goal is to stem China’s rise. I think the goal is to shape it… It’s going to be a long game. It’s going to last a generation.”

Josh Rogin is a political columnist for the Washington Post, analyst for CNN and author of his new book, Chaos Under Heaven: America, China, and the Battle for the 21st Century.

China has become the main geo-political rival of the United States and the 21st century will be defined by the United States’ ability to manage the relationship. Donald Trump showed correct instincts in seeking to confront China aggressively, but the administration’s general dysfunction undercut efforts. This presents a valuable opportunity for the new administration. “Biden’s administration has a chance to take the ball and run with it and do a better job. Trump was great at flipping over the chess board, but he couldn’t set it back up.”

By integrating China into the global economy, the hope was that global influences would ultimately liberalize the country’s politics. This did not happen and the communist party has nearly total control over China. “I don’t think the goal is to stem China’s rise. I think the goal is to shape it… It’s going to be a long game. It’s going to last a generation.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Josh Rogin.jpeg

Josh Rogin

Global Opinions Columnist

Washington Post

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of stall, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. So talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. In our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Josh Rogan to salt talks. Uh, Josh is a columnist for the global opinion section of the Washington post and a political analyst with CNN. He's also an author most recently of a great book called chaos under heaven, Trump, she and the battle for the 21st century previously, Josh covered foreign policy and national security for Bloomberg view Newsweek, the daily beast foreign policy magazine, congressional quarterly federal computer week magazine and Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

John Darcie: (01:12)
Uh, he was a 2011 finalists for the Livingston award for young journalists and the 2011 recipient of the interaction, uh, award for excellence in international reporting. Josh holds a bachelor's degree in international affairs from George Washington university there in Washington, DC, and studied at Sophia university in Tokyo, Japan today, he lives in the nation's capital, Washington, DC hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:49)
Josh, even though you have the book behind you, I like holding these things up here for our people. Cause you know, I'm not all that self promotional as you know, but, uh, I will say to you that this is, and we were in the green room before we got started here on this salt talk. And I said to you, this is the next 10 years of the United States. Whether we like it or not, there's still be a backdrop of a border crisis. There'll be issues we have to deal with internally with the us. But the next 10 years of the global drama will be between the us and the Chinese. Why did you write the book and am I right after reading your book? Uh, that was my conclusion. I said, man, this is what we're going to be doing over the next 10 years.

Josh Rogin: (02:37)
Right? Well, uh, thanks guys for having me on, basically when I got to the Washington post in 2016 and Donald Trump was elected president, you know, 95% of the foreign policy media was focused on Russia, Russia, Russia, for a number of obvious reasons that we are not going to be able to get into now, but I turned to my boss and I said, well, I gotta do something different. They said, what do you want to do? And I said, I wanna report the story, which I was pretty sure it was going to be pretty crazy considering what the Trump administration was shaping up to look like. And of course I wasn't disappointed little did I know though that not only would we have a trade war and a tech war and sort of a broad awakening in various sectors of American society to the rising challenge that arising China presents to us in our industries, in our schools, in our markets, uh, all of that played out in the craziest way.

Josh Rogin: (03:27)
You could imagine it's a lot of that you know about personally, but then the pandemic hit. And then all of a sudden the fact that China's government is, you know, internally repressive externally aggressive and interfering in our societies toward their political ends became obvious not only to every American, but to every citizen of the world. And there's nobody who's stuck in their basement for a year who hasn't seen their grandma who doesn't realize that, oh, wait a second. We've got to figure out this China thing before it's too late. And it looks like the Chinese government is taking that country in a bad direction. And that doesn't mean we have to have a cold war. It doesn't mean we're going to have a conflict forget about through trap. That's all bumper sticker nonsense. What we have to do is we have to have a national conversation about the challenge that rising China presents to our society and then figure out what we're going to do about it. And this book was a first attempt to start

Speaker 4: (04:17)
That conversation. So you

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:20)
Mentioned that you said that he straps. So let me just explain that to our viewers and listeners, I think is important. Uh, Graham, Alison wrote about this and destined for war. He basically says a rising, super power, uh, basically threatening the existing power structure usually ends in a calamity 12 out of 16 times over 2000 plus years that that's happened. We've gone straight on to war. Uh, and you write in the book you write in the book, which I think is, uh, elemental here that these problems were going to be there with, or without Donald Trump, we are in a economic struggle, we're in a technological struggle. And so what, what, what would you say to your fellow Americans now about what their government missed over the last 20 years as it relates to China?

Josh Rogin: (05:14)
Right. I mean, the facilities traffic's like interesting, but we shouldn't base our strategy on it, but you know, Graham, Alison picked 16 conflicts and then 12 of them matched his theory. So that's all well and good, but you know, the U S China competition is going to be a lot different for a lot of reasons, mostly because if you think about it, it's really not about the U S versus China. It's about an international response to China as it rises. And that means that we're in this together with a lot of other countries that have a lot of things that they need to protect and a lot of interests and values that we believe, believe in and have defended for the last 80 years or so that we would like to keep, you know, that the Chinese communist party is working to erode the mistake that our government made over the last 20 years.

Josh Rogin: (05:57)
You know, not realizing that the large bet that we made, which was essentially, and I'm boiling it down a bit, to be sure that if we gave China all the help, we could and integrated them into our systems as much as possible that the Chinese system would, uh, liberalize is economically and that would lead to it liberalizing politically. And that would solve all the rest of the problems. And we would live in peace and coexistence. And, you know, some people say that was the only responsible thing to do 20 years ago. Some people say it's still the only first possible thing to do right now, but even in 2016, even before Trump was elected, there was a growing feeling inside the U S government and later on in other parts of American society, that that bet had not worked out that choosing paying had taken, decided to take his country in a more authoritarian direction and decided to exert the Chinese model and export it and use it to sort of change the rules of the road in a way that serves their liberal model and not our model, and that we have to respond to that.

Josh Rogin: (06:49)
So, you know, now we sort of the Trump administration to its credit, you know, realize that it, but as you know, it was such a chaotic mess that they've missed a lot of opportunities. They failed to really use a lot of elements of American power. They disrespected allies, there was constant turnover. It was factional infighting from the get-go and the, their response to the China challenge got mired in the overall dysfunction and mismanagement that president Trump brought. And that's a shame. That's something that we, our leaders now have to fix. Josh,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:19)
That's sort of breaking news. There was constant turnover because I wasn't aware of the turnover or the infighting. I didn't realize that. So that's sort of breaking news for me, but you know, one of the funny things it's April of 2017, it's Mar-a-Lago president Trump and president Xi are meeting down there. He's got the book with them, destined for war. President Xi has obviously had an impact on him. Trump has no idea what's in the book. Take us to that meeting. You write about it. Yeah.

Josh Rogin: (07:47)
So you would think if you watch the campaign and that Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and Stephen Miller would have been in charge of the China policy, cause that's how the campaign speeches play it out. But as soon as Trump became president, uh, he turned on a diamond handed, much of the policy over to Jerry Kushner. And to an extent, Rex Tillerson, by the time they got tomorrow Lago for a lot of complicated reasons, he wanted to make a deal. And basically what happened at Mar-a-Lago is he established this friendship over the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you've ever seen according to Trump, uh, to make a deal with changing paying. And then he set us Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Wilbur Ross on the path of making that deal. And if you just think of that moment in time, and, and, you know, you could imagine that if the Chinese leadership had just realized what an opportunity they had, if they had given president Trump and his economic officials, a deal that they could sell, that they could run on, that would actually have done some good, they might've avoided what happened next was that was, which was pled.

Josh Rogin: (08:45)
Trump turned on them and turned on the Chinese leadership and then handed the policy over to a Lighthizer. And then to an extent to the Hawks and Bolton and Pence, and, you know, it just went downhill from there. And then when they finally did make a deal in June, January, 2020, it seemed like everything was going to be copacetic again. And then the pandemic hit and the relationship was destroyed. So Mar-a-Lago was that first sort of instance where president Trump and president Xi decided that they were really good friends and that this was going to be a big thing. And that relationship not only ended up being destroyed, but it also ended up having a real horrible effect on our pandemic response. Because later on presented, she lied to president Trump about the coronavirus, told him it would go away when it got warmer, told them that it was under control, herbal medicine could be used to, to secure it. And that fed into Trump's garble in his head, which came out of his mouth, which came out in our policy, which exacerbated the problems that we're having today. Those are excuse the Trump administration's pandemic response, but it explains it just a bit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:44)
So, I mean, you're doing, and you do a brilliant job of this in the book. So I want you to pretend I've now landed from Mars. And these are two very important world leaders. And I want you to give me the baseball scouting report on president Xi and president Trump. Go ahead, Josh.

Josh Rogin: (10:05)
You know, there's, there's two scattered reports on president Trump, right? Some people believe that he was just, uh, a neophyte, you know, inexperienced moron who was stumbling through the most important relationship at a critical time setting his advisers against each other in a Coliseum, you know, battle for sport, right? Other people will tell you people who are closer to Trump will say, no, no, no, no. He actually had a firm view on China and he knew what he wanted and he cared about trade, but he didn't care about human rights. And he could just never get the thing that he wanted because his advisors were fighting amongst themselves. And I think there's truth to both of those narratives actually, you know, I went back and I read all of the Trump books, not that he wrote them, but the ones that had his name on them.

Josh Rogin: (10:47)
And, uh, there's an amazingly consistent message on China that actually you can find in all of his statements and speeches and tweets and stuff. Um, at the same time, it's clear that he didn't know anything about the tactics that he got fooled by presidency. And if you're doing this county report on the presidency and you would have to say that, you know, he masterfully played Trump like a fiddle and abused their personal friendship in order to advance China's interests against America's interests. And, you know, sort of, you know, uh, on the other hand, you, you have to say that the Chinese leadership never really understood how the Trump administration works, but you could kind of forgive them for, cause we were all in that same fog. Uh, and because they play so much faith in their billionaire friends and started basically just hoping that the billionaire friends and the wall street guys would, you know, fix everything. And that became their main channel that w once that didn't work, they really had nothing left to fall back on. And when the pandemic hit, it was the, the, the back channels were useless and it was all over.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:46)
I'm gonna say two things for editorial comment, my observation, uh, th our standing joke, Trump has never read a book and he's never written one. Although we had several best-sellers, we used to always tease about that, even when Steve Mann and I used to talk to each other, but he had very good instincts. I will always say that about him. He had very good instincts and his instincts were that we needed to do something to stem China's rise. I guess my question to you, was it too late where the forces already in play, where China is exponentially rising, and there's really not much that the Americans can do about it. Yeah,

Josh Rogin: (12:29)
No, I, I, I don't think, first of all, I agree with you on your analysis, but I don't think the goal is to stem, trying to thrive. I think that the goal is to try to shape it, you know what I mean? And then if we can't to protect ourselves and protect the things that we care about and the things that are important to our security and our national security and to our public health, by the way, and, you know, uh, it's that, that effort is just beginning and the Trump administration just played the first inning of it, and it's going to be a long game. Okay, it's going to last a generation. And when you see the fight in industry, and again, the big, what you read about Trump's political instincts is, is, is pointing to, is that, you know, the polls show that Americans want a tougher China policy.

Josh Rogin: (13:10)
They see the Chinese government's actions affecting them in their schools, in their markets, uh, in their tech companies and their social media, everything, right. If they're everywhere and in their public health. So they want somebody to do something about it. Um, so actually the Biden ministration has the chance to take the ball and run with it and actually do a better job if they choose to, but we don't know what they're going to do. I think, because I don't think they know what they're going to do. Um, but yeah, I think Trump diagnosed the problem. He was great at flipping over the chess board. Right. But he couldn't send it back up again,

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:40)
Is that analogy because he was flipping chess boards and card tables and kicking slot machines. And so, uh, the Western world is mostly in agreement about the horror of a potential human rights violation in parts of China. Right. But do countries outside the United States have the will to demand a change, uh, given its economic importance, particularly in Europe and Asia. Yeah, no,

Josh Rogin: (14:05)
It's kind of a weird dynamic in that sense, because you're going to have the United States in Europe being the champions of human rights, but it's actually, you know, the Muslim majority countries and the Asian countries that are most directly affected by China's human rights abuses because there are using Hong Kongers and Taiwanese and Tibetans and weekers and, you know, Kazakhs and all other types of minorities that happens that find themselves living inside China's borders. Those countries are, are, have a problem because they live there. They're not moving. So they got to deal with China one way or the other. And I guess the answer that I could give is that, you know, while we all want to change China, we have to re you know, resist this Eucharistic idea that China's going to become more like us and China's development will be determined by the Chinese people one way or the other.

Josh Rogin: (14:48)
So the thing that we actually have to focus on first is trying this in our countries, right. And on our soil. Right. And that's the, that's the most important thing. That's the thing we have the most influence over. And that's the thing we can really join with both Asian allies on and European allies, because they're facing the same thing. You know, whether you were in the Netherlands or you were in Japan, you know, when the pandemic hit and you wanted your factories in China to send you the masks that you thought you owned, because you thought you were in the factories, you realize that you didn't really own the factories. Right. And then all of a sudden you realize that, oh, wait a second, we've got a problem here. And so that's going to take the, the bigger solutions to sort of not decouple, which is, again, it's kind of a bumper sticker, but to reorient the way that we do business, to recognize the fact that there are certain things that we're going to have to route outside of China.

Josh Rogin: (15:35)
And a lot of that is the money by the way. And I know we're going to get to that, but you know, how the markets deal with Chinese companies, especially those companies that are committing atrocities, right? You want to fight atrocities. Well, it's probably not a good idea to funnel trillions of dollars of American and retirement funds into those companies that are building the concentration camps and shipping the human hair over here. Right. And, uh, you know, when you just think about the scope and scale of that challenge, you realize that it's really something that the United States really can't do alone.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:04)
You said we're going to get to the money. So, so I want to get to the money. And I want you to tell us what you'd like to say about the money. So I'm not going to ask you a question. I want you to frame it in the way that you want our viewers and listeners. Yeah,

Josh Rogin: (16:18)
Sure. Well, let me start. And, you know, by alluding to the story about you and my book, which is, you know, the story of when you came into the Trump administration, when the first time you tried, you decided to sell your, uh, firm to a Chinese company. And, you know, when that was reported, it was all reported wrong. But then when I read the reported it for the book, I came to an epiphany actually. And based on the research that I did with your help actually, and, you know, I, it seems to me that at that time, in 2016, you really couldn't blame wall street firms for thinking about these kinds of transactions were AOK because they had been going on for all this time. And no one had said boo about it. And when the national security community came and knocking on wall street store and said, oh, wait a second, you can't do this type of transaction. Now you can't do this type of transaction. Uh, for sure there was a lot of confusion and there was a lot of conflict and people didn't know what the rules were and the people inside this system didn't know what the rules were. And it was just a total mess. Okay. So I we'll go

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:16)
Back for a second there because I think it's important for people to understand the transactions were happening in a, bought a piece of Hilton. They had a piece of Georgia bank transactions were happening. They were actually referred to me by some very well known private equity people,

Josh Rogin: (17:31)
But you were a relatively small player compared to the billions and billions of dollars.

Speaker 5: (17:36)
Yes. No more training, no, every question.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:39)
And I never complained about the Syphius decision to block it. There was never any whining on our part. We just moved on. And in many ways I'm grateful that I was able to keep control of the company, but yeah, it all worked out in the end point that I would like to make, or I'd like you to observe. And then you opine upon. And that is, I think wall street was going with the wave of the, the transactions. But I think the NSA was basically saying, wait a minute, some of these companies may be controlled by the Chinese communist party or the Chinese communist army, but the people's Republic, army of result of which they wanted those transactions to stop. And what's your opinion of all that, should they have stopped? Should they?

Josh Rogin: (18:27)
Yeah. So I, so I think what was happening was that the national security community was waking up to this idea that a lot of these investments were problematic for national security reasons. And they were having an internal debate over what to do about it at the same time. They're trying to deal with wall street, not just wall street, by the way, this happened with the tech industry with Hollywood, to an extent or on American campuses. So as the FBI goes around, knocking on all these doors, all these institutions, which protect their independence fiercely, and rightly because we live in a, uh, a pluralistic democracy, it's not the Chinese system, the government can't tell private companies what to do, but at the same time, these national security officials were trying to grapple with what was a real problem. And that real problem was that these acquisitions did have a national security implication and not everybody agreed on what it was.

Josh Rogin: (19:12)
So in that moment, in time that you had Congress dealing with it through Cepheus reform, you had wall street resisting, dealing with it, frankly, because they didn't trust a lot of what the Trump administration was doing because the Trump administration didn't have a lot of credibility. And then you have the national security community trying to manage all this stuff and in the dysfunction of what was going on in the administration. So again, that's my sort of, you know, uh, admission that like, you know, there was, there were plenty of blame to go around. And at that point you couldn't blame wall street for not just falling in line and saying, okay, well we'll just stop every transaction you don't like, but yeah. But when, once you got to like 20, 19 and 2020, I think the story changed. Okay. And basically what happened is you had a much better understanding and discussion of the ways in which wall street was funding Malaysian Chinese companies.

Josh Rogin: (19:57)
And by these, I mean the worst actors I'm talking about, the ones that build the camera's on the concentration camp walls, the ones that build the AI that find weekers in a crowd, and those makers disappear forever. And the ones that are building the missiles and the cyber spies that are attacking us all the time. And now the problem was that you had the commerce department and the NSC and the state department sanctioning those companies. Okay. And at the same time you had wall street increasing its investments in those companies through all sorts of vehicles, not just the CEOs, not just the reverse mergers, I'm talking about the index funds. Okay. I'm talking about directing huge amounts of pensions and other passive institutional investments. So what's the point of sanctioning a company like hick vision for a few billion dollars. If the index funds are going to bake that up for them, tenfold, you know, it's ridiculous. It's, it's a, it's a, it was a total contradiction and that still hasn't been resolved. And that's where the, the bleeding edge of the fight is now. And these wall street firms are still resisting this idea that, wait a minute, we're going to have to merge these two things. The natural, real national security concerns without overreacting. And the fact that these firms have are independent and have to look out for their investor interest. And that conversation is really hard, but it's really not going very well, to be honest.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:12)
Well, you know, it, it brings up this question and you write a lot about it in the book, and this is basically the foreign influence operations of the Chinese government. So describe that. What does that look like?

Josh Rogin: (21:25)
It means that, you know, if we don't have the same standards for Chinese companies that we have for all other companies, especially American companies, if we can't audit their books, if we don't know how much the Chinese communist party is involved in these companies, spoiler alert, they're involved in all the companies, right? Because the subtext here is that what changing thing has done is he's installed Chinese communist party committees and all these corporations and the ones that don't talk to the party line gets squashed. Okay, look what happened to Jack ma okay, look what happened to H and a, the guy that fell off the wall. Right. Look what happened to the head of, on bond who met with Jared and at the Waldorf, his story, he's gone 18 years in prison, right? So there's something going on in China that we've got to just be honest about.

Josh Rogin: (22:04)
And that's the fact that these companies are no, are all under the thumb of the Chinese communist party, but not all to the same extent. Okay. And so that means we have to think about what it means to do business with them. And, you know, right now that conversation is just impossible to have because we can't even audit their books. And there's been so much lax, uh, attention to the, how much they're in our markets and how much of our capital is going into their coffers. And so the panic amongst the national security people was like, okay, well, we just got to turn off the spigot. Okay. And that's kind of like an overreaction in a sense, but until the wall street firms, you know, get it in their head. And now I'm talking to you guys directly that this is not going away. And that the calls for increased transparency, accountability, and to stop Americans from passively investing in Chinese companies that are committing atrocities are not going away there.

Josh Rogin: (22:56)
You're going to have to deal with it sooner or later. And the argument is that this represents a material risk for your investors, whether you admit it or not, because eventually, you know, changing thing, when you squat squashes, Jack ma, that's going to affect our investments. Eventually when the guy falls off the wall, that's going to affect that company. You know, and eventually when people in America realized that his vision is building the cameras that go on top of the concentration camp walls, regular American investors are going to be like, wait a second, that we don't want to be involved in that. So I think the resistance to dealing with these problems on wall street has got to give, and then on the national security side, there's gotta be more understanding of the competing interest evolves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:35)
Yeah. I think it's fast. I'm going to turn it over to John and a second, but I want to talk about the south China sea. And I want to talk about some of the bellicosity of rhetoric that I hear from time to time about a potential military strike on Taiwan and the United States, uh, falling back on its obligations to the time when he's, what are your thoughts there?

Josh Rogin: (23:58)
Well, I have a quote in the book where a GOP Senator goes to president Trump in the oval office. And he says to him, it was just told to me by the Senator himself. And he says to him, listen, you know, I know you don't really care about Hong Kong, but if you let Hong Kong go, Taiwan is going to be next and that's going to be on you. It's going to be bad for your reputation. It's like playing to Trump's vanity is many officials often did, as you know, and Trump looks at me in the eye and he says, uh, we're 8,000 miles away from Taiwan. China's two feet away. If they attack there, isn't an effing thing we can do about it. That's what he said. That's what he thought. That's what the president of United States believes that it actually defending Taiwan as is our policy is not really the thing that we would do if push comes to shove.

Josh Rogin: (24:38)
Now, my opinion is that when you sort of backed down on things like Taiwan, like Hong Kong, you know, you emboldened teaching things, appetite, his appetite, rose with the eating and he'll push as far as we let him. And that actually the way to avoid a conflict in Taiwan is to deter choosing thing from even trying, right. And that means being a little bit tougher up front, rather than having to decide later, whether you send American or Japanese or Korean, uh, boys and girls to go fight the Chinese. Cause that's a horrible situation for all involved. So, you know, is the, are we over, you know, uh, hyping the Taiwan for it, perhaps, perhaps, but it doesn't mean that we can ignore it. And it doesn't mean that if we just say we're ignoring it, that they won't take that as a clear signal to advance.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:27)
So you didn't really a hundred percent answer the question. I'm not a journalist, but I'm going to give you a follow up now, go for it. They, they invade Taiwan. Yes or no.

Josh Rogin: (25:36)
Uh, eventually, but the question is whether it's in two years, five years, 10 years, 20 years. Right. And what we want to do is we want to deter that as long as possible, because we don't know what's going to happen in China choosing things king forever, but he doesn't live forever. And that system is got its own challenges. So it's not a question of if they will want to evade Taiwan, it's a question of when do they think they can get away with it right now? They don't think they can get, if they thought they could get away with it right now, don't do it right now. You know? And we'll see what happens in two years in four years. But I think our, our, we have to make it clear to them that they wouldn't get away with it to make sure they don't try

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:12)
It. I, I understood, you know, my, my thinking has always been that they have such strong integration in the economies that it just eventually falls into their hands one way or the other without a military invasion. But yeah,

Josh Rogin: (26:27)
But that's, that's what we saw in Hong Kong. Right? Exactly. So that's a cautionary tale. That's not a, that's not a model, right? The Taiwanese looked at the Hong Kong model. We

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:36)
Don't want that. No, I'm not saying I want that even for a minute because there's a great amount of freedom and independence in versus, you know, and, and, you know, believe it or not, I'm old enough to remember when the British controlled Hong Kong and visited there. And it was a totally different city than it is today. Um, but here's my last question. Before I turn it over to John, one thing on Hong Kong before, please, please.

Josh Rogin: (27:01)
So another, here's another decision for the wall street community. Are you going to, uh, are, are wall street firms going to continue to treat Hong Kong as a bastion of rule of law and justice and accountability and free markets though? It's not the case anymore. In other words, it is the Chinese government who are going to be able to have Taiwan and eat it too. And I think that's a, right now, the signs are that the big firms are trying to make it okay to do business in Kong Kong in the middle of the crackdown. And then I think there's a lot of people who don't like that at all.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:32)
You want my opinion, Josh? Sure. Uh, the, you know, they, they will continue to try to do business there because they, uh, and they will, you know, use cognitive dissonance and say, they're doing that because they think they're in the camp that you described of people. The more business, more commerce will lead to more freedom, which will lead to a breakdown of autocracy. So not that that's true or that's an alibi to do the business. That's what they'll say, but, but I have a different question, you know, can Tom Patel, who John and I interviewed about six, seven months ago is a strategist wrote a great bestselling book on strategy that actually Nelson Mandela praised. He said that China is seven balkanized provinces, and there's a lot of independent streaks in those provinces. And it's not clear that the Chinese communist party can keep its hold on what we formerly know as China forever. Moreover, and I'm interested in your take on this. A one party systems have about a 70 year life expectancy, the Russian, uh, CCP, the USSR 70 years, one party system in Japan folded after 70 years recently, one folded in Malaysia about three years ago, Mexico, 70 years, the Chinese are in overtime 72 years in clocking. So is there any truth to what he's saying that there might be false under the surface of what looks like a fairly well knitted, uh, autocracy.

Josh Rogin: (29:11)
Yeah, no, I, I mean, I take a different view. So I mean, there's no doubt that there's severe challenges in China and challenges to the governance, but if you talk to the people in China and I do as much as I can, especially those Americans in Western who were still out to go there, but also regular Chinese citizens. It's clear that the Chinese communist party has a firm grip on power and a firm grip on the economy, in the military and on society. And in fact has expanded its control over those other provinces, right? What are those provinces to bet Jinjiang inner Mongolia, right? These are the places where the repression is the worst. There's a reason that they're sending millions of Han Chinese there and putting all the native people in camps, right? Because that they're, they're avoiding what this guy is proposing. And you know, bottom line is that, you know, we can't base our strategy on waiting for them to collapse because that may never happen. And you know, if you're a, uh, a 40 year old, uh, I'm 42, if you're a 42 year old person in China, you've lived your whole life receiving almost nothing but Chinese, uh, propaganda. And you probably support your government. You probably believe that everything's hunky Dory. And there are some people who know the truth is still support their government. So I, we can't just wish away this problem. We're going to actually have to deal with it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:25)
Okay. Well, you, you, uh, I'm turning it over to John Dorsey. Who's dying to ask questions and I might point out he has those designer millennial eye frames now. So he's going to try to look hip today. Go ahead, John.

John Darcie: (30:39)
I had to work on my appearance for the cameras now that we're, we're all movie stars in the zoom era, but, um, I want to talk about the future a little bit. You know, your book has a lot about Trump. You do. And we talked a little bit earlier about the Biden administration, but it seems like the Biden administration has been dealt a stronger position than maybe the Trump administration was dealt in terms of their leverage over China, with things like tariffs current fully in place. How do you think the byte administration is going to proceed on things like tariffs and other, uh, other things that maybe the, the Trump administration did related to China, they might use as leverage in the future. Right.

Josh Rogin: (31:16)
Great question. So right now I identify three camps on China inside the Biden administration. Roughly one is sort of the, uh, engagers, the optimists, right? This is led by people like John Kerry and Susan Rice who were part of that Obama administration last gasp strategy to focus on cooperation. Now, you know, of course, when you hear 20 blankets, we need some cooperation. We need some competition. We need some computation. That's true as far as it goes, but it's also kind of like, it doesn't tell us anything at all, of course, where it's going to be a mix of all of these things, but the people who wanted to focus more on cooperation, uh, those people don't have the ball right now, right? I'm the relationship. The people who are running the policy are Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken and Kurt Campbell. And, uh, they're in the competition camp.

Josh Rogin: (32:00)
And because they've been given the ball because they're in control of the policy, you've seen a lot of the Trump administration, uh, uh, initiatives continued, right? They haven't traded away of the tariffs. They haven't, you know, they, they actually increased the sanctions there. The commerce department is keeping up all of its Walway restrictions. Uh, by, in large with a couple of the genocide, determination is reaffirmed. So as long as this camp has control, uh, you're going to see a lot of continuity, more multilateral. It's going to be a little bit nicer that could actually make it more effective. You know, there'll be more values stuff in there. The third camp of course, is the political camp, right? And these are actually, this is actually the most powerful camp. These are the people close to the president, uh, who were in charge of protecting the presidency and protecting his political agenda.

Josh Rogin: (32:47)
And right now they're siding with the competitors because they can read the polls, right? And the polls show clearly that Americans want a tougher approach towards China. And that's partially because of the pandemic, but not all because of the pandemic. So as long as the two out of three wins the day. So as long as the politics of the China issue, favor a tougher approach. And as long as the, uh, competitive camp, uh, is in control of the policy, uh, w we should see a bunch of continuity and not total continuity, but the test will come when the other camp mounts, its offense like when, and when the dangle comes and eventually Beijing will come with a dangle and they'll say, okay, do you want a climate field? Do you want it to Randy? If he wants something else? And then president vinyl will have to decide whether or not to take that dangle or not.

John Darcie: (33:30)
Right. I want to talk about president Obama. You talked about how there's that camp within the Biden administration of ex Obama officials that generally take a more conciliatory collaborative, if you will approach to China. Uh, they also drew some red lines in the middle east that weren't enforced gruesome red lines as it relates to the south China sea that weren't enforced. How much do you think over that eight year period when president Obama was president that China, since his unwillingness to confront them in places like the south China sea and were able to sort of consolidate power in a way that we had a general, I'm not going to name his name that we spoke to on the sidelines of one of our salt conferences that basically said when Obama began his presidency, if, if we had decided to invade China militarily, we could have probably succeeded in that invasion and subdued them on, on a certain level. Uh, you know, at the beginning of that presidency today, that is absolutely impossible to do. They've strategically built out all these military installations in such a way that we, we have no military leverage over them. How much do you think, uh, during that presidency, uh, China was able to ascend and, and, uh, and create that power structure that prevents us from really confronting them in a meaningful way.

Josh Rogin: (34:41)
Right? Well, you know, there's no doubt that, you know, the, the first big opportunity that the Chinese leadership saw was during the 2008 financial crisis. And then the next big opportunity was during the coronavirus prices, but in between they executed a number of five-year plans, as you know, uh, to advance their interests on a global scale. Now, you know, Gigi pink came to power in 2013, right? Even in 2013, he didn't have real good control. Uh, it took him a while to consolidate that control. And all during that time, when he was weak, uh, he was telling the Obama people, especially vice-president Biden, by the way, who we had 25 hours of dinner with when they were both vice-presidents, uh, that everything was going to be fine. And they signed a, uh, cyber security deal and they signed it. He promised not to expand militarize the south China sea.

Josh Rogin: (35:28)
And we now know that he was lying about all of that stuff and that he was abusing their, uh, trust and confidence and consolidating power the whole time until the point where he could, you know, throw off dang shopping's mantra of bide your time and hydro Spanglish, and actively promote what he now calls the rejuvenation of the China dream. And, you know, at that time inside the Obama administration, again, you have the same camp, right? You had the same divisions, you had the same people, right. And if you think about it, you know, back then rice and Kerry were the bosses. They were the national security visors secretary of state. Now they're the staffers and their former staffers are their bosses, if you believe that. Right. So the, the camps actually switched offices literally, but in the same building and they're sitting there. And so, you know, I, I, you know, again, just like everything else, like you could make an excuse for why they wanted to let that optimism play out. And there were, there were plenty of people inside the system, even in 2015 and 2016 that were like, Hey, wait a second, we've got a problem here. We gotta do something different. And I think my opinion is clear that the Obama administration was slow to respond to that evidence.

John Darcie: (36:40)
Right? Switching gears a little bit, you write a lot about China's digital despotism about how they've used technology, both domestically to, uh, control and surveil its population, and internationally been very aggressive in terms of stealing intellectual property, uh, and conducting all types of foreign influence operations. Uh, how does China, just for people that are less familiar with those operations, how do they use technology domestically and also internationally in their influence operations? And how is that a template for other dictators around the world in terms of, uh, digital despotism, as you talk about,

Josh Rogin: (37:14)
Right. Well, this speaks to Anthony Anthony's questions perfectly because you know, it, this is how they break out of that cycle of, of these, uh, dictatorships that ended up folding is that they buy their way out of it and they tech their way out of it. And, uh, you know, we've never seen a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship that had these kinds of resources and those kinds of technology. And, you know, when we blasted radio free Europe and radio Liberty over the iron curtain, you know, into east Germany, uh, we have the technological advantage, you know, they couldn't stop it. And now they have the technological tool advantage in a lot of ways, especially on their own tariffs. And we can't get through the grid firewall, except in certain cases. And their tech companies are actually beating our tech companies. And then our tech companies can't compete because they get robbed blind.

Josh Rogin: (38:01)
And even when they don't get robbed, robbed blind, uh, they become hostages. I mean, just look what happened to H and M and Nike, the latest hostages, right? So what they do is they take this control over their populous, right? They represent a 1.4 billion Chinese people, and they get that those people have no choice. They have to buy whatever they say, do whatever they say, read whatever social media they say they have to, the party controls everything in a way that we've never seen before. So if Nike says, Hey, I don't really want to use slave labor produced cotton. Uh, okay, well then your whole businesses could put in a second and apple says, oh, well, we don't want to give the privacy data of our users make that available to anyone with an app. And then 10 Chinese companies come together to build the technology to get around that.

Josh Rogin: (38:46)
And apple can't do anything because the giant Chinese communist party, uh, holds, uh, an ax of literally over their head and could bring it down on them any time. Uh, so that just, and then how did they use the technology at home? Well, what they do is they are developing. I mean, when you talk about artificial intelligence, they take all of the data that because people in China don't have rights to their own data. Now that we have total control over a debt, but I'm just saying there it's worse. And then they use it to scoop up minorities and put them in internment camps. Okay. They have, they're using the technology to implement a racist mass atrocities, and then they're using it to go find those people in other countries. And if you're a weaker living in France and you get on a Facebook group and Francis pass, the link you clicked on is actually a malicious link that will compromise everything you have and lead to your family, getting scooped up.

Josh Rogin: (39:38)
So that's about as, uh, as, as malicious as it gets. And the social credit aspect is particularly pernicious because, you know, if you're the NBA or if you're Marriott hotels, or if your coach, and you dare to run a foul of like the unpredictable and delicate sensibilities of the Chinese communist party, you stand to lose billions of dollars in the, in the blink of an eye. And again, I would just, again, point to your, uh, wall street risk calculations. Is that factored in, is that factored into the cost and risks of doing business? I don't think so. I don't think that that most wall street firms or most corporations in America are looking at that and saying, oh, wait a second. Did the MBA factor in that one tweak, we cost them $400 million. Well, that's what happened. Okay. So as they get more repressive and use their technology in more insidious ways, that has an effect on our businesses and our impacts on our pocket books and our freedoms.

John Darcie: (40:34)
Right. Last question I want to ask you, and it's, you know, you talk about it in the title of your book. It's the battle for the 21st century between the United States and China? What is it that, that China is fighting for really, you know, do they have a different vision for the world? And they want to impose, uh, you know, th their communist system on the entire world. They, they want the Chinese culture to pervade every corner of the world. What is it they're really fighting for? And what is the battle that they're trying to win you? The United States, at least there's the perception that we're trying to fight for, you know, our, our liberal values, uh, that our country was founded on. But what is China? What is China's end game here when you talk about their 50 to a hundred year plans?

Josh Rogin: (41:15)
Right. Well, I mean, if you listen to what changing things says and read what he's written, uh, what you see is a very clear pattern of him talking about an ideological and political struggle with the west, where the values of like freedom of speech, journalism, you know, freedom of assembly, religion, that all of these things are seen by him personally, uh, not only is things to compete with, but as direct threats to the legitimacy of the Chinese communist party and its rule. Okay. So that's a way of saying that China's goal China will, the Chinese government will always say, well, we don't interfere in free societies. Well, what about the fact that they're exporting all of those technologies, uh, to, to dictators all over the world, that they're trying to recreate their model of repression and aggression, uh, and expanding their economic reach in ways that put these countries at a disadvantage?

Josh Rogin: (42:06)
You know, I think the, the, the best way to think of it, and I think is a very fair way to think of it is that China doesn't want to rule the world. China wants a world where its rule is uncontested. In other words, they want to make the world safe for autocracy. Okay. And that means not that we can't have a world order and international norms that can be enforced. So if they can just change the world, order enough so that their model, uh, is not challenged, and they're able to do what they want all over the world, while still enjoying the benefits that our world order gives them. They still want the access to our markets. They still want access to our capital. They still want all of that soft power influence. They just don't want to play by any of the rules.

Josh Rogin: (42:47)
That's the goal is to destroy the rules so that they can do whatever they want. And that's not a Chinese led world order, per se. That's just a world order that probably we can't live with. And I just to finish the thought, you know, that, I think what that tells us is that, you know, we don't, we shouldn't be in the business of trying to force the world to choose between the United States and China. We can't get into one of these situations where only one of us can survive. We have to somehow find a, uh, a relationship that both sides can live with to avoid the conflict that neither side seeks. And that involves convincing the Chinese leadership, that they can't have their cake and eat it too. And that involves fixing our democracy and fixing our, our systems so that they actually are better. And that they actually do what they say they're going to do and deliver for our people.

John Darcie: (43:34)
And do you think there's a path to that outcome? You know, talking about the acidities trap and avoiding a greater confrontation, is there a path to, it seems like China is enjoying a lot of the economic spoils that come along with, with their system and people while they pay lip service to human rights issues that people still still commercially do business in China. Are they not enjoying those spoils today? And is there a path to equilibrium,

Josh Rogin: (44:00)
Suffice to say, we're not doing well, we're not rising to this challenge. They bet they've got a 20 year head start, at least. Uh, but the first thing to do is to admit that you have a problem. And I think that is the, if you want to say silver lining of the chaos of the Trump years is that everyone sort of immense. We have a problem. Now we have to figure out what we can do about it. And, you know, the, the, the thing that we can do by the way is to actually live up to our principles. And if we actually enforced, you know, transparency, accountability, rule of law, justice, human rights, democracy of speech, true journalism, all of those things are not aimed at China, right? We don't have to make them about trying to those are about us. And if we just did all of those things, we'd be in a much better place than we are today. But no, to answer your question, we're not doing those things. And right now it's not going well.

John Darcie: (44:47)
Well, Josh, you talked in the opening about how you hope to kickstart this conversation. I think you did that in a great way with your book. Um, so thank you for writing it and thank you for coming on salt talks. We think these topics are going to be continually more relevant over the coming decades for, for young people like you and me, Anthony, you know, he's, uh, we're going to put them out to pasture soon. So he doesn't have to worry about these things quite as,

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:09)
Um, I'm younger than president Shea, be careful. Okay. I'll give you, as you both know, president, she is listening. He didn't like the last comment that you made Dorsey. So let me pull up the book. I think it's a brilliant exposition of what is going on. I congratulate you on the book, Josh, before we do let you go, what's next? What are you working on next?

Josh Rogin: (45:31)
They say writing a book is like having a baby. It takes two years for the pain to wear off before you want to do it again. Uh, I'm looking forward to, uh, you know, uh, a period of covering this administration, holding them to account, making sure that they don't, you know, forget everything that happens in the last four years, but also making sure that they don't repeat everything that happened in the last four years. It would be terrible if the partisanship and toxicity that pervaded our politics and our media continued and even got worse, because that is going to bleed into all of the issues that we have to solve. So we are where we are. You can't go back and fix the last four years, but we can at least get together on this thing and admit that, you know, we can't have the type of politics, uh, that we had in the past. And if my columns and my work and contribute to a common understanding of our shared experience and our shared humanity, and that's my goal, that's what I want to do next.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:23)
Well, congratulations on the book. I'm looking forward to your byline and other stuff that you work on, and I want to get you to the salt conference. Maybe we can get a couple of people together and get them in the mix and discuss what's going on with the U S and China, apple, have you moderate something like that for us,

John Darcie: (46:43)
One, one name that we spoke about in this talk that we won't reveal that's within the Biden administration that focuses on Asia policy. That's actually confirmed to speak in September on these topics. So, you know, maybe, maybe we get you involved in that conversation. And

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:57)
I'm recommending your book to all of my wall street pragmatists that still liked Chinese Hong Kong cooking. Okay, Josh, we're going to try to get them to rethink themselves. It's a smarter play. It's a smarter

Josh Rogin: (47:11)
Play, to be honest about what's going on in China, it will be we'll end up doing better in the long run. Even if you take a short term hit.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:17)
I think, I think it's well said, and I think that's probably true about most things in life, Josh. Okay. Most, most things take longer than 11 days. Josh Rogan. Don't forget that. Okay. You want

Josh Rogin: (47:28)
To be right at the, it's not in the beginning, right? Amen. All right. Well, thank

John Darcie: (47:31)
You. Your estimate. Don't talking about chaos. Don't underestimate the amount of chaos you can create in 11 days. Yeah. 11 days I rub it in guys. She's loosening rubbing it. All right. Well, thank you Josh again for joining us and thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt talk, uh, about Josh's book chaos under heaven about the Trump administration's approach to China and the battle for the 21st century. Just to remind you, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're on social media. Please follow us. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. We love educating people on these issues, uh, and today being another important one, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

John Preston: "Fall: The Mystery of Robert Maxwell" | SALT Talks #192

“Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch were locked in this Titanic struggle for almost 30 years to essentially become the world’s biggest media baron… Murdoch won every round… that led to Maxwell’s own mental and physical destruction.”

John Preston is a scholar, journalist and author of many books including A Very English Scandal, and most recently, Fall: The Mystery of Robert Maxwell. Preston was also former Arts and Television Editor at The Sunday Times.

Robert Maxwell left Czechoslovakia in pursuit of fortune at a young age, leaving behind a family, many of whom perished in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch were famous rivals in their respective quests to become the world’s biggest media baron. Murdoch triumphed at every stage and ultimately led to Maxwell’s mental and physical decline. Maxwell suffered a mysterious death that has led to wide-ranging conspiracy theories. “Maxwell disappeared off the back of his yacht named after his youngest daughter and favorite child, Lady Ghislaine… there are a lot of people that would tell you that he was bumped off, usually by Mossad, but there’s no evidence at all he was murdered.”

Maxwell’s youngest and favorite child is Ghislaine. Infamously, she is the alleged co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein who was accused of sex trafficking before his death while in jail. Naturally, this has led to even further conspiratorial speculation.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

John Preston.jpeg

John Preston

Author

Fall: The Mystery of Robert Maxwell

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big and interesting ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome, uh, an author and scholar to salt talks, uh, by the name of John Preston, he's the author of many books. He's also the former arts editor and television critic of the Sunday Telegraph. As I mentioned, he's the author of six highly acclaimed books, including a very English scandal, which is now a BBC and Amazon prime TV series, starring Hugh grant and Ben Whishaw and the dig, which has recently been filmed, starring Ralph Fiennes, Carey Mulligan, and the Lily James and his most recent book is called fall. Uh, and it's about the life and death of Robert Maxwell, who was, it was been in the news because of his daughter's travails as well recently, but hosting today's talk is a big fan of Mr. Preston and reader of his books, Anthony Scaramucci, who is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and I'll turn it over to Anthony

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:32)
To begin the end. I am loving this right now because I'm almost a hundred percent confident that you mispronounced Ralph finds. His name is correct. Mr. Preston,

John Preston: (01:43)
I'll tell you, take this badly. You both brisk pronounced it. It's all Ray fines.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:49)
See that. I love that. That why obviously, cause I'm an Italian American from long island. I'm like an S pronounced every word that I utter in the English language, but the fact that you Darcie mispronounced it is giving me joy beyond comprehension. So I'm entering this salt talk, Mr. Preston in a very good mood right now. Excellent. But, but sorry, you wrote a phenomenal book about, uh, Mr. Maxwell, the fall is the it's called fall, the mysterious life and death of Robert Maxwell. Um, I want to start out though with how you became an author, your Odyssey, I think is an interesting one to, uh, beginning of the process of writing these books. Uh, take us through that arc of your career, sir.

John Preston: (02:36)
Well, I was a journalist for a long time and I wrote a few novels. Uh, I'd get up very early in the morning and run right for a couple of hours before I went into the office and the novels did okay. I mean, you know, hardly set the world on fire in terms of, uh, sales and then like a lot of print journalists, you know, particularly in the UK, but also in the U S things started to get bad and then they got worse and I began to think, Hmm, hold on. I got to find something else to do. So I thought, wow, you know, I can't really do anything else apart from right. So I sat down and I wrote a very English scandal, which was about the Jeremy Thor puffer, which is a big scandal in the 1970s where this man who was the leader of the liberal party, uh, was accused of, um, diverting liberal party funds to pay Hitman, to bump off his gay lover.

John Preston: (03:33)
And it really kind of went on from there. And I, I kind of toyed with the idea of Maxwell for a bit, and I couldn't kind of find a way in, and then it just seemed to me that, you know, in the UK, 30 years after his death, he's still seen as the, as the kind of embodiment of corporate villainy. And I really just wanted to look at him again and see if he was quite as black as he's been painted as, and if so, why, and whether he was perhaps a more kind of nuanced, complex figure than people have on the whole given him credit for.

Speaker 4: (04:17)
So

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:18)
Let's go into that because I think that this is one of the more fascinating things who is for our, we have lots of young viewers, uh, lots of young listeners, uh, who is Robert Maxwell, John Preston, who is Robert Maxwell. Well,

John Preston: (04:35)
Robert Maxwell set out to become the greatest media Baron in the world and he very nerdy succeeded. But in fact it was, it all went horribly wrong. But one of the extraordinary things about Maxwell is that it's hard to think of anyone in the 20th century who journeyed as far from his roots as Maxwell did, he was born in a small town in what was then Czechoslovakia. His, uh, his family was Jewish. There was a large Jewish population in this, um, in this town and the age of 15 or 16 Maxwell goes off essentially to seek his fortune. And whilst he's away, it's during the war, um, his parents, three of his siblings and his grandfather all die in Auschwitz. And that's really the prison that you have to look at Maxwell's life through. Um, would it have been very different? Had that not have happened to him almost certainly. Would he have been a better person who knows, but essentially there was a very, very dark cloud hanging over him from a young age.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:58)
So I have the book here, uh, it's uh, it's called fall, the mysterious life and death of Robert Maxwell. Britain's most notorious media barren. There's another media Baron that is celebrating his 90th birthday and Dave, where they were, they rivals John. And if so, of course, they were described that rivalry to us.

John Preston: (06:20)
They were Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:23)
And indeed,

John Preston: (06:25)
Um, Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch were locked in this Titanic struggle for almost 30 years essentially to become the world's biggest media Baron. And as Maxwell son, Ian said to me, when I was researching the book, he said, you know, one of the things you have to remember is that there was a time when, uh, my father and I, my father-in-law and Rupert Mudder were the only two people on the planet breathing the same air. And it was as if the two of them were kind of slugging it out, uh, on the top of Mount Everest, uh, to become, you know, the greatest, um, media figure in the world and, and Murdoch won every round essentially. But in seeking to prove that he belonged in the same arena as Murdoch Maxwell set in chain set in train a chain of events that led to his own kind of physical and mental destruction, his downfall, and ultimately his death.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:35)
So let's go back for a second because, uh, Mr. Murdoch, uh, his father was a print media Maven in Australia. He was already starting to reach out away from Australia, into other English speaking countries. Uh, and so I'll say something somewhat English, hopefully won't be too offensive, but you guys sort of have this aristocracy. It seems like Murdoch started from a starting block. That was well ahead of Mr. Maxwell. Is that fair to say? Yeah,

John Preston: (08:06)
I think that's true, but they were both outsiders and they both were not members of the British establishment, uh, Murdoch wasn't Jewish, which probably helped him. And although Maxwell had changed his name to something that sounded not remotely Jewish. I think there was quite a lot of antisemitism there, particularly in the city of London at the time, but Maxwell and Murdoch had first met in 1963 in Australia. And when I went to see Murdoch for the book use, it was very obliging, uh, great to see me. And, uh, he said that he'd first met, um, Maxwell and Maxwell comes to Australia and he's got this plan that he wants to sell encyclopedias in Australia all over in Southeast Asia. And he's looking for a business partner and, uh, and Murdoch, uh, as he admitted was kind of spell bound by Maxwell. He's got the gift of the gab.

John Preston: (09:10)
He's very charismatic murder cause just starting out and he agrees to become Maxwell's business partner. He's going to pay a million Australian dollars and together they're going to sell these encyclopedias all over Southeast Asia. And the plan is that Murdoch is going to come to London, they'll sign the contract and then it'll start. But before he has a chance to come to London, Murdoch has lunch with a friend of his, who's a publisher in Australia and he's telling him all about this great plan he's got with this extraordinary man Maxwell he's met and the publisher starts laughing and murder cause kind of bemused and go well, what's so funny. And it turns out that Maxwell had actually got the encyclopedias were bankrupt stock that the publisher given to Maxwell for free. And he was trying to flog them on to murder for a million dollars.

John Preston: (10:01)
And as Murdoch said, yeah, he was obviously trying to con me and he was a crook. And as far as mass murder was concerned that, you know, he decided he didn't want any more, anything more to do with Maxwell and that was going to be it. And you never expected to see him again. But in fact, their faiths were entwined from that moment on and it used to drive Murdoch nuts that they were always being mentioned in the same breath. And the fact that their initials were the same as well added to kind of, you know, another squeeze of poison as far as he was concerned

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:36)
Is, you know, it's fascinating. There's a picture in the book. I'm going to hold it up here because this is, um, an interesting picture. It is a picture of Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Maxwell together. And as you point out in the book, that is a rare occurrence for the two of them to be in the same room together, uh, after that, uh, sequence of events that you're describing, um, was he a crook, was Mr. Maxwell a crook, uh, according to your research, I think it's a very

John Preston: (11:08)
Difficult question to answer in a way I, if you look at what happened to Maxwell in his, the early part of his business career, he winds up in Berlin in 1946, he's helping to run an allied newspaper in, in Berlin designed to kind of, uh, re-introduce Germans to the joys of democracy. And this man walks in one day and says, can you help me? And he turns out to be the biggest publisher of scientific journals in Germany, and nobody has published any scientific research in Germany during the war. And this man has a vast backlog of stuff that you can't get anyone to publish. And Maxwell's first instinct is to kick him out because that's basically was always max Maxwell's first instinct and anybody, and any, thanks, hold on a moment. And for years, as a young man, he's dreamt of getting hold of this commodity, that's going to be an enormous demand after the war. He can get for next to no money. And he suddenly realized my God, you know, the answers just landed in my lap. And the commodity was knowledge and Maxwell becomes during the 1950s, the world's biggest publisher of scientific journals. And

Speaker 4: (12:27)
He always

John Preston: (12:29)
Flew pretty close to the wind in terms of, uh, his business career. But I think he was, you know, he was, uh, he w he, well, one, I was always sort of, as it were fixed on his profit margins, the other could occasionally give off an unexpectedly idealistic glimpse. And I think he did strongly believe in the importance of scientific research. It's when he becomes obsessed with owning a newspaper and with going toe to toe with Rupert Murdoch, that things really start to go haywire. And the rot sets in

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:10)
Is this, uh, the classic Greek story of someone that is overreaching, is this uberous, is this a lack of self awareness? Is this just a twist of fate that leads to accidental tragedy? How do you, how do you, uh, how would you frame this narrative of Mr. Maxwell's wife?

John Preston: (13:31)
I think it's a classic story of hubris. I mean, it's, it's a, it's a terrible morality tale in a way of someone for whom nothing was ever enough. Um, and as Maxwell becomes older it's as if he's constantly trying to grasp this indefinable something, that's going to give him a sense of completion and fulfillment. And of course it always eludes him and money doesn't do it. And, um, and, and there always is this kind of constantly receding horizon. And the more desperate he becomes, the more he overreaches himself and the more he gets into terrible financial trouble. And, uh, and the more the cracks start to appear.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:27)
Do you think that, uh, uh, that was a suicide, his death,

John Preston: (14:35)
Well, Maxwell disappeared off the back of his yachts named after his youngest daughter and favorite child. The lady Gillan in the early hours of the 5th of November, 19

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:50)
Minutes. How he pronounced that? I just want to make sure you get that right, John, when you come in with questions. Okay. I know that the lane, I know that one you were saying just lane for like, it's fine. Go ahead. Let's go to Galane he's off the back of the boat that he's jumped the boat. Yep.

John Preston: (15:10)
No, I think basically that morning, he's due to fly back to London where he's essentially going to be facing the equivalent of three firing squads. He knows by this point that the police are after him, the bankers are after him and the mirror pensioners know that he's been looting the pension funds. So there are three possible scenarios. Was he pushed? Did he jump, did he fall? Now, there are a lot of people who will tell you, um, without any kind of tremor of doubt that he was bumped off, usually by Mossad, always the kind of front runners in the queue here. Well, it's, although it's quite a long queue. I mean, there are, there are certainly a lot of people who would be very happy to bump Maxwell off, but there's no evidence at all that he was murdered. And if it doesn't really make sense, I mean, why go to the trouble of sending a team of amphibious Hitman after the middle of the middle of the Atlantic to tip him into the sea when Maxwell was so addicted to self publicity, that he practically walked around with a target pin to his forehead anyway.

John Preston: (16:23)
So I think we can safely dismiss murder if it was an accident in many respects, it was an astonishingly fortuitous accident given that he knew what was going to happen to him. Um, did he commit suicide? We'll certainly, I mean, interestingly, about kind of the people I interviewed for the book pretty much split down the middle Rupert Murdoch, for instance, absolutely convinced no doubt whatsoever that Maxwell committed suicide. My own suspicion is that the line between an accident and suicide might be more blurred than we tend to assume. And I suspect that the answer lies somewhere along that line.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
Okay. So, so you're not in Rupert Murdoch's camp, but you're not fully convinced, but there's a lot of speculation around him being a Moussad agent, a potential double agent or an agent of the KGB. Uh, why did people believe that to be the case? And is there any truth to those rumors? Well,

John Preston: (17:39)
There was, I mean, Maxwell was certainly a spy, um, and, uh, he was aspired for British intelligence during the war and he had this astonishing capacity to pick up languages. He spoke, I think, seven languages. So when he is in Berlin at the end of the war, Berlin is that time divided into four zones, the French zone, the American zone, the Russian zone and the British zone, I think. Yeah. So Maxwell can move from zone to zone and pass himself off as a native. So it's very, very useful. The British intelligence like that. And indeed the British intelligence set him up in business when he comes to England at the end of the war. Um, I think he probably stopped being a spy sometime in the fifties, but he carried on. He loved, um,

Speaker 4: (18:31)
Being

John Preston: (18:33)
A networker. He loved feeling important and conveying bits and pieces of information from one government to another. He was incredibly well connected. He had fantastically good contacts behind what was then the iron curtain, because he was doing a lot of business in Russia at a time when virtually no other Western business people were doing any business at all. Uh, he had very good contacts with the Israeli government. Um, so he was, there was no doubt that he was a very kind of useful pipe through which to pass information, but I don't believe that he was a double agent for anybody. And I don't believe that he was a fully paid up agent for anybody either. I mean, indeed, you know, I mean, if given them, you know, what are the kind of prime qualifications I'm aspiring is normally something that takes place behind the curtain as it were Maxwell was the complete opposite of that. He had to dominate any room that he set foot in. So he would have in many respects, been a terrible liability to any government that employed him as a spy. So I think he was used by people to pass information back and forth, but that was pretty much as far as it went.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:59)
So no, no reason for them then too often then. Yeah,

John Preston: (20:03)
No, no, really not. And you know, and there's, you know, there's stories that he was trying to blackmail the Israeli government, um, and into kind of bailing him out at a time when everything was going down the pan. But again, absolutely no evidence to suggest that at all. And indeed the fact that the Israeli, the Israelis pretty much gave him a state funeral when he died and buried him on the Mount of olives, seems a kind of odd thing to do if they've just bumped him off.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:39)
So fat, fascinating stuff, but he looms large even today. Uh, his daughter is now in jail. She was a close friend of alleged conspirator, Jeffrey Epstein was their upbringing. What was her upbringing like? And how did that association come about? Well, I think, I think it was

John Preston: (21:05)
The strange thing is that actually family life with the Maxwells, uh, for quite a long time was perfectly happy. They lived in this enormous house, um, on just outside Oxford looking out over the dreaming spires of Oxford university. The Maxwell's had nine children, two of whom died and Galane is born in pretty much the same week as Maxwell's oldest child oldest son. Who's the ad designate. Michael is very badly injured in a car crash. Uh he's in his teens and he lies in a coma for the next seven years and then dies. And that cast this terrible black cloud over the Maxwell's family life and just as Maxwell himself had to be, it had been brought up under this terrible cloud of what had happened to his own family. I think Elaine was brought up under a similarly black cloud, um, and like all the Maxwell children at one time or another, she worked for his father. She was, she was, she was his father's favorite. I think she was the one who could charm him more easily than the others and possibly was less intimidated by him. The Maxwells would have these kind of

Speaker 4: (22:41)
Pretty

John Preston: (22:42)
Grim Sunday lunches where they would have to each child would have to give a little talk about what they'd accomplished that week and what they hope to accomplish in the week to come. And sometimes there'd be asked about kind of current affairs and another of Maxwell's daughter. Describe to me the kind of fare of watching her, the sort of Searchlight beam of her father's gaze move around the table towards her. Uh, and I don't think Elaine suffered as badly from that perhaps as the others. Um, and then when her father died, she was absolutely grief-stricken possibly even more so than any of her siblings. Uh, I think she absolutely adored her father. Um, and she found herself in New York. How, I mean, people have tried to draw analogies between Jeffrey Epstein and her father, but they don't really stack up apart from the fact they were both extremely wealthy men at one stage.

John Preston: (23:55)
Uh, I mean, Epstein was a much more shadowy figure than Maxwell. I mean, Maxwell really was this tremendous egomaniac. Whereas you feel with Epstein Epstein kind of was happier operating underneath the radar. Um, and you know, how she came into Epstein's orbit. Well, obviously there's been a lot written about that, but you know, I'm, uh, one of the people who think that it's entirely possible that Galane yeah, she seems to have been tried and found guilty by the media on both sides of the Atlantic before she's stood trial. And I believe possibly in a rather old fashioned way that she, uh, deserves a fair trial and who knows she may well get off.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:56)
Yeah, well, we'll have to, we'll have to see, I don't know a lot about her. Um, as I like to tell my friends in New York, I didn't start making any money until well after Jeff Epsteins career was exposed and over. So I don't have any, any relationship there, but it does. It did seem to be that anybody of any profile or wealth was somehow ensnared in his web. Uh, do you think she wasn't snared in his web or do you think that she was a quote unquote co-conspirator of his,

John Preston: (25:28)
I th the short answer is, I don't know. And my book, I very carefully stopped, um, before any of that happened, because I feel it is a different story.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:43)
Yeah, no. And that's why I'm asking the question, because I, I noticed the stoppage here. I turned it over to the millennial. You and I are, uh, are baby boomers, the millennials dying to ask questions, tell the truth before the book came out, did you have any idea who Robert Maxwell was? W I was probably your, I was probably your age on the Goldman Sachs trading desk, where we had done several secondary offerings for him. And Goldman actually had to pay a settlement to those pensioners, John. I know John Preston. I know. Absolutely. Yeah, indeed. And so I remember that day vividly because there was a dark Pauler over the trading desk, the day that Mr. Maxwell died, did you know who he was Dorsey?

John Darcie: (26:28)
I did because as, as any millennial would do, I've gone down the entire, you know, he's a foreign intelligence agent rabbit hole, and Jeff Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were part of some, uh, honeypot scheme to powerful people around the world, uh, and blackmail them, which we're not going to get deep into those conspiratorial rabbit holes. But I knew about him because of the whole Galane Maxwell thing and, and, uh, read up on him. But obviously you got more background through this wonderful book, but, um, yeah. Thank you, Anthony, for passing the Baton. So one of the things that I found fascinating about Robert Maxwell, uh, was the similarities he has to, to other schemers that have existed throughout history. Whether it be Frank Abignail catch me if you can, um, or, or others, Bernie Madoff, or the one MDB scandal, uh, where people are able to trick financial institutions, wealthy investors through just, uh, sheer force of will. What about his personality and his skill set allowed them to do that?

John Preston: (27:36)
I think, well, Maxwell was a tremendously charismatic man. Uh, he was also very intimidating. Um, so very few people in the UK genuinely stood up to him. A lot of people claim to have stood up to him, uh, and said that, you know, I would have no track whatsoever with Maxwell and his disgraceful ways. A lot of them, when you were just rolled over, like, you know, complete dummies when Maxwell was actually in their company, the extraordinary thing about one of the, maybe many things about Maxwell's financial affairs is that throughout the 1980s, he's a kind of, you know, he's because he's a very successful businessman. He has, he genuinely has money, um, in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1980s. But as things go on and as he overreaches himself, very few people ever say, well, hold on a minute. You know, where is this money?

John Preston: (28:48)
And if they ever did say it, Maxwell would go, well, it's all sorted away in Lichtenstein. And Lichtenstein is this tiny kind of quasi country, which is essentially a tax Haven. So you put money in lectern Stein, and nobody can get at it. So all he ever did was to say, well, I've got billion stashed away in Lichtenstein. And they all believed him. I mean, it was astonishing, but I think that, you know, there is a big difference between someone like Maxwell and someone like Bernie Madoff in the Bernie Madoff was solely interested in lining his own pockets Maxwell weirdly.

John Preston: (29:33)
I mean, I think he would have actually did lose money from the para the pension funds of the, of the mirror of mirror newspapers. But I think he would have paid it back if been able to, he wasn't particularly interested in money for the sake of money. He liked to wield power and influence, but he had virtually no interest in possessions, apart from his yacht, the lady gala in which she, he was very fond of. Um, but he, he's a kind of, you know, he's a man without a center in a funny sort of way, what did he want? You know, and you feel that Maxwell himself didn't really know, and he's just constantly trying to find out is

John Darcie: (30:18)
It, is it like a Robert Moses situation, the power broker, great Robert Carroll book where a man maybe starts his life with a certain ideological bent, but then he tastes power and, and it becomes a pursuit of power and influence for the sake of it. I think with Maxwell

John Preston: (30:37)
Idealism and expediency were always running along parallel tracks. So I don't think it was necessarily that one took over from the other, although one certainly did become, um, you know, Supreme as it were. Um, I mean, I remember when I was, when I started researching the book and when I started writing it, someone asked me how I was going to do it. And I said, it's like a build your own citizen Kane kit. And it really is a bit like that. And, uh, and if you Chuck in bits of the great Gatsby, you pretty much got it. You know, you have this extraordinary vivid Technicolor, mythological life. Um, and as I said, you know, as I said to Anthony, yeah, it is very hard to think of anyone in the trench, essentially who journeyed is far from his roots as Maxwell. And you have this strange feeling, the older he becomes it's as if the past is kind of constantly snapping at his heels, almost mocking him for what he's achieved. And basically saying you can never escape who you were.

John Darcie: (31:45)
Yep. So is this going to be turned into a Netflix series or a movie or both? What's the future of this story? Because it's too interesting to not be adapted to the screen?

John Preston: (31:56)
Well, it's been bought by a UK company working title and they plan to turn it into, uh, a TV series. So there's some discussion at the moment, whether you could have one actor playing the young Rowan Maxwell who is incredibly good looking, I mean, it looked kind of like Clark Gable and max row, the older, he got the bigger he got. And I mean really to the point where you would need someone in the mother of all fat suits to be able to play him. Um, so, but I'm delighted to say, that's not going to be my

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:38)
Problem. [inaudible] Anthony has this, John, you start, I'm cutting you Mike, John. Okay. He was trying to suggest that I could play him without the fat suit. If you start John, I'm cutting you mic. I saw where you were going with that. Okay. Friday's Maximilian, paranoia, this depressing. Did you hear what he said? He said I had a screen actors Guild card. He was already started. I had to get in there. Jack, keep going, Darcie, go ahead. He

John Darcie: (33:11)
Had already started to respond before I even said anything. Uh, John, so your, your comment about the paranoia is correct, but, um, yeah, no, that's fascinating stuff. And we look forward to watching that

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:22)
And hopefully the paranoia, if people are after you just remember that. Okay.

John Darcie: (33:28)
Well, we look forward to watching it on screen and hope they remain true to your wonderful book. Uh, before we let you go, is there anything else interesting that we didn't cover related to his life that you think, uh, was interesting as you did your research?

John Preston: (33:43)
I think he's a kind of figure

Speaker 4: (33:47)
Who foreshadows

John Preston: (33:50)
Donald Trump in a way because they, both of them have similar kind of crazed self aggrandizement and Maxwell. Um, as soon as he buys the daily mirror in the mid 1980s, um, he rechristened it, uh, ma his headquarters Maxwell house. So you can see Mac there. There's a pretty short line between Maxwell house and Trump tower and Trump, uh, Maxwell buys the New York daily news at the beginning of 1991. And Trump has indeed tried to buy the New York daily news on several occasions during the 1980s, um, as a springboard for his political career. And Trump was kind of fascinated by Maxwell. And there's a kind of, I remember I talked to Maxwell's valet who said that Maxima once had a party on board, the lady Galane and all these kinds of the great and good of New York without including Donald Trump. And because Maxwell was very proud of his, um, this was a cream shag pile carpets. All the guests had to take their shoes off and putting these little kind of blue plastic booties on, and it would protect the carpet. And Maxwell's valet told me that, you know, Maxwell very reluctant that Trump very reluctantly removed his shoes, but he looked round the yards with this expression of kind of, or an envy on his face as if Maxwell had something that Trump lusted after. But at the time hadn't quite got his hands on.

John Darcie: (35:27)
Yes, he eventually got his hands on it for at least four years. And daddy did all right. Well, John, it's fascinating to have you on, it's a great book fall about the life and mysterious death of Robert Maxwell. Anthony want to hold it up one more time, the American

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:43)
Version of the UK and the American version, but this was a, a great read and reads like a thriller John, uh, congratulations on your, uh, golden global winning, uh, television series as well. And, uh, we look forward to your future works. Thank you again for all thoughts.

John Preston: (36:04)
Thank you very much, indeed.

John Darcie: (36:07)
And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with author, John Preston, just a reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them on our website@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. You can also interact with us on social media. We're most active on Twitter at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word to your friends about these salt talks. We love educating our community and growing our audience as well. And on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Don Lemon: "This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism" | SALT Talks #185

“The events that happened over the last five years uncovered the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the underbelly of society. I think the Trump administration exposed that… The boldness was fairly shocking.”

Don Lemon is host of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon and also serves as a correspondent across the network’s programming. He recently authored the book, This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism.

James Baldwin’s book The Fire Next Time marked the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and served as the inspiration for Don Lemon’s This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism. The civil unrest stemming from the death of George Floyd created the urgency to write personally about the ugliness laid bare by the last four years of former President Trump’s rhetoric and policies. Language coming out of the White House offered affirmation to those motivated by white supremacist ideology. “We know there is a resurgence of neo-Nazi’s which I think would’ve been hidden if not for Donald Trump. He had become their imprimatur.”

When watching Trump’s speech on January 6th, violence appeared inevitable following months of misinformation spread about President Biden’s victory. Vulnerability to such manipulation can traced to schools’ whitewashed teaching of the country’s history. This emphasizes the importance of curriculum that contains unvarnished truths and also highlights the significant contributions to the United States by African-Americans.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Don Lemon.jpeg

Don Lemon

Anchor

CNN Tonight

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we are thrilled today to welcome the great Don lemon to salt talks. I know Anthony has been on Don show many times and, uh, we're, we're big fans of your show. They're on CNN, uh, Mr. Lemon, but Don lemon, anchor CNN tonight with Don lemon airing weeknights at 10:00 PM.

John Darcie: (00:56)
He also serves as a correspondent across CNN, us programming. Uh, he's based out of the network, New York bureau. Uh, he joined CNN in September of 2006. He's a news veteran of Chicago, however, and he reported reported from Chicago in the days leading up to the 2008 presidential election in which we saw a president Obama, a Chicago native would be elected the first African-American president, including an interview within representative Rama manual. On the day that he accepted the position of chief of staff for president elect Barack Obama. He also interviewed Anne Cooper, the 106 year old voter that president Obama highlighted in his election night acceptance speech. After he had seen, uh, Don's interview with Cooper on CNN. Uh, Don also served as the moderator for CNN political town halls and co moderated the first 2020 democratic presidential debate. And co-hosted color of COVID a special that addressed the pandemic's impact on communities of color. Don is also out with a great book that Anthony will talk about in the opening here called this is the fire talking about race relations in the United States, which is a must read, uh, in this era in any era, frankly, but hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who I was alluding to who was a founder and managing partner of SkyBridge. I know Anthony has been on the show with Don many times. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
So, so, so Don would Darcie wanted to say, but I had to take it out of the script that he loves your show, except when I'm on it. Okay. But I had a, I had a mark that out of the script, but just give me a sense for the type of people we're dealing with on Saltdogs.

Don Lemon: (02:36)
Did you hear that? He called me Mr. Limit. Yeah. I heard that. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:41)
Yeah. I mean, I, I may have to start calling you that I could, you know, at someday it could be sir lemon. You'd never know Don the way your career's going. I have no idea, but let, we could start out with sir, but I'm holding up the book for a reason. First of all, the covers. Fantastic. This is the fire. What I say, my friends about racism and obviously Don anchors, CNN tonight, a great cover. Why did you title it? This, I want you to go into the reasons why you've mentioned them in the book, but why do you title it this, and you write about your nieces and nephews about the fight to end racism, give us some sense for how this book came together and why you titled it

Don Lemon: (03:21)
That well, this book is a tribute to James Baldwin and it was fashion in, um, in a sense to, uh, to James Baldwin's book, the fire next time, which was my favorite book. And one of the first books, well, not one of the first book, but the book that really changed my life. And you can see, this is my original copy from one of the original.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:41)
We, we get a lot of young people that listen into Saul talks. Obviously I want them to read that book as well as this one. So for those young people, they're not as familiar with James Baldwin as you and I are. Uh, tell us who James Baldwin was and why he had such a big impact on Don lemon,

Don Lemon: (04:00)
James Ball with Don lemons. James Baldwin was a revolutionary, uh, writer and author and thinker of his time, uh, from the 1960s, seventies and eighties. Um, and do you remember he, you know, he would do talks with William F. Buckley and, you know, he was just a great thinker, um, and, um, a great, um, uh, thought leader of his time. And he wrote a lot about race relations in this country. He happened to be gay, a gay black man from Harlem. I'm a gay black man from the south. So when I picked up his book as a freshman in college, it really changed my life. And the book is called the fire. Next time. It's a short book. He starts off the book with a letter to his nephew on the 100 year anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. And so as I was sitting around Anthony, as you know, uh, at the matrix of really what had, what has been happening in the country over the last couple of years, but especially the, the unrest that took place last summer, uh, with the death of culminating in the death of George Florida and then the protests that happened.

Don Lemon: (05:00)
Um, and in that moment, I decided it was time for me to write a book about race and I wanted to, to be as impactful as the fire next time, which is my favorite book. And as powerful as that book and as revolutionary as that book, um, not that I'm James Baldwin, I'm not trying to be him. There's only one hand. Only one person could put words on paper like he did. Uh, and so this is the answer to that. He, in his book, he said, uh, when, when he talked about race, he said, God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water, the fire next time speaking specifically about the race issue in this country. And so my book, after all those events happen this summer, I said, well, this is the fire that James Baldwin talked about. We're in the fire now. And thus came my book and I begin it like James Baldwin with a letter to my great nephew. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:46)
Know, it, it, it it's fascinating. Cause I read obviously the works of James Baldwin as a kid, I got invited to a, this conference on race awareness when was in high school and, uh, Eddie Glaude, professor Eddie Glaude who, you know, obviously wrote a book last summer, begin again about James Baldwin. And so I find it fascinating these back with us, but something that struck me about your book that I'd like you to address is that you talk about your trials and tribulations with racism growing up where you did. I want you to tell our listeners and viewers where you grew up and some of those tribulations, but I want to ask you a question and ask you to think about it for a second, growing up and being where you are today, the arc of your career has been tremendous, but did you think, and I'll, I'll answer for myself. I thought the racism was going to decline as we were growing up, you know, the introduction of James Baldwin, Martin Luther king Jr. The idea that we're all the same and we should judge ourselves by the content of our character, but that did not happen. And so my question to you is did you think that growing up where you aspirational, idealistic like that or?

Don Lemon: (07:03)
Yeah, I think we're both the eighties. Uh, you know, I grew up was born in the sixties. The seventies shaped me, but the eighties really had, uh, had a profound impact on me because you know, the eighties were kind of, everybody was free.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:15)
You you're not catching the smirking from Darcie who was born last week. Okay. Just want to point that out to you. Okay. You're not ignoring him. Try to ignore him. You're a fellow baby boomer like me. We have to team up on him. Otherwise we have no shot here. Nope. Nope. I'm

Don Lemon: (07:31)
Gen X, right? You're a baby boomer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:34)
Okay. All right. That's true. The last year of the baby boomers, Botox

John Darcie: (07:38)
That can make you look as young as Don, but keep going,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:42)
But let me tell you something, there are much more Botox experiments ahead in my future Darcie. So it may not look that way now, but it's coming. Okay. So just take it easy over there. Botox, dude, I can barely move my face at this point. Notice if you don't notice,

Don Lemon: (08:01)
Let me see if I can barely have a glass

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
Of lemon. I can barely have a glass of water at this point in my life. Okay. I'm using, I'm using double straws now on my Starbucks in the morning. Now Darcie's enjoying that because I'm getting roasted. Let's go back to your thoughts about idealism and where we

Don Lemon: (08:22)
Are. So I was a child of the sixties, really. You know, I don't remember much of the sixties. I was born in 66, right. But I remember the, the seventies and eighties and the eighties. That's when I was coming into my own, I was becoming a young man and an adult. And I went to a high school at first. I went to an all-black Catholic school and then ended up going to a high school that was predominantly white. Um, and so I started having interactions with all types of people and people began being open about, you know, intermingling and, and getting together. This was, you know, a decade after had become integrated in the south. I went to my high school a decade after it had become integrated. Um, and so I thought the same way, I kept thinking as I was growing up, well, this is going to change.

Don Lemon: (09:06)
It's going to die off. When the old people die off, you know, it's going to go away. Uh, and then the events, especially that happened over the last five years or so, just started to uncover, um, all of the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the sort of underbelly of our society, if you will. Um, I think that the Trump administration exposed that, uh, and it was a rude awakening for a lot of people. It wasn't surprising that it was there, but to the boldness, that, to the degree that it was for me was actually fairly shocking. And so, I don't know if you remember in the book where I said that Trump was, I hated to say it, but he was the president we, we deserve. And probably the one we needed in the moment. No, I mean,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:52)
I'm, I'm going to get there. I think that's a fascinating part of the book.

Don Lemon: (09:55)
I was optimistic that racism would diminish as I got older five years. It has not done. Yeah, no,

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:03)
Not only that. It was probably cloaked, a little bit of anything. President Trump, as you point out of the book exposed, it may, maybe that will help us get to a better point. I want to go to your mom first and then we'll get to Donald Trump. But, uh, and I have not met your mom.

Don Lemon: (10:18)
It's weird. What's that? She loves you. I don't know why it's weird probably cause you turned on the orange menace and she does not

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:24)
Like it. And she probably is happy. I predicted a lot of the stuff that was going to happen, that she was, she drew comfort from that. Right.

Don Lemon: (10:31)
Can I tell you later when we talk about, you know, what are you exposed as far as race? He also, um, quite frankly, made people a lot more politically engaged because my mom was never that political and now she listens to everything. She despised him. And if she didn't despise him before he started attacking me, certainly afterwards, she couldn't

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:51)
Say, yeah, well, I mean, look, I mean, listen, you're, I have not met your mom yet. Although, uh, Dierdre my wife, Deirdre and I had a chance to see her on your new year's Eve special with Brooke Baldwin and uh, no surprise to viewer. She stole the show. Uh, you, you know, she has more charisma in her little finger than all of us do. Okay. You just beautiful manifestation of authenticity, but you write something in the book about traveling to Africa, with her and the emotions that you both felt in Africa and your connection to your mom. So can you share that with us? I don't want to give the book away, but there's some beautiful passages here that I want to talk about so that I can get convinced people to buy this book and spend the time to read

Don Lemon: (11:36)
It. Well. So long story short, we did a segment on CNN, all the anchors on, uh, tracing our roots. And so I had to go back to Louisiana and then of course, you know, back to the continent of Africa to do it. And we went to the slave coast, uh, the, the Cape coast castle on the slave coast last gold coast because they can overlap in Africa and, um, to trace the journey back to America. And so we ended up at this castle with the Dungeons where the slaves with, with shackles and it was just really this just heavy experience. Um, and once we got out to, you know, we'll tell you what happened in that dungeon. You can only imagine people in the dungeon and shackles for months. Sometimes we get to the place called the, uh, the door of no return where you go out and you board the slave ship. And it was the last, really the last land that anybody saw in Africa as they left to make that journey across the Atlantic and walking through that door with my mother and us holding hands was probably the most emotional experience I've ever

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:39)
Had in my life. I mean, it, it, it, it, it moved me to tears. Uh, Don, I have to say, that's why I wanted to address it. I folded the pages over your mother says, I have to confess something said, mom, I'm glad we came, but I'm glad I don't live here. Tell us what she means.

Don Lemon: (12:58)
Well, this was after that experience. And because after that experience, you go to, they changed the name. And when you turn around, which really made us cry and gave us optimism is a door of return. And so after we shot that the door of no return, the door returned, and we saw the kids playing in the sea, which I write about and carefree in the book. We go back to the hotel that night and we're just going over the day. And we were sitting by the sea. We have a bottle of wine. My mom opens up to me and talks to me about how, how much she loved me, loves me how proud she was of me or isn't me. And, um, she said, you showed me things. I'm, I'm the adult. I'm supposed to be showing you things and teaching you things, but you have showed me things that I had never thought that I would see or learn or do in my life.

Don Lemon: (13:43)
And I'm just so proud of you. And I just, I love you so much. Um, and then she said, but I have to be honest with you. I'm glad we don't live here because I don't, um, I don't know if I could accept or understand this degree of poverty. And, um, she said, if I'd lived here, I probably wouldn't know. Um, but she also said, we also wondered about those kids in the sea if they had a freedom. Um, and, um, a lack of, self-aware not self-awareness, but a self, um, consciousness that we didn't have as adults, because we knew America. And that we had learned too much about what people can do and the degradation that people can face because those children were so carefree. So there was, um, there were positives and negatives. She was glad she didn't live there, but she wondered just how free she would be in her mind, how carefree had we stayed there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:39)
But why you say something fascinating? The writing's excellent. By the way you say that this journey, uh, it's your own unique journey, but it's American. It's an journey. Tell us, tell us what you mean.

Don Lemon: (14:55)
Well, we went back as Americans expecting to have all of the luxuries that Americans have. You know, we get off the airplane if they're flying first class and we expect to get there and, and be in the four seasons and that's not going to happen or even to be in the holiday Inn. And that's just not what, what happened. Uh, I had been to Africa many times, but my mom had never been there. So she didn't understand the poverty that she would see. She didn't understand. Um, just how, uh, the, the, the lack of modern conveniences in many places that she would experience. And for her, it was real eye opening because she had never seen anything like that in America ever. And so we had a uniquely American experience where we expected everyone to cater to us and every, you know, everything to be ready for us and handed to us on a silver platter. We don't realize how, how you know, how good we have it here many times. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
So it's an interesting dichotomy because there's, uh, there's a racially charged society. Uh, yet there's a lot of great things that are happening in America. A lot of aspirational things. And I, and I got from you when you use the word American, uh, to me, what got me goosebumps was you're here to inject hope. You're here to provide hope and you're here to move things forward. And so as an American who loves the country, you're about progress. Is that, is that what I'm getting? Am I getting the right?

Don Lemon: (16:21)
That was well, that wasn't from the C thing, the C thing was just sort of us going over. That was more about a personal experience in journey for us about how we felt personally, the door of return was that part of it was, that was the optimism part that we were carrying forward, that, that our ancestors, um, had, had had this horrible journey and experience in America. And then we came back to the Homeland and that we were going to carry this experience back with us, to inspire other people and to teach other people that they were survivors. And that there was,

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:55)
I probably can. I probably can joining them a little bit, but again, I guess my,

Don Lemon: (17:00)
But there was a history just beyond being a slave in America. That's all I wanted

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:05)
To say. Mala, it's brilliant writing. I want to shift gears a little bit to something contemporary to get your reaction that George Floyd murder was a tipping point for a lot of black people, a tipping point for white people, frankly, I think that the graphic depiction of that on television, the eight minutes, 40 plus seconds of that, uh, we literally are watching a murder before our eyes. Why was that incident uniquely catalyzing for the fight against racism because you and I have both known of those types of stories. Uh, and we had the situation with Rodney king when we were younger, but this seemed to be a real tipping point. Why do you think that was,

Don Lemon: (17:50)
I mean, had you ever seen anything like that? We listen again, we grew up were pretty close to the same age. You hear about it, right? People tell you about their experiences, and if you don't have to experience it, if it's never happened to you, then it doesn't exist. And then all of a sudden we're sitting at home in quarantine, not knowing many people where their next dollar was going to come from. If their loved one was going to survive. COVID if they were going to catch COVID what the next day or the next week or the next year was going to look like. So we're all open and vulnerable. And then on our television sets or on our, uh, these little computers that we all carry around in our pockets, these cell phones, we saw a man died before our eyes and someone sit there and just put their knee on his neck and Rob them of the God-given right, to be able to breathe. And there was no denying what we saw. And there was no denying the experience of African-Americans, especially African-American men at the, at the hands of some police officers. That's why it resonated so much. We were open and vulnerable and we couldn't take our eyes off

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:55)
Well. And I think you, you did an amazing job during that very tragic event, explaining it to the American people. Um, you're the rare black primetime host and, you know, look, I'm just looking at it objectively, Don, it's a very white industry. So how do you use your voice to cut through the noise and communicate to people about the systemic racism that we see?

Don Lemon: (19:20)
Um, I honestly, Anthony, that's a, that's a great question. And you know, it's tough, right? Because I, I'm not only representing myself, I'm representing a company as a company that can get sued or get, you know,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:32)
Yeah. You're on a balance beam. You are, you are, the RC won't know this reference, but you're in the Nadia Comaneci, a broadcaster, you know, he's, he's Google, he's Googling her right now, lemon. He has no clue, but you know, you're on that balance beam every night and you're trying to strike the right chords of realism and authenticity, but you're also trying to wake up a group of people in our society that, you know, maybe they just haven't experienced it as graphically as you have, or, you know, people living in inner cities, et cetera. So how do you do it?

Don Lemon: (20:07)
I'm there for a reason. I'm there one because, uh, I think I do the job pretty well. I think I, you know, I'm a pretty, I do a pretty good job of anchoring a television to a show, but also, uh, I'm there because of my experience. That's what diversity is about. Well, I look,

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
Look, you're, you're, you're being modest. Get you, do you do a great job? And let me tell you why. I think you do a great job. And this is just my observation of you, even when you were blasting me. Okay. When I was the white house communications director, and unfortunately I was trapped inside the Trump hotel watching you, and you were just blasting me. I was looking at this guy said, you know, this guy has a point, okay. I have to figure out how we're going to change the narrative. Here can remember taking my pen out, watching you blast me. And I was writing down how we were going to, I have to try to figure this out because a lot of the stuff that you were saying was true and you do it in a diplomatic way. Okay. But, but, so you're very good at what you do. So just cut right through it. Tell us, tell us in your mind editorially, what you're working on before you get off before the light, the red light goes on.

Don Lemon: (21:12)
Well, I, I listen one, I have to do my research and I have to know what I'm talking about. But two, now I've gotten to a place where I can speak with authority and to be quite honest, you and your former boss, uh, gave me, um, a sense of authority and urgency that I didn't have before, because I had to speak truth to power. Um, I always had to do that, but in this instance, in his instance, I had to make my voice louder and clearer. And so when I, when I go on the air, I have a responsibility to tell the truth. Not only to the people who look like me, especially to the people who look like me, but also to all of America, because all of America needs to hear that. And if I don't do it as the only black person in primetime joy, Reed is early prime. We are the only two people who share that space. And I did it for seven years by myself who is going to do it, Anthony Scaramucci. So I had to lean in and then, you know, take the slings and arrows and then worry about being fired or going too far. That, that is, that was second nature. So, um, that's how I feel. That's, that's where I am. That's why

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
I admire, I want, I want to go back to an interview. I was at Atlanta, Georgia, you were interviewing Donald J. Trump, then candidate for president. He was describing the situation with Megan Kelly. I'm not going to go into what he said. It's not worth it. Uh, but you know what I'm talking about? And I, you know, and this is a poor reflection on me, by the way. So I'm just going to be very open about it. When I was watching him, I was like, okay, he can't be serious. This has gotta be part of a, you know, an act. He can't be serious, but you saw it seriously. And I guess I didn't. And a lot of people, frankly, didn't, that's my bad. I have to own that for the rest of my life. But was that an inflection point for you or did you know the nature of things prior

Don Lemon: (23:11)
To that interview? Um, that was an inflection point to me, but you know, you do the math and you, you, you do the calculus in your head, like, oh my gosh, what should I, how should I handle this? What should I do? And I didn't want to jump in on what he said in that moment and change it into something that it wasn't. And I didn't want to be a part of that moment in the sense that I wanted his words to speak for themselves and let people digest it the way that they, they should. And then I go back and I said, should I have called them out, said whatever. And then every people say, you know, I got what you were doing. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:44)
Listen, it done. That's a couple, that's gotta be four and a half years ago. I remember it vividly, maybe five years ago, five years ago, five years ago. So I remember it vividly and it left a big impact on me. You write in the book more or less. I'm paraphrasing now that Donald Trump didn't invent racism, but he made it more, uh, open. He was more almost like unashamed to openly express it live according to his prejudices. Uh, you write that, uh, he was like a symptom that alerted you, Don lemon and others for that matter to an underlying disease. Tell us what you mean by that.

Don Lemon: (24:21)
Well, that's what he was the percent rating. I think if you go down a couple more sentences, I think he said, I think I said the percent rating also, or tumor or something that drove us into the oncologist's office. And so that we could diagnose the problem and then take care of it. So that's, um, that's how I thought about it. He, he exposed, we, we know who the racists are. We know that the racists are, there are more racist in our society. And, and then we realized, we know that there's a resurgence of neo-Nazis and all of that, which would, I think would have been hidden. Um, if it had not been for Donald Trump, because those people felt that he was giving them legitimacy, how do you say it? He had become their imprimatur, right? We gave them a stamp of approval. And so, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:06)
You were saying the quiet things out in the yellow bin. And they were like, okay, loud. Now we can say this.

Don Lemon: (25:11)
You can say the same. We don't have to wear hoods. We can wear khakis and polo shirts and March down city streets in the middle of the day, or, you know, an early evening with Tiki torches and we can do it with pride. And so that's what he did. And now we know, I don't know about you, but I want to know, I would rather know what someone is, where they're coming from, rather than you hiding your hand.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:34)
Yeah. Some of it's so ugly down there. Sometimes I say, Jesus, I don't want to know that much, but I get, I get the point that you're making

Don Lemon: (25:42)
I'm from the south. I grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Klan used to hand out literature, Anthony in front of my high school, on the weekends, we did not have schools sponsored. Um, except for sporting events. There was no crime. There were no parties. There was nothing like that because they didn't want the racist mixing. There was a big Baptist church across the street where the clan would handout literature. My best friend lived next door to the grand wizard of the KKK, not next door, like in a house, but on a giant, giant pieces of property, you know, land acres and said he was the property next door. So I know racism, but I know that when I was growing up, people hit it or they secluded themselves. They lived in places and they dared black people to live there. They didn't want black people to live near them. And then when that started to encroach, it kept moving further up. You had the white flight, so people kept hiding and moving and hiding and, and, and now you can't right, you cannot do it. And so now I believe that we are in the death throes of white supremacy in this country, simply because of demographics. And the proof of it is the reaction that people have had to this election and to Donald Trump. And the biggest evidence I have is the insurrection that happened on January 6th.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:57)
Amen. So we'll, let's go to that for a second. And then I'm going to turn it over to the young millennial. He's not even generation Z or where the hell you just called yourself. This guy is like fresh from the

Don Lemon: (27:08)
Biggest younger than millennials, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:12)
He's like a hundred years younger than you. And let's just go to, let's go to this question about the insurrection. Uh, it's tied into the racism. It's tied into the dishonor of our democracy because ultimately you had a group of people, uh, that are feeling the heat that demography is changing. And, uh, they didn't like it. They didn't like the outcome. So give us your reaction to the insurrection.

Don Lemon: (27:40)
My reaction was I was sitting there watching, saying, oh my God, this is, as I write about in the book, if we don't deal with that, I write about Kristen Cooper and Amy Cooper remember in the park with the dog. And she called the cops on the guy because I, you know, he's a black man. And he said that he's bothering me in the park. And I write in the book about, unless you deal with this in a substantial way, then someone's going to come back with a bigger dog. Well, the bigger dog was the lie about the election that it was stolen. And then the bigger dog after that was the insurrection. And then who knows what the next bigger dog will be. And so what is that going to be a takeover of the government, a martial law, whatever. I don't know, you know, racist, marching down every major street in the country.

Don Lemon: (28:23)
I have no idea, but, uh, from the beginning I knew I knew what it was when I saw it. I knew when I saw his speech, that it was going to turn violent and I was sitting there watching it saying, oh my God, I cannot believe this. And you know, the first thing I saw was I, the first thing I thought was, I remember this last summer when there were black lives matter protestors in front of the white house. Uh, and they were gassed by the president or whoever. Um, William Barr, the justice department ordered them to be gassed. The president could make, could make a photo op in, in front of a church with a Bible. And then there were also black lives matter protestors who had gone to the Capitol that summer March did not try to go in, did not try to overthrow the government or overturn an election. Um, and then you had these guys do it. And I knew that they didn't get shot. They were able to go into the Capitol because they weren't black. If they would have been black or Muslims are Latinos, they would have either been shot. There's no way they would have let them in the Capitol. And these people, a lot of them just marched right into the Capitol. Senator, Ron

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:30)
Johnson would have been very fearful of them, but of course he was not fearful of the white people that were trying to kill Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. So, and then he stands with the highest level of ignorance, uh, saying, what are you talking about? Why are you throwing the racist card at me? And so, I mean, we have a lot of that. What do you think of, I, I was about as a Paul does, you could be at that. I was embarrassed for him and his family. Uh, the fact that that's on tape forever is a stain on his family in terms of his lack of awareness and his lack of, uh, judgment about what's going on in our society. Uh, before I turn it over to John, one last question you're never

John Darcie: (30:15)
Going to get to ask about, because time's up,

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:18)
I'm cutting. I'm cutting into your time too bad. Okay. What do we do? What do we say to our kids? Give me something to lean on aspirationally. What do I say to my kids? Because your skin color is a little bit darker than mine and your hair is a little bit tighter and colder than mine. Not much in the winter. No, that's true. I'm from, I'm from, oh, you know, my family is

John Darcie: (30:42)
Tan, so he's suffering.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:44)
I have no, I've got no spray, but I got a lot of Botox. Everybody take it easy. I'm still asking the questions. Okay. So, so tell me something aspirational. You've got a little bit more of a kink in your hair. Your skin is a little darker than mine. Uh, but I see you where I see myself, how do I, how do I, how do we make that happen for our country? How do we relax people that we are the same? What is the big deal?

Don Lemon: (31:13)
So when you said you see me and you see me as yourself, that means that you see my humanity, right? So we all need to start seeing each other's humanity, respecting each other's, humanity and loving each other. And then that it becomes that much harder to denigrate someone. It becomes that much harder to put your knee on the neck of someone. It becomes that much harder, um, to treat someone differently or to discriminate against them. If you see their humanity, which means you have to be in some, some, some sort of a relationship with them, uh, a friendship, uh, at least in acquaintance, and maybe even romantically to people who are of different ethnicities. So I think that is the thing that you should teach your kids. You should teach your kids to get friends and to be around people who are not just like

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:57)
Them. Exactly. And because then you you'll, you'll find that we're really not that different. Go ahead. And Mr. More,

Don Lemon: (32:03)
One more thing. You have to teach them. You've got end school. I think they need to teach kids the true history of this country and the, um, the contributions of African-Americans, which are often left out of history books and kids don't know it. And by the time those kids become adults, they wouldn't try to overturn an election by, by, um, storming the Capitol because they are basing their history and their knowledge on lies about the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:30)
Well, well, well, very well said. I always recommend Jill Lapore pours book, these truths. Uh, it is quite a study, quite a graphic examination of the good in the United States, but also the perils and some of the bad. Go ahead,

Don Lemon: (32:44)
Mr. Darcie. All right. That's all the time I have guys. Thank you. See you later.

John Darcie: (32:48)
Can Anthony and send my contract. I get at least one third of the show. It's a bunch of crap, but, uh, yeah. Thank you for, uh, the same

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:55)
Agent as I am. That's why I don't have a television gig. Okay. We need to get lemons agent, but go ahead. Keep going.

John Darcie: (33:03)
I grew up in North Carolina, we were talking before the show, you detected still a lingering, a Southern accent. You grew up in Louisiana. You know, there's different types of racism that exists in our society. There's deep south, you know, handing out KKK flyers racism. And there's a nimbyism, you know, I think I live in New York now on long island. There's a natural segregation that takes place a voluntary segregation. If you will, where there's not maybe as much mixing of races here in New York, a blue state, a supposedly progressive area as there was when I was growing up, going to public high school in North Carolina, what are the different types of more sort of pervasive, quiet forms of racism that you think we need to chip away at in terms of, you know, nimbyism not in my backyard type of racism. And how do you experience that in day-to-day life? Not in a way that's in your face, people wearing hoods, but in a way that's just a little bit quieter and more pervasive.

Don Lemon: (33:55)
Well, I'm glad you talked about that. Cause I haven't heard nimbyism in such a long time that not in my backyard is, um, right. Uh, I think that you, you pointed out the main one is that is that we live in a place that is probably the most diverse place in the country, in the metropolitan New York area. And even, um, in the suburbs and people don't mix people, don't talk to each other and hang out and they ha the only time that they have any interaction is if they're forced to either, uh, in business or in schools. And then even there, they don't, you know, hang out with each other. That is one of the main solutions that I talk about, uh, personally, and that I want people to get out of this book is that you're the only way, the only real way you're going to do it is through relationships.

Don Lemon: (34:42)
And I know people say, oh, it's tough because people self segregate or, or we live in a polarized society. I say, John, it's not hard to meet other people. Look how I met Anthony. Anthony came into the green room or came onto the show. And what did I say to him? Or what did he say to me? Hey, would you like to go have a drink? You want to hang out afterwards, I'm having a party. You're invited come to my holiday party or come to come grill at my house. We're having a barbecue on Saturday or Sunday. That is not that hard to do. I don't care what anybody says. You can do that at any age and to get to learn about someone, because when you don't know people, you don't know them. And the only way you get to know them is it gets to know them, right? I mean, it's just as simple as that. It's, it's, it's simplicity. And so I think that that's the key that is really for me that quiet. Um, I don't want to call it flat racism, but it's, um, it is a racial blind spot, right? It is, uh, a step towards, as Anthony and I talk about all the time, a more perfect union, because again, nothing is going to get accomplished unless we all get to know each other as human beings. That's the first and major thing for me. Yeah.

John Darcie: (36:01)
It almost just, it feels like it's more convenient for people to just, you know, live in their bubble. And I think one of the things that the George Floyd incident did was say, we really need to confront this and actively educate ourselves. And the people around us, if we're really going to make a difference, it's not enough to be an idle bystander and watch this stuff happen. We have to be active participants. If we're going to teach people to love, you know, Nelson Mandela, as Anthony was alluding to earlier, people aren't born racist. You know, they have to be taught to hate. And if they can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love, which I think was,

Don Lemon: (36:32)
Let me tell you this, that I think people say that because, um, they want to make an excuse for the way that they've always lived, that they'd been living for a long time. And if, until you get out of yourself and you, um, you, you sort of breach that bubble or whatever it is of your comfort zone. Then again, it's not going to change. Look, I had a gay pride party. The June of 2019 Anthony Scaramucci was on the invite list. He couldn't Anthony, you didn't come. I don't remember. No. I came to that came to my pride party.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:04)
I came to the pride party chore. So I didn't work in, I've been working on marriage equality with, with New York state since 2008. Of course I came to that.

Don Lemon: (37:14)
That's the thing I did not, not invite you to the pride party because you're a heterosexual man. I just said, Hey, we would love to have Anthony at the party. We had, um, you know, an open house for Christmas. We didn't say, well, we're going to invite this many white people, this many black people, this many straight people, this many Christians, this, whatever. We invited, every one I had a party. Remember I had the party and before the election, uh, oh no. During, after the election I had like a winter party. Yeah. You invited everyone. People were like your

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:44)
Engagement party at the townhouse that you were thinking about.

Don Lemon: (37:47)
You know, everybody was there. That was amazing. Everybody was there. I met another

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:52)
Person that used to pick on me. Okay. Joy basically. Yeah. No, not joy. Bihar. Uh, Dory Reed. Yeah. Joy. Reid. I met her in the living room at your party. I said, okay, let me go back. Let me go back to my Twitter feed. Joy got on. We had a great laugh and now I do her show. I mean, come on. I mean, that's how you break things down, man.

Don Lemon: (38:14)
That's what that's anyway. I'm sorry, John, go ahead.

John Darcie: (38:17)
And Anthony has a unique ability to make people that want to hate him. Not hate him when they spend enough time with them in a private setting. We also have that money too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:26)
Yes, exactly. And I'm a, like a fungus. I get stuck in your toe nail and I never go away. Okay. Lemon doesn't realize this, but he'll be talking to me when he's like 95 or so I'll be, of course I'll be 97 at that time go. And Darcie w

John Darcie: (38:39)
We try to keep the payoffs secret, Don. So thank, thank you for outing us there, but I want to talk about police brutality. So we talked about the George Floyd incident, but I think police brutality and policing is a very loaded topic. These days after the election president Obama talked about how the use of the words defund the police was not constructive in terms of trying to defeat Donald Trump, you know, but also on the other side on the right, you have just this hypocrisy around, you know, backing the blue and supporting police officers during the insurrection. You had, uh, insurrectionists beating police officers with signs that said blue lives matter, which was almost the height of parody in a tragic way. But you know, black people's experience, this is one of the conversations that really resonates with me, just listening to black people talk about their experience around law enforcement.

John Darcie: (39:27)
I've been pulled over before. I've had interactions with police officers, and I have never once felt threatened or unsafe because I've genuinely always felt they're trying to protect me. Whereas I think black people feel like police officers, not all police officers of course are sometimes trying to target them. But at the same time, I think the vast majority of police officers are there to serve and protect as, as, uh, as the slogan goes, how do we reform policing? And how do we avoid painting police officers with such a broad brush that alienates them? It just is such a complex topic. How do we tackle it? And we improve policing, uh, in a way that's constructive without demonizing the whole profession. Why say you

Don Lemon: (40:06)
Have to pick up this book because there's a chapter in there on policing where I talk about what they've done in Newark, uh, Ross Baraka. I think that talks about what they've done in Philadelphia. And there's a mention of San Francisco police chief as well on how they sort of revolutionize their police departments are in the process of doing so, listen, I'm not a policing expert, but I think what you, the way you start is is that you have to treat people with dignity. As, as I had been saying. And then also I think community policing is very important that police officers are from, or at least familiar with the community that they serve and that they're not seen as occupiers in the community that they're seen as part of the community. And they're there to be peace officers and not necessarily be occupiers. Um, you know, I have interactions with police officers, mostly for traffic tickets as an adult.

Don Lemon: (40:57)
Um, and I'm concerned as a person of means when I see a police officer, um, pull me over or in some way is looking to question me because I had experiences with police officers. I was racially profiled and I called the cops. The cops showed up and they thought the person that I call the cops on actually call the cops. And they were like, you go sit over there. And this gentleman called police. And then I said, no, excuse me. I called police. And you see that thing in their head, like, uh, like the world changes like in a second. Oh my gosh. Wow. Like, wait. Okay. So the black guy called the police on white guy. Wow. That's, that's interesting. So, um, I just think that police officers need to, um, need to know the people that they are there to protect. Remember, and remember that they're there to protect people, not necessarily, um, to throw people on the ground and, and treat them horribly. But listen, I also know that policing is very tough. I would not want to be a police officer. That's why I'm a journalist and not a police officer. I don't want that job, but in that job, you're supposed to know how to deescalate situations. And, um, and I hope the right kind of person is drawn to policing in the future rather than someone who just wants to crack heads.

Speaker 5: (42:14)
Well, Don's been a pleasure to have you on, I'm a huge fan of your show

John Darcie: (42:18)
All the time I did. We're running out of time. And I have to say, I only reason I questioned your judgment is maybe your booking department needs to revisit, uh, some of their decision making on their desks because you have Anthony frequently on your show and your ratings must plummet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:36)
Can I get the hell out of you? We have very good chemistry on that show. Okay. Anthony, call your mom. Do your mom going to know Tim, your mom. Dierdre, I'm just, I'm telling them

Don Lemon: (42:49)
The actors listening somewhere here. The more important

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:52)
Piece, the more important people, uh, above and beyond this particular Saul talk,

Don Lemon: (42:57)
The banks are very smart. I don't know why he does. He does. He always says that you're really smart. And he actually thinks Kellyanne Conway is really smart.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:05)
Well, listen. I mean, I, I would agree

John Darcie: (43:07)
With the monkey thinks he's smart too, Don, you know, he's going to agree with you here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:11)
I, uh, I had, I hadn't talked to Kelly. Oh, you'll enjoy this part. I, I, uh, I ran into Kellyanne on a London based show in the evening and on a zoom. I hadn't seen her in four years, as soon as she was quite polite to me. But having said that, uh, I think she also respected the fact that, uh, I didn't let her, uh, former boss walk on me. Uh, I think, you know, so it was one of those interesting situations, but I want to hold the book up one more time before you go. Uh it's uh, this is the fire. Uh, Don, I gotta tell you it was a moving book. I don't say that because you're a friend. Uh, it was a moving book and I wanna encourage people to read it. And I think you made it digestible so you can get through it in an evening. Uh, and it's very well thought out and I think it will help people get to where we need to get to. And I want to get it in the hands of many people as possible. So thank you for writing it. And thank you for joining us on, on salty. How

Don Lemon: (44:12)
Many books did you buy? You bought it for your entire company, right? And all your,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:15)
I did, actually, we, we did, we bought it from a, we bought a French brand. We bought it from the strand trying to help out the strand cause it's stolen. Independent bookseller, seriously went to the strand and lots of books. Yeah. We have a dealer with no, we have a deal with the SRAM. We buy it. We like buying books, you know,

Don Lemon: (44:31)
Good stuff, especially Don, it's a pleasure to meet you, Anthony and whatever.

John Darcie: (44:37)
It's a pleasure to be with you. And, uh, you know, this is the fire. I think it was a great title. As Anthony said, I'm hopeful that we can not take two steps forward. One step back. I feel like there's such an energy around this anti-racist movement today that I'm hoping that, that, uh, the fervor can continue and we can really make tangible progress over the next five to 10 years, sir,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:57)
By the way, you make more money, not being a racist. I'm just telling you more diversity, more diversity on your team, better ideas, better energy. I don't get it. We gotta, we gotta push people, get the incentives. Right.

Don Lemon: (45:10)
You know, what's your, you got a nickname like mooch,

John Darcie: (45:14)
Just Darcie. Nobody calls me by my first name. It's Darcie. Yeah.

Don Lemon: (45:20)
Alright, got it. And Doris, thank you.

John Darcie: (45:23)
And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with Don lemon of CNN out with a great new book. This is the fire talking about race relations in America. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them all on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel called salt tube. Follow us on Twitter. We're at salt conferences are handled. That's where we're most active on social media, but we're also on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn as well, trying to do more on all those channels. So we would love a follow there and spread the word about these salt talks. We've made them free and accessible for everyone. We love growing our community and educating people on a wide variety of topics. None more important than how to end racism. So please spread the word about this talk and others that we host. And on behalf of, uh, the entire salt team, Joe Alito behind the scenes, our superstar producer, Anthony, uh, this is John Darcey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Adam Jentleson: “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate" | SALT Talks #180

“The filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, starting with efforts to preserve slavery in the 19th century.”

Adam Jentleson is the author of Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. He is the executive director of Battle Born Collective and was deputy chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Senate has long had a reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It holds an almost mythical standing, but beneath that veneer is a highly dysfunctional institution controlled by the narrow interests of select Senators. The Constitution’s framers built a system capable of adapting to each era’s unique challenges. Through the targeted and discriminatory strengthening of the filibuster, that framing has been undercut and the Senate has become a legislative graveyard. “I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life.”

The filibuster is a relic of Jim Crow. It was innovated by John C. Calhoun to prevent the inevitable abolition of slavery. Its threshold was then increased to 60 votes, serving as a block against civil rights legislation for the 87 years between the end of Reconstruction and 1964. “Civil rights bills between the end of Reconstruction and 1964 were the only category of legislation that was stopped by this supermajority threshold.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Adam Jentleson.jpeg

Adam Jentleson

Author

Kill Switch

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a very timely topic about the United States Senate with author and media contributor. Adam gentlemen, Adam, as I mentioned, is the author most recently of kill switch the rise of the modern Senate and the crippling of American democracy. Adam is currently the executive director of Battleborn collective and a former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid. So he's seen up close and personal the issues that we have with the modern Senate. He's a columnist as well for GQ and a frequent political contributor on MSNBC. And he lives, uh, near DC and Tacoma park, Maryland and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and he has a little bit of experience in politics, but I'm not going to slam him today on his brief stint in the Trump administration. But with that, I'll turn

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:33)
It over to him. Listen, okay. Measuring this stuff

Adam Jentleson: (01:36)
By dog years at this point, just think of those two poor dogs that were thrown from the white house after 37 days. Okay. 3.36 Scaramucci, for those of you that are counting in Scaramucci. Okay. So, but apparently the dogs are coming back, but one thing is for certain Adam, I'm not coming back. Okay. I'm going to be stuck here in salt talks, talking to great authors like you. Uh, but I, uh, just a little bit of a true, you know, for your benefit. Uh, Senator Reed was super helpful to salt back in 2009. Uh, we decided to go to Las Vegas with the live conference when obviously way before the pandemic, uh, Vegas was being devastated by the last financial crisis. And so we elected to go with the air. He helped the range speakers for us. Unfortunately he couldn't make the first one, but he came to a few thereafter and, uh, no surprise to the people that know me.

Adam Jentleson: (02:31)
I am a donor of Senator Harry Reid. So I'm fairly bipartisan when it comes to donating, um, which got me in trouble with Donald Trump. But let's move on because we're talking about policy and we're talking about what is right for the country. I thought that spoke was fascinating. I'm going to hold it up for everybody. Okay. Kill, switch. Um, why did I think it was fascinating, Adam, because you're describing the history of the Senate that most Americans don't know, you're describing procedures in the Senate, which as we've learned from the rules about the parliamentarian, the procedures actually matter to the people in the Senate as they should. Uh, but you're also describing what needs to happen

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
If we're going to have policy progress. And again, this is bi-partisan policy progress, which is what I loved about the book so much. So, uh, first of all, congratulations on the book. And then secondly, if you don't mind, tell us a little bit about your background and then I'd like you to talk a little bit about the book, you know, the skeleton of the book, the history of the Senate, et cetera. Some of don't give up all the great parts because I want people to go out and buy it, but I certainly want our, our viewers and listeners to learn from me.

Adam Jentleson: (03:42)
Sure. And thank you so much, John and Anthony for having me, it's really great to be here. Um, and thanks for reading the book. Uh, so about me, I, I started in politics. I didn't think I was going to go into politics, but I sort of grew up around it. My parents were teachers. Um, but my dad didn't put us,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
I just think we're going into pilot exam. It draws us in. Okay. It's like the Michael Corleone narrative. Okay. You can't, you can't get out either once. You're drawn in sorry to

Adam Jentleson: (04:09)
Interrupt, but no, no problem. Um, but yeah, no. So for me, I was in college in 2003 in New York city. And, uh, it was the Iraq war that sort of got the turning to politics. Um, I went to work from there on, uh, presidential campaign that year, uh, and for the next 10 years sort of bounced around between presidential campaigns and jobs and the sort of political campaign and nonprofit C4 type world. Um, and then I arrived in the Senate around 2010, uh, and that was sort of the defining, uh, professional experience for me. Um, I went straight to work for Senator Reed and spent my time within there, started in communications rose up to be deputy chief of staff to him. And so I was there through most of the big fights in the Obama administration. And, you know, the, the reason that I wrote this book is because of what I saw in my time there.

Adam Jentleson: (04:58)
And, you know, you get to the Senate and it's this mythical place. And you're told that it's this bastion of wisdom and thoughtfulness and bipartisanship. Um, and it's, you know, sometimes been able to live up to that reputation. But what I saw was a Senate that uses that reputation to cloak itself and hide the dysfunction that lies beneath it. Uh, and the experiences I had. There's got me asking questions about why is it this way? And when you ask these questions, you get very unsatisfying answers. They tend to be answers about Senate tradition and this sort of circular, it always comes back to sort of, it is this way because it is this way, you know, this is how the Senate wants it to be. Um, and I found those answers unsatisfying because what I saw was a Senate where it was shaped by power plays and it was shaped by individuals with narrow political interests, publicans and Democrats, uh, who would make power grabs and change the rules and shape the rules and shape and arms.

Adam Jentleson: (05:55)
And then explain it in the, in terms of grants that have tradition and try to explain how they were the ones standing up, um, for the framers vision and stuff like that. So I thought it would be helpful to write a book that tried to level set this and ground all of this talk in what the framers really meant and what they really intended to send it to be. And I'm not an originalist here. Um, I wouldn't claim that we should hang on to framers every word for, you know, thinking about how, what our laws should say and what our policies should be. But they did design a system that was capable of change and capable of adapting and meeting the challenges of new areas. And what we have today is a system that is incapable of change, but is incapable of passing common sense by partisan bills that have broad public support.

Adam Jentleson: (06:39)
Uh, and I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life. And if it is unable to adapt, it's unable to change. If it gets too obsessed with preserving itself in Amber, um, it's going to be a failed institution and the country is going to be worse off for it. So that's what brought me to this book and what I hope the book does offer readers, tearing down some of that it's cutting through the fog and trying to get down to, to what it was really supposed to be and how it can change.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:04)
So, so, okay, so let's go back. Cause I think this is instructive for our listeners, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, the Senate is actually in parts of our Republican democracy are designed to protect minorities. I'm not necessarily talking about black or brown people. I'm talking about people that are in the minority as it relates to voting. And so we didn't want to have mob rule or just popular vote rule. The day we wanted to empower the states with some levels of rights and some levels of representations of the Senate is the mechanism for that. It is effectively two senators in Rhode Island, two senators in California, even though Rhode Island population is miniscule compared to California. Uh, James Madison, you write about James Madison and the book in the beginning, part of the book, uh, that explained the dangers of giving veto power to minorities potentially outweighed the benefits. Um, and so just for, for our listeners, step back for a second, tell us what you like about the Senate. Tell us what you dislike about the Senate and tell us about why the Senate was formed in the first place.

Adam Jentleson: (08:13)
Yes, yes. Yeah. It's, you know, the Senate was designed to protect minority rights. And when, like you said, when the framers were talking about minorities, they were talking about minority factions and specifically they weren't really thinking about vulnerable populations. They were more thinking about the status quo and, and the people in power. One of their overriding concerns was the threat of mob to property rights. They were basically afraid of the people

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:37)
They had to get these, they had to get these sob to ratify the constitution. So they needed each of those colonies, which were becoming states to do so. And so therefore this was an empowerment tool for that as well.

Adam Jentleson: (08:49)
Right, right. Fair enough. And, and, you know, I mean, I don't want to, you know, miss portrayed the Senate, it wasn't designed to be a of democracy per se. It was designed to be a bit of a break on the system, uh, and, and provide that protection to minority factions against the threat of mob rule. But the whole system itself was also supposed to provide that check, you know, that the checks and balances, weren't just the Senate. It was having a bicameral legislature having a judiciary and having a president. Um, and so it was the whole system that Madison designed that he saw as providing checks and balances. Even today, if you take the filibuster out of the picture, United States still has more checks and balances, what political scientists called veto players, uh, than any other modern democracy. So there are, there are a lot of checks even without the filibuster.

Adam Jentleson: (09:31)
Um, and I think that's good. The Senate should provide that check against majority mob rule. Um, it's a place where, you know, legislation goes to become more thoughtful, to be being debated more thoroughly to try to reach consensus. All that is very good. But with the framers were trying to do was strike a delicate balance. And we've lost that balance today. Um, as you said, Madison, who was sort of achieved champion of minority rights, wrote extensively about the importance of protecting minority rights, but he also very explicitly said that it was the goal is to provide the minority of voice in the process and a guaranteed role in the process, but never to provide them with detail. And he was explicit about this. He said, you know, when push comes to shove, basically I'm paraphrasing. Um, if, you know, consensus could not be attained, the majority should go forward.

Adam Jentleson: (10:19)
And he called the majority rule quote, the Republican principle, this was foundational for him. Um, and the reason it was, was that the framers had just had firsthand experience with what happens when you allow a minority to have veto power, because in the articles of Confederation, you know, the first draft of American government, the Congress in the articles had a super majority threshold for most major legislation. And it was a complete disaster. They couldn't pass anything. It crippled that emergent Republic during war time and they hated it. So they were very clear that they wanted to have checks and balances, but they wanted all decision points within that system to be majority rule, because they had seen firsthand that if you create a super majority threshold and by doing so, giving the minority veto power, because you know, 40% can, can stop. What, what 50% or up to 60% want to do, you're going to create a crippling system. So they call them. I mean, they, they said this explicitly. So that's, that's the balance that we're trying to strike. And we've tilted that balance far too far in the direction of giving the minority too much power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:19)
And the Republicans have taken advantage of this, of course, because they are in the minority. If you look at the voter registration, but yet states like north and South Dakota, they have the population of Manhattan, the island of Manhattan. Yet they have four senators between those two states. So the Republicans have figured out how to use these, uh, minority rules to their advantage Democrats from time to time have done as well. I'm not necessarily trying to pick on one group, what is a filibuster? Adam, tell our audience what a filibuster is.

Adam Jentleson: (11:51)
A filibuster is not what you think of when you think of a filibuster is not Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor, giving a long speech. At least it's not anymore. Right now all a filibuster is, is the ability of any individual Senator to raise the number of votes. It takes to pass a bill from a simple majority where it was for most of the sentence existence. And technically still is today, if you can get there. But, uh, what they're able to do is put a threshold higher than that majority today that had 60 votes in the path of the bills, passed the path to passage. And to throw that hurdle up, to throw that 60 vote hurdle up to every bill has to clear, uh, they don't have to debate at all. They'll don't have to go to the floor if they don't have to explain themselves, uh, they don't even have to make a public statement of any thought.

Adam Jentleson: (12:35)
All they have to do is send an email, became the other staff, just send an email to what's called a cloakroom, which was sort of the nerve center of power. Each party has one right off the Senate floor. When you see CSPAN or walking through those doors on the side, two of those doors lead to one leads to the democratic cloakroom one leads to the Republican cloakroom. So you just have your staff send an email and that automatically with one email makes a bill that should have a majority vote special for passage, go up to 60 votes. So that's all the filibuster is today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:04)
The Republicans do that on the current spending bill.

Adam Jentleson: (13:07)
Well, so there's one category, um, of legislation that is exempt from filibusters and that's anything that can go through this process called budget reconciliation. Um, this was a process created in the 1970s that was supposed to be sort of a fast track for budgetary procedures. Congress was trying to sort of take back power from the executive at this time. This was post-Watergate. And so they wanted to say the president had too much power. The president was setting the budget and the spending priorities for the entire government Congress was trying to take that power back. So they created a special, fast track procedure to make it really easy to pass anything budget related. Um, and then they made, and then people started using that fast-track for all sorts of things. So in the eighties, Robert Bird stepped in and said, here's a, here's a new set of rules that restricts what can go through this backpack. Uh, and the basic restriction is that a policy's impact has to have a primarily budgetary impact. And the person who decides that is one individual, the Senate parliamentarian and unelected person who, um, both sides, respect, but gets to make that decision unilaterally. And, you know, it's a pretty restricted definition.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:09)
Oh, the Senate, the Senate parliamentarian and parliamentarian has now become famous again was once famous in 2001. Tell us a little bit about that and tell us why they're famous again today.

Adam Jentleson: (14:20)
Yeah. So in 2001, um, the Senate parliamentarian had a big role in deciding the control of the Senate and, um, uh, some big debates that are going on around around the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were going through reconciliation, this process, which put them in the spotlight. Uh, and so they had a big, big role to play there. And so basketball they're playing today, where the problem with debt with what Democrats are trying to do is that, you know, Republicans tend to use reconciliation for things that reconciliation was designed for like, like tax cuts. It's just, that matches up better with their policy agenda. It's easier for them to push tax best through a budgetary process than it is to push COVID eight or a minimum wage increase through a budgetary process. But just to demonstrate how restrictive this process can be, you know, minimum wage does have a major budgetary impact.

Adam Jentleson: (15:04)
There's no way to argue it. Doesn't right before this ruling came down, this congressional budget office came out with a report demonstrating, um, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgetary impact for the minimum wage. But even that level of budgetary impact didn't meet the standard of reconciliation, which is it has to be primarily budgetary. So even though obviously a minimum wage increase would have a budgetary impact, it didn't rise to that level. And so that's how restrictive this process can be. So as people think about what else can move through it, I think people are trying to force climate change policies through immigration policies. I think now that we know where the parliamentarian stands, it's going to be hard to force these other policies through if minimum wage doesn't have a primarily budgetary impact. I think it'd be hard to argue that climate change policies or immigration have a primary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
I think it's fascinating. I want to go back to the filibuster for a second, and then I've got some other follow-up questions about it, but you write in the book, uh, that a very, um, uh, Gus gentlemen, John Lewis, who's now deceased. He said that the filibuster is a Jim Crow Relic, uh, and the harm allowed by the filibuster extends far beyond Jim Crow. What did he mean by that? Uh, give us the historical context that he's speaking.

Adam Jentleson: (16:22)
So the filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, uh, starting with the effort to preserve slavery in the 19th century, the chief innovator of what we would think of as the talking to the Buster, the Jimmy Stewart style filibuster was John [inaudible] who, uh, used it to increase the great

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:42)
New biography by the way about Calhoun out, uh, came out about two weeks ago.

Adam Jentleson: (16:47)
Yes. I really recommend asking any character that there should be a musical about him, but he would, would be an antihero. But, um, but he, you know, what happened was that the country was moving towards abolition and Calhoun could see that the majority of the country left to its own devices would abolish slavery eventually. Um, so he needed to increase the power of the minority to stop them from doing that. And so that's why he started to innovate the talking filibuster, but all through the 19th century, there was no rule that allowed the filibuster ERs to raise the number of votes it took to pass a bill. So the best you could do with this talking filibuster was to delay bills by giving a speech. And the way that we tend to think of what happened in the Jim Crow era. This is when senators figured out how to start using the filibuster to increase the number of votes it took to pass a bill.

Adam Jentleson: (17:35)
There was a rule put on the books in 1917 in response to a very embarrassing filibuster. The Senate was sort of humiliated when they filibustered to build their president. Wilson was trying to put through to arm American merchant ships. Um, there was a big public backlash, senators were being burned in across the country. So the Senate came back and said, all right, we need to give ourselves a tool to end filibusters when they get too extreme. So they created what's called cloture rule. And you can think of cloture as closure. It's bringing closure to a debate because every bill has to pass through this debate period before it gets to final passage. And if you're being filibustered, the only way to end that debate period is through a closure vote. Bringing closure to that, that vote was set at a super majority threshold. And the idea was that this would be a tool that senators could reach for if they filibuster was going on too long in a reasonable group of senators could come together and say, all right, that's it guys wrap it up.

Adam Jentleson: (18:25)
Let's move on to the final vote, which was at a majority festival during this period, Southern senators started using the filibuster and sort of grafting that super majority threshold onto the filibuster to apply effectively a super majority threshold only to civil rights bills, uh, civil rights bills between the end of reconstruction in 1964, where the only category of legislation that was stopped by this super majority threshold for 87 years. And I just want to make one last point on this, which is that we sometimes think that maybe America wasn't ready for civil rights until the late fifties and sixties, but the evidence shows otherwise, um, bills to end lynching bills to end poll taxes and bills to end workplace discrimination were passing the house of representatives by wide margins. They were coming over to the Senate where they had majority support and they had presidents of both parties ready to sign them.

Adam Jentleson: (19:17)
In fact, Republicans were much better on civil rights during this period than Democrats. Uh, the only thing that stopped them was the Senate filibuster. The American people wanted action on civil rights, Gallup polled, the issue of anti-lynching laws in 1937 and found 72% of the American people in support of anti-lynching laws. They pulled, uh, anti poll tax laws in the 1940s, and they found upwards of 60% of Americans in support. So we could have had action on civil rights decades before we started doing it. Uh, but the only thing that blocked it was the Senate filibuster,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:49)
W w we're we're we're trying to figure out who the 28% is Adam, that that's, I guess for lynching, but I guess those are some of the people that stormed the capital, their descendants, or some of those people, but the reason, again, I think it's important to reference this. The reason why this book is so important is that I think that the average American particularly Americans that are managing money, like many of our viewers, they don't understand the system and the processes that are in place that are actually sludging up the ability for social progress, human progress, policy progress, uh, all of this Byzantine stuff that you're describing very clearly by the way, uh, is something that Americans need to know about so that they can, uh, help to force a change, uh, procedural or otherwise. So

Adam Jentleson: (20:41)
If I can just put on this Jim Crow air for one second, cause I think it demonstrates an important point, please. So, you know, so this was, you know, the early first half of the 20th century, right, where we built post-war America, we built the middle-class. We, we, you know, advanced a lot of the policies that GI bill, um, you know, building the highway system, all these things that we think of when we think of what made America great and allowed the middle class to pride, what's really important to think of during this period is that every other bill besides civil rights passed or failed in the Senate, based on whether it could secure a majority Medicare, uh, there was a great memo from LBJ, his top legislative aid writing to LBJ saying that he's confident Medicare is going to pass because he could count a majority of senators in support of it.

Adam Jentleson: (21:23)
After it was clear, it was going to pass a bunch more senators jumped on board and it got up to 70 votes, but Medicare needed to clear a majority to pass that skit. Uh, it never faced a filibuster. So only civil rights was the only category of legislation that was forced to clear a super majority threshold during the first half of the 20th century. So you look at the experience of every other issue and you look at civil rights, every other issue was dealt with in a relatively timely fashion, America faced the challenges that it fit, that it was facing successfully more or less on civil rights and failed today. We are applying the standard that we applied to civil rights to every other issue, every other issue, except for the budget stuff, except for yes. That's right, right,

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:03)
Right. Okay. So, so there's a couple of Democrats that want to keep this in place. Right? Joe Manchin is one of them. Um, what, what, why, why would they want to keep this in place?

Adam Jentleson: (22:14)
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I think if you asked your mansion, he would say that it's because of Senate tradition and bipartisanship, and there's

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
An argument to my guest from Arizona is one of them as well, right?

Adam Jentleson: (22:24)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think what they would say I'm trying to do, do their argument objectively is that the filibuster is the last thing that would help facilitate bipartisanship because by insisting that you need 60 votes in this era where neither party is likely to control 60 votes in the Senate, in any point in the foreseeable future, it forces you to have bipartisanship, uh, because by its very nature, you have to have some Republicans involved to get the sixties. Um, but I would argue that the filibuster is actually stifling bipartisanship because the 60 votes is a pretty much an arbitrary number that they arrived at through a series of reforms through the latter half of the 20th century. Um, and you see a lot of opportunity to maybe get a few Republicans on board with certain policies and get you to 52 53, you know, maybe even 55 votes.

Adam Jentleson: (23:14)
Um, but you can't get the 60. And it's the impossibility of getting to 60 in our polarized environment means by partisanship is never going to happen. I look at things like the vote to call witnesses and the Trump impeachment trial. You actually had five Republicans crossover and vote with Democrats on that. So that was a bipartisan vote. You only need to clear a majority in that case. So it's succeeded, but let's say you had that on an infrastructure bill and five Republicans crossed over and voted with Democrats and you have 55 votes for an infrastructure bill. That would be a great bi-partisan achievement, especially in this day age to get five Republicans to support it, but it wouldn't pass because you couldn't get to 60. So even though it seems like it would facilitate bipartisanship by setting a basically impossible standard, it's actually making it impossible to get anything done in stifling, real opportunities for bipartisanship.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:00)
So at the same time that this is going on, um, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was instigated by your former boss. Uh, some of these confirmations that once required 60 votes are now down to the minor majority, uh, which was working well for Democrats. And then all of a sudden president Trump flipped it on him and it started working well for Republicans as it related to Supreme court justices and federal judges. Uh, tell us the history of that. Tell us what, uh, Harry Reed got right. And what he did.

Adam Jentleson: (24:30)
Yeah, sure. So this is, you know, th the debates are nominations in particular, judicial nominations go back to the 1980s. Some people would trace it to the fight over Robert pork's nomination under president Reagan. Um, and this was an issue, you know, both sides argued over under president Bush Republicans, uh, tried to go nuclear themselves to, uh, confirm some judicial nominees. Um, that was when this gang of 14 arose and, and sort of took the wind out of that, uh, effort and forced to compromise. Um, but this is sort of 2013. And Reed's decision was with the culmination of a decades long fight over nominations. What Reed was facing in 2013 was Republican obstruction that had gotten, uh, beyond any historical reference point of president Obama's nominees. And I'm talking about his judicial nominees and his nominees to cabinet positions faced that. Let me put this way.

Adam Jentleson: (25:19)
Half of all filibusters in American history against presidential nominees were waged against president Obama's nominees, the other half of filibusters against president's nominees where all of American history combined. So that's how bad it was. It was extreme. And so what we faced in 2013 was Obama just been reelected and nothing had changed. I think there was a brief period after his reelection where people thought the tea party fever would break. Republicans would start working with Democrats that wasn't happening. His nominees were still being obstructed. He was on track to have the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in any president since before Reagan. So we decided that the only thing he could do was to go nuclear effectively and lower the threshold to confirm nominees from 60 votes to the majority, um, where it is today. Um, he exempted Supreme court, uh, as the one category that would remain at 60 votes because we just simply didn't didn't have the votes for it.

Adam Jentleson: (26:10)
Um, but every other, uh, nominee the threshold came down to 15. What that allowed us to do was to convert, to confirm a wave of Obama, um, judicial nominees in a year and a half that we still have the majority from 2013 to 2014. And so that got Obama on par with all other precedents. If we hadn't gone, nuclear Obama would have left office with the fewest nominees since Reagan Trump would've arrived with even more, uh, open vacancies to fill. Now you could argue as some Hab that by going nuclear, we let Republicans more traditional knowledge. Um, that's a valid argument. I personally believe that if Democrats, if the filibuster for nominees it's still been in place and Democrats had been filibustering Trump's nominees in February, March of 2017 when he was still riding high, but Mitch McConnell would have gotten rid of that filibuster in a heartbeat, uh, and confirmed all denominations going to confirm anyway, and then we went to confirm this last wave of Obama nominees.

Adam Jentleson: (27:07)
So I happen to think that it was worth it because of the nominees that we were able to get confirmed, that the caudal would would've gone nuclear itself. We know that you values judicial nominees more than anything else. I think the idea that he would have, let Democrats stand in his way with the filibuster is unsupported by the evidence. Um, so that, that went through, if anything, I think that what we got wrong was not going far enough, uh, not lowering the threshold for Supreme court justices. He, he probably would have if he could have, but he couldn't get the votes. I like to think about how the Merrick Garland fight would have been different. If Democrats had only needed to get 50 votes to confirm Merrick Garland, instead of 60, it was very easy for McConnell to keep, you know, 14 Republicans from breaking away, um, and getting to 60.

Adam Jentleson: (27:47)
It might've been a lot harder for him to, to prevent only three or four Republicans that breaking way. So, you know, I think we should go further. I think a majority votes Senate, fundamentally benefits, progressives and liberals, more than Republicans as from a progressive perspective, but even from a healthy, balanced perspective, I think our country is in a good balance. When liberals come in and expand the social safety net, expand rights, uh, to new vulnerable populations, and then concern has come in and trim it back and cut back spending like that's a healthy balance, but right now our government can't get anything done. And we're failing to meet challenges like global warming and income inequality and all these things, and we're crippled as a country. And so we've lost that, that balance between the two sides.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:30)
So, you know, listen, you're, you're excellent at explaining it you're even better at writing about it, by the way. I thought the book was phenomenal. I have one last question that I have to turn it over to the millennial, although gentle you look a little bit like a millennial to me too. So I'm probably going to get mad at you before this thing is over that you're right at the cusp of two young people's may smack your two heads together, but the, uh, the title kill switch, I think is a very effective title. Drew my eye calls me to order the book, frankly. Uh, and then once I got it, I started reading it and I became fascinated by it. Um, why did you title it kill switch? And what is the reception for this in Washington DC?

Adam Jentleson: (29:13)
Well, I titled the kill switch cause I was writing it in the basement and I was looking at the electrical box in the basement and thinking to myself, you know, what is something that shuts down a system and, you know, in your electrical box, there's that kill switch that shuts down the entire system. And that to me is what the Senate has become. Um, you know, we think of it as a cooling sauce or a place where good ideas go to be, you know, uh, cooled and, and developed thoughtfully. It's not bad anymore. Now it's a kill switch. It shuts down our entire system's ability to process change in a thoughtful, constructive, bipartisan way. Um, so that's how I came up with, with the title there. Um, their assumption honestly has, has been very encouraging. Um, I've been, uh, very pleased, not just with how it has been received by Democrats, but also received by a lot of conservatives.

Adam Jentleson: (29:57)
Um, uh, max boot, the conservative intellectual, uh, said that my book convinced him, uh, that filibuster reform was necessary. David, from a former Bush speech writer has written very positively about it in the Atlantic. Um, uh, so I I've been, I think people have engaged with the material in a thoughtful way. Um, I, my politics are on my sleeve. I write, I state that in the book. Um, but I tried to approach it objectively to give Mitch McConnell equal time to try to help people understand what makes him tick, not just slam him. Um, and the same with, with Democrats and Republicans throughout the era. I mean, you know, as I explained in the book, Republicans were much better on civil rights than Democrats for a lot of the 20th century. And I tried to give, give credit where do there. So I'm, I've been very happy with the way it's been received. Uh, I hope, uh, folks, if they're interested we'll, we'll um, give it a try. Uh, but I think it's, it's, it's gotten a good reception so far.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:51)
I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey. Uh, I hope a lot of the things that you're recommending do come to pass for the United States, that he'd be very beneficial. And I think what you're saying is very balanced in terms of the course corrections that are needed, but also the expansion of our society as it relates to social justice and more progress for people that for whatever reason have been left out of the society. And so, uh, you know, one of the books that, uh, I'm sure you've read or know about is Jola Poor's book, uh, which really writes candidly about the American historical achievements, but also some of the things that were setbacks, uh, for America as it's rising towards social progress. So, um, amazing book, uh, Adam, I got to turn it over to your fellow millennial. Okay. So he'll try to outshine me now, but that's fine. In the meantime, I'm sh I'm showing your book to hopefully stop him from outshining me. The book is fantastic. Go ahead, John Dorsey. Yeah. I mean,

John Darcie: (31:50)
It's an incredibly relevant book and I don't know that you wrote about it, uh, with foreshadowing of the context that we exist in today. So it couldn't have been more timely in terms of, uh, what's happening in Congress, but you talked about Mitch McConnell. So I want to go deeper into that, you know, from a distance I look at McConnell and it's hard to figure out exactly what does make him tick and what his end game is and what he really wants. You know, he's somebody who has as much as anyone prevented progress from the left, but he also has been critical of Trump. You voted yes on Merritt Garland's confirmation, uh, this week. And, and he's somebody who every once in a while, he throws you an olive branch to signal that maybe he's not unreasonable and he's not just an obstructionist, but what does make him tick? And what's the method in the madness,

Adam Jentleson: (32:38)
What them tick is a desire for power. Um, I think that's basically, and I don't even, I don't say that necessarily in a critical way. I think that was probably true of Senator Reed as well. Um, but, but what makes McConnell especially effective at what he does is that he's able to cloak that sort of naked drive for power in this sense of institutional preservation and tradition. And he's better at that than anybody I've ever seen. But what was interesting in the research for the book is you go back and you see that this was a pattern. And that folks like Richard Russell of Georgia, who was sort of the biggest champion of the filibuster, uh, in the middle of the 20th century and an a valid white supremacist, I don't use that term lightly, his own words. He stated that his, uh, he said, uh, any Southern man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to preserve white supremacy.

Adam Jentleson: (33:27)
Uh, he was very open about the fact that his mission in public service was to preserve white supremacy. So I don't use that lightly, that those were his words. He similar to McConnell, uh, was an expert at, at making massive power grabs and changing the Senate in, in big ways and strengthening the filibuster in his own time. But convincing everybody that he was doing it in the service of traditional John Calhoun in his own time, same thing. He was the first person to start grafting this idea of minority rights onto obstruction in saying, we're not obstructing, we're trying to preserve minority rights. So I see a line, um, throughout history from Calhoun to Russell to McConnell, uh, in that ability to advance your own political interests and change the Senate in ways that advantage you, but it convinced everybody, but you're doing it in the name of tradition. Um, so I think it's, it's that what makes him tick is that drive for power and what makes them effective at it is this ability to sort of present himself as, as an institutionalist, as he does it

John Darcie: (34:24)
And his dislike for Trump. Do you think that's born out of a sorrel sort of a moral objection to things that have happened, whether it be the insurrection or things prior to that, or do you think it's the fact that Trump threatened his sort of Supreme power over the Republican party and how it operates?

Adam Jentleson: (34:42)
I think that McConnell has a complicated relationship with Trump because I actually think he owes a lot to Trump. As I write in the book in the period between 2014 and 2016 McConnell was in trouble. He was, uh, the top target of the tea party, um, who had just ousted John Bainer as speaker in October of 2015. So this was a very credible threat and they were coming after McConnell and saying, you're next? And Mark Meadows, uh, Mulvaney when they were in Congress were quoted saying, we're coming after you McConnell. And so when Trump came onto the scene, you know, McConnell opposed him and as he to the primary, but once you got the nomination, McConnell realized that Trump, he could sort of draft in Trump's wake and Trump would protect his right flank. And so I have trouble crediting McConnell's objection is deeply moral because through most of the four years of Trump's rise and time and power McConnell did everything Trump wanted him to do.

Adam Jentleson: (35:32)
He protected him to the, to impeachment trials. He protected Trump. It sort of lost a memory, but when Trump made a major power grab to end the government shutdown and unilaterally ship funds in a massive violation of Congress's power of the purse, carnal backed, um, at the time that was the thing everybody said, this is going to be the break. This is what's going to cause McConnell to break with Trump didn't happen. Um, and then, you know, he did eventually come out and acknowledged Biden's win, but he, it took him a month. And so right after the election McConnell went to the Senate floor and said it Trump's challenges to the election were valid. And I think that institutional stamp of approval on Trump's challenges for a whole month, did a lot to signal to other Republicans that they should, uh, support the challenges. So I have trouble giving him credit for sort of late in the game, trying to sort of recoup some, some respect and credibility, uh, and coming out for Trump's. I don't, I don't credit it as moral. Unfortunately I think it's, you know, he was, he was right behind Trump winning advantage him, preserve his own power. And I think that's, that's sort of just how he, how he works.

John Darcie: (36:32)
So we talked earlier about Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kiersten cinema and Arizona being the two most noteworthy Democrats that are looking to preserve the filibuster because they think it will lead to some level of bipartisanship. But if you look at the stakes of current legislation, that Democrats are putting forth, like the John Lewis voting rights act, for example, uh, that would increase access to voting rights, uh, for future elections, cyclical forces indicate that Republicans could easily take back control of Congress in 2022, uh, in both both sides of Congress as well. Do they realize what's at stake? And how is the rest of the party trying to communicate and get through to them about the importance, especially at this moment in time, specifically of ending that Philip Buster,

Adam Jentleson: (37:17)
It's not clear to me that they understand what's at stake yet, but I think, I think they will be made to understand by the, by the, their, um, colleagues, because I think initially they thought they were going to come out. You're going to have to take the Stanford Senate tradition. I think they expected a lot of people to be cheering them on. I think they probably are a little bit surprised at how quick the consensus is formed against the filibuster. You have folks like David Brooks running column saying Democrats would probably get rid of it. I don't think they expected that. I think they expected to have more of a cheering section. And then in addition, I think they thought by standing in support of the filibuster, they will be opposing far left policies like Medicare for all the green new deal. Um, but it's very clear those things couldn't pass even in a 50 votes Senate cause Joe Manchin could vote against them.

Adam Jentleson: (37:57)
And that's that. Um, and, and what they're really standing away over must pass things for all Democrats like voting rights, uh, and other major pillars of the Biden agenda. So I think these four walls are sort of closing in on them in a way, because, you know, they're not standing against far-left policy, they're standing against the basic success or failure of the Biden administration and of all of their colleagues who were up on the ballot in 2022, you know, Mark Kelly, Kristin Sinema, his fellow Senator in Arizona is up again in 2022 because even though he just won election, it's a special election. So he has to run again. He needs accomplishments to win. He needs to be able to go to Arizona lawyers and say, look at everything we accomplished, especially to withstand the historical forces. You're talking about where the party that just won the white house usually loses the midterms.

Adam Jentleson: (38:42)
So I think at the end of the day, the pressure is going to build on them where their fellow colleagues and hopefully eventually the white house are gonna come to them and say, look, we've tried everything. We've exhausted all attempts at bipartisanship. Just look at this Republican party. If you think bipartisanship is just about the flourish, I don't know what you're smoking. Uh, and we got to get things done. So I think that's the pressure that's going to build on them. And I think within a relatively short amount of time, months, not years, that will become unbearable pressure for them. And I think you will see them shift. You've already seen mansion shift a little bit, I would think is very significant.

John Darcie: (39:15)
Right? Last question, before we let you go, uh, you can answer this one quickly, but we recently did assault talk to interview with Jonathan Allen of NBC and Amy Parnas of the hill. And they, based on the research they did for their book called lucky, which is about how Biden narrowly won the election. Their opinion is that Biden actually likes having mansion and cinema as a heat shield, he and other moderate Democrats, because they, it allows them to have cover, um, to not pass some of these more progressive pieces of legislation. Uh, but at the same time, they, they liked the idea of compromise and bipartisanship as well. Do you subscribe to that notion that Biden himself, uh, doesn't necessarily want rapid progressive, uh, legislation? Or do you think that's?

Adam Jentleson: (39:59)
I think, I think that's probably right. I think Biden is very comfortable in the middle. Um, I think some of the more, uh, lefty promises he made during the campaign, you'd be happy to see those fall away melt against the heat shield. But I think that what's going to happen is eventually, you know, it's going to become clear that it's not just the far left policies that are being blocked. It's the middle of the road policies too, like an infrastructure bill. And at that point, I think the conversation gets very serious about reform. And I think you can even expect to see the white house start to engage more seriously than because, you know, they love to see bipartisanship flourish agenda Saki at the white house press secretary said recently that it was their preference not to change the filibuster rules. Um, but you know, we all have our preferences and sometimes they don't happen. So I think what's going to happen is we're going to see that the filibuster is blocking not far left policies, but middle of the road policies too. And at that point, uh, I think the conversation is going to get very real about reform.

John Darcie: (40:52)
Well, Adam gentlemen, it's a pleasure to have you on salt talks. The book again is called kill switch. Anthony, if you want to hold it up, uh, one more time, again, extremely timely, given the environment we're in, in the conversation,

Adam Jentleson: (41:03)
Good for something on Dorsey's program. So that all Sears is a phenomenal book. I wish you great success with it. And you got to get your name and your voice out there because what you're offering is common sense solutions to some of the policy inertia and some of the policy Madness's out there. Uh, and I greatly appreciate reading it because it explained a lot of the reasons why we can't get anything done at them. So anyway, kill switch, Adam Jensen, uh, best of luck to you with the book. And, uh, hopefully we can get you to one of our live events, uh, when we get back out of the pandemic. It sounds great. It was great to be here, guys. Thank you very much.

John Darcie: (41:46)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt. Talk with Adam gentlemen, author of a new book called kill switch about, uh, the Senate, how it was originally constructed and how it's operating in modern times. A fantastic again, very timely book. Just a reminder, if you miss any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes of salt talks, you can access our entire archive@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Amie Parnes & Jonathan Allen: “Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won The Presidency" | SALT Talks #179

“It was all eyes on South Carolina, but more importantly, the Jim Clyburn endorsement. That wasn’t a sure thing. Clyburn had some concessions including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to nominate a black Supreme Court justice.”

Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen co-authored Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency, their third such collaboration. Parnes is the senior correspondent at The Hill where she covers the Biden White House and national politics. Allen is a senior political analyst at NBC News Digital, and is a winner of the Dirksen and Hume awards for reporting.

Despite receiving over 7 million more total votes, Joe Biden ultimately won the 2020 presidential election by margins even thinner than by which Trump won in 2016. This is due to the nature of the Electoral College and the role a handful of swing states play. Republicans took a laser-focused approach to deciding and executing a path victory whereas Democrats created several paths. For Democrats, the race was much closer than they ever expected. “If 22K of Biden’s voters [across GA, WI and AZ] had flipped to the other side, Donald Trump is president again.”

Early in the Democratic Primary, Biden didn’t receive significant support from the establishment in which he’d been such a powerful figure. Biden effectively navigated the Democratic Primary by placing himself between the far left wing of his party and Donald Trump, ultimately lifting himself above the fray at times. Biden performed badly in the early states and was desperate to get to his firewall state, South Carolina, where Jim Clyburn’s endorsement gave Biden’s campaign a much needed boost. “Clyburn had some concessions including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to nominate a black Supreme Court justice.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Jonathan Allen.jpeg

Jonathan Allen

Senior Political Analyst

NBC News

Amie Parnes.jpeg

Amie Parnes

Senior Correspondent

The Hill

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome two co-authors to salt talks who wrote a brilliant book about the 2020 election. Uh, those guests are Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnas. Um, Jonathan is a senior political analyst at NBC news digital, a winner of the Dirksen and humor awards for reporting. He was previously the white house bureau chief for Politico and the Washington bureau chief for Bloomberg news.

John Darcie: (01:01)
He appears, appears regularly on national television television programs and as the author of multiple books, including his most recent book, lucky that we're going to talk about today. Uh, Amy is the senior correspondent for the hill newspaper in Washington, where she covers the Biden white house and national politics. She was previously a staff writer at Politico where she covered the Senate, the 2008 presidential election and the Obama white house. She also appears regularly on national television television programs. And as the co-author of the book that I mentioned previously called lucky, uh, hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. He's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital as well as the chairman of salts. And with no further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Anthony, to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:47)
Well, first of all, guys, thank you so much for joining and you, you know, I'm not that self promotional, right? So look at me holding the book up here for everybody to say. So a book is a brilliantly written. It is a great narrative and it's a page Turner. You can't get to the end of the chapter without wanting to take a peek into the next chapter. And so even though people know the ending of this book, uh, it's, it's a very compelling story. So I want to start with you, Amy. Uh, why did you title the book? Lucky? Why was Joe Biden? Lucky?

Amie Parnes: (02:21)
That's a very good question, Anthony. And thank you for having us. Um, I think that it's funny, John and I got into a little bit of a back and forth over lucky. Um, but I think, you know, cause some people say, what do you mean lucky? What do you mean he barely won? Um, and I think they're looking really at the popular vote. You know, everyone is so proud of the 81 million number, but what John and I do is we take a closer look, we take you inside the campaign, obviously, but in the very end, um, the margins were a lot tighter than even 2016 and Joe Biden ended up winning by 43,000 votes. So when people say 81 million that's it's right, but it's not really accurate about how we run our electoral system, which runs on the electoral college. Um, and so that was actually ended up to be a very tight election of me end

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:12)
43,000 votes. And just for our listeners, uh, you're talking about swing, state electoral activity on the margin he won by 43,000 votes in approximately four states. Is that

Jonathan Allen: (03:26)
Yeah, it's three states is Georgia, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:32)
Thousand in Georgia. And what were the totals in Arizona and Wisconsin? Roughly 15. Yeah.

Jonathan Allen: (03:37)
Yeah, roughly roughly 15. Each one of the states was a quarter of a point. One was a third of a point. One was two thirds of a point. Um, you know, we're talking about an election where 158 million people voted, you're talking about Trump needed 43,000 more to win or that they think about it differently. If 22,000, essentially 21,000 of Biden's voters in those three states had flipped to the other side, Donald Trump's president. Again,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:03)
It's interesting. Cause I, you know, I recommended the book over the weekend, just holding it up again, lucky, um, how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. I recommended it to Dick Gephardt over the weekend because it's, it's a compelling story, but it also tells you how razor thin things are in the United States. And before we get into the nits of the book, I just wanted to ask you a quick question about the Republican strategy because you know, Jonathan, it seems like the Republicans have read your book or knew the book because they're sitting there with the 43,000 votes and Lindsey Graham saying Trump plus a and his idea is Trump plus will get us back to the presidency and possibly retaking the house, the notion that they can dig up instead of expanding the base, they want to dig deeper into the base, uh, and find more and more quote unquote maggot people. What's your reaction to that?

Jonathan Allen: (04:58)
I mean, I think Lindsey Graham is as often he is reacting to the moment I was skeptical of the degree to which Donald Trump could be successful in a second presidential election by finding more of the mag of people. I mean, like I just dig deeper, seem to me to be a bad way to go about winning an election, uh, after the last time. And yet he expanded his electrode significantly, or I should say deepened, his electrode significantly 74 million votes this time. Uh, it had been 62 million, I think the previous time it's just that the democratic side grew so much, but one thing Republicans are very good at is understanding the rules of the game that they're playing. And if a presidential election of an electoral college, uh, game is essentially a chess match, there are a lot of Democrats that are trying to win by kicking field goals.

Jonathan Allen: (05:49)
They're like how many voters can we get? And we see what goes on in these two camps that Democrats are always talking about. Here are three or four paths that we could take to win the electoral college majority. And the Trump side is always talking about what is the path that's most likely, how and how do we optimize that pack? And this time the Democrats won, but I think most Americans were surprised by the closest to the race. If they looked at it, it took four days to call this racing. I mean, and anybody who says this wasn't a close race is not close to what was going on inside the campaigns where both of them between 9:00 PM and 11:00 PM on election night, didn't know how it was going to come out until Fox called Arizona, which changed things a little.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:32)
Yeah. And they stayed with that call, which I thought was interesting despite the pressure from, uh, uh, the president's campaign. Um, you know, it's interesting because the last time I spoke to president Trump, I can tell you it was, uh, Easter Sunday. Uh, it was April 21st, 2019. He was yelling at me saying, cause I had just written a article that the press was not the enemy of the people. I know you two don't look like the enemy to me. I wrote an article. It was, it was published in the hill. Uh, he yelled at me and he said something to me, Seminole, that I'll share with you. He said, yeah. I said, well, sir, aren't you trying to expand the base and go after independence and moderates? He said, no, I'm working on the base. I'll let everything else take care of itself. It was an interesting strategy as you point out, he almost won it using that strategy. Uh, but let me ask you, do you think that, uh, Joe, Amy, do you think that Joe Biden would have one without the pandemic, without the widespread mail-in voting?

Amie Parnes: (07:33)
I think it's something that definitely contributed to his win. Um, and I think as we reported in the book, what's really interesting is we have a lot of, obviously on Joe Biden, but we have a lot on Donald Trump too. And, um, there was a point in February of 20, 20 last year when Brad Parscale Trump's campaign manager went up to him in the oval and basically said, this pandemic is going to be your undoing and Trump didn't ticket seriously. And he said, what do you mean this has nothing to do with politics. Um, and so you look at a moment like that and it's sort of revealing, um, on one hand I think the Biden campaign kind of took advantage of it. Um, they used it to their advantage by kind of keeping him, um, inside and, um, you know, parading the whole, which, which was, is the right thing to do obviously, but parading it around like he's inside and he's, he's taking all the health precautions. Um, but I think we have a quote in the book, um, that talks about Anita Dunn telling an associate COVID is the best thing that ever happened to him because what it did was it essentially, um, kept him off the campaign trail. And, um, we all know that he is prone to making gaps and this sort of kept him from doing that and kind of embarrassing himself, which is a concern that a lot of Democrats had at the time,

Jonathan Allen: (08:55)
From there on conversely you've got, uh, president Trump out there everyday, um, you know, taking charge and, uh, and telling people that they should inject disinfected. Um, you know, th th he had those daily briefings from the white house when, at a time when even the scientists were in some disagreement about where this thing was headed and what to do about it. And there's the president giving advice like, um, you know, as if you were an epidemiologist, uh, but an epidemiologist who's giving bad advice. And so it highlights that the sort of, uh, contrast that Biden would want, which is Biden is not out there making mistakes. And Trump is out there making mistakes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:33)
So, you know, before facing off with Donald Trump Biden struggled, and th this is a great part of the book, which, uh, I was actually reading last night, he's getting destroyed in places like Iowa, New Hampshire. And now he's coming down to the quote unquote firewall. Tell us about that situation. Tell us about that seminal moment, which seems like it was the huge inflection point in his ascendancy to the presidency.

Amie Parnes: (10:03)
Well, he, um, he obviously wasn't doing so well. We all know that he was losing an Iowa came in fourth, came in fifth to New Hampshire. There was a moment in time where they actually discussed whether he should refinance his house because they were running out of money. I think at the low point, they had 1.5 million, which is not a lot of money to run a campaign. And so they, you know, even Biden was sort of trying to convince people to hang on, obviously his aids, where he told his own wife, Jill Biden, hang on until South Carolina hang on. Um, so obviously he had a lot of doubters around him. Um, but so he gets to, he goes to Nevada, he comes in second, he goes to South Carolina and it's all eyes sort of on that state, but more importantly, the Jim Cliburn endorsement. And that, wasn't a sure thing as we reported the book, um, he, Jim Cliburn had some concessions, including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to, uh, nominee a Supreme, a black Supreme court justice.

Amie Parnes: (11:06)
And, um, so everyone's watching this debate play out, um, in South Carolina, Jim Cliburn is in the audience. And one of the best scenes, I think one of my favorite students in the book is Jim Cliburn sitting there watching Joe Biden. Um, he hasn't yet said in this debate that he's his intentions about nominating a black Supreme court justice. So during the commercial break, um, Kleiber dashes out of his seat and his colleagues think that he just has to go to the bathroom really badly, turns out he's making a beeline for Joe Biden, and he wants to talk to Biden about why he hasn't done that, why he hasn't had that moment yet. Um, and so we kind of take you behind the scenes of how Joe Biden was able to get the, the pivotal Cliburn endorsement, which key to sort of turning around his campaign. We think that obviously Joe Biden would have won South Carolina, but the collaborate endorsement made it, um, it, it gave him sort of the gravitas to go forward and keep going and win ultimately, and super cheap on super Tuesday.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:10)
So let's talk about the left though. You know, I don't want to call it the radical left, but let's just call it the left side of the democratic party. Um, he's, you know, uh, vice and now president Biden's sought to downplay that portion of the party. Um, tell us about that. What was your experience there? You write some great stories in there about AOC, et cetera. Um, how was he able to pull that off and where do you think it goes now that he's in the presidency? Is he going to be able to contain what I would say is the hard left side of his party?

Jonathan Allen: (12:44)
That's a great question, Anthony. I mean, early on, you've got, uh, you've got Biden asking his advisors before he gets in, and we write about this in the book, ask them, you know, if I miss my moment, has the party moved so far to the left of me, that as it left me is looking at these voices, Bernie Sanders, I was Andrew Ocasio Cortez, and he's thinking like the movement within the democratic party, the activism, the volume is coming from a place that's, you know, significantly to Biden's left. Um, and I think that what you see from him is a very artful, you know, we would have called it in the old days, triangulation where he's able to use the left part of his party to like distance from them. And at the same time distances from Trump and can put himself in the middle and a little bit above it all.

Jonathan Allen: (13:29)
Um, and, uh, you know, it ends up, I think it's very difficult to win a democratic party, a direct democratic primary without being in touch with, uh, with activists on the left, unless you've got like an unusual coalition, his coalition was moderate white people and black people of all sort of all political, uh, beliefs. Um, and that turned out to be strong enough to get him through the, the primary. It gets to the general. He distances continues to descend from the left. I mean, here's a guy saying I'm not going to say it to fund the police. And there's a big argument about that within his campaign. Here's a guy saying Bernie is too far out. So spinning a board a little bit. He's going to have a little, he's going to have a problem because he had a friendly in Bernie Sanders, um, and had a friendly on, on the left side during this election, they basically stuffed their priorities into the back seat to get Joe Biden elected. And right now there's a little bit of a honeymoon period, but that's not going to last forever. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:29)
What happens, Amy? It can, he, can he corral them?

Amie Parnes: (14:35)
Um, it's, it's too soon to say Anthony. I mean, I think that what we've seen lately is, um, a party that is still very much divided. And so I think, um, what's fascinating about this book, I think is that it not only is a post-mortem, uh, um, the campaign, but it is sort of like a guidebook for both parties, I think, to learn what went wrong, what happened and how you play it forward to 2022 and 2024, because you take Donald Trump out of the picture. And I think it's a whole different ball game. Um, you know, obviously I think a lot of people were inspired to run, to vote against Donald Trump. I'm not sure that they'll have that sort of weapon if you will, next time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:22)
So let, let let's talk about the, the upcoming election, the congressional election, uh, because you do write about that, you know, the trajectory of the American electorate. So what do you guys think happens in the midterms? Let's start with you, Jonathan.

Jonathan Allen: (15:39)
Well, I mean, the easy bet to take would be that the Republicans pick up seats, uh, certainly in the house, uh, probably retake the house just on the historical basis of the first midterm after, after a new president. But even more than that, what we saw was Biden didn't really have coattails. Um, and so what you saw down ballot was Republicans winning a lot of state legislative races, which means they're going to be in a better position. Um, as, uh, the parties redraw, the states redraw their congressional districts. I mean, the Republicans should be able to squeeze at least several seats out of that. So for the Democrats to win in the midterms and keep control of the house, they're going to have to figure out how to sell something to the public even better than they did last time. The good thing they have going for them is that, uh, what you've seen is a push of educated voters into the democratic party at the same time that non-college educated voters have moved into the Republican party and you are much more likely to vote in a midterm if you're college educated and has been consistent over the course of time.

Jonathan Allen: (16:38)
So there are a lot of competing, um, sort of pressures or sort of factors that will go into it. Um, but you know, I would have to just bet from today that it's more likely that the Republicans pick up seats in the house. You gotta look at the Senate map, you know, state by state. We don't know who's running it. Um, so, but at 50 50, that could go either way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:00)
Is Trump running again? Let's start with you, Amy.

Amie Parnes: (17:05)
Um, I don't think so. Although I, I, it asked me tomorrow. I feel like it changes day by day. I mean, I just, I think obviously there's room for him to run again, but I think, um, four years is a long time. I know it's still the party of Trump. I know Trump will be around for a long time. I just might. My hunch has to know what do you think, John?

Jonathan Allen: (17:30)
Uh, I I'll take the other side of that a little bit in that. Uh, I think he's running until he's not. Um, I think all of these people that get to that level look, Joe Biden. This is the third time he ran for president. As we write in the book, there were several other times that he didn't run, but thought about running. You get that taste in your mouth and it's real hard to get rid of it. Of course, we should defer to Anthony who's, who knows Donald Trump better than we do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:56)
I'm too much money guy. So of course he's going to run in the beginning. I mean, he has to, I mean, he wants to, uh, take his name off of Republican party fundraising because he wants to target his name for his own fundraising because that's his personality and he never made more money than he did after the election. So the whole ruse and the lie and all that stuff related to the, uh, the post election theatrically, um, you know, made him a couple of hundred million dollars and he's never made money like that before. So I think he will run again. Um, when, when, when you interview American people, not just the sources that you have inside the political arena or the business arena, but just the average Americans, because you guys do a lot of that in your field research, uh, you know, the polls say that 50 million or so people believe that the election was fraudulent. What is your reaction to that? Is that something you found in your research when you're doing a book like this, and what do you say to people about whether or not the election was a free and fair non fraudulent election?

Amie Parnes: (19:03)
It's amazing to me that people actually think that. And I think John and I had a very, um, you know, really personal kind of conversation about it, um, right after the 6th of January. Um, because as we were writing this book, I think we had some concerns that people might, uh, perceive lucky to be. Um, you know, president Trump could run with that and say, see, it was, it was all luck. It wasn't really, this wasn't really set in stone and he didn't really win. Um, so I think that part is very interesting. I think what we had to make clear in this book was that, uh, Joe Biden and we do so in our authors note, right before you even enter the first page of the book, but you sort of see that we've kind of set the ground and said, Joe Biden actually really did win this race. Um, there wasn't any fraud and we kind of wanted to say that right away before people misinterpreted what we were trying to say, because I think

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:01)
Is that the people that are reading your book know that there was no fraud. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? It's like the people that are out there in that ether, if you will, you know, yeah.

Jonathan Allen: (20:11)
The million people is amazing Anthony and how to reach those people, you know? And when we, you know, when we do, when we do reporting and obviously because of, COVID less like less able to do that toward the end of the selection we have in the past, you've talked to people, we'll have a wide variety of beliefs and some of them have a wide variety of things that they say to people that say to reporters that they don't actually believe or that they question, but would, you know, they like to be on that, that side, you know, sort of publicly. And I think that some of those 50 million probably understand that Trump lost the election and there wasn't fraud.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:44)
Amy, there's a juicy story that guys left on the cutting room floor. Okay. And I'm sure there is a, that you guys, it's a great book, but you can't fit everything in and tell us something really juicy that you guys decided to leave out of the book.

Amie Parnes: (20:59)
Oh gosh. Well, you know, what was really tricky about this book, Anthony, is that we had 25 candidates to focus on. So there was a lot, um, you know, it's hard to cover and write a book when you're focused on so many people and we had to winnow them down. I'm trying to think, John, do you have a good anecdote? Um, something that we,

Jonathan Allen: (21:19)
I think w we cut, we actually cut out, um, a fair amount of, uh, the machinations around Pete Buddha, judge getting out of the race, which I thought was interesting. Um, you know, we kept in sort of the important parts of every moment

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:37)
Mayor budaj coming out of the race was a big moment because he was able to flip a lot of his voters over to the vice-president, right. Or

Jonathan Allen: (21:43)
Now, I mean, when you saw that coalescing right before super Tuesday, uh, it was because people would have judge and Amy Klobuchar got out because Beto O'Rourke endorsed Joe Biden because Barack Obama really, because Barack Obama got off the sidelines, um, and sort of pushing behind the scenes for people to get behind Biden. So, uh, we cut out some of the discussion that, that Buddha judge had with his staff and the sort of the evolution, the reality, the realization of reality, that he could only hurt himself by continuing to run, um, because he wasn't going to win the nomination. Uh, he might win a couple more states, you know, build this political operational a little bit more, but he would be seen as selfish if he stayed in. And we, we caught a little bit of that out just for essentially just for space. Um, but watching the machinations of Buddha judge, I think is really interesting because he is somebody who understands politics very, very well and is pretty cold, such a hard word, but he's pretty cold about the calculations of it all. And you could, you could see that and we cut some of it out. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:46)
Have to be a little bit cold speaking about cold. Let's go to the Obama Biden relationship. Okay. So it's a good segue. So tell us about that. Tell us, tell our listeners and viewers something about the Obeid in, excuse me, the Obama Biden relationship that they wouldn't necessarily know unless they've read your book or had your research behind it.

Amie Parnes: (23:08)
Um, I think it's a fascinating relationship, a complicated one. I do think they genuinely like each other, but the caveat as we record in the book, there's so much there. Um, I guess we should start with the fact that Obama sort of, uh, kept Biden out of the race in 2016. So that's in the back of his mind, but you know, when Biden even enters the race, he says, I asked my former partner, president Obama, not to endorse me. And what we learn is that that conversation never happened. And it's something that Biden repeatedly says throughout the campaign. I asked him not to Norse me. Um, but Obama people were kind of scratching their heads about that because that never happened. Um, we also reported the book, a really fascinating anecdote about, um, Obama going to speak to some black donors. He's close with a few of them.

Amie Parnes: (24:01)
He feels a little loose in the room. He feels like he can open up and tell them what exactly he thinking. And so they're asking him, what do you think about the horse race? Who's up, who's down. And, um, what are you, what are your thoughts? And he sort of gives a very long sermon about Elizabeth Warren, um, and it's, uh, kind of endorsing her without endorsing her. And he doesn't really say much about Kamala Harris. He, he bashes eat a little bit, um, and calls him short and gay, um, you know, sort of razzing him a little bit. And then the kicker, I think the fascinating part about this whole talk is that he forgets Biden and he has to be reminded by a donor in the room that he has forgotten by it. And someone actually said he forgot about it. Um, which kind of gives you a window into his thinking in that moment in the fall of 2019 as this election is heating up. But

Jonathan Allen: (24:57)
There are so many ways in this book that you see Anthony that Obama doesn't think that Biden's very good at politics and Biden. Doesn't think that Obama is very good at politics. Um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:08)
You know, I, I'm just giving you my observation, knowing some, a little bit about both of them and the vice-president obviously now president came to my, came to our conference a few years ago and I I've known president Obama dating back to law school. Uh, there's a discipline chasm there between the two candidates, you know, w w you know, I can't tell you, you know, how wide that chasm is because it's wider than the grand canyon. One is a Malaprop stir improvisational guy, you know, very chummy. And the other guy is a lot like mayor Pete, Buddha, judge, you know, he's very, you know, he's like a laser, you know, he's a, uh, he's the American sniper, uh, politics, and he's very disciplined. So I think that's where some of the tension is. That's my opinion. What's your reaction to that?

Jonathan Allen: (25:54)
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I mean, they look at each other, they don't, they kind of don't understand each other, right? Like Obama beach Biden in 2008, Biden gets like 1% in Iowa. Obama was like, this guy is going to not do me any damage. If I put them on my ticket, he'll balance my ticket. Is it like an old white guy that people think is like relatively avuncular, he's not a problem for me, you know? And nobody's going to pay attention with the vice-president says anyway, so like, he's good for me. He's helpful. Fine. Looks at Obama. And he's like, this guy's like so cold. There's no, like, there's no feel to them. There's no touch. There's no love that. Like sort of political glad-handing. I mean, you're absolutely right, Anthony, these, these guys couldn't be more different than what's interesting. We write this in the book, but like, they basically see their mentor and mentee, but they disagree on which one's the mentor, which one's the mentee

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:42)
Generational issue there as well. I have to speaking of generational issues, I have to turn it over to John Dorsey so that we can get the ratings up. Okay. Because he gets fan mail and it's horrifying. Amy, I got to tell you it's hurt my self esteem and my, my ego, you know, how shy and reserved I am. You you've seen that in action. So go ahead, Darcie. I know you're dying to ask some questions here,

Jonathan Allen: (27:10)
Alpha, alpha coming in. Yeah, that's exactly right now in your generation alpha squared. This

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:20)
SOP, go ahead, Darcie, go ahead. I know you're dying. I may ask the questions. So I just

John Darcie: (27:24)
Want to pry a little bit more on the Obama piece. Cause I found that one of the most fascinating aspects of the book is, you know, you dove deeper into this, uh, you know, the fact that they weren't really seeing eye to eye in this book that I've ever read previously, there was some indication in 2016 that Obama discouraged Biden from running in that election. Uh, and there's some indication that he wasn't keen on Biden running in 2020 and casting a shadow across the party. Again, do you think that's accurate based on your reporting that Obama basically didn't want Biden out there damaging his own legacy by running in these elections?

Amie Parnes: (27:59)
Yeah. I mean, we have a meeting very early on where he calls Obama calls somebody and aids to his office and wants to know more about the campaign and how they're going to run the campaign and what the tone is going to be. Like. He basically is worried that the campaign will not only embarrass Joe Biden and he he'll embarrass himself, but he'll embarrass and tarnish the Obama legacy. Um, and so we take you inside that meeting. It's actually a really fascinating one where, you know, you're kind of seeing what's on the former president's mind as Joe Biden is thinking about entering. And I always think that Biden kind of felt a little hurt by the fact that, um, Obama kind of checked him out of the race. He always sort of felt like Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. He said as much as we report as much of the book, um, he was helping, he actually offered advice to Bernie Sanders at the time about how to beat Hillary Clinton. And so, um, that is a really fascinating angle that he, he kind of felt a little bit, um, miffed by being kind of kept out. And he was also annoyed with Hillary at the time who he felt box to now. Um, he L already, uh, she had already locked down all of his donors and, um, Hillary was at the time taking hits on him to keep him out of the race. So I think all of that is sort of, uh, permeating in his mind as he's entering the race. It's a fascinating dynamic.

Jonathan Allen: (29:29)
The greatest beneficiary of Hillary Clinton's defeat was Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton wins when's the first time she was running for reelection, Joe Biden never gets to run for president again. Now he's president United States, but back to your point about Obama and Biden, just real quick. The other thing that happened here over the course of the last two election cycles is essentially a rejection of Barack Obama. Um, not a full rejection necessarily, but you see Trump win, right? And that's its own rejection of Obama from the sort of broader electorate, but then Joe Biden winning a democratic nomination. This guy who's got this sort of moderate politics, uh, who, um, is very, very careful on issues involving race. He sort of used it as a fulcrum in his career. Um, you know, figuring out where to be on majority side at one point or another, it's basically rejection of the progressive piece of Obama, uh, within the democratic party. And so if you're Obama, you look at where are things eight years after you were president of the United States in order for Democrats to win, they've gotta be politically significantly to your right.

John Darcie: (30:34)
So do you think that portends a continued moderation of the democratic party? Have they adjudicated as a party that they can't win by running these far left candidates? Or how do you think somebody like Bernie Sanders would have fared? Uh, it will say the same scenario played out with the pandemic. How do you think Bernie would have performed in this role?

Jonathan Allen: (30:52)
It's impossible to project, how many runs, uh, you know, I would have given up with a different shortstop, um, you know, playing ball. Uh, but I do think that the Democrats have not made the decision that they are going to be a moderate party or a liberal party to the extent that they have made that decision. Um, it's with their feet and their votes and with everything except for the presidential election, uh, it's been a move to the left and I think it will continue to be a move to the left. I think the big question is whether they're able to figure out the mechanics of voting in the way that Stacey Abrams did in Georgia, where you are able to bring out people election cycle after election cycle, after election cycle and build it and build it and build it. Um, and a lot of that has to do with the basic, like on the ground work of politicking, much more than the sort of philosophical questions.

John Darcie: (31:42)
Yeah. I mean, just to insert my own anecdote in here, I'm a North Carolina native and the North Carolina Senate race, I think was a perfect example of that dichotomy that you mentioned in that Chuck Schumer and the DNC told Cal Cunningham. You'll be our guy. If you agree to just sit in your basement and run attack ads on Donald Trump, and don't try to go out there with a aggressive, progressive type of campaign, there was other better candidates in the state of North Carolina that would have run more Elizabeth Warren type left-wing populous campaigns. And I think there's a lot of hand ringing in local politics about what the best approach was. And obviously the results, uh, have borne out the fact that they think are more energetic candidacy, uh, would have performed better. But Amy, I want to go to you about staffing within the Biden administration. So obviously there's not as much friction as there was within the Trump administration, but you talk in the book about sort of the friction that existed between Obama legacy staffers and more of Biden's own people. How did that play out during the campaign and how has it playing out now that, uh, the administration has governing?

Amie Parnes: (32:46)
It was interesting during the primary. I think they wanted to portray that everything was going well and they were all one team, but you had the primary staffers. They weren't, uh, uh, I think a lot of people outside the campaign about that they weren't quite up to speed. Uh, they weren't running a great campaign. So what happens, obviously there's a silent coup that is, that starts forming to ALS uh, their campaign manager grabbed shul, um, who is really beloved in the campaign. But, um, but even people internally think that he's not doing such a great job. So th Biden, senior advisors are quietly trying to get him out there trying to bring Jenna Mallee, Dylan in who, uh, was Obama's deputy campaign manager. Greg Schultz thinks that she's being brought in as we reported in the book just to like help out a little bit.

Amie Parnes: (33:38)
Um, and he's sort of taken off, he's completely taken. Um, I think he went by surprise when she's brought in and replaces him. Um, and so that's sort of a really interesting dynamic in the book, but then after you have her come in, Jenna valley, Dylan, you have this sort of friction between the primary staffers and the general staffers, and they're essentially the general ones essentially layer over the primary staffers. They're not quite, uh, they're not all talking to each other at the same time. There is a lot of friction going on. A lot of the primary staffers, secretly hate, um, general Mellie Dylan. Um, they may or may not have come to us to complain about it as we were writing the book. Um, and so we were

John Darcie: (34:23)
Salary profiles. Yeah. She had these flowery profiles done of her, right.

Amie Parnes: (34:27)
I mean, they were, they were totally opposed to her kind of saying, oh, I'm a mom and I I'm really good at Peloton. And so you had all this sort of a, um, animosity building towards Jenna valley, Dylan, um, throughout the campaign. And I think it finally comes to a head and sort of at the tail end of the general election, but it was definitely there, um, throughout, and they had political differences as well. John, I don't know if you want to talk about that.

Jonathan Allen: (34:56)
I think what I get out of all that staff in fighting is that a lot of the people that were on the Biden campaign in the first place, uh, were looking to blame Jenna, Molly, Dylan in the event that, uh, Bob lost. Um, and many of them had not, you know, some of them were really good at what they do and some of them are less good at what they do. And, uh, gentlemen, we don't, it's like the best political operative on the democratic side. Um, and you see this infighting going on and it's just sort of, it's sort of a distraction from the campaign. Um, uh, and I think it was, was difficult, but I, uh, John, if you want to pose the, the original question again, I'm happy to pop that.

John Darcie: (35:37)
Yeah. In terms of the friction that exists both during the campaign and now in the administration between there's a ton of former Obama officials that are in the administration, we've talked about that a sort of chasm that exists between Biden and Obama, that people don't like to talk about a lot, but there is, there are a lot of Obama staffers, but then there's also some Biden people. How is that playing out as they're governing as well as,

Jonathan Allen: (36:01)
I mean, right now, you're starting to see from Biden and who knows where like, you know, six weeks in Denver, but you're, I mean, what you've seen is an effort for them to, uh, to move things in a progressive direction for the white house to go in a progressive direction. But also what do, what Biden did, you know, uh, on the campaign trail, which is to use the F the left as a, um, you know, as a foil and to be able to, you know, sort of push himself away from it, even when he's embracing what they're saying, I'll give you a perfect example. Uh, the minimum wage increase that so many, uh, so many Democrats wanted to see how happen happened. Um, you know, Biden says you score that $15 minimum wage, but he knew that when they stuck it in the reconciliation bill, in the Senate, that it wasn't going to go through. Um, and then he can go to, you know, go out to the electorate and say, we need more Democrats. So we can get a $15 minimum wage. And at the same time, there was no business that's angry at him because they're now having to pay a $15 minimum wage and, and, you know, cut back on hours for people or lay people off. Or, and there were no people who got laid off because the $15 minimum wage, when both ways I would call that good politics. So they

John Darcie: (37:13)
Use the parliamentarian as the, in the judge about whether or not they could put the $15 minimum wage in the reconciliation bill. Do you think the Republican party, this is part of a bigger question. Do you think the Republican party would allow the parliamentarian to tell them, uh, you know, you know what you can't build that wall on the Southern border, we're Donald Trump, except that response. And do you think Democrats have enough of a killer instinct? So the John Lewis voting rights act is one example where you have Joe Manchin, Kiersten cinema, basically saying, you know what we think the filibuster is actually a good thing. We're not gonna, you know, in a very partisan way, change the system. But at the same time, you have these structural forces that could cause Republicans in the midterms and beyond to wrest control back and impose, you know, more voter suppression and things like that to prevent Democrats from ever gaining control again. Do you think Democrats have that killer instinct? They need to entrench themselves,

Jonathan Allen: (38:08)
Um, collectively now, I mean, I think one of the things that is appealing, uh, and frustrating the Democrats, isn't there a party doesn't, uh, isn't willing to nuke everything in order to get what it wants. Um, and you know, you see what the reaction to Trump was, his willingness to break institutions, um, you know, to threaten the sanctity of the Republic, you saw what the reaction to that was by the public. So like there, there is an argument to be made to the Democrats by not, you know, uh, always like pulling the trigger for the, you know, the toughest, uh, toughest thing out there have actually found a way back to the power. Um, all of that said, you look at a mansion or a cinema on the, um, on the filibuster or on minimum wage. They are, um, the heat shield for other Democrats in the Senate who don't want to vote for a minimum wage to increase who don't want to break the filibuster.

Jonathan Allen: (39:02)
Um, and those are the ones that are out there publicly. And the reason there are two of them is because if it's one of them, the pressure's too much, if there are two of them, they can handle it. We saw a testimony on minimum wage the other day, eight Democrats in the Senate on that proxy vote, uh, voted, essentially voted against raising the minimum wage to $15. But before that, we had heard there were two against it. And you're gonna assume the same thing about the filibuster that if there are two out there for three out there that it's a deeper reservoir, president Biden himself has given passionate defenses of the filibuster on the Senate floor. Uh, I just don't think it's going anywhere.

John Darcie: (39:37)
Right? Yeah. And you get the sense of in a lot of ways that president Biden didn't necessarily want to raise the minimum wage, especially in that way. Um, and, and mansion and cinema, as you mentioned, are sort of his, his heat shield in that regard. But Amy, I want to go to you about Hillary Clinton. So one of your previous books was called shattered. It was again, sort of a post-mortem on the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton's failed campaign. What was different about the way that Hillary's campaign was run versus the way Biden's campaign was run? Neither one of them was perfect, but what about Biden's situation was unique that was able to get him over the line. Whereas Hillary fell short by a similar margin.

Amie Parnes: (40:16)
The one big thing that John and I found was that Joe Biden had a message. Um, he, and he had the same consistent message throughout the campaign. Um, in the primary, it was, I'm the only one who can beat Donald Trump. Um, and that obviously was true in the end. And then it was sort of like a break, the fever, let's break the fever kind of unity message going into the general. Um, and that sort of carried him through the general. But, you know, when you look at his message, when he started, when you looked at the message on his final day, it's the same. Hillary was kind of all over the place. Um, as we reported the book, she kind of didn't know her starting from her kickoff speech. It was sort of like your standard democratic stump speech, but it wasn't personal to her.

Amie Parnes: (41:04)
Um, and you know, she had her whole, um, I'm with her campaign campaign slogan, and it turned into like five other things. Um, and people never really knew if you asked any general, you know, your neighbor, what she stood for, it would be like a bunch of different things. No one really knew what her core premise was. Whereas if you asked Donald Trump, you know, about Donald Trump, people knew. Um, and so that, that was sort of, um, how we, we saw it and, and I think it really, um, he was true to himself in the end. And I think that that's how he was able to kind of win in the end. The Parker jump was

John Darcie: (41:43)
Anthony wrote about, yeah, go ahead, John,

Jonathan Allen: (41:46)
If I could just jump on that Shakespearian line there for a moment to thine own self, be true, just real quick. I think the other big difference in the messaging was a Hillary Clinton message was about her. Uh I'm with her Joe Biden's message was about something that he could deliver to the public that the public wanted. And it was basically, uh, a more compassionate, uh, and the better character person at the helm of the presidency. I mean, that's boils down to that. The other thing you could get from shattered, if you read it was, uh, we didn't say it straight out, but we said it implicitly, and this is not something that the Biden folks got from us. I think it's because our sources in democratic party were good for the last book too. Um, it was also clear from that book that we thought that, uh, Hillary Clinton should've hired Jenna Mallee, Dillon to be her campaign manager. She was the runner-up, uh, Clinton went another direction. Uh, Jen Dylan, for whatever faults shouldn't have happened. And certainly there were some, uh, is just better at operating a campaign than anybody else in the democratic party.

John Darcie: (42:46)
All right. Well, Jonathan and Amy, thank you so much for joining us here on Saul talks again, the book Anthony, if you want to hold it up, it's lucky how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. Um, and I, I'm not going to editorialize too much, but as you end your book, it was a, it was an important moment for the country, I think as evidenced by the aftermath of the election. But Anthony let's give one more plug. Anthony is a great promoter, as he mentioned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:10)
No, I mean, listen, the book is great. I love shattered by the way, I thought that it's interesting content because your take is always based on the reality of the situation, not the form narratives of the Republican or the democratic party. And so I want to recommend this book to everybody. Doesn't matter what political Stripe you are. This is literally a satellite view of what happened. And then as most of these great satellites are, you guys can get right down to the license plates of what happened in this campaign. And so for those reasons, I love reading your work because whether you're a Democrat or Republican, there's something in here for everybody, but you are basically explaining where the country is right now and where it's potentially going. So I'm recommending the book, lucky to everybody out there, how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. Um, and I will say this I'm on page 2 93 case you guys did no, but number one in our hearts, I got my story right though, that was very accurate. Trump was very into the base. He did not care about anything else, which was evidenced by the way, he ran that campaign over the 18 months since he said that to me.

Jonathan Allen: (44:28)
Well, glad to hear that we got it right? Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:34)
Guys, I really enjoyed the book. I'm looking forward to your next one and I want people to go out and buy it. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, John. Thank you, Anthony.

John Darcie: (44:44)
Thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnas, who wrote lucky sort of one of the quickest and definitely most thorough postmortems on the 2020 election reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive on our website@sault.org backslash talks and also on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. Um, and on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, uh, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Michael Dyson: “Long Time Coming: Reckoning with Race in America” | SALT Talks #161

Michael Dyson is an academic, author, ordained minister, and radio host. Dyson has authored or edited more than twenty books dealing with subjects such as Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Marvin Gaye, Barack Obama, Illmatic (Nas's debut album), Bill Cosby, Tupac Shakur and Hurricane Katrina.

Long Time Coming grapples with the cultural and social forces that have shaped our nation in the brutal crucible of race. In five beautifully argued chapters―each addressed to a black martyr from Breonna Taylor to Rev. Clementa Pinckney―Dyson traces the genealogy of anti-blackness from the slave ship to the street corner where Floyd lost his life―and where America gained its will to confront the ugly truth of systemic racism. Ending with a poignant plea for hope, Dyson's exciting new book points the way to social redemption.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Michael Eric Dyson.jpeg

Michael Eric Dyson

Author

Long Time Coming: Reckoning with Race in America

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm a managing director at SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal in our SALT conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:39)
We're very excited today to welcome Michael Eric Dyson to SALT Talks. He's a well known author as well as a contributor to a lot of major publications and media outlets. But I'll read you his full bio now, and hopefully he doesn't blush, because he's accomplished a lot in his career already.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University. His 2019 New York Times bestselling nonfiction book, Jay-Z, Made In America, is the recipient of two starred reviews from Publisher's Weekly and the Library Journal. He speaks on Jay-Z's career and his role on making this nation what it is today. He's an author, a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times, an MSNBC political analyst, a contributing editor at New Republic, the host of the Michael Eric Dyson Podcast, featuring Dr. Dan Ratner, an ordained Baptist minister for over 30 years, and received his PhD from Princeton University in 1993.

John Darsie: (01:37)
Dr. Dyson has authored nearly 20 books on subjects such as the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., in April 4th, 1968, Malcolm X, Nas's debut album, Illmatic, Tupac, Marvin Gaye, and Hurricane Katrina's devastating and long lasting effects. He won two NAACP Image Awards for Outstanding Literary Work in Nonfiction, and the American Book Award in 2007 for Come Hell or High Water, Hurricane Katrina and the Color Of Disaster.

John Darsie: (02:08)
Essence named Michael Eric Dyson one of the 40 most inspiring African Americans, and Ebony listed him among the 100 most influential black Americans. He often speaks at universities and political conventions, and he's also known for speaking engagements at union halls, prisons, classrooms, and churches, and now on SALT Talks. Throughout his career, Dr. Dyson has had a profound impact on American culture and thinking. His book, What Truth Sounds Like, continues the conversation started in his 2017 bestseller, Tears We Cannot Stop, and was the winner of the 2018 Southern Books Prize for Nonfiction.

John Darsie: (02:44)
If you don't already, he's a fantastic follow on Twitter and Facebook as well, where he weighs in on current events in a very informed and insightful way. His most recent book I would recommend everybody pick up, especially given the times that we're living in today, is called A Long Time Coming. So we look forward to telling you a little bit more about that book today, and again we highly recommend you go out and read it. Very hard to read because of the raw nature of how he describes some of these really horrific incidents in American history as it relates to race relations and police brutality, but also very important book that you read if you're not exposed to these issues.

John Darsie: (03:24)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony's also the chairman of SALT. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:37)
Michael, he's still letting me host this thing, so I just want to thank John Darsie for allowing me to still be the host on this thing.

John Darsie: (03:47)
My slowly nudging you boomers out of the picture. [crosstalk 00:03:50]

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:50)
Slowly? It's not even slowly, Michael, it's like a shoving. It's not [crosstalk 00:03:53] But I want to hold up the book for a second for the audience. It is a brilliant book, and I will say this to you, that I was introduced to you in 2008, I purchased your book at a Barnes and Noble April 4th, 1968, 40th anniversary of course of Dr. King's assassination. I thought that was also a brilliant book. It's in my, on my bookshelf in my office, actually, at SkyBridge. But I want to get right into it related to this book. You're writing in the book brilliantly about a reckoning with race in America, 300, some can say 400 years of racism, racial tension. We're having a reckoning. Why is this time different, Professor Dyson?

Michael Eric Dyson: (04:47)
Well thank you, first of all, it's been a great Scaramucci for me over the last week or so. So I've had-

John Darsie: (04:55)
Now we're talking, now we're talking.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:57)
Hold on, professor, it's 11 days a Scaramucci, okay?

Michael Eric Dyson: (04:59)
That's what I said, almost two weeks, almost two weeks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:03)
All right, so it's not just a week.

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:03)
Almost a fortnight, almost a fortnight.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:04)
I told you, it's not a week. It's my only regret about my White House experience, I needed three more days. But that's all right.

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:12)
But you wouldn't have been able ... Then I would have said a fortnight. Now it's a Scaramucci because [crosstalk 00:05:17]

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:19)
Slightly less than a carton of milk lasting in your refrigerator, Mike. [crosstalk 00:05:24]

Michael Eric Dyson: (05:23)
It ain't buttermilk, son. It ain't buttermilk. So, I'm at Vanderbilt now. I just want to announce that to y'all. I'm a distinguished professor there hanging out at Vanderbilt. So look, thank you so much for even engaging me and having me on this incredible platform, needless to say I'm a huge fan, and appreciate your interventions in a conscientious fashion that have really provided an opportunity to see how people who are conservative can be self critical, people who have values and traditions nonetheless are willing to subject them to a serious scrutiny, and that I celebrate you for, my man. Look. I think that it's extremely important to talk about the suffering of these martyrs, why it is that these particular black people that died have occupied such an important place in the society and have catalyzed a reckoning.

Michael Eric Dyson: (06:19)
I think a reckoning is going on. People say, "Well what's different about this?" Well I'll tell you what I think is different about this, implicit in your question, is the fact that a lot of us were at home on our screens, like we are now. The pandemic forced us to have a remote intimacy. We were kvetching about it two weeks before the pandemic. "Oh my god, put those darn screens down," you tell your kids, "Put those phones down." Have more intimate connection with each other. Oh, now this is what we depend on for intimacy. Unfortunately, and even tragically, some people have to depend upon these surfaces and screens to say goodbye to their loved ones.

Michael Eric Dyson: (07:03)
The technology we were dissing a week before the pandemic, we have now come to rely on and depend on in a serious fashion. So a lot of people were at home, in their places of abode when they saw come across their screens, whether it's a computer, or an iPad, or a phone, or an Android, they saw George Floyd's death. And it was astonishing. Like, what? And we were watching far more acutely and attentively because we were forced to these screens. I think that made a huge difference.

Michael Eric Dyson: (07:40)
Secondly, I think all of the asterisks were removed. Usually some white brothers and sisters and others could say, "Well you must have been talking nasty to the cops. Oh, he's going, 'Hey, officer.'" On the ground while he's dying, he's being nice. He must have been running from the cops. No, he's lying prostrated on the ground. He must have been a dangerous black man. Kind of not, because you got three cops on him.

Michael Eric Dyson: (08:05)
In other words, every excuse that people go, "Well you must have, or you must have," removed. White people saw that. I'm generalizing, and went, "Oh hell no. No. That's nuts. We see with our own eyes what's going on here." And I think thousands upon thousands of white brothers and sisters said, "Enough is enough, we're in the streets with black people and brown people and other people who are protesting, this is not right." And I think it offers an opportunity to not only open up the portals of possible protest, but also to grapple with the systemic issues, and let's admit it, on television, where your second home there, Brother Scaramucci, the point is is that a lot of people were talking about systemic racism who hadn't spoken about it before, the language changed, the awareness developed, the meter of consciousness spiked. And people began to really talk about it.

Michael Eric Dyson: (09:05)
Now, it's died down seven months later, eight months later. But that's the natural give and flow. The ebb and take of social change. It's not going to last forever. People's awarenesses spiked. People's awarenesses fueled. But then it dies down. But I liken it to this. When you fall in love in the first time, you're what, you're in love, you got candies and chocolates and violin music and all that stuff. Then when you get married, what are you doing? Oy vey, what's going on? "Did you leave the toilet seat up again? I almost fell in and drowned. Did you squeeze the toothpaste from the top and not the bottom?"

Michael Eric Dyson: (09:45)
But, you get down to the unsexy everyday part, "Who's taking the kids? Who's going to deal with the food preparation? Are you going to share in the household chores?" That's where love is translated into stuff I do that's not big time, that's not sexy, but that makes a difference. And that's where we are racially speaking right now. How do we deal with the systemic issues that are the unsexy part of making a real change in America today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:13)
It's so well said, I got so many followup questions. I'm going to hit you with a few rapid fire.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:19)
All right, [crosstalk 00:10:20]

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:19)
Yes or no questions, because I just want to get where you see things in terms of your pulse on America.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:26)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:26)
Most Americans are good people, yes or no.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:30)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:32)
The black community, this is a very big over-generalization, but we are generalizing for this.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:37)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:38)
The black community loves America.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:40)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:42)
I got to ask this followup question, because I've read this book, I've read the very painful book about the assassination of Dr. King.

Michael Eric Dyson: (10:48)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:49)
I took a course at Tufts University in 1984 called Race Awareness. It was taught by a guy named James Vance who was in the American military, and he was a race awareness instructor in the United States Army, to break down the barriers and to explain literal institutional racism. I'm going to talk to you very honestly, professor. I grew up in a parochial family, patriarchal, Italian American family. We bordered on a black community and an Irish community. We were beating the living crap out of each others. Italians, blacks, and Irish. But for whatever reason we all got along because I guess we were comfortable with each other. It wasn't until I got to college and James Vance explained to me institutional racism. I'm 21 years old, I said he's right, we have institutional racism in the society. And yet, do we have a lot of people in denial about that in our country? Yes or no.

Michael Eric Dyson: (11:52)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:53)
Okay. So sir, tell me why we have denial, because you're a plain spoken person, you're an amazing writer. Why do we have so much denial? I can look you straight in the face and say there is institutional racism, and there are levels of white privilege. Now having said that, okay, that's not to say that whites have necessarily had the greatest deal ever either too. There's a lot of underprivileged white people in our society. So I'm not really trying to do that over-generalization. But why can't we acknowledge, and we can get black and white politicians on the right as an example, to acknowledge what you and I both know about our society?

Michael Eric Dyson: (12:34)
Yeah. No, it's well stated, and it's well put. And thank you for the compliments as well. Look. Gore Vidal, the late great writer, said we lived in the United States of Amnesia. And I would add very quickly that the theme song is sung by Barbra Streisand. Now we know Brother Darsie has no idea who Streisand is, so we're going to have to help him to who Barbra Streisand is. [crosstalk 00:12:58] It ain't Taylor Swift. It ain't Taylor Swift. But she was a great, great singer, and still is.

Michael Eric Dyson: (13:03)
Barbra Streisand sang a song by Marilyn and Alan Bergman, Memories. What's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget. We're in denial. As the late Joseph Lowery said, we live in the 51st state, the state of denial. We keep denying. What we don't like, we just pretend it doesn't exist.

Michael Eric Dyson: (13:23)
So it's hard to deal with the issue of race, because it implicates us in a way that other issues don't. Because now it's more like, "Oh, are you calling me a racist? You calling my family a racist? Is it the tradition that nurtured me a racist?" And then it gets personal, and then it gets heated, and then it gets venomous, and then you figure what the hell are we doing?

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:41)
Yeah, professor, I get called a white supremacist on Twitter. I'm a white supremacist. I mean, look, we're throwing labels around at each other in a way that I think is absolutely ridiculous. I mean it's fine, people can call me whatever they want. I learned long ago from my grandmother, whatever you think of me is none of my business. But the institutional idea, am I wrong about this? If you have a problem, the first thing you have to do is recognize the problem. Let's say we were drug addicts. [crosstalk 00:14:08] Okay, we're drug addicts. We have to recover from drugs. The first step is admitting the problem.

Michael Eric Dyson: (14:15)
No doubt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:16)
And you're saying it's just too painful to admit the problem. So then how do we get people to feel less pain, or how do we get people to ignore the pain, or override the pain to admit the problem, and have it be more of a universal understanding?

Michael Eric Dyson: (14:35)
Yeah, it's a great point. You usually do that through analogy. How do we learn? We learn through ... You know, it's like this. One thing is like the other thing. So the stuff that you experience on this side, check it out on the other. For instance, and I know we're going to talk about this, but think about January 6th. When people go, "Look, if that had been a bunch of black people, it would have been a different outcome." And I have no doubt that that's true that's not just individual beliefs, that's what you're talking about in terms of institutional racism. That means ... And systemic racism.

Michael Eric Dyson: (15:05)
What does that mean? Everything that has institution or a system connected to it has the potential to perpetuate inequality. Health education, health system, education system, prison industrial complex, prison system. So on and so forth. And the institutions of American society bear the imprint of our beliefs.

Michael Eric Dyson: (15:24)
Now, let's take on what you're talking about in terms of white privilege, what it is and what it ain't. White privilege doesn't mean every white person is going to do well. White privilege doesn't mean that ever white person is going to be rich. Because think about it. Before black people could get into Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, or any major American institution of higher education, when it was only white, we know that there were gradations. Irish need not apply. Italians not seen as part of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant umbrella. The paddy wagon was called that because the Irish were being thought of as getting drunk on the weekends, so we're going to rename the wagon that takes you to the police station after an epithet for Irish people. So we know, Irish, Italian.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:06)
But then we read the book, how the Irish became white. How Italian American identity got transformed in the crucible of race into whiteness. Even though we know that there are tremendous differences.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:18)
My point is-

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:19)
And by the way, if you're southern Italian, if you want to talk about denial, most of us have African American-

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:24)
Come on, bruh. Come on, bruh.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:25)
Descendants. [crosstalk 00:16:25]

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:25)
That's why there's bees, because there's such similarity. There's such-

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:32)
Now Darsie's smiling, because he's whiter than Wonder Bread. We'll talk about that in a second, okay. This guy has got ... He's so white that he's got like 12 essential vitamins. You know what I'm saying?

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:43)
Hey, hey, but white folk, but black folk eating barbecue love Wonder Bread, brother, so hang in there.

John Darsie: (16:49)
I'm with Dr. Dyson.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:52)
He's actually way more aware, grew up in North Carolina.

John Darsie: (16:56)
I actually grew up in Durham, North Carolina, Dr. Dyson, with a proud history.

Michael Eric Dyson: (16:59)
I've lived there. And I've lived there. And I've lived there. But let me finish this point about white privilege. Here's the point though. The point of white privilege doesn't mean all white people will X, Y, and Z. It meant not all white people will be rich, but the people who will be rich tend to be white. It doesn't mean that all white people will go to Harvard, it meant that all the people going to Harvard were white.

Michael Eric Dyson: (17:19)
That kind of privilege means, or if you meet a cop, and you live to tell about it, you have a likelihood, regardless of your class status, that you have the possibility of engaging in conversation and interaction with the police forces of the nation and law enforcement in a way that might not hurt you, though we know that law enforcement has had horrible consequences on all peoples including white folks. So when we talk about white privilege, we don't mean some pie in the sky idealism that white people enjoy nirvana. It means that when we look at the distribution of resources here in America that race plays a significant part.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:55)
Okay, so obviously, you can have an objective standard of this or you can be biased and sheltered in your own tribe, and you can pretend that it doesn't exist. But I have a question, and it's really based on reading your book. I want you to explain it to other people. I think you do a great job in the book. How has racism shaped our society in a way that may be invisible to white Americans?

Michael Eric Dyson: (18:20)
Right. No, that's a great point. Look. Great philosopher Beyonce Giselle Knowles said that, look, it has been said that racism is so American that if you challenge racism, it looks like you're challenging America. She's on to something there. Because a lot of white brothers and sisters have not been taught the language of race, not introduced to the notion, hey, even though you're white, that that whiteness is one among many racial identifiers. And that when many white people go, "Why don't you stop talking about race? Why don't you just talk about being an American." That's because you got the privilege of having your whiteness as the default position of America. That when you say the America, you're really talking about your own particular take on it.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:06)
As a result of that, it's rendered invisible in the beautiful phrase you used. It's rendered like unintelligible to many white people. Because then they say, "Let's just be American, can't we?" What they mean, of course, is that they want to have an overcoming of difference, and an overcoming of barrier, institutional or personal, to become one, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. But what they don't often understand is their particular perception of what America is has been interestingly colored by a kind of whiteness that has been rendered invisible. It doesn't seem to be anything that comes into play.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:45)
That's why, often, when we have conversations about race, it's like what about men? Men go, "Well let's have a conversation about gender." Dude, do you know as a man you have a gender too? It's not just women, it ain't just feminism, it's what you do as a man as well.

Michael Eric Dyson: (19:59)
When we talk to white people, brothers and sisters, we say, "Look. When we talk about race, we ain't just talking about black and brown and red. We're talking about white as well." And if we have that kind of advance in the conversation, I think we'd have a more fruitful discussion about the consequences of race in America, and how we talk about it in a way that is not defensive, but is helpful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:19)
And that's the reason why I wanted to invite you on. I wanted to make this as least offensive as possible, and just an open intellectual discussion.

Michael Eric Dyson: (20:27)
Right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:28)
I'm probably not going to pronounce his name right, so forgive me because I'm a Long Island Italian, and I could barely speak English as a result of that. But I believe his name is Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Michael Eric Dyson: (20:38)
Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ta-Nehisi Coates, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:41)
I've read several of his books. There was one quote, and I'm paraphrasing the quote, but it was a remarkable quote in terms of how honest it was in the denial category. What he said in one of his books is that in 1860, the largest market capitalization of property in the United States was black people. And it was three billion US dollars. So if you thought of all the capital equipment, the trains, the railroads, the buildings in the United States, it was eclipsed by the property value, again, forgive me for saying it that way, but I'm making his point.

Michael Eric Dyson: (21:24)
No, that's what it was, that's what it was, you're saying what it was.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:26)
The property value of black people in the United States. So how on god's earth, professor, do we reconcile that? Now Italians will say to you, "Well, I wasn't there at the time, so you can't blame me." Okay, but yet we're all in the mosaic of the puzzle. We're all sitting in pieces of the puzzle, and we're living in the remnants and the aftermath of that. And you and I both know that the aftermath of that was mishandled very poorly. It took 100 years to get the vote. We spent the last 55 years basically taking the vote away. Just recently in 2020, people like Stacey Abrams are bringing the vote back. Tell me how we reconcile that, sir, that notion that, say his name Ta ...

Michael Eric Dyson: (22:21)
Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
Ta-Nehisi Coates brought up in his books.

Michael Eric Dyson: (22:25)
Yeah, and by the way, a lot of black people, because they see the H-I-S, they think, isn't that hee-see, not ha-see. So anyway, you ain't by yourself, sir. No, poetically phrased as you always do. Look. That reality that black people were property, and Coates talks about it as the plundering of the property, the plundering of black life. In his book on reparations, speaking about how the market capitalization of $3 billion and what black people counted, because they were three fifths human, counting in terms of the Constitution and the like. That when you have people as property, to see them as human beings is a hell of a leap for a lot of people.

Michael Eric Dyson: (23:05)
For a long time in this country, black people were seen as things. Look. Look at, what is it, 1857, Roger B. Taney, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, said that black people had no rights that white people were bound to respect. That's written into the law. That's not like some idea.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:25)
It's interesting you're bringing that up, because I read your book, and I highlighted several theses of it, and I'm on page 103, where the chief justice who wrote the decision in the Dred Scott case, 1857, and this is a quote right out of your book. "It is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration." That declaration he's citing is of course the Declaration of Independence. He then goes on to say that the Constitution, there were no rights in the Constitution for black folk.

Michael Eric Dyson: (24:05)
Right, exactly. That's a fundamental look. That principle, just think about it, that's not just somebody's opinion, that's not some random dude's opinion. That's the chief justice of the Supreme Court laying out the law, laying down the law of the land, that set legal precedence in this country until 1954, with Brown v. Board of Education, where separate but equal was done away with.

Michael Eric Dyson: (24:31)
Here's my point though. That when you look at the legal infrastructure-

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:36)
But you're running over that, sir, and I got to stop you for a second because I want it to sink in to people. 1857, you're three fifths human being, you have no rights. 1863, we're going to emancipate the slaves. We're doing that for political purposes more than we're really doing that for constitutional purposes. We both know that. As much as we both admire Abraham Lincoln, we understand a lot of the decisions that he made were fraught with political expediency.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:05)
No doubt about it.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:05)
And now you fast forward, it's 97 years from the case to, the Dred Scott case to Brown v. Board of Education. The president of the United States does not want that decision to come down the way it is, Dwight Eisenhower. We both know that.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:29)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
Okay, so we're here, and while this cauldron of activity is happening, every time that there's black advancement, the two of us can prove empirically, that there is, to quote Van Jones, a "whitelash" to black advancement.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:45)
Absolutely.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:45)
I'm interrupting you, but I really want to frame it for people.

Michael Eric Dyson: (25:47)
No, you laid it out, I'm glad you did, right.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:49)
You got to frame it for people, because we are in denial about this stuff, and we've got to get out of denial so that we can do anything that we can to heal it. I guess that's my question sir. Is it healable?

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:02)
Yes it is. But thank you so much for interrupting me to make that point clearly. And let me say this before I answer your healable part. When people say, "Hey, I wasn't here." I get it. You weren't even here when you were born. You just, oh, somebody created me. We weren't here when the Constitution was written. But we take advantage of it. We weren't here-

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:20)
By the way, Darsie does a lot of creating, by the way. He's breeding like rabbits in his ... Let you know that, okay? Keep going, professor.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:27)
He's upholding the Biblical injunction to populate the earth.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
It's literally unbelievable. [crosstalk 00:26:32] Go ahead.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:33)
Good man. The thing is a lot of us weren't here when stuff was initially put forth, but when you come here as a potentially white person, if you weren't white when you got here you were white when you came here. James Baldwin, 1963, talks about race as a political fiction. It ain't in your genes. It's in how we as a society assign worth and value.

Michael Eric Dyson: (26:56)
The point simply is, that along with what you said, and the fact is that even if you weren't here when the stuff went down initially, you got in on the gravy train, or you took advantage of opportunities that you didn't even decide were yours but that were given to you. Is it healable? Yes. But not without conscious intent and the design to make sure that things are different.

Michael Eric Dyson: (27:20)
If we could have folk like you, Brother Darsie, out here trying to say, "Look, we might have differences of ideological and political position, but we're trying to come to grips with a wretched history of racial oppression, that if we could be honest about, and we could talk about invading our institutions, we have a better chance of overcoming many of the barriers that prevent us from recognizing our common humanity."

Michael Eric Dyson: (27:48)
Let me give you one that a lot of people overlook. Now, I happen to be a progressive, and in terms of black culture, I'm on the margins in terms of my politics. The majority of black people are pretty much in the center. The majority of black people are far more conservative than what I would be. And that if Republicans could find a way not to insult black people, and not to hold fast to institutional matrices of white supremacy, there would be a bunch more black people who would be Republican in this culture, in this society, than are presently on the roles. That's just a fact.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:28)
But that's 100%, because if you're not ... It's the same reason why I have to now disavow the Republican Party, because the higher order principle for me is the preservation of our democracy and the Constitution. So if the Republicans would shut up, what they're doing is they're clinging to white power, they're going to become a group of aging white people that buy catheters and My Pillows from Fox News commercial interruptions. But if they would just shut up and open up the tent and make the party look like the more beautiful mosaic of the American people and acknowledge the history in America that's happened, as opposed to clinging to this nonsense and this abject ignorance, we would have a more competitive system. That party's in the process of splintering.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:19)
John Darsie is, I can tell by his facial expressions and his facial tics, he's dying to ask some questions. I've got one question for you, and it's more of a reaction. And again this is on page 179 of your book, and I want to hold it up again. It's a fantastic read, Long Time Coming. Great read, very powerful writing. You're quoting Tracee Ellis Ross on this page. And the quote is, "Our freedom keeps being dismantled and limited because of white comfort."

Michael Eric Dyson: (29:55)
Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:56)
I want you to react to that and tell us why you put that in the book, and what it means.

Michael Eric Dyson: (30:02)
Yeah. Yeah, that, and Tracee Ellis Ross, of course an incredible actress, also the daughter of Diana Ross. We remember Diana Ross, a major American figure, and then of course with the Supremes, and we say rest in peace to Mary Wilson, a friend of mine, and an incredible artist. Tracee Ellis Ross is saying that the preservation of white comfort, the comfort of not having to know about black culture, the comfort of not having to engage in a serious, introspective look at what America does, the rituals, the habits, the folk ways, all the stuff that makes us who we are. Without being uncomfortable, without being rendered uncomfortable, without being challenged in our ignorance or in our refusal to say, "Hey, let me learn something about some stuff that doesn't simply complement the nation, but begins to challenge my perspective," from people who are, say people of color, who've had a different experience.

Michael Eric Dyson: (31:05)
So the comfort of ignorance, the comfort of being disassociated from those traditions that I'm unfamiliar with and won't be challenged by, what she's saying, the maintenance and preservation of that comfort has led to a lot of hurt and pain, not only for black people in this country, but really for the country getting off of its basic pathway toward better democracy and more humane interactions between people. That's what she has in mind there, and that's why I put that there to try to talk about what we can do to overcome the obstacles, the impediments, and the barriers that prevent that kind of interaction from occurring.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:47)
Okay, absolutely fantastic book, Michael, Professor Dyson. I'm going to turn it over to John for some questions that have built up in our email traffic, and from our audience.

Michael Eric Dyson: (31:59)
All right, beautiful.

John Darsie: (32:00)
Yeah, yeah. It's actually in my contract, Dr. Dyson, that I get at least one third of the air time, or else I can sue for an HR violation. So thank you Anthony for giving me my-

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:11)
But by the way, professor, you'll appreciate this. The head of HR at SkyBridge, that would be me. I just want to let everybody know that, okay, so there are some unanswered anonymous complaints in that complaint box.

John Darsie: (32:24)
That's why it's so dysfunctional, Dr. Dyson.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:26)
All right, it's dysfunction, but it's my denial, okay? It's my denial about the dysfunction. Go ahead Darsie, go ahead.

John Darsie: (32:33)
Yeah. I want to talk a little bit about symbolism. I grew up in Durham, North Carolina, as I mentioned earlier. We actually just removed the ability for someone at the DMV to get the Confederate flag put on their license plate, which was shocking to me that that was still even a thing. In Mississippi they just replaced their state flag that had a Confederate flag taking up part of the flag, which was again not spending a lot of time in Mississippi shocking to me that their state flag still had the Confederate flag in it. In 2015, it took a domestic terrorist massacre at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, Clem Pinckney, who you write about in the book, for the Confederate flag to come off of the statehouse in South Carolina.

John Darsie: (33:18)
We've also had this battle being waged about statues that were basically placed across the country at various points throughout history to intimidate black people from thinking that they can become equal parts of society in certain parts of the country.

John Darsie: (33:32)
Other people on the other side of the ledger come out and say, "We shouldn't try to erase history or sanitize history by taking down these monuments or removing these flags, we should embrace our history and move forward." But why, just to communicate to people, in your view is it important that we start to remove some of these symbols and some of these artifacts of intimidation that existed as part of our stained history?

Michael Eric Dyson: (33:57)
Well, I can see why the eloquent Brother Scaramucci has the equally eloquent Brother Darsie, because you just laid it out there, even in your question. There is an intimidating factor. Look, I rarely pass by these statues where I see people standing around, "Let me tell you about history, young people, and let me tell you about the conflagration and consternation of American division that led ..." They ain't doing that. Those statues that dot the landscape of American society are the translated into concrete principles upon which this society rests. So who you honor is who you tell yourself you are.

Michael Eric Dyson: (34:43)
By having these statues out there, they're not ... Look, take them to a museum. Take them to someplace where people can actually talk about what Johnny Rebel was about, to talk about what Robert E. Lee was about. I think we should do that. I don't think we should erase it. I don't think we should evaporate it. I don't think we should destroy it. But we should put it in its proper context. And when you have it on public land, that means all of America is supporting this idea.

Michael Eric Dyson: (35:10)
The South may have lost the war, but they darn sure won the battle of interpretation. The ingenuity of the South was that they understood it was an interpretive warfare, and boy, they put their stakes into interpreting what they lost.

Michael Eric Dyson: (35:26)
For me, why it's important, and look, speaking of Durham, I spoke at Duke University in the chapel a couple of years ago, and when walking in, they were just about to remove the Robert E. Lee bust into the Duke chapel. I'm going like I didn't realize he wrote the Bible. Oh my god, I didn't realize this dude was involved in the papyrus upon which was inscribed Paulinian letters. Come on. Why do we have Robert E. Lee going up into the chapel? Why? Because they were being honest about the fact that this variety of whiteness was more important than, or at least as equally powerful as, their Christian identity.

Michael Eric Dyson: (36:11)
Often when you had white evangelical, white was more powerful than evangelical. So the reason to remove these statues is not to deny history, because we just spent a lot of time talking about the importance of engaging it, but to put it in its proper perspective, and let's be honest. A lot of these statues weren't erected back in the day. They were erected after the Civil Rights movement began to challenge white supremacy in the South, and this stuff is built in the '50s and '60s, and in some cases the early '70s. So when we do the real history about when this stuff came about, it was a conscious attempt to intimidate those people who were black in this culture, who were challenging the dominant perspective.

Michael Eric Dyson: (36:56)
Let me end by saying this. Look, I can deal with the fact, a lot of white people who are Confederate supporters say, "Look, this is about heritage, not hate." What about if your heritage is hate? What about if some of your heritage is some stuff you don't like, that you don't want to deal with? And it's not that we're trying to demonize human beings. I understand people who say, "My grandfathers and grandmothers, my great great grand people were involved in this war, they felt that it was about states' rights and not about enslavement." And then you go, "States' rights to do what? Oh. To own slaves, oh, okay." So we're getting back to the same point there, but let's study the history.

Michael Eric Dyson: (37:36)
So I'm down for studying history, I'm down for having history lessons. But let's not pretend that the things that grow out of the sacred space of American civic culture are not embodiments of the noble ideals that we nurture, and as a result of that, we have to take them seriously. Those flags, like you said, darn. Mississippi, what's going on in Durham, and I lived in Durham for like three years. The reality is, you got to not allow that to be perpetuated in the state symbols of a particular area where some people who are citizens are going to be intimidated by that stuff. Let's just be honest.

John Darsie: (38:11)
Right. Yeah, and sticking in North Carolina, we have our military bases are named after Confederate generals, which I wasn't fully aware of until this explosion of increased awareness about racial issues. I mean, take the racial side out of it, these are people that supported the perpetuation of slavery. But in the end they're losers. They lost a war, and somehow we've named our military bases after these men. It's shocking to me. And I'm happy that at least something's being done about it now.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:39)
And let me add something very briefly. Not only losers, but here's the point. They were secessionists. They weren't even part of your nation.

John Darsie: (38:47)
They were completely un-American.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:48)
I mean, dude. When you're taking-

John Darsie: (38:50)
When you put on that uniform, you're fighting for the country, and these people fought against the country.

Michael Eric Dyson: (38:53)
Come on, man. And when you take the Confederate flag through the Capitol, do you literally realize what you're doing there? You're celebrating the people who separated from the nation who said, "Nope, I'm going to fight against it," and now you're celebrating them as prototypical expressions of Americana. Come on. It's just ...

John Darsie: (39:11)
Yeah, the type of hypocrisy that you get during the insurrection in Washington where you had people holding up a Blue Lives Matter, Back The Blue poster, while at the same time stomping out members of the DC Capitol Police.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:24)
Absolutely.

John Darsie: (39:25)
Because they didn't agree with the type of laws that they were breaking. They thought they should be entitled to break the law.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:31)
Great point.

John Darsie: (39:33)
It's amazing the hypocrisy that exists.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:34)
No no, that's absolutely right. Blue Lives Matter until my interpretation [crosstalk 00:39:39]

John Darsie: (39:39)
The blue lives come for you.

Michael Eric Dyson: (39:40)
Right, exactly.

John Darsie: (39:41)
Yeah, I want to talk about the cycle of poverty and this cycle of systemic racism that exists, and I want to start with police brutality. That's a big focus of your book, but it's only one element I think of systemic racism. And again, going back to my North Carolina roots, Vince Carter, who played basketball at the University of North Carolina, had a legendary NBA career. He said when his kids were young, he sat them down, and like a white parent, or any parent would have a conversation with their kids about the birds and the bees, he had a conversation with them about what it's like to be black and dealing with law enforcement. When you go out to your driveway to get your mail, don't look or act a certain way. When you get pulled over, don't look or act a certain way, keep your hands down.

John Darsie: (40:24)
What do we have to do within our policing system to just change the way things are done? Defunding the police is obviously a misunderstood buzzword that President Obama weighed in and thought we should characterize it in a different way. But how do we root that racism out of our police force to prevent black people from having to fear the people that are supposed to be protecting them?

Michael Eric Dyson: (40:49)
Yeah, it's a great point. And so true, that it's a small part of what we mean by systemic racism, but here's the problem. If you're not alive and not well, you don't have to worry about a system because you're dead. And so many of us fear death at the hands of the police. So that's the entry level form of brutal, institutional oppression we got to deal with because if you ain't here, you ain't got to worry about much else. And so many people of color, especially black people, again, the irony is, nobody calls the police more than black people. Stop. You go on some of these ride-alongs I've been on, like bruh, every other call. "Mama, you didn't cook them ... I'm calling the police on you." I'm being facetious, but you know what I'm saying.

Michael Eric Dyson: (41:38)
The black people just want the police when they show up to distinguish me as the citizen who called the police and the crime that I want to report, or the issue I want to highlight. And so often, America and its institutional expression of law enforcement have done a poor job of trying to respect the integrity and identity of black people and their humanity. And look, a large part of this is to look how you talk to people. Like wait a minute, do you work for the American public? Do you work for taxpayers? Then you're coming to me as if I'm a scourge to American society, and I'm telling you from my personal experience, I ain't talking about what somebody told me. This is not an anthropological investigation. I'm telling you what I've had personal encounters with the police. The condescension, the nastiness, the refusal to look me in the eye as a human being. Having had several guns pulled on my by the cops for, quote, "Stealing" my own car. And when I went into my wallet to show them my license and registration, called me the N word and said, "I will put a bullet in your head."

Michael Eric Dyson: (42:48)
I'm telling you, this is what I've experienced personally. So it is sad that we still have unconscious racism, unconscious bias, and a conscious disavowal of the humanity of the people we're dealing with. So I think part of what we got to do, and you're right, what people meant by defunding the police, they ain't trying to get rid of the police, they're trying to say police are not the only people who are concerned with public safety. There are other departments that are concerned with public safety. Can we fund some of those so that when people are having a psychotic break, we don't need Officer McGillicuddy over here coming in on the scene, beating somebody down. We need somebody with some mental health awareness to say, "This person is overreacting, but we got it under control."

Michael Eric Dyson: (43:37)
On the other hand, I was at a, maybe about five years ago, I was doing some anthropological research at 4:30 in the morning in clubs to determine the bacchanalia and the impulse toward partying of young people. Let me clean it up that way. So I'm out at 4:30 at Ben's Chili Bowl, and a white kid is giving the cops the what for. "You mother ... You son of a ..." I mean, cussing them out like you wouldn't believe. And I said to myself, oh my god. They're going to shoot this kid. And then I went, but no they're not, he's a young white kid.

Michael Eric Dyson: (44:09)
You know what I literally saw happen? And it should happen to everybody. The cop says, "Son, you're clearly inebriated." He called ... This is before all of the big time Ubers and stuff. He called a cab for the kid, put him in the cab, and sent him home. Thank god. I'm not mad at that.

John Darsie: (44:29)
Yeah, I mean it goes back to the insurrection. People say it, and there's a lot of whataboutism, but it's like what if those people that were invading the Capitol on the 6th were Muslim, what if they were black? That would have been a very different picture.

Michael Eric Dyson: (44:43)
Brother Darsie, that's exactly what I'm .... I looked at that and I said man, can we get some of that? So we don't hate law enforcement. In fact my friend is the chief of police in Durham right now. A black woman who is the chief of police there, who is now head of NOBLE, National Organization of Blacks In Law Enforcement. And Chief Davis, an extraordinary woman. So it is not that we are against law enforcement, we are against the mistreatment that brutally happens to us.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:16)
I'll tell you, I'll end by saying this. We are afraid. What did Lebron James say? Lebron James is almost going to be a billionaire, almost as rich as Scaramucci. He is about to become a billionaire, and this guy says [crosstalk 00:45:28]

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:28)
I'm a billionaire in Zimbabwe, professor, okay. That's the only place that I'm a billionaire. But keep going.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:35)
You're the man. You the man. So look.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:35)
Keep going.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:36)
Lebron is saying we are terrified. We are afraid for our lives when we come into contact with police because we don't know what's going to happen that day. We don't know if it's going to be Officer Friendly, or we don't know if, because of a left turn signal, like Walter Scott down in South Carolina, and then I think that, oh my god, I owe some money on my child support, and I run away, and you fill my back with seven pieces of lead.

Michael Eric Dyson: (45:59)
The point is that what we've got to do is not only have training and not only have racial awareness, we need all that stuff, but we got to have a change of law. The stand your ground laws that end up benefiting many white brothers and sisters, and the reason I say that, when black people do stand your ground laws, oh, they're not given the benefit of the doubt. They are thrown into jail. There have been some black people who have shot white people on their property or coming up to them. Mostly all of them have been arrested. Whereas white brothers and sisters, it might take two or three months, and a lot of outrage from the community in order for that to occur.

Michael Eric Dyson: (46:35)
Again, as you said, it's an index of the larger institutional inequality that prevails, but it's an important one, and until we grapple with that ... What did Obama, at least under Obama, the Justice Department had these consent decrees that tried to hold police departments to account. We know that Donald Trump got rid of all of them, and Bill Barr and all the other attorneys general before him, Jeff Sessions, did away with them immediately. If we had some of those interventions, we could at least begin to rethink what policing means in America today.

John Darsie: (47:10)
Right. Dr. Dyson, thanks so much for joining us. Anthony, I want to leave you the final word before we let Dr. Dyson go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (47:16)
well I want to hold up the book again. I think the book was phenomenal. Long Time Coming. And you've written many phenomenal books, but this really captured what is going on in this society right now. And let's do our best, doctor. I would love to have you at our SALT conferences live, and let's do our best to do everything we can to advance this discussion and open it up, end the denialism, and see if we can promote some more healing and a interactive, more peaceful society. So with all that, I thank you for your contributions, sir.

Michael Eric Dyson: (47:51)
Thank you my friends, thank y'all for having me. Lovely and wonderful conversation.

John Darsie: (47:54)
And people often ask us, "Where do we start in terms of educating ourselves?" If you picked up every book that Dr. Dyson has written, including A Long Time Coming, pick up every book that Ta-Nehisi Coates has written, and the two books by Isabel Wilkerson, most recently of which is Caste, which I think Anthony might have on his bookshelf back there, that's a great place to start to understand the systemic racism.

John Darsie: (48:18)
And thank you everybody for joining today's SALT Talk with Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous SALT Talks, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talk episodes, as well as sign up for all future SALT Talks, at salt.org/talks. Please also follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, which is where we're most active. But we're also on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well. And please subscribe to our YouTube channel. We post all of our content for free on YouTube, @salttube is the name of our YouTube channel. So please subscribe to us there as well. And please spread the word about SALT Talks. This pandemic obviously has been a disheartening time for our country, but it's also given us an opportunity at SALT to pivot and to grow our audience by tapping into the digital media side of our operation that we have here in addition to our conferences. So please spread the word.

John Darsie: (49:10)
This is John Darsie, on behalf of the entire SALT team, signing off for today with Dr. Michael Eric Dyson. We hope to see you back here soon on SALT Talks.

Christopher Hahn: The Aggressive Progressive | SALT Talks #139

“I want to see economic growth that benefits everyone. I do believe the government can step in and help people level that playing field. I don’t think people should go broke because they broke their arm or have a serious illness.”

Christopher Hahn is a progressive pundit and host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast. Hahn served for five years as a senior aide to US Senator Chuck Schumer.

As a regular guest on Fox News for ten years, providing a progressive perspective, Hahn has seen the network’s dramatic shift to the right, particularly from its opinion hosts. The conservative movement more broadly reflects this shift where fringe conspiracies and white supremacist ideology have come to the fore. This is born out of the sense that a shifting demographic represents an existential threat to white-centric culture. This culminated in a terrorist attack of the Capitol by Trump supporters in order to disrupt the election certification. “This was not a protest; this was a terrorist attack by forces that wanted to overthrow the government of the United States of America. They were coming to kill Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Mike Pence.”

Since Ronald Reagan, the center of politics in the US has moved right. The most liberal members of the Democratic party like AOC, Bernie Sander and Elizabeth are trying to move that conversation left and create more progressive compromise.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Christopher Hahn.jpeg

Christopher Hahn

Host

The Aggressive Progressive Podcast

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. Our goal with SALT Talks, like our goal at our SALT Conferences, which we host twice a year, once in the United States and once internationally, is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome Christopher Hahn to SALT Talks for a very timely conversation about the state of our nation's political rhetoric in our entire societal situation that we're in right now.

John Darsie: (00:57)
Christopher Hahn is a highly sought-after progressive pundit and the host of the Aggressive Progressive podcast. He hosts a national syndicated radio show and has made over 2500 national television appearances on a variety of political, pop culture, and public policy topics. Christopher's skill in dealing with public policy issues was honed during five years where he served as a senior aide to US Senator Chuck Schumer, who's a Democrat from New York, as most of you know. During that time, his responsibilities included dealing with the post-9/11 homeland security activities, domestic policy, federal environmental matters, and economic development.

John Darsie: (01:37)
As Chief Deputy County Executive for Nassau County, Chris was the senior appointed official under County Executive Tom Suozzi. Chris was primarily responsible for directing and managing the daily administration, communications, and operations of county government. Appointed at the age of 33, Christopher was the youngest person in the history of Nassau County to hold the position of Chief Deputy County Executive. Chris serves on the boards of Stony Brook University, the Regional Plan Association of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, and the New York League of Conservation Voters. Chris earned his BA at the University of Albany and his JD from St. John's University School of Law.

John Darsie: (02:20)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony's also the chairman of SALT, also had a brief stint in politics, not quite as long as Chris's. But, with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:37)
You see how he starts it? It's a-

John Darsie: (02:39)
I always have to get it in.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
... karate chop right in the Adam's apple trying to remind people that I was in Washington for 11 days. But you want to know something, Darsie? Donald Trump right now is less than a Scaramucci away from leaving the White House, unless, of course, he blows up the White House between now and his departure. So, Chris, thanks so much for joining us. You're known as an aggressive progressive. So, first of all, what does that mean to you? What should it mean to others? Then tell us something about yourself that we couldn't find on your Wikipedia page that he just carefully read for 25-

Christopher Hahn: (03:16)
Yes, geez. You read the whole thing off the Wikipedia page.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:20)
It was very impressive, Darsie. It was impressive.

Christopher Hahn: (03:24)
So aggressive progressive is really ... It's something that bookers would call me. You've got two types of progressives over at Fox News, and that's where I've done the 2500 television appearances. All but maybe 200 of them were at Fox News, and bookers would say there are two types of progressives. There are the kind of wishy-washy progressives that'll just go along to get along. They want to try to be liked by everybody who watches them. Then there are aggressive-

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:56)
So those are sort of like passive progressives, something like that?

Christopher Hahn: (03:57)
Yeah, guys who kind of have Stockholm Syndrome. They're over at Fox News, and they've adopted a more conservative tone. Then there are people like me who aggressively defend the progressive position. So I have been called the most aggressive progressive that has consistently been on Fox. I've been on Fox News since 2010. It's gotten very different over the years. It used to be a lot more fun interacting with the audience members, up until really the last two, three years. I'd always have the same conversation when I'd meet people, "Oh, we love seeing you on TV at Fox. You're so articulate. We don't agree with anything you say, but we love seeing you."

Christopher Hahn: (04:46)
Now, I get a lot of stare-downs. A lot of these conservations think that, oh, he's a progressive. He's a liberal. He's probably weak. Then they see me in public and I'm a little bit more put-together than they might've thought I might be. I did play college football, and I'm an avid runner and a triathlete, and fitness is really the one consistent thing in my life probably my entire life. So it's a big deal. I try to make my points, and I'm passionate about my points that I make, and I don't allow conservatives to lie when I'm sitting next to them, sitting next to them or, more likely lately, in a box on a screen with them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:38)
You say that Fox is different from 2010. It's now 2021, and you're saying that the audience may be a little more hostile towards viewpoints. How's Fox itself different?

Christopher Hahn: (05:53)
Well, I think that the opinion hosts are far more extreme in some of the things that they are saying these years, particularly people like Tucker Carlson. I haven't been on Tucker Carlson's show in two years. I used to do Tucker Carlson's show every Friday night for years. From the onset of the show, I did it almost every Friday night. I think that Donald Trump doesn't like me. That's pretty clear. He's tweeted about me. He's talked about me on radio interviews and says I'm one of the reasons why Fox has gone downhill. Tucker took that on and didn't do it, hasn't had me on in a long time. Sean Hannity hasn't had me on since Trump has become president. Sean Hannity was the first show I ever did at Fox. I had done the Internet show at Fox once, and then the Hannity bookers called me to do Hannity the next day, and I was off to the races over at Fox News.

Christopher Hahn: (06:58)
I had a friend who was running for State Senate who wanted me to run her State Senate campaign, and I had settled into a job at a law firm, and I wasn't interested in doing campaigns anymore. She had been doing some Fox News, and I said to her, "I'd love to do some TV." I had done a TV show in the '90s out here called Youth and Politics, and then when I actually went to work for Chuck Schumer and then later Tom Suozzi, I had given all that up, and I wanted to get back in. She said, "Well, you know what? They've got an Internet show at Fox News, and if you do that for a couple of months, the producers will see you, and they'll put you on the regular show." I literally got a phone call while I was on the Internet show the first time because I guess I have a good acting background and I think that's probably-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:48)
Well, you grew up on Long ... I mean, you got a good acting, right? You grew up in Long Island. We've all got good acting backgrounds.

Christopher Hahn: (07:52)
Yes. Well-

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:53)
That's Hannity, that's O'Reilly, that's me, that's you. We're all [inaudible 00:07:59]. John Darsie is a Long Island transplant now from North Carolina, so he's all uppity about everything, you know?

Christopher Hahn: (08:05)
Yep.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:06)
So let me ask you this, though. Again, I have a lot of friends at Fox. You know I hosted a show for the Fox Business channel for two years. I was a Fox News contributor and Fox Business contributor, knew Roger Ailes, and I have a lot of respect for many, many people at Fox. But it does seem like they've shifted the bell curve of conservatism where now it's bordering on extremism. Am I wrong in saying that, and if I am, push me back a little and help me.

Christopher Hahn: (08:41)
I think that's all conservatism. The entire conservative movement, Republican movement, has shifted to this wacko, conspiracy theory, base-driven method here. I'm looking for words.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:59)
Okay. Let me test something on you and you react to it. When you look at the rage that took place at the Capitol last Wednesday, it was mostly white people. I didn't see a lot of brown and Black people in that, but maybe there were. I just didn't see them from the pictures, so who knows? My worry is that that conservative movement is an aging white demographic that is buying catheters and MyPillows from Fox News. Am I wrong about that? What say you?

Christopher Hahn: (09:31)
No, I think that the conservative movement is not just an aging white movement. I think it's a borderline white supremacist movement, frankly, that sees any change or shift in their power as an existential threat. A lot of that's laziness, right? A lot of these people don't want to compete with a broader market of people. They like to say that I'm a socialist, but they want to hold onto to their easy lifestyle and they don't want to see more Black and brown and gay and other people competing in their market and have a level playing field. That is unacceptable to them, and you see ... Oh, and Charles Blow-

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:09)
So this is a last gasp of white-

Christopher Hahn: (10:14)
What'd you say?

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:15)
I'm just saying this is a last gasp of white people. Their demographic is shrinking, and they're getting angry about it. So they figure that they can't really run it as much as they used to, and they don't want to cede power, so they're becoming anarchists.

Christopher Hahn: (10:30)
I think that this is very much similar. Charles Blow can say it a lot better than I did. I don't know if you read his column yesterday, and then he did a video on this. He compared the red hats to the red shirts of the Post-Reconstruction Era in Mississippi. Mississippi was a majority Black state, and the only way whites were going to maintain control was through violence. People are comparing what happened on Wednesday of last week to a protest over the summer that might've gotten violent. No, this was not a protest. This was a terrorist attack by forces that wanted to overthrow the government of the United States of America. In that building-

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:15)
Well, they were coming to kill Nancy Pelosi. They had zip ties, pipe bombs.

Christopher Hahn: (11:19)
They were going to kill Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Mike Pence. There's no doubt. There were people with zip ties. There were people in body armor. The only people they've arrested are the jokers who were taking pictures of themselves that think this is all a joke, but there were people in full military fatigues who looked to be moving as a unit in that crowd. I'm sorry. These nine days cannot go fast enough for me. I am not going to go back to playing this game. I am shocked that even after that, seven United States senators, six United States senators, still objected to the electoral vote, and 140 members of the House of Representatives. I'm sorry. The members from the states that objected to their own states' votes, they should be expelled immediately. It's nonsense.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:17)
Steve Schmidt, who you and I both know, others from The Lincoln Project, others that are sort of center-right people that are not Trump extremists, are calling for a very aggressive approach to these extremists and saying that we need to snuff this out, that it's sort of 1924, and that they'll double down on this sort of stuff if we don't do that. What's your reaction to that?

Christopher Hahn: (12:46)
I agree. I think we need to charge these people with sedition. I think that the president of the United States should not be immune from charges. If I'm Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, I'd go to Mitch McConnell tomorrow and say, "You expel Hawley and Cruz and the others that joined them from our conference or I'm walking across the aisle." This should not be the time ... The Republicans brought this on by placating Donald Trump for the past four years, really, for the past five years. A lot of people, myself sometimes included, said, "Oh, he's a clown." You know what? They said the same thing about Adolf Hitler, and I don't like comparing people to Adolf Hitler, and right now the comparison is not there. But you know what? In 1924, the comparison wasn't there yet either. If this movement is not stopped, if that would've been successful last week, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be living in this country today. I would be on my way out of here. I have been named.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:52)
So let's talk about ... Success would've been the-

Christopher Hahn: (13:52)
I've been named by that president, and I've got-

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:55)
Success would've been the assassination of Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Vice President Pence.

Christopher Hahn: (14:01)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:02)
How do you think the vice president feels today? It's a week after the insurrection. He's got to go back and work for his boss, who basically was inciting that situation.

Christopher Hahn: (14:14)
Yeah. The fact that the president has not called Mike Pence since the insurrection that the president inspired speaks all ... It's all you need to hear. The president on Wednesday had crowds chanting, "Kill Mike Pence," or, "Hang Mike Pence," outside of the Capitol where Mike Pence was. Mike Pence should've gone back to his office, and he should've written a letter to the rest of the cabinet and invoked the 25th Amendment that day. I don't understand why [crosstalk 00:14:46]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:46)
So why do you think he didn't do that? Let me push back for a second. Mike Pence's staff would say that there's a week or so to go, let's see if we can run the clock out with causing further mania. They would say if they invoke 25th Amendment and remove him prior to the inauguration, it could cause more violence. Again, I'm in your camp. I want the president arrested. I've said that publicly on Twitter. I think his acts of sedition and traitorism are-

Christopher Hahn: (15:19)
And by the way, thanks for the retweets, Anthony, because my following is a lot of crazies, and whenever you retweet, I get some additional people.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:26)
You get some additional crazies? Well, I lost some crazies. Twitter took a lot of crazies off of my following, and thank God that they did.

John Darsie: (15:36)
You actually didn't lose that many, Anthony, and it's a sign that the crazies unfollowed you a long time ago because you were [crosstalk 00:15:42]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:41)
Yeah. Well, I lost three or 4000. I didn't lose 40,000 like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, but I lost three or 4000. I'm not worried about my Twitter following. I'm worried about the health of the country.

Christopher Hahn: (15:55)
Me, too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:56)
I'm worried about police officers that are dying in the face of an insurrection. I'm worried about the collaboration that these insurrectionists could've had from inside the government or inside the Capitol Police. I'm worried about Josh Hawley and Senator Cruz, who are smart guys, Chris. They know better than to be doing what they're doing. I'm worried about all of this political expediency. The reason why I wanted to bring you on SALT Talks is that you've been at the center of our political system for several decades. You've been in a trench. You're a trench warrior. You've seen differences. You've seen people reconcile differences. You've seen people create compromise that actually sort of hate each other. What would you do here? Let's say that you were the czar and you could wave a wand that could help heal the nation. What are some of the steps that you would want to see happen?

Christopher Hahn: (16:53)
Well, you got to start with justice, Anthony. I saw that there was a letter written to Joe Biden by some of the people who objected to his election saying, "Oh, let's call for unity. Let's let bygones be bygones." No, we're past that. We need justice. There needs to be accountability and justice and a full airing of what actually happened and all those who were involved. There should be resignations from people who spurred it on, and that includes Cruz and Hawley, who definitely, as you suggested, knew better.

Christopher Hahn: (17:32)
Josh Hawley likes to pretend he's this man of the people. He went to Stanford and Yale and then taught at St. Paul's in London. He is one of the brightest minds in the Senate, and he absolutely knows better. Frankly, that he knows better and allowed this to happen holds him more responsible. I mean, I want to see Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott and the others who objected after the violence expelled from the Senate. I know that people say, "Well, that's going to cause more divisions." I don't know how much more divided we could be in this country than we are right now. We've got people literally willing to commit violence, and I don't believe that this was the end of anything. This could've been the beginning of something.

Christopher Hahn: (18:18)
So the government has to be a government of people who are willing to face reality and people who know reality, like Cruz and Hawley, I could almost let some of them go. I don't think Tommy Tuberville lives in reality, right? But Tommy Tuberville was a football coach at Alabama. He didn't teach at St. Paul's in London. Maybe I could give him a little bit of a pass. But when guys that are Harvard and Yale and St. Paul's are edging people like that on, they got to go. They have got to go. The good Republicans, and I believe there are some good Republicans still, need to call on the bad Republicans to go or they need to cross the aisle and then allow for a more stricter, a more comprehensive policy to be placed into effect because this can't stand anymore.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:14)
Well, and, again, we're in agreement. It seems like I've lost my party. I don't know where to go with my center-right positions on business and regulation and the promotion of economic growth and agnosticism to the social liberties in our society. I feel like our society, people should be able to live and do as they want with their own bodies and they should certainly have any choice that they want related to their sexual preferences. But I'm a sort of center-right person on business and growth, and I would like to see a restoration of capitalism but, obviously, fairness for people as well.

Christopher Hahn: (19:53)
I think I'm a center-right on business issues. I want to see economic growth that benefits everyone, and I want to see everyone have the opportunity for that growth. I do believe that government can step in and should step in and help people level that playing field. I think in the richest country in the world we shouldn't be allowing people to starve, we shouldn't be allowing people to go bankrupt because they break their arm or have a serious illness. But I do want to see opportunities for growth and economic success in this country. So I think there's a perfect place for you in the Democratic Party, Anthony. It's a big tent, and there are a lot of pro-growth Democrats. They used to call them Clinton Democrats or T-L-C Democrats.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:44)
It's just one of these things where you're hoping that you can provide some restorative help to the Republican Party and it doesn't go completely off the rails because if it does, it'll lead to further psychosis or-

Christopher Hahn: (20:59)
I think that they're off the rails.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:01)
... further trauma for the world. But it is [crosstalk 00:21:03]-

Christopher Hahn: (21:03)
I don't think they're coming back. I talked to a bunch of people from The Lincoln Project, some of them with your help and your introduction, which I really appreciated. A lot of them are never going back, right? Rick Wilson told me in no uncertain times, "I'm never going back."

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:19)
No, Steve Schmidt, Rick, yeah, all those-

Christopher Hahn: (21:21)
Steve Schmidt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:22)
... guys have left, no question.

Christopher Hahn: (21:23)
Yeah, they're not going back because there's nothing to go back-

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:27)
Steve's registered as a Democrat.

Christopher Hahn: (21:29)
There's nothing to go back to. It is the new Know Nothing Party. It is not a party that wants to believe in facts. When I first started working in the US Senate in 1999 or 2000 with Chuck Schumer, we had differences with Republicans, but it was differences on how to govern and how government should be involved in solving different problems, and we would work it out. We didn't disagree on reality. We all believed, "Here's the problem," and we had different ways of solving the problem. By the way, that was a healthy debate, which is what the founders wanted. The founders did not want to have a government that moved too fast. That's why it created the system that it did. That's why it's been so stable and economically successful for the past 240 years. But what we have right now is we have one party that lives in reality, the Democratic Party, and we have one party that does not, the Republican Party. That's not sustainable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:24)
Let me push back again a little bit because there is a fringe to the Democratic Party that is I'm not going to say the radical left, but it's definitely way lefter-leaning than I would think mainstream America is. So when I'm getting lit up and I'm getting my hate mail and I'm getting people telling me they're going to come kill me and all the stupid stuff that's happened to me over the last year, one of the thing's that's laced in there is, "Well, you're now a socialist. You're running with the socialists." So what do you say about the configuration of the Democratic Party today, and is there anything about your party that you're worried about?

Christopher Hahn: (23:04)
I mean, even the furthest left person in the Democratic Party lives in reality, right? I always like to say I get called a socialist 10 or 15 times a day by people who I am much better at capitalism than, right? People who have jobs in the government or who are living on a pension, who are receiving Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare are calling me a socialist. Look, when I was 29 years old, I had all sorts of ideas of how to change the world. People like AOC, who's just turned 30 and hasn't been beaten down by Washington yet, she should be pushing for everything she can because, quite frankly, the center in this country since Reagan has moved right. It has not moved left, and the only way to get it to move back left is to start further left so that when you make your compromise, which is what these people are all willing to do, by the way ... They're all willing to compromise. Just because they start on the far left doesn't mean they're not willing to compromise somewhere in the middle. The problem is the middle is to the right right now.

Christopher Hahn: (24:19)
So AOC and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others, they are trying to start the conversation further to the left. As somebody's who's negotiated a lot of things in my lifetime, I can see where that is helpful. You would never start your negotiation with where you want to finish it, and, unfortunately, right-wing media says, "Oh, look where they are, they're insisting on this or that or the other thing," and then it gets echoed, and then that's the Republican Party position. The Democrats, for all the talk of the liberal media, do not have a single media personality that can drive the entire public opinion of the entire party, including elected officials, like Republicans have. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, they get on a drumbeat of a certain issue, and the entire Republican Party, the entire conservative movement, is right there with them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:13)
So I've got to introduce John Darsie to the conversation because we have to get our ratings up. Apparently, he's getting a lot of fan mail that he's a new budding television and all those sorts of-

Christopher Hahn: (25:24)
You've got great hair.

John Darsie: (25:25)
Thank you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:25)
Yeah, so I'm going to introduce him in a second, but I want to ask you one last question before-

Christopher Hahn: (25:29)
Go ahead.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:30)
... John comes in and tries to outshine me in all that Millennial sharp elbows and everything that he's capable of.

Christopher Hahn: (25:37)
True Gen X'ers, man. We're fading.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:40)
Yeah, it's hard on me, to be candid, Chris. But Donald Trump has been permanently suspended from Twitter, his Facebook. Apple, Google have removed Parler from their app stores. I think a company called Stripe has taken the payment protocol away from his electioneering at this time. What is your reaction to all that, and is that an appropriate thing to do, an inappropriate thing to do? I was on a show with Piers Morgan in London. He said, "Well, what about the Ayatollah? The Ayatollah still has his Twitter account up." By the way, and I'm going to editorialize here for a second, I think it was totally appropriate because they are mounting another potential insurrection.

Christopher Hahn: (26:29)
Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:30)
But I'm interested in your reaction and where do you think we'll be post Donald Trump and what will Donald Trump be doing?

Christopher Hahn: (26:36)
Well, he's going to have a lot harder time doing it without Twitter, right? Parler is no Twitter, and it never will be. Now that they're taking it off the app store, it's going to be very hard for people to get on Parler. You're going to have to really be dedicated. The First Amendment does not apply to private actors. A lot of people are saying, "Oh, he's violating" ... No. He can go to the White House press room. You know that place. You worked there for 11 days. He could go down there and make a statement to the entire world right now if he wanted to. The problem is that media people will scrutinize it and it won't go out unedited.

Christopher Hahn: (27:11)
So I think it's very appropriate. He's been lying to people. That has incited violence. There is a police officer dead because of what the president has been saying for the last nine weeks, okay, more than that. Prior to election, he said it was going to be rigged, and then after the election, he's been saying it was rigged. Even in his statement conceding the election, he said it was rigged. This man is beyond-

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:36)
Well, yeah, it's his lies that have led to this level of violence. There's no question.

Christopher Hahn: (27:39)
Absolutely. He is directly responsible and should be held accountable.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:43)
What did the Fox News pundits say about that? They agree with him that the election was rigged? Even though Fox is putting these intercessional infomercials, lacing them into their punditry, that there was no fraud, the pundits think that or are they doing that to make money or what are they doing it for?

Christopher Hahn: (28:03)
I don't know. The main conservative I still go on is Laura Ingram. She has said that the election's over. I don't watch the show too much. I think their main grievance is the institution of vote by mail and how that is maybe a violation of their state laws and it should've been tried, along those lines, whatever. It all needs to stop. People need to say, "Congratulations, Joe Biden, you're president of the United States on January 20th at 12:01 PM." This constant whining, grievance culture, I don't know how anybody lives in it. I don't know how anybody lives in it. They always about Democrats and liberals being snowflakes and whiny, but Donald Trump's entire campaign was, "Look what they're doing to me," even as president. I get it when you're running for president. You can be a grievance candidate. But he was the government for the last four years. He was responsible for everything, and he lost 13 million jobs. It's crazy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:17)
Okay, I'm turning it over to John Darsie. Go easy on Chris, okay? He's a nice guy. He's a fellow Long Islander.

Christopher Hahn: (29:26)
I don't like scaring Millennials either, John. I know I tend to do that.

John Darsie: (29:31)
I know. We can be a little bit aggressive and progressive the way you are, so fighting fire with fire here. But I'm going to press you a little bit on the censorship issue, and I'm not going to editorialize. I just want to ask you the question, frankly, because I think it's a very complex issue, the idea of de-platforming people, de-platforming apps, and big tech working with government to basically arbitrate on what's allowed to be said and what's not. Glenn Greenwald, who's controversial in some quarters but he's definitely a contrarian commentator, he's among the leading voices that say that this event at the capital is basically going to be liberals' 9/11, where they're going to use it as pretense to continue to strip civil liberties away from people under the guise of public safety. Are you worried at all about the creep of authoritarianism when you have big tech and big government working together to determine who has a voice and who doesn't?

Christopher Hahn: (30:28)
No, and Glenn Greenwald's an idiot, okay? He's an idiot. I'm not going to mince words. He's an idiot. What authoritarianism was what happened on Wednesday. They were trying to install Donald Trump as an unelected king in this country. Glenn Greenwald is a monarchist, and I am not worried. First of all, if the government was telling Twitter and Facebook what to do, that would be a problem. I would have a problem with that because that would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Twitter and Facebook did it on their own because Donald Trump, for the past five years, has been violating Twitter and Facebook's user policies, and he's gotten away with it because he's newsworthy. Because he's the president of the United States, they give him a newsworthy exception.

Christopher Hahn: (31:21)
Now that that newsworthy exception has actually caused somebody to die, they are concerned about future liability of continuing to platform Donald Trump, so they don't want to be associated with Donald Trump anymore. You can make an argument that the vending platform Stripe, which processes the president's campaign contributions, de-platforming him could have some First Amendment impact because Buckley v. Valeo has equated spending of money with speech in the Supreme Court and that's a very long-term precedent of the United States Supreme Court. But Glenn Greenwald should probably read those things again. Maybe he's forgotten them. But he is not right. He's incorrect, and quite frankly-

John Darsie: (32:14)
What are you-

Christopher Hahn: (32:15)
... I am a civil libertarian in a lot of ways, and I would never ... The government should never be allowed to infringe on people's free speech, no matter how disgusting it may be. What's going on right now is not the government infringing on speech. It is platforms who have rules saying, "You're going to follow our rules or you're off," and they are also concerned about their long-term financial liability for what's being said on those platforms now that they know what they've caused.

John Darsie: (32:49)
Related to that, do you have a strong view on Section 230? I find it kind of funny that a lot of conservatives seem to think that by repealing Section 230, it would actually create more freedom of speech on social media outlets, whereas the provision actually prevents these outlets from being held liable for speech that's made on that platforms. So if you actually stripped it, it would force these social media outlets to censor a lot more speech. But do you have a strong view on that issue?

Christopher Hahn: (33:19)
I think that the president sees a little mark next to his name so he pushes for Section 230 to be repealed. I don't have a strong view on it. But I also think that one of the reasons why they're pulling people off their platform is liability because, even though they have some protection for it, once you knowingly allow this stuff going on, it becomes a reckless standard here, I think. It's been a while since I've actually practiced law, so forgive me. But I did go to St. John's, where they actually teach you the law, not Harvard, where they teach you the theory of the law. So it's a-

John Darsie: (33:56)
I don't know. Anthony passed the bar on his third attempt.

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:59)
Yeah, he's taking a shot at me because [crosstalk 00:34:00]-

John Darsie: (34:00)
Anthony passed the bar on his third attempt.

Christopher Hahn: (34:01)
It's one of the very few things St. John's grads can have.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:05)
A Long Island St. John's is taking a shot at me. John's going to mention the fact that I blew up on the bar exam a few times. I was out water skiing in Manhasset Bay. I didn't realize you had all these arcane things. But I did pass it. I eventually passed it. Keep going, Darsie. Go ahead.

Christopher Hahn: (34:21)
I passed it, and I'll tell you-

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:22)
Are you going to mention I got fired again?

Christopher Hahn: (34:23)
... a quick bar story. I was so worried about failing the bar. I buried myself in studying for the bar. Two weeks before the bar exam, two things happened. I had a girlfriend that I stopped seeing as I was just studying the bar, and I told my mother, "If anybody dies, just don't call me until after the bar." So the bar ends, I finish the bar, I'm in the city. My girlfriend lived in Manhattan. She was a ballet dancer. I call her up, I go, "I'm going to come over. I'm going to come over. I just finished taking the bar exam." She's like, "Christopher, we broke up three weeks ago. You were on a phone call. I told you you're too intense with the studying, I've got to go, and you just said, 'Uh-huh (affirmative), uh-huh (affirmative).'" So I didn't even realize I'd broken up with her. Sorry.

John Darsie: (35:18)
At least you were buried in your studies. I'll give you credit for that.

Christopher Hahn: (35:20)
I think she was originally from Manhasset, too, by the way, either Manhasset or Roslyn, something like that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:25)
It just means she had good judgment if she was from Manhasset, okay? [crosstalk 00:35:28]-

Christopher Hahn: (35:28)
One of those North Shore wealthy communities.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:31)
Yeah, we're very smug.

Christopher Hahn: (35:32)
Lived on 33rd and Third.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:33)
We're very smug and very self-important up here on the North Shore.

Christopher Hahn: (35:37)
Yes.

John Darsie: (35:37)
I want to switch gears a little bit with my line of questioning here. In Georgia today, we have two Democratic senators after the run-offs. We have a Black pastor and a 33-year-old Jewish progressive Democrat. It just goes to show you how much the electoral map and the makeup of each of these parties in the electorate has shifted in the last five to 10 years. It's been a slow trend in Georgia, but you're seeing other places really evolve, some becoming more blue, some becoming more red. How do you think the electoral balance of power is going to continue to evolve and shift around the country?

Christopher Hahn: (36:15)
Well, I'm very concerned about gerrymandering now that the Democrats failed to take back state houses in this past cycle. I think that that's the biggest problem is this country because you wind up having ... You want to talk about extremism on both sides, you wind up having people who are only concerned about winning their primaries and never have to really face a broad section of voters because they're going to win their seat based on their party affiliation if they survive a primary. So that's my main concern. I do think that presidentially Georgia now being firmly in play, first of all, congratulations, Stacey Abrams, because it was her work that made that all possible. The reason why Texas didn't similarly turn is because they didn't have a Stacey Abrams. I think Beto O'Rourke is a great candidate, but he's not the organizer that Stacey is, and I think that we've got to find that Stacey Abrams in Texas and in North Carolina and Florida to turn those states at least purple.

John Darsie: (37:27)
You also saw Hispanic voters in Texas and in Florida and elsewhere turn toward the Republican party more than they had in 2016.

Christopher Hahn: (37:36)
They sure did.

John Darsie: (37:37)
The Republicans got a much larger share of the vote.

Christopher Hahn: (37:38)
They sure did. You only need to look at Miami-Dade County to understand the story of Florida. Hillary Clinton won it with 68% of the vote and Joe Biden won it with 54. That's a huge shift in one of the largest counties in the state.

John Darsie: (37:52)
Why did that happen? Is it sloganeering? Is it defund the police?

Christopher Hahn: (37:55)
I think that there was a lot of lies being said about socialism and communism, particularly in Spanish language media, that was not countered by the Biden campaign well enough. You can't allow a lie to linger. You got to get on it immediately because it'll travel fast and it'll set in and it'll become gospel. They lied about them. How could anybody think ... I've known Joe Biden since I worked in the Senate. I started working in the Senate in 2000. I met him then. He is as middle of the road as they come. How can anybody think that Joe Biden is a socialist, a communist? It's ridiculous.

John Darsie: (38:45)
Yeah. In a lot of ways, he's the perfect president for the moment. He obviously has his issues. He's older, he's maybe a little slowing down from what he used to be when he was in his 40s or 50s. The fact that he is a consensus builder might be a godsend for us as we enter this precarious period of our history.

Christopher Hahn: (39:04)
Absolutely. Absolutely.

John Darsie: (39:04)
One more question for you. You're a New Yorker. New York and California in particular, I think, have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic because I think they, first of all, have the largest economies, but you've also seen New York City and San Francisco undergo sort of a decay over the last several years economically and socially, as you see increasing homelessness and the livability of those cities has gone downhill. You see a big movement or a lot of noise at least being made about people moving to Texas and Florida. What do you think locally Democratic leaders in heavily Democratic states and localities need to do to make sure that they reverse these trends and remain competitive from a business perspective, so these cities remain livable and exciting places to be?

Christopher Hahn: (39:52)
Well, actually, I think that this current crisis in New York City is going to lead to a renaissance in New York City. Hopefully, we get a mayor that has some vision and can lead. But housing has gotten out of reach in New York City for Millennials like you and artists and other people that led to the boom of New York City in the '90s and into the 2000s and up until, really, a year ago when it crashed because of COVID. I think that now that we have an opportunity to see housing costs come down and maybe even more stock be made available because there's going to be less need for all of this commercial office space, I think you're going to see more young people moving into Manhattan and Brooklyn and you're going to see that artist community come back and that creative class really take back over New York City.

Christopher Hahn: (40:48)
Cities are the future in this country. I know that COVID has people thinking, "Well, that's not going to be the case." I don't believe that at all. I believe that what was making cities slow down was the fact that Anthony could afford to live there but I can't. It's one of those things that now it's going to be more affordable, more easy. I actually-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:11)
We're looking at his Architectural Digest living room, but that's fine. Okay. He's one of these limousine-

Christopher Hahn: (41:17)
I'm doing okay. I probably could afford to live there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:20)
I mean, he's one of these limousine liberals, okay? But I want to let you shoot it out with Darsie.

Christopher Hahn: (41:23)
I actually said ... My wife-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:24)
Okay, I can see the Architectural Digest photography behind you-

Christopher Hahn: (41:29)
My wife and I were having-

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:29)
... but you can't afford living in New York.

Christopher Hahn: (41:32)
My wife and I were having this conversation. I actually really wanted to move to Manhattan before COVID. I was really like, "Let's move to Manhattan. It's good for my career." I love Manhattan. I love being in Manhattan. It's a good thing we didn't.

John Darsie: (41:50)
Well, if you're still interested, you might get a better price on that apartment that you were looking for.

Christopher Hahn: (41:55)
I think so. There's going to be a lot of opportunity in Manhattan the next couple of years, and I think it's going to lead to a lot more creativity in Manhattan, and creativity breeds industry. It's not just going to be artists. It's going to be engineers. It's going to be people who want to design things and build things and create things. You're going to see new uses for these buildings that used to host ... I don't think you're going to need 300,000 square feet for a law firm anymore. You're going to need less because people are working remote and they like it.

John Darsie: (42:23)
Absolutely. Well, Christopher Hahn, thank you so much for joining us on SALT Talks. It's the Aggressive Progressive podcast. Please, everybody go out there, subscribe, listen to Chris's podcast. It's a fantastic podcast. I listened to a lot of episodes as soon as you came on my radar via Anthony, and it's a great show. Anthony, you have any final words for Chris before we let him go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:42)
No. Chris, I wish there were more people like you and Robert Wolf and others where we could just bring the country together, calm down the outside tension, but, unfortunately, what I'm learning and what's something I don't like, and I know you don't like it as well, is the idea that there are people who are using movements and radicalization for their own personal ambition and for their own personal political attempt at power. I'm talking to you, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, specifically.

Christopher Hahn: (43:20)
And some of these groups, like CPAC and others. It's just a grift.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:25)
Really dangerous stuff. I appreciate you coming on. We're going to have you back. We're going to need some of your insight on what the Biden administration looks like in six to 12 months.

Christopher Hahn: (43:34)
It's going to be a great thing, and I really appreciate it. Anthony, you know-

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:38)
If you're nice to me, before I put my hair up on eBay, I may let you borrow it one night [crosstalk 00:43:43]-

Christopher Hahn: (43:43)
I want to borrow it, man. If I had your hair, I'd rule the world, man.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:44)
But you can't bring it into Manhattan. You can only use it out here on Long Island.

Christopher Hahn: (43:47)
But I want to say one nice thing about you because I saw that you were mixing it up with somebody on Twitter over the weekend and he was calling it out for the role you played in Trump's rise, which you owned it. You owned the mistake, and you've done everything you can the past couple of years now to take that back and inform people who don't want to listen to me that this was a bad thing. This is a bad guy. There's got to be a point in time where people, they've made their amends, they've admitted wrong. You never tried to say, "Oh, no, I wasn't wrong." You said, "I was wrong for supporting this guy."

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:34)
No, I owned it, but this is the problem with liberalism, let me just tell you straight up. You have a lot of self-righteous, very sanctimonious people, holier than thou, and they don't want to hear it, so they have a litmus test.

Christopher Hahn: (44:47)
I don't think it's that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:48)
I'm telling those people, you've got 74 million people that just voted for Donald Trump, we have to get them back into the fold of the United States of America.

Christopher Hahn: (44:58)
I wish I could blame it on ideology, but I think it comes back to everybody wants to go viral all the time, everybody wants to be relevant, and as people start to fade from relevance, they pick fights, they get more radicalized, they do whatever they got to do to maintain that relevance. I know at some point nobody's [crosstalk 00:45:21]-

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:21)
Darsie's thinking of Rudy as you're saying that. See, that's why Darsie's smiling. Darsie's thinking of Rudy.

Christopher Hahn: (45:24)
Yeah. I had that battle with Rudy Guiliani, and it made me sad more than anything else because the guy used to be great, and he's not anymore. He's a laughing stock. He's pathetic.

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:41)
Makes me sad. I had a very good close, long-term personal relationship with him, and as Anthony Carbonetti, who you know and others, we would all say the same thing, John Avlon. We want to remember Rudy the way he was '93 to '97 as opposed to the way he is here in 2021.

Christopher Hahn: (46:02)
Yeah, you want to remember him on 9/11.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:04)
On 9/11 as well. Yeah, those were [crosstalk 00:46:06]-

Christopher Hahn: (46:05)
I know. I used to see him at the Yankee games, and I would talk to him and have great conversations with him. Then the last five years, he started bringing up insanity at the Yankee games, not even on TV.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:22)
Well, I'm going to mic drop you because this is my show, okay? This is a Met city now. Cut his mic, Darsie, cut his mic.

Christopher Hahn: (46:31)
There's no Mets city. I know you're an owner of the Mets, and I hope to one day go to a game with you because my wife-

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:37)
Oh, yeah.

Christopher Hahn: (46:37)
I'm in a mixed marriage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:37)
No, I sold my estate to Steve Cohen. But, yes, you'll be in my-

Christopher Hahn: (46:42)
I'm in a mixed marriage because my wife's-

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:43)
You'll be in my suite as soon as we can get the stadium open, as soon as we get [inaudible 00:46:46].

Christopher Hahn: (46:47)
I got to bring my wife because she's the Met fan here. I'm in a mixed marriage.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:50)
All right. Hey, man, we may leave you in the car now that I know that.

Christopher Hahn: (46:53)
There you go.

Anthony Scaramucci: (46:54)
All right. Well, god bless, Chris. Thanks to you for coming on.

Christopher Hahn: (46:56)
God bless you, too, and thanks for having me, and I look forward to seeing it. You guys are great. Keep up the good work.

John Darsie: (47:02)
Thanks again to Christopher Hahn for joining us on SALT Talks, and thank you for tuning into SALT Talks. Just a reminder, you can sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks and access our entire archive of SALT Talks at salt.org/talks/archive. Please follow us on social media. SALT is on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Please tell your friends about SALT Talk because we love growing our community. We were able to use technology and the Internet in 2020 at a time when we had to cancel our conferences to grow our community digitally, and it's been a lot of fun to have these virtual conversations with people like Christopher Hahn and guests across finance, tech, and public policy. On behalf of the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off for today from SALT Talks. We'll see you back here again tomorrow.

Benn Steil: “The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War” | SALT Talks #137

“When we get to 1947 and the Marshall plan, the Truman Administration is already in a major corrective mode. The State Department is already talking openly about a two-world vision for the post-war order.”

Benn Steil is senior fellow and director of international economics, as well as the official historian in residence, at the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book, The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War, was named the winner of the New-York Historical Society's Barbara and David Zalaznick Book Prize, awarded each year to the best work in the field of American history or biography.

Before his death, FDR developed four pillars of a post-WWII foreign policy: peaceably dismantle the British Empire; build permanent peace between the United States and the Soviet Union; profitably dismember and deindustrialize Germany; and integrate the global economy with short-term IMF loans. This represented the hope for a one-world architecture where the US and Soviet Union got along. Circumstances quickly forced then President Harry Truman to pivot and begin dividing the world between Marshall states- countries that asserted liberal democracy and free markets- and Soviet states under communist rule. This marked the dawn of the Cold War. “When we get to 1947 and the Marshall plan, the Truman Administration is already in a major corrective mode. The State Department is already talking openly about a two-world vision for the post-war order.”

The multilateral alliances that came out of WWII, like NATO, represent some the period’s most important and enduring legacies. The world depends on these institutions even more today as the need to build alliances only grows. A rising China presents a global threat that can only be managed with new partnerships that meet these challenges collectively.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Benn Steil.jpeg

Benn Steil

Senior Fellow, Director of International Economics & Historian-in-Residence, Council on Foreign Relations

MODERATOR

anthony_scaramucci.jpeg

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to Salt Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of Salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. Salt Talks are a digital interview series that we started in 2020 with leading investors, creators, and thinkers.

John Darsie: (00:29)
While we started Salt Talks as a response to the pandemic, due to the fact that we had to cancel our global Salt conferences, which we host twice a year, one in the United States and one internationally, we're going to continue to do these Salt Talks because they've been so fun, so engaging with our community. We've been able to expose our community to so many interesting speakers and ideas and the interaction as well with members of the Salt community has been so much fun.

John Darsie: (00:54)
So we're going to continue these even around our conference circuit that we do. So we're very excited to continue these Salt Talks into 2021 with several talks per week on a variety of topics. What we're trying to do with Salt Talks is replicate the experience that we provide at our global conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (01:21)
We're very excited today to welcome Benn Steil to Salt Talks. Benn Steil is the senior fellow and director of international economics, as well as the official historian in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. He's also the founding editor of International Finance, a scholarly economics journal. He's the lead writer of the Council on Foreign Relations Geographics Economics blog and the creator of five web based interactive tracking global growth, global monetary policy, global imbalances, sovereign risk, central bank currency swaps, and China's Belt and Road initiative.

John Darsie: (02:01)
Prior to joining the Council on Foreign Relations in 1999, Benn was the director of the International Economics program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. He came to the institute in 1992 from a Lloyd's of London Tercentenary Research Fellowship at Nuffield College at Oxford, where he received his MPhil and DPhil in economics. He also holds a bachelor's degree of science in economics, summa cum laude from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

John Darsie: (02:34)
Dr. Steil has written and spoken widely on international finance, monetary policy, financial markets, and economic and diplomatic history. He's testified before the US House of Representatives as well as the Senate and the CFTC. He's a regular op ed writer and commentator on CNBC. His most recent book, The Marshall Plan, Dawn of the Cold War, won the New York Historical Society's 2019 Barbara and David Zalaznick prize for best work on American history. It won the American Academy of diplomacy 2018 Douglas Dillon prize. It won the honorable mention runner up of the 2019 ASEEES Marshall D. Shulman prize and was shortlisted for the Duff Cooper prize and is ranked number three among book authorities best diplomacy books of all time.

John Darsie: (03:27)
Hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who actually is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Anthony is the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of Salt. With that, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:44)
Well, Dr. Steil I have to tell you, I read your book, it feels like 100 years ago now sir. I read it back in July of 2019. I was thinking to myself, what a splendid book and what a splendid moment to write a book like this because it was a time when America was thinking very big on the world stage in terms of how to be inclusive and engaged and how to make the world more peaceful through global shared prosperity.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:12)
Congratulations on the book, it's written very well to bestseller, The Marshall Plan, Dawn of The Cold War. Benn, if you know anything about me, I'm not really that promotional. If you probably... So that's why I'm waiving the book like it's a windshield wiper in front of me. But I want people to go out and read this book because it's very timely for what's going on in the world today. You talk about in the book, monetary nationalism and globalization as being a dangerous combination. I would hope that you could explain to people who haven't yet read the book what that means Dr. Steil.

Benn Steil: (04:50)
I think I actually made that particular comment in my previous book, which was called The Battle of Bretton Woods. That was an historical narrative on the Bretton Woods international monetary conference of 1944. That's where the IMF and the World Bank were created and the dollar based international monetary system, and actually got the idea of doing the Marshall Plan book while I was writing Bretton Woods. I was working on an aftermath chapter and it really hit me how very different the view of the post war world was under President Truman in 1947 when the Marshall Plan was launched, and what it had been under FDR in 1944 when the Bretton Woods Conference had been held.

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:44)
Explain that to people because a lot of people don't realize this but in the mid 40s, 43, 44, FDR was building the post World War Two architecture, as you point out in the book. But Truman had a totally different vision for where he wanted to go relative to FDR. I was wondering if you could contrast those two visions.

Benn Steil: (06:05)
Right. In 1944, the US is very near the zenith of its power historically. We account for more than half the world's manufacturing output. One year later, we would have sole possession of atomic weapons. This is a period in which we had enormous leeway to improvise with the architecture of both the global economy and the global political system.

Benn Steil: (06:38)
Now, in 1944, FDR was still proceeding under the expectation, or one might say the hope that we could have what he called a one world architecture. This is a world in which the United States and the Soviet Union would somehow find a means of cooperating with each other to promote peace and stability and economic prosperity throughout the world. Now, that sounds naive now but in April of 1945, when FDR died and Truman took over, he had no intention of overthrowing this foreign policy architecture that had been handed down to him by FDR. It was really circumstances that dictated that we needed to go in a very different direction.

Benn Steil: (07:34)
Now there were four pillars of foreign policy thought that underlay FDR's one World Vision. Those were the following [inaudible 00:07:45], first of all, that the British Empire could somehow be peaceably dismantled. That didn't work out. The British Empire collapsed very violently and chaotically in early 1947. Second, that the Soviets could be co-opted into a peacetime, a permanent peacetime alliance with the United States to promote political and economic stability through institutions like the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank.

Benn Steil: (08:18)
That didn't work out obviously. The third was that Germany could somehow be profitably dismembered and de-industrialized. This was the so called Morgenthau plan for Germany developed by FDR's treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau. Truman administration was forced to reverse this because Germany was sinking into chaos and disorder and it was redounding to the benefit of the Soviet Union.

Benn Steil: (08:48)
Finally, and this goes back to Bretton Woods, there was a fourth pillar and that was the idea that somehow a globally integrated economy could be rebuilt on the basis of just short term loans from an international institution, the IMF, that would help countries who were in temporary balance of payments difficulty get back on the right track. That didn't work at all. When I referred to this idea of monetary nationalism. That was the idea of Bretton Woods that the United States could have it all. That we could have the US dollar as the foundation of an international monetary system, but it would be indelibly backed by gold. We could meet this promise without in any sense tying ourselves down.

Benn Steil: (09:42)
As I pointed out in that book, it didn't turn out to be anything of the sort. When we get to 1947 and the Marshall Plan, the Truman administration is already in a major corrective mode. Now the State Department is talking openly about a two World Vision for the post war order. Very different from the one that FDR had developed. In this world, there would be martial states that would effectively be led by the United States. These would value above all things democracy, a liberal political order and free markets.

Benn Steil: (10:28)
There would be what the State Department called the slay world or the communist world, which would be led by necessity of the Soviet Union. And obviously, the Truman administration wanted to keep that as small as possible concentrated in Eastern Europe, the immediate periphery of the Soviet Union.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:46)
It's a fascinating time because you also pointed out in the book, that improvisation that we're really trying... It's not... Sometimes people look back on the past and say, okay, they had this grand blueprint and they masterfully created this architecture, but it was a work in progress. Of course, we had the situation in Turkey in Greece which led to the introduction of the Truman Doctrine and the rejection of communism around the world.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:15)
But before I go deeper into the book, I want to touch on Bretton Woods, if you don't mind, because I found that book also fascinating which is perhaps why I conflated the two. Tell us about the idea behind Bretton Woods, how well it worked and why it failed and obviously with the August of 1971 pulling of the pin of gold tied to the US dollar by Richard Nixon. Give us some of your sense for that.

Benn Steil: (11:43)
Well, Bretton Woods was a rather eclectic amalgamation of views about what the post world would be. On the one hand, it was an extremely nationalist view led by treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau's assistant, Harry Dexter white. He was going to build this architecture around the US dollar which he said would be tied to gold but in no way did he want the United States to be constrained in how it operated its economy by gold.

Benn Steil: (12:22)
So we wouldn't obey any sort of rules dictated by the movement of gold ownership across borders. We would just have so much gold that people would be obliged to use the US dollar simply because after World War Two, it was the only credible voucher for gold. It's hard to put ourselves back in that mindset now. But back in 1944, people really viewed gold as being the foundation of money and national currency is just being either more credible or less credible vouchers for gold.

Benn Steil: (13:02)
By the time we get to 1944, Britain being almost bankrupt, the pound sterling is no longer a credible voucher for gold so you're left with the United States. But on top of that view, Harry Dexter white remarkably, as I explained in the Battle of Bretton Woods, was a progressive romantic who had very positive views about the role of the Russian Revolution and the history of mankind. He viewed it as a great liberating event. He was quite convinced that the world was going to be moving more towards a Soviet state managed economy style of operation after the war.

Benn Steil: (14:02)
He viewed Republicans in Congress as being against US interest by trying to counter or contain the Soviet Union. He himself was, in fact, an agent of the Soviet Union. He passed classified documents to them. He pursued major foreign policy initiatives that redounded to their interest. It's hard to imagine those things being spliced together. But it was really central to the American vision at Bretton Woods that the Soviets would somehow be willing to sign on to an American architecture for the post war world.

Benn Steil: (14:55)
By the time we get to 1947, it's clear that's not going to happen. None of the assumptions that Harry Dexter White took into Bretton Woods turned out to be true. For example, the monetary system at Bretton Woods assumed that all the major European currencies would be completely convertible into US dollars. It wasn't in fact until 1961, that that took place. So what we call the Bretton Woods system that supposedly lasted from 1945 until Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, really didn't even start operating until 1961.

Benn Steil: (15:42)
By the time we get to that period, the system is already coming under enormous strain as the US is losing gold reserves, the French and others are losing confidence in the system and are no longer willing to accumulate dollars. The Marshall Plan was in many senses a major corrective both from an economic perspective. That is, the United States now realized that we needed much more than short term loans from a new international institution to revive a global economy. We were going to have to reconstruct the economies of Western Europe on the fly and it was going to be enormously expensive.

Benn Steil: (16:28)
Second, that we were not going to be able to do this in conjunction with the Soviet Union. In fact, we had to expect that the Soviet Union was going to resist this initiative as they did. As you know, I explained in the book, that the Marshall Plan is really at the center of the Cold War. That is the Soviet Union, Stalin in particular, think of the Marshall Plan as a major threat to their control of their satellite states in Eastern Europe. Even more importantly, he saw it as a threat to the ability of the Soviet Union to constrain Germany, whom they consider to be obviously the mortal enemy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:19)
I've heard you say this stuff before, Dr. Steil, but I'd like you to repeat it to all our Salt viewers and guests about the size and scale of the Marshall Plan. Yes, the 14 or so billion dollars at that time but what did it mean in today's dollars and as a percentage of GDP today. Because I think those numbers are actually monumental.

Benn Steil: (17:42)
Over a four year period, it amounted to $13.2 billion which may not sound like terribly much but in current dollars, that's about 140 billion. This was 2.6% of the recipient country output. There were 16 European countries that ultimately participated in the Marshall Plan. We can also talk about how those countries came to be selected or self select, which is itself a really interesting story. It was 1.1% of US GDP.

Benn Steil: (18:20)
Now to put that in context, if we were to launch a Marshall Plan today, of equivalent size in terms of the percentage of our economy, we would be talking about a plan greater in size than $800 billion. When you add in the military aid that started pouring into Europe, particularly after the creation of NATO, in 1949, which was really... Which became the military escort for the Marshall Plan. And then in particular, the aid we provided during the Korean War began in 1950. Now we're talking about sums that would be equivalent today to over a trillion dollars. So extremely significant.

Benn Steil: (19:11)
To put this in the context of the economic performance of the US economy at the time, in 1946, this is the year after the war ends, we had a GDP growth rate of negative 11.6%. This was a massive economic contraction brought about by the collapse in government spending with the end of the war and the withdrawal of our troops. So it was a very, very difficult period of economic adjustment in the United States. As you can imagine, few in Congress, particularly on the Republican side, were in any mood for a major new foreign aid program. They wanted their peace dividend, they wanted tax cuts. Selling this idea to the American public was itself a very major initiative. There was, as Marshall like to put it, a Marshall Plan to sell the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
That's another fascinating part of the book, because it's not Marshall's idea. Sort of Germany [inaudible 00:20:27] him and Truman says, well, there's no way it can be the Truman plan because I'm not that popular up on the hill. Atkinson isn't popular either for that matter. And so they turn to the five star general, the Chief of Staff of the Army. He unveils this plan at Harvard University, he gives it the very famous commencement address, talking about the rebuilding of our allies, but also our adversaries.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:53)
It's a fascinating part of human history because this could be the only time where a vanquishing power is replenishing and rebuilding the vanquished, which is in very stark contrast to what happened after Versailles and the Treaty of Versailles, which call for war time reparations and loans. So my question, Dr. Steil, is did it work?

Benn Steil: (21:20)
The short answer is yes. But as you pointed out earlier, this was very much a grand improvisation. Mind you, there was a lot of planning that went into it, a lot of serious planning. But there were major adjustments that were made on the fly. If you look at the original vision of the Marshall Plan, where did it come from? Now you and I both know, Anthony, that the best policy ideas almost always come from economists. But in this particular case, in this rare particular case, it didn't come from economists.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:58)
Let's not go into that story then. Let me go to another question. It didn't come from an economist, Dr. Steil, I don't want to hear about it.

Benn Steil: (22:10)
Where did the ideas come from? Very surprisingly, they came from the military establishment. Why is that? Consider the situation that we were in May of 1945 when the fighting stops in Europe. We have over 3 million troops in Europe. The American public wants them home immediately. President Roosevelt had promised at Tehran in 1943 openly to withdraw all American troops from Europe within two years of the end of the fight. As I pointed out earlier, Truman at this point, is not looking to reinvent the world. He's actually searching for FDRs blueprint so that he can execute it.

Benn Steil: (22:54)
He starts withdrawing the troops. By the time we get to 1946, the American military and diplomatic establishment knows that they have a huge problem on their hands because FDR had believed or wanted to believe that the Soviets would effectively contain themselves after the war. That is that they would be satisfied with their newly expanded borders and security zone. A buffer that they had created in Eastern Europe.

Benn Steil: (23:23)
But by 1946, it's clear, they're not satisfied. They're threatening Iran, they're threatening Turkey to take over territory. They refuse to withdraw troops from Iran. They only back down when Truman sends a large military flotilla into the region. The American military establishment knows that's not going to do. That's not going to be sufficient for Europe. So how are we going to protect our most vital interests in the world, which we consider at the time to be in Western Europe, without relying on the military?

Benn Steil: (23:57)
And so they looked to instigate a new form of asymmetric warfare that we would wage against the Soviets to counter their conventional force dominance in Europe. We would rely around our economic power. We would leverage our economic dominance in the world to rebuild and reconstruct the West European economies as quickly as possible so that they would be able to defend themselves, both their external borders and the internal integrity of their political systems.

Benn Steil: (24:39)
What we didn't wager, however at the time, was that the Europeans wanted no part of an integrated Western European economic and political structure. The French and the British in particular said this is a mortal threat to our security. If we're no longer going to be self sustaining, if we're going to be dependent on one another, how do we defend our borders? The French, for example, said you're withdrawing your troops from Europe. In five years time, what do we do if the Germans cut off our coal supply or more likely, since you're going home, the Soviets will have taken over Germany and they will cut off our coal supply.

Benn Steil: (25:23)
If we're going to go forward with your economic and political integration vision. That is the vision behind the EU, which actually came from the United States. Contra Donald Trump, who has said that the EU was created to screw the US on trade. It was in many ways created by the State Department. If we go forward, we Europeans with your vision, we won't be able to protect ourselves. So we need security guarantees from the United States.

Benn Steil: (25:53)
So in 1949, a year and a day after passage of the martial aid legislation, we passed the NATO Founding Act legislation. If you go back to the first part of my explanation here, the American military establishment was looking for a way to protect Western Europe without using the military. Yet the Europeans made it clear to us that that was a dream that could never be fulfilled. That the US would have to make firm security commitments to Western Europe in order to get them to go along with the American integration idea.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:33)
This is a brilliant exposition of what's in the book. It begs the question, did this work for the United States and has worked for the West in terms of setting up the architecture? Although it wasn't a one world architecture, set up the architecture for the free world to have a semblance of long term peace and long term prosperity. If so, what are the lessons that can be learned from that?

Benn Steil: (27:00)
When we ask the question did it work? If you look at the early studies that had been done on the Marshall Plan going back to the late 1940s and 1950s, they really just simply looked at the amazing recovery of the West European economies and said, yeah, well all this aid must have worked. Look at the performance of these economies between 1948 and 1942. Output in the Marshall country is increased by over 60%.

Benn Steil: (27:39)
To put that in context, if we take the four and a half year period running up to 2008 and the great financial crisis, the EU's total growth rate over that period was 15%. This is a really remarkable regeneration of the European economies. But only later did economist start questioning how much of this came from the Marshall aid? As economists were wanting to do, they ran regressions looking for the secret sauce. What was it that revive the economies?

Benn Steil: (28:19)
They asked, was it for example, that this aid money allowed them to import vital commodities, industrial machinery, et cetera that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to bring in? Did that revive the European economies? The answer is yes, but it would only explain about half a percent of growth whereas you're seeing many multiples of that. Up to seven percentage points of additional growth coming from the Marshall Plan. Was it the fact that government spending was increased?

Benn Steil: (28:56)
No, government spending as a percentage of GDP over those four Marshall years actually fell in Europe so it wasn't that. What was the answer? What was it in the Marshall Plan that really regenerated the European economies? I go back to George Kennan's point, the famous American diplomat, George Kennan is one of the architects of the plan, he's no economist but he recognizes that the primary benefit of the Marshall Plan is going to be psychological in Europe. To convince the Europeans that unlike after World War One, we are not going home.

Benn Steil: (29:33)
That's why the Marshall Plan is a four year scheme rather than a one day scheme in which we write them a giant check and wish them well. We wanted to convince the Europeans that we were going to be with them year after year. Did that work? Yes, but only with the security guarantees. I can't emphasize how important those security guarantees were. Without the security guarantees, you wouldn't have gotten the private investment necessary to regenerate these economy.

Benn Steil: (30:00)
To put that in context, look at the money we've spent on reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well over $200 billion. Just reconstruction aid alone, that is more than 50% greater than the totality of Marshall aid in current dollars. So it's not as if we haven't tried a Marshall approach to economic reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan but we were not able to provide those countries with the internal security and external security necessary to produce economic growth. Whereas in the case of the Marshall Plan, because of NATO and the security commitments of the United States, we were able to provide those guarantees.

Benn Steil: (30:52)
The second thing I would just emphasize briefly is the 180 degree change we made in occupation policy in Germany. That is shifting from the Morgenthau plan, which was to de-industrialized Germany, essentially to impoverish it. The Marshall Plan, which would aim to make Western Germany, the part we controlled, into the industrial engine of a new integrated Europe. A totally different vision that was enormously successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:23)
Well, I mean, it's an unbelievably powerful story in the book. It is a story about improvisation but it's also a story about really good long term strategic planning, with the intention of collaboration. Ultimately, the lessons from this book that I took away, is that we needed America engaged. Certainly, we needed an America to help its own and to rebuild our infrastructure and to rebuild our lives here. But we do needed America engage with the rest of the world to give that peace, to give that confidence and to give that ultimate prosperity that we want. Back here in our homeland.

Benn Steil: (32:00)
Alliances, I can't emphasize this enough, are at the centerpiece of the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:06)
No question.

Benn Steil: (32:07)
Building alliances around the world. That is we weren't going to rely on our own muscle. We were going to rely on others who shared a common vision, a common attachment to liberal democracy and open democracy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:26)
[inaudible 00:32:26].

Benn Steil: (32:28)
We eventually extended that strategy to Asia as well, and rehabilitating Japan and providing security for South Korea. It was the same sort of thinking that underlie the Marshall Plan.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:44)
Well, this is a brilliant book Dr and I enjoyed it a great deal. I got to turn it over to the homegrown millennial now. He's going to ask you some questions. He'll try to steal the show from me. So if you have to cut him at the knees, please go ahead and do that. You have my license and proxy to do that. But go ahead, John Dorsie.

John Darsie: (33:06)
Thank you very much Anthony for that warm introduction. As a millennial, obviously, I'm a student of history but I'm also very concerned about the future as well. I'm going to ask you a few questions that we got from our audience that pertain to topics that you're an expert on and relate to your books as well. We're talking about the Marshall Plan and all the benefits that it had for the United States and for the world.

John Darsie: (33:31)
The idea of a new Marshall Plan is sort of a buzz word or a buzz phrase these days. If we were to engage in a new Marshall Plan, where would that be best targeted, regionally or country specific? What type of aid and what type of funding would we provide to those regions or to those countries that would not only serve America's interests abroad but also aggregate to the global economy as well?

Benn Steil: (33:59)
In recent years, there have been all sorts of proposals for new Marshall plans all over the world. In Ukraine, in Greece, in southern Europe and North Africa. The Arab Middle East, Syria, et cetera. If you take the blueprint of the Marshall Plan and try to transplant it to these particular circumstances, you're not going to get success. Why do I say that?

Benn Steil: (34:27)
Take Syria, for example. Without creating an environment of internal and external security in Syria, you will never get the sort of economic growth and stability that the Marshall Plan was able to bring in Western Europe. Remember, in the case of the Marshall country, we weren't trying to reinvent the world, right? We were taking countries that had been democracies with market based economic systems before the war, and rehabilitate and reconstruct them. Bring them back to what they were before the war and reintegrate them on a Western European level.

Benn Steil: (35:19)
So you already had functioning, relatively impartial bureaucracies that were capable of implementing these plans. You had public support for democratic cooperative political structures. These are not situations that exist, for example, in Ukraine or Syria today. So it's very difficult to transplant that Marshall idea. That's not to say that using significant amounts of financial aid cannot help in many circumstances. The Marshall Plan analogy has been used, for example, to discuss how we should approach climate change.

Benn Steil: (36:06)
There's no doubt that it's going to take significant investment in order to address the issues of climate change but I don't believe that spending enormous sums of money as a cure for problems around the world is the message that we should take away from the Marshall Plan. The primary message that we should take is that it is vitally important for the United States to build and support alliances around the world, even more important than it was in 1945.

Benn Steil: (36:40)
In 1945, again, we were at the apex of our power. We account for more than half the world's manufacturing output. We have sold possession of atomic weapons, we were never in a stronger position to pursue a policy of America first. Yet we didn't. Why? Because we had a long term view of what the Marshall Plan was about. Let me quote from a remarkable letter. I didn't get to emphasize this before, but it's very important, this was a bipartisan initiative. It's hard to imagine something like this happening today.

Benn Steil: (37:18)
But this was a bipartisan initiative, Harry Truman, a Democrat, faced with a republican congress still managed to push through this remarkable agenda. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. In October of 1947 writes to Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a republican senator from Michigan, head of the senate foreign relations committee. Let me read you what he said. I think it's just so remarkable and spot on. He says, and I'm quoting, "The recovery of Western Europe it's a 25 to 50 year proposition. The aid which we extend now and in the next three years will in the long future result in our having strong friends abroad."

Benn Steil: (38:01)
So fast forward from the Marshall Plan to 1989. This is 42 years after the Marshall Plan. The Berlin Wall collapses. What do we notice immediately? That the alliances that America built as offshoots of the Marshall Plan, NATO and the embryo of the European Union are now more popular than ever. The newly liberated countries of Central and Eastern Europe are clamoring to get in.

Benn Steil: (38:33)
Whereas the Alliance's such as they were that the Soviets created like the Warsaw Pact, collapse overnight. Now, these alliances are far more valuable to us today, now that we only represent a quarter of the global economy than they were in 1945, when we were half the global economy. We are reaping the dividends today of the investments we made then. To give you other examples of what I consider successful examples of Marshall thinking, think of the creation of NAFTA.

Benn Steil: (39:09)
NAFTA was not just about integrating the economies of North America. It was about putting the political relationship between the United States and Mexico on a very different path. Demonstrating to the Mexicans that we respected their sovereignty and that we were treating them as equal partners in an important initiative and security cooperation between the United States and Mexico improved dramatically after the implementation of NAFTA. My bottom line is if you're looking for areas in which to apply martial thinking, remember that the creation of alliances for the United States was the central innovation behind it.

John Darsie: (40:01)
I want to switch gears a little bit. Again, talking a little bit more about things that are happening in the modern day because you wrote a fantastic op ed in Business Insider that cites our good friend, Jeff Sonnenfeld. Anthony is a member of the Yale CEO Summit community as I know you are. I've had the privilege of accompanying him to a couple of events. It's a unique privilege to be able to see all those great leaders in one room talking about the issues of the day.

John Darsie: (40:28)
He did a study recently where he surveyed his community. Found that 84% of executives said that the failed pandemic response by the Trump administration hurt their business and that generally, the view coming out of those meetings is that a vacuum of leadership has harmed corporate interests in business and the economy in the United States. Trump always viewed the stock market as a barometer of his success. The stock market performed very well during his tenure as it did under President Obama.

John Darsie: (40:54)
He often said that the market would crash if Vice President Biden, now President Elect Biden, were to win the election and take office. But instead markets rallied after the presidential election and the results became clear and they've rallied in the aftermath of the Georgia senate run offs where the democrats want to give them a majority in the Senate. Why, in your view, are markets rallying on the back of a presidency that... The markets did well under Trump but why today are they rallying on news of Biden winning and democrats getting control of Congress?

Benn Steil: (41:28)
There's no doubt in my mind that there were elements of the Trump economic architecture that the markets liked very much. For example, my co-author, Ben Della Rocca and I, we looked at the rise in what's called implied earnings growth in stock prices after the successful implementation of President Trump's tax cuts, particularly the corporate tax cuts in 2017. We found a significant Trump bump there. We also just examined in our Business Insider piece, what happened to implied earnings growth after the election.

Benn Steil: (42:18)
That is after you strip out extraneous factors like interest rates and so on. We found a very significant Biden bump. It was in fact, interestingly enough, almost identical in size to what was called the Trump bump back after the election in 2016 and what underlay it. You refer to Professor Sonnenfeldt. Well we think, first and foremost, if you look at his survey work and the survey work that others have done, business wants to see the pandemic addressed effectively and with far more vigor than it's been addressed by the Trump administration.

Benn Steil: (43:10)
Professor Sonnenfeld surveys really made clear the degree to which executives were not only deeply concerned about the pandemic but believe that President Trump's response to the pandemic was holding them back. Wasn't just gosh, this pandemic is awful, but our response to the pandemic is grossly insufficient. This is one reason. Another reason is that the markets are very positive about the prospects for more fiscal stimulus.

Benn Steil: (43:53)
I think that's primarily what you're seeing now in terms of the reaction to the Georgia vote. That if the democrats come to control the Senate, the prospects for another very significant stimulus package are very good. Perhaps even more, perhaps we'll finally get a significant infrastructure initiative which the markets would also applaud.

Benn Steil: (44:22)
Finally, what you see in this survey data is great concern among executives about the enormous economic and political instability that we've seen over the past four years with trade wars which have gone nowhere, in terms of changing China's behavior, for example, in a positive direction. Beating up our allies in North America, and Europe and Asia. South Korea and Japan. The markets don't like that at all and they view the prospect of our finally re-engaging positively with our allies and having a coherent approach to the China challenge, the market seemed to view that very positively.

John Darsie: (45:17)
So speaking of China, I want to close with a couple questions on China that I'll weave into one. You're a great student of China. You study the Belton Road initiative, the Asian infrastructure bank. While Trump has been pulling America out of these multilateral agreements and stepping back from the rest of the world, China has been stepping into that void, even coming into areas of South America. What was the strategic thinking behind China with the Belton Road initiatives? How have they been successful or not been successful and what direction do you expect US China relations to take over the next four years, at least of the Biden administration?

Benn Steil: (46:00)
That's a lot to bite off in [inaudible 00:46:02]. Where do we start? Belton Road. Belton Road, you will never find on a Chinese government website here is what Belton Road is all about. This is what we wanted to accomplish and this is how we're doing it. Here, by the way, are all the details of our lending contracts under Belton Road. You will never find anything like that.

Benn Steil: (46:26)
When I built my Belton Road tracker at the Council with Benjamin Della Rocca, how did we find out what China was actually doing and these countries that it was lending to for major infrastructure project? How did we find out about it? It was extremely difficult to get details of these contracts. We had to use... In some cases, estimates based on indirect sources or some things that were published by the recipient governments but never anything that we could get out of China.

Benn Steil: (47:03)
So China's been very opaque. It wants a few things are out of Belton Road. First of all, it wants to start getting better returns on its reserves. It's not investing it's central bank reserves directly in Belton Road. But if you think of the funds as being fungible, China is looking for a way to diversify away from US investments, in particular, US Treasuries. Get a better return infrastructure seems to be one way of doing it.

Benn Steil: (47:40)
Of course, you have massive overbuilding in China, massive overcapacity. They're looking for some way to create the demand for this. They're lending to these developing countries, these countries will then hire Chinese firms to build the infrastructure. Although China itself is a major borrower from the World Bank, which is quite perverse because China is now one of... Is the major competitor to the World Bank as a development lender.

Benn Steil: (48:24)
China is making these loans at a very significantly higher interest rate. Now, when these loans fail, in many cases, if you do get details of the contract, like for example, the port facility that China built in Sri Lanka which failed. Sri Lanka couldn't pay back. China takes over these facilities. So even if China did not set out with Belton Road to become a colonial power, they will in effect, become a colonial power and perhaps a hated one by taking over these facilities which they supported with this massive expansion of debt in the developing world.

Benn Steil: (49:07)
Now, how should we react to it? In my view, it's pretty much a no brainer. Let's go back to what the US did after World War Two. Take the World Bank and the IMF. Consider what we managed to create in terms of the architecture there. There is only one country that has veto power within the IMF and the World Bank and that is the United States. Can you imagine us building an institution like the World Bank today and telling the world we want veto power within this organization, sole veto power, no one else will have it. The world would laugh at us.

Benn Steil: (49:47)
But this is our inheritance from our victory in World War Two. We should be exploiting it. Nothing can happen within the World Bank without our agreement to it. We should be putting more capital behind the World Bank. Again why? We can use it to promote our values, our way of doing things, our dedication to non corruption, our dedication to environmental protection, our dedication to not creating debt traps.

Benn Steil: (50:23)
Guess what? We get to leverage it with other people's money because most of the money actually comes from the other countries who participate in the World Bank. It's an absolute no brainer for the United States in its own interest to be pursuing these initiatives through the multilateral institutions that it itself created. Again, coming back to the point, alliances, we built institutions and alliances after World War Two. We should be today, reaping the benefits of those institutions because our allies have been so significantly enriched by this architecture that we created.

Benn Steil: (51:10)
The fact that they're still willing to work with us and indeed are enthusiastic about working with us is the greatest advantage that we bring in terms of countering China's rise to dominance in the global economy. We should be showing a united face to China. We should be showing the world our positive values. Our dedication to liberal democracy and open markets. If we do this together with our allies and within the multilateral institutions that we created after World War Two, we will have far more moral capital than we would by going it alone.

John Darsie: (51:56)
The direction of US China relations. What path do you expect us to take? I think most people expect US China relations to improve. But who's going to give more? Is China going to relax some of its economic conditions open up their economy a little bit, allow more private enterprise and less human rights types of restrictions in the country and expect the United States to be, to acquiesce more to demands that China's making on our side?

Benn Steil: (52:26)
Unfortunately, I think the road that China's is headed down right now, it's pretty clear. It's a road towards more state economic control, more authoritarian political control, more regional belligerence toward other nations in the area. We have to be concerned about it. But the question is, how do we address it? Again, I can't harp on this more strongly enough. We need to do it together with our allies.

Benn Steil: (53:00)
I wrote a chapter to a size volume recently in which I advocated a return to the two world thinking that we implemented in the Marshall Plan with respect to China. That is, we need to build a massive coalition around the world of like minded countries with which we will develop things like 5G and 6G infrastructure. Things of that nature, so that we will not be reliant on China.

Benn Steil: (53:39)
I do think we should always hold out an olive branch to China and make it clear that if China pursues political and economic reforms that will bring them back towards the vision that we had when China entered the WTO nearly two decades ago, that we would welcome China, but we are not afraid, together with our allies to stand up for our values and our interests. If we need to construct a new liberal, democratic, open market, international infrastructure from which China is excluded, we should be willing to take those bold steps.

John Darsie: (54:32)
Thanks so much for joining us. It's a pleasure to have you on and you're rich expertise. Two great books you wrote on the battle at Bretton Woods as well as the Marshall Plan. We would recommend that all of our viewers go out and read those books. They provide a rich history as well as lessons that can be applied today as we enter a new era in Washington. Thank you so much, Benn, for joining us. Anthony, You have any final words?

Anthony Scaramucci: (54:55)
Benn anything you're writing currently that you could talk about?

Benn Steil: (54:59)
Yeah. I am writing a political biography of Henry Wallace, who was FDRs vice president from 1940 to 1944.

Anthony Scaramucci: (55:11)
Another progressive romantic by the way.

Benn Steil: (55:13)
There you are, exactly. Wallace is perhaps the most interesting, almost president whoever was. He lost out to Harry Truman in a very strange open convention for vice president in 1944. Had he won that nomination, he would have become president on FDRs death instead of Harry Truman and he would have tried to take the nation in a very different direction. I'm writing this book on the basis of fascinating new Russian and FBI archival material that's never been brought to bear, just sort of to tell the story of the vision that he had. And to really tell a counterfactual history of what might have happened had Henry Wallace rather than Harry Truman, become president in 1945.

Anthony Scaramucci: (56:11)
Well, we really appreciate you being on. Thank you. I hope to get you back on for that book once it's published Benn.

Benn Steil: (56:18)
My pleasure, thank you Anthony.

Anthony Scaramucci: (56:20)
We really appreciate it Dr. Steil. Thank you for joining Salt Talks.

Benn Steil: (56:24)
My pleasure.

John Darsie: (56:25)
Thank you everybody who tuned in to today's Salt Talk with Dr. Benn Steil from the Council on Foreign Relations out with a new book about the Marshall Plan. Just a reminder, if you missed any of today's talk or any of our previous talks, you can access the entire archive of Salt Talks on our website salt.org/talks/archive. You can sign up for all of our future talks at salt.org/talks. We have several talks a week throughout 2021. We'll take a couple breaks for some conferences that we're doing. But for the most part, we're going to continue this salt talk series indefinitely throughout the year.

John Darsie: (57:01)
Please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and please tell your friends about Salt Talks. We love growing our community and exposing more people to the educational expertise that our speakers provide. On behalf of the entire Salt team. This is John Dorsie signing off for today. We'll see you tomorrow again on Salt Talks.