Keen On by Andrew Keen

November 20, 2024 Episode 2249: Peter Wehner on how American self-renewal is a wonder of the world

Few Americans have been as consistently critical of Donald Trump’s morality than the New York Times and Atlantic columnist Peter Wehner. How to prevent the worst happening, Wehner thus wrote, in his final Atlantic column before the election. So now that the worst has actually happened, how exactly is Wehner - who worked in several Republican administrations - feeling about the future of the American Republic? More optimist than one might. American self-renewal is a wonder of the world, Wehner explained to me, which is why, he believes, we should still be remain cheerful about American democracy.

Peter Wehner is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. His books include The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, which he co-wrote with Michael J. Gerson, and Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. He was formerly a speechwriter for George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Wehner is a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and his work also appears in publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Affairs.

Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Transcript

“What we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is.” -Pete Wehner

AK: Hello everybody. Election was two weeks ago, but we're trying to figure out the implications of the Trump/Vance win in the presidential election. We've done a number of shows, one with my old friend Jonathan Rauch. Rauch believes that November 5th represents what he calls a "moral catastrophe." And I'm curious as to what my guest today will say, whether he'll try to trump his old friend John Rauch. Wehner I've always seen as the conscience of American conservatism. He wrote a piece in The Atlantic—he writes a lot both for The Atlantic and The New York Times. Before the election, he wrote a piece for The Atlantic about preventing the worst from happening. He's joining us now two weeks after the election. Pete, did the worst happen? Is it a moral catastrophe?

PETE WEHNER: Well, I see the worst happened in terms of what the binary choice was for this this election. Obviously, it's not the worst that could conceivably happen to a country, but given the circumstances, it's the worst that happened. Is it a moral catastrophe? You know, it's a moral blow. And I think it's a moral indictment, actually, of of much of the country as well. Whether it's a moral catastrophe remains to be seen. I mean, events will write that story. But I'm certainly concerned about where we are politically in terms of classical liberalism, in terms of the moral life and moral compass of America.

AK: Immediately after the election. Peter Baker, New York Times writer, one of your one of your companions, colleagues on The Times, wrote an interesting piece about Trump's America, suggesting that this is the America who we are. Kamala Harris argued that we were different. But Baker believes that this is the America. It's Trump's America. As you know, Pete, he quoted you in the piece. You said, "This election was a CAT scan on the American people. And as difficult as it is to say, as hard as it is to name, what it revealed, at least in part, is a frightening affinity for a man of borderless corruption." Tell me more about this CAT scan. What does it tell us about the America of late 2024?

PETE WEHNER: Well, I think it tells us things that are disturbing. It doesn't mean—and I wouldn't say and I didn't mean to imply—that people who themselves voted for Donald Trump are morally corrupt. But what I do mean to argue is that everybody who voted for Donald Trump voted for a man of borderless corruption, a man of moral depravity. And that's disturbing.

AK: It's more than disturbing, Pete, the way you put it. "Moral depravity." In what way is he depraved?

PETE WEHNER: Well, let me count the ways. I mean, the man was found liable to sexual assault. He's adulterer, porn star. He's cheated on his taxes and charitable giving. He tried to coerce an ally to find dirt on his opponent. He invited a hostile foreign power in the election. He instigated an insurrection against the Capitol. He tried to urge a violent mob to hang his vice president. He's a man who says racist things. He's a misogynist. He surrounds himself with people who are themselves deeply problematic, including picks that he wants for his cabinet. I would say that corruption has touched every area of his life, personal, professional, and in the presidency. So I don't think that that's a difficult argument to make. I think there's empirical evidence for it. But if there is a counter argument, I'm open to hearing it.

AK: Well, I'm certainly not going to make that counter argument. You seem on the one hand, Pete, a little...tentative about, shall we say, morally smearing all Trump voters with his depravity. On the other hand, you know that everybody knows everything about Trump. There are no secrets here.

PETE WEHNER: Right.

AK: Can one then vote for Trump and not be in any way smeared by this moral depravity?

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, it's a good question and I've thought a lot about it, Andrew. The way I think about it is that for Trump supporters, many of them, in any event, look, I know them. I mean, we've friends throughout our life, and I wouldn't deny that you can be a Trump voter and be a wonderful parent or neighbor and a person of high moral quality in a lot of areas in your life. On the other hand, I would say that this was an important election, and that Trump's depravity was undisguised. In fact, he kind of hung a neon light on it. And for an individual to cast a vote for that kind of man, who has done the things that he's done, and he's promised to do the things that he's done, I do think reflects on the person's character. And I don't think it's says everything about a person's character. I don't think this is the most important thing about a person's character. But I do think it says something. And I think that the people who voted for him should at least own up to who he is and the kind of man that that they cast their vote for. So if that's the tentativeness that you hear from me, that's an effort to explain why it's both tentative but something that I have fairly strong convictions on.

AK: Pete, you and I talked about this a lot. You've been on the show many times. So it's a wonderful opportunity to talk to you. Is the church/state division in your head as sharp as it should be? For you, is politics essentially an extension of morality? I've always suspected there's an element of that, and I don't necessarily mean that as a criticism. It's just a reality of how you think.

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I don't take it as a criticism. I do think that politics is an extension of of morality. I don't think it's the most important extension of morality. And I do believe that the people who are indifferent to politics, you know, their morality expresses itself in different ways. But yeah, I think from my youngest days, at least in junior high and high school and on, I've always had a sense that politics, at its core, is about justice and the pursuit of justice. And it's about a lot of other things. And it's an imperfect means to achieve justice; there's other ways to achieve justice. But I do think that that's what politics is about. And politics is also the expression of a set of moral beliefs. I mean, that, after all, is what law is in many cases. So I do think that morality and politics are tied. The last point I'll make on it, Andrew, is that if politics goes bad, if it goes really bad, it can have catastrophic human consequences. Gulags and killing fields and genocide and a lot of things less bad than that but that are bad enough. And so I just feel like that matters. And that's certainly a manifestation of morality.

AK: What about the argument, Pete, that for all the immorality, the depravity, to use your word, of Trump, most of the voters are voting for change. There's a photo in one of your pieces, I think it may be in the Baker piece, of a Trump supporter on a motorbike with a "Trump 2024" flag, and the suggestion that the rules have changed. It seems to be clear in the two weeks after the election that Trump is determined to change the rules. I mean all his appointments seem to be challenging the current assumptions, institutions, elites, and conventions. Isn't that a good thing? America seems bogged down—I mean, I know you're a conservative, but there were many areas from health care to foreign policy to the environment, and they need to be fundamentally changed. It was a very odd election in the sense that Kamala Harris was supposed to be the progressive, and yet she turned out to be the conservative. She seemed to be suggesting that not much in America needs changing. She didn't seem to want to distance herself too much from Joe Biden, whereas Trump is the candidate of change. Is that a credible argument?

PETE WEHNER: No, I don't think it's credible. At least let me qualify that. He's certainly a candidate of change. I think whether it's positive or negative change is really what matters. I think it's one thing to say that institutions need to be reformed, which I agree with and have agreed with for many years and have been part of various efforts, throughout the years, to advocate for the reform of institutions. It's another thing to try and destroy institutions, to burn them down. And I think that Trump and the MAGA world is in the latter category. I think that that is the ethos which defines them. So, you know, in terms of people who voted for Trump out of the country, 50%, whatever, the number is going to end up being, vote for him. I understand the impulse, some of the frustrations that have been expressed. So that is its own topic of conversation, which we can get into. But to me, the idea that Donald Trump is the solution to the problems is not plausible. And I point out too, Andrew, that he did have one term prior to it. And in many respects, the things that people are unhappy about got worse, not better, under his watch. So if you compare what his promises have been to what his record was in the first term, I just don't think it squares. And in addition to that, the kind of things that he's promoting now, I think will make things worse. Just to take one specific area, the manufacturing crisis. There's no question that, for a whole variety of reasons, that there's people who have been in the manufacturing industry have suffered. But actually, it was worse during Trump's watch than it was under Biden's watch. So I don't think that Donald Trump is is the answer to the to the question, even a legitimate question, that's being presented or posed.

AK: Pete, you've always described yourself as a conservative. You believe that now you're homeless as a conservative. I wonder what you made, though, of the Harris campaign. Her association with Liz Cheney, of course, represents the conservative wing of the Republican Party that you've been involved with all your life. You work with Cheney and Bush and Reagan. Do you blame Harris for losing the election? Did she make a series of mistakes? And what does it tell us about the Democratic Party? I mean, it's always easy—you've written extensively about the crisis of the Republican Party and its Trump-ification. But is there a similar crisis within the Democratic Party?

PETE WEHNER: Well, I think there's a crisis, or at least a challenge, in the Democratic Party, which I'll turn to in a second. I mean, they've they've lost two of the last three elections to Donald Trump. So that is a cause for for self-reflection, for for sure. In terms of the Harris campaign, I'm not as critical as a lot of people are of her. I thought she ran a much better campaign than I thought that she would. It wasn't a perfect campaign by any means, but given the tasks she faced, given her own history, I thought that she did extremely well. And I don't blame her for the loss. I think there were certain intrinsic disadvantages that she had. I mean, she was essentially an incumbent in an election where the impulse for the public was change. Joe Biden's approval rating was 41%. She's going to end up with about 48% of the popular vote. That actually, to me is pretty impressive. The idea that she could have beaten, or have been ten points better, in the popular vote from the Biden approval rating would have been a spectacular achievement. I don't think it was achievable. She made mistakes. She didn't distance herself sufficiently from the Biden administration, but I don't think she ever really could have, because she was vice president. I think that the biggest stage, the biggest moment with the largest audience of all, she absolutely obliterated Donald Trump in the debate. I thought her convention speech was good. I'd sort of graded it at a B plus. I thought the convention itself made a lot of sense. I thought her rallies were very good. She was better on the stump than I thought. She had a huge amount of of energy. I thought she was not so good on interviews. And I think she stumbled at a few points, particularly when she was asked on The View where she differed from Joe Biden. She couldn't come up with anything. I think that she should have been prepared for that.

AK: But to put it mildly, I mean, that was the most obvious question that everyone wanted to know. How could she have been so unprepared?

PETE WEHNER: Well, I don't know if she was unprepared, I assume—

AK: Or unwilling or unable to answer this fundamental question.

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I'm guessing that what was going through her mind, and probably the mind of the people that she spoke with, was that there was still a lot of loyalty to Joe Biden. And so she had to be careful in how far she distanced herself from him and whether that would create some unhappiness among Biden supporters. Secondly, she was vice president. And so there's a plausibility issue here, which is: how much can you separate yourself from a president if you're vice president? That said, look, I think she should have had 2 or 3 things that she could have named. And there was a relatively easy explanation, various explanations she could have offered: look, I believe in learning. When facts change, people change. I think that, you know, in my in my earlier life, I was wrong on certain issues and name what they were, and say that hopefully I've learned from that, I hope to continue to learn. I mean, there are all sorts of ways you could answer that. But look, Andrew, I will say this, too, which is having worked on several campaigns and having observed a lot of them over the decades, it's a lot harder to run as a candidate than people can imagine. And every candidate, no matter how good they are, whether you're Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, have made mistakes. And the prism through which people view it is completely based on whether you win or not. If Trump had lost, you can imagine all of the things that we would say about, you know, really, was it wise to to close the argument talking about the penis size of Arnold Palmer or feigning masturbation with a microphone? I mean, there are there are dozens and dozens of things we would have said.

AK: Yeah, I take your point, but of course he didn't. Let's talk about conservatism. You always made the argument—you were on MSNBC recently talking about why Trump is an enemy of conservatism. Is now, shall we say, the Harris wing, which is the center/right of the Democratic Party, which seems to have got into bed, so to speak, with Liz Cheney, are they really the conservatives now in America? I mean, they seem to think that America works pretty well. They always talk about America being American, and we're better than that. Is your conservative Republican Party, has it been swallowed by the Democratic Party?

PETE WEHNER: I don't think it's been swallowed by the Democratic Party. And of course, it depends on what aspects of conservatism one is talking about. I would say that given the current constellation of reality in the two main parties in America, that conservatives have a better home in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party right now. But I don't think it's a natural home, and it's certainly not the kind of home that conservatives have been used to in the Republican Party pre-Donald Trump. I'd say the main point in terms of the question you asked is to underscore how fundamentally unconservative the Republican Party, Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, are. You know, there's a line in the movie The Dark Knight, the Batman movie, in which Alfred is talking to Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne is trying to explain the criminal mindset to Alfred. And Alfred is saying, but you don't understand. And here he's talking about the Joker. He says, some people can't be bought, bribed, coerced. Some people just want to watch the world burn. And I think that Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have within them that kind of sensibility. I don't think it's defining to all of them, and I don't think it's completely defining to them. But I think that there is a nihilistic impulse, this effort not to reform, as I said earlier, institutions, but just to burn them to the ground, to take a wrecking ball. But, you know, Matt Gaetz as attorney general, or Pete Hegseth as defense secretary or Tulsi Gabbard as the head of the intelligence agencies, and just, out of anger, grievance, try and destroy them, try and destroy the so-called deep state. That's so fundamentally unconservative, in my estimation, that a conservative couldn't, in good conscience, find a home there. And right now, the alternative is the Democratic Party. And I don't think, on that central question of disposition and temperament, the Democrats are nearly as unconservative, nearly as radical, nearly as revolutionary, as the current-day Republican Party.

AK: It all reminds me a little bit of a cowboy movie, The Magnificent Seven (or perhaps the Un-Magnificent Seven.) Talk about a natural party, Pete, but does that really work in American politics, where most African-Americans now vote for a Democratic Party that was in favor of segregation?

PETE WEHNER: I'm sorry, say that again.

AK: You talk about a natural party. You said, well, conservatives said that the Democrats aren't the natural party of conservatism. But can we use this term convincingly in American politics? After all, most African-Americans vote for the Democratic Party, which was the party of segregation.

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. And they changed in the end, you know, it took them longer than it should have. No, I don't think that there's anything, you know, endemic or intrinsic to parties that makes them a natural home to any political movement or political philosophy. Because parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that. I do think that you can take a step back and say, look, over the last 50 years, when you chart the trajectory of the Democratic and Republican Party, there are certain trends that you can see. And so for some period of time, I think that the Democratic and Republican parties were natural homes to certain movements.

AK: Is there anything we should celebrate about the election? There were a lot of warnings beforehand that there was going to be a massive gender split, and it didn't turn out to be true. Trump promised that he would get a lot of Hispanic and African-American voters. He got a lot of Hispanic and quite a few African-Americans, especially men. Could one argue that November 5th, 2024 was the first post-identity politics election? Is that something to be encouraged about?

PETE WEHNER: Well, in this case, I'd say no, because I think the results of that post-identity politics is going to have really damaging consequences. I see your point, and I do think that to the extent that political parties can't count on certain groups constituencies, that's probably, as a general matter, good. It means you have to go out and earn their vote rather than reflexively rely on them. But as somebody who's been a Trump critic, and who has predicted what four more years under Donald Trump is going to be like, I just think that that overwhelms whatever good that could have come out of it. I suppose I would add, there's one good thing that's come out of this, which is there hasn't been violence. But honestly, I think that's because Donald Trump lost, and the Democratic Party believes in the peaceful transfer of power, and they're not going to do in 2024 what Donald Trump and his supporters did in 2020. I'm glad that's not happening, but I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that violence won't happen because the Democratic Party is the more responsible and civilized party in that respect.

AK: How are you doing personally? Trump hasn't been shy to boast about his revengefulness. You've being one of his most articulate critics in The Times, in The Atlantic, certainly from the right, or from traditional conservatism, a very strong moral critic. How are you dealing personally with this situation?

PETE WEHNER: You know, I think I'm probably dealing with it better than a lot of people would imagine given my own views on Trump. I think just disposition, temperamentally, I'm not a person who has found politics to be overwhelming or disorienting. I don't want to pretend that it's not a difficult moment, both in terms of what I think it means for the country and for what, as I said earlier, what I think it says about the country. And for somebody who grew up loving America and probably, to some extent, mythologizing America, seeing this happen is difficult. But most of my life and the spirit of my life and is based on my relationships mostly with family and with friends. And those, to me, are the things that really determine what my mood is on any given day or any week. I will say that my wife Cindy and I, in the last two weeks, have really been struck by the number of people that we have heard from who are deeply grieved and fearful of what's happening. We saw somebody a week ago Sunday, and Cindy asked this person, how are you doing? And she burst into tears. She had been abused by her husband. And she said that Donald Trump was a person just like her husband, and she couldn't fathom that America elected him. And we have a friend who's a family therapist, and she said she had spent the week before with sexual abuse victims, and the fact that Trump had been elected and that people in her family were celebrating that...other people who felt like much of what they had given their lives to was shattering. So we've really felt more, I suppose, in a listening mode, in a comforting mode, trying to help people to sort through it. It's different, Andrew, I will say, in my experience and the experience of the people around me, I think, in the country now than it was in 2016. I think 2016 could be argued that that was an aberration, a parenthesis, and I think it's clearly not the case. This is the Trump era, and I think that's hard for a lot of people to come to terms with. Other people are celebrating it. They think that this is wonderful. Donald Trump is, to them, the personification of what they want in a leader and a human being. And now we've got it.

AK: Yeah, we will see. You wrote an interesting piece in The Atlantic after the election suggesting that 2024 is different from 2016. It's less shocking, more a confirmation. You wrote an interesting piece in response to what happened, "Don't Give Up on the Truth," in The Atlantic. We are where we are. But there is, if not reason to celebrate, reason to, at least, resist. Are you part of a moral resistance, in some ways, Pete, do you think, to Trump, or at least Trumpism, in America?

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, I think that's fair. I think some people who have been critical of Trump are going to dial back their criticism, or they just might find other things to think about or talk about or write about. And I understand that. That's not where I am. I mean, I have to think about what my posture is going to be in the Trump era. That's not clear to me yet. And I think it'll become clear to me as circumstances unfold. But, you know, what I wrote, I believed, and I continue to believe in, and the fact that Donald Trump won the election doesn't allay my concerns, it deepens them. I hope I have enough intellectual independence that if he is different than I think, and if he does things that I agree with, that I'm willing publicly to say that. I tried to do that in the first term. And I hope I can do it in a second term and I hope I'm given reasons to do it, and I hope that my foreboding of what this means for America is wrong. But I can't shake what I believe to be true. And I read the opposite views of mine and critiques of mine and try to understand what I'm getting wrong about Donald Trump. And I may be blinded on this, but I don't think I have been wrong about him. I think all of the things that I've been writing about him since 2015—actually, 2011, and go back to the birther moment—I think they've been validated. And I feel like given my role in life and the outlets that I have, that I can't help but give voice to those concerns. And whether that makes a difference or not, time will tell. It certainly didn't have an impact this time around, that's for sure.

“Parties change, circumstances change, coalitions change, the base of a party changes. We've seen that really with the Republican Party. It's just a fundamentally different party than it was in the 80s and 90s and 2000s. And the Democratic Party has changed, and changed in some ways, to the worse. And I think they paid a price for that.” -PW

AK: Well, you certainly have a natural home on this show, Pete. And in your excellent Atlantic piece, you talk about the importance of truth telling. You are a truth teller, that goes without saying. What do you think is the most effective way, though, to tell the truth these days? I don't think you're a big social media guy, you're not going on X or Instagram or TikTok. How does one most effectively tell the truth in Trump's America?

PETE WEHNER: That's such a good question, Andrew, and a deep one. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think in terms of what each individual has to do, they just have to find within the circumstances of their life the places that they can tell the truth. Some of that just may be with family and friends, maybe in neighborhoods and community groups. It may be in churches. It may be, if you're a writer, in The Atlantic, in The New York Times. You know, I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process. And if you're dealing with a person—for example, in my estimation of Donald Trump and what I do believe is this moral depravity, I just think that is true about him—how do you say that? How do you say that without crossing lines? How do you engage with people who are Trump supporters, as I have, many of them, and to try and point out and argue for my position, and to do so in a way that isn't disrespectful or dehumanizing? Those aren't easy questions. I'm sure I haven't gotten them right. But I think you just try the best you can in the world that you live in to try and give voice to the truth. And probably it helps to look back to others who have faced far more difficult circumstances than we have. I mentioned in my most recent Atlantic essay Solzhenitsyn and Havel who were great dissidents and spoke, in the case of Solzhenitsyn, when the Soviet Union was a country to which he was hostage to, and for Havel, there was a communist movement in Czechoslovakia. And they and so many others, Orwell in a different way, and Jesus in a different way, said that the important thing to do was to speak the truth. It doesn't mean you succeed, necessarily, when you do it, but it's important to do. Times change. Circumstances change. Inflection points can happen. And sometimes speaking the truth can create those moments. And other times when those moments open up, people who spoke the truth have a capacity to shape events in a way that they didn't before that. I should say one interesting example that apposite, maybe, you and your own history knowledge: you take someone like Winston Churchill. And Churchill was the same man in the 30s as he was in the 40s, and in the 30s he was viewed as a social pariah, an alarmist, a kind of ridiculous figure, he had very, very little influence. But events changed, the war came, and all of a sudden Churchill became arguably the greatest person of the 20th century. So there's probably a lesson in that for people who want to be truth tellers.

AK: Yeah, I've always thought of you, Pete, as the moral conscience of America, although you've been involved in politics, but I can't imagine you ever running for political office. You talked about Solzhenitsyn and Havel in particular as an activist, as someone who stood up very bravely and indeed humorously to the Russian colonialists in Czechoslovakia or Soviet colonialism. Does the anti-Trump movement need a Havel, a Solzhenitsyn, a Winston Churchill? Seems to be lacking, Harris clearly wasn't. I've always wondered whether Michelle Obama could have been that person. And I know that everyone says, well, she couldn't have run. She doesn't like politics, but maybe she had almost a moral responsibility as an American. But where are we going to get an America? Where are we going to get our Churchill, our Havel, our Solzhenitsyn? All of course, white men. Maybe we need some women, too.

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, you know, those are rare people. And it's not a dime a dozen. Yeah, I felt like Liz Cheney was that person in this moment more than Harris, more than others. I think I felt that way about Liz, because there was a cost, there was a very concrete and practical cost, to what she had done. And that, to me, is a sign and a symbol of courage, which is: if you do the right thing when there's a cost to doing the right thing. And I thought her articulation of why she broke with Trump and voted for Harris was extremely powerful. So I'd say of the people in the landscape in American politics right now, Liz Cheney would be supreme for me, but of course, she was tossed out of the Republican Party. She was beaten in a primary. And the Democratic Party's not a natural home for her either. So these are her wilderness years, Churchill had his, I'm not saying that Liz is Churchill, Churchill was Churchill and that's about it. But she showed enormous courage and articulation. I think the fact that for a person of my view, she made such a powerful and persuasive case, and it just didn't win over enough voters. And I think that that's an indictment not of Liz, but I think it's an indictment of an awful lot of voters in America. But that would make sense, because I see the world in a certain way, and the majority of Americans saw it differently. And this is a democracy. And so now we've got Trump and the people who voted for him, and the rest of us get to live with them.

AK: Are there hierarchies of morality, Pete? There's a great deal of revisionism now on on Churchill reminding us all that he was an overt racist, a colonialist, a warmonger in some ways, although, of course, we don't use that word in terms of his opposition to Hitler. Trump made that point about Cheney, I mean, in his own vulgar way, but Cheney, of course, was also a warmonger—or, certainly her father was, millions of people—well, certainly hundreds of thousands of people—in the Middle East lost their lives because of catastrophic American wars in the region. Could one argue that Cheney's support for these catastrophic wars are equally immoral, if not more immoral, than Trump's moral transgressions?

PETE WEHNER: Yeah, if you believe that narrative, I mean, I think that narrative is flawed. I don't mean that the wars weren't mistaken, but I think the way you framed it is is a caricature. But if you believe that, if you're right and I'm wrong, sure, then, of course. And there is a moral hierarchy. I mean, you know, morality is judged by the actions that you take in the moment that you live and the consequences that they create. And if a person or an individual does an action that creates massive harm and the destruction of human lives, human civilizations, if someone is advocating maliciousness and malevolence on a wide scale, that obviously has to be judged differently than if you lose your temper as a boss or somebody who works for you. So morality is a complicated subject. You also have to take into account, to some degree, the circumstances in which people lived. If you lived in the 14th century, if you lived in the 18th century, if you lived in the 20th century, if you lived in the 21st century, there were different moral standards and moral ethics and moral norms. That doesn't mean, in the case of the American founders, the slave holders, that was a grave sin, and I think probably traditionally on the on the American right, because there's been almost a defecation of the founding fathers, that they've been excused too much for tolerating slavery. Lincoln himself, who I think is the greatest American in history, his history was somewhat spotty. I think he was a magnificent figure. And he grew, but that happens. But just to come back to what you said earlier, if you were to say to me, Liz Cheney versus Donald Trump on any reasonable moral spectrum, I would say that that Liz Cheney has him beat by a country mile, by virtually any metric that you want to judge her and him on.

AK: In that excellent Atlantic piece, Pete, you talked about this being a moment where we, and I'm quoting you, we need to guard our souls. But what about for those of us who might not believe in the existence of souls?

PETE WEHNER: Yeah. Then I would use a different word.

AK: What word would you use?

PETE WEHNER: Your inner life, your interior life, your sense of humanity, how you view others. I think most people, whether soul is the word that they use, I think most people aren't strict materialists, or they don't believe in scientism. They believe that there are parts of human life, human existence, human reality that aren't materialistic, that has to do with beauty and esthetics and love and = humanity and caring for the least of these. And, you know, many people that I know that are not believers personify those high virtues, honestly, in ways that are more impressive than people I know who claim to be followers of Jesus. So I use the word soul because I think it speaks to something that is true for human life and human beings. But I understand if you're not a believer that you wouldn't use that term. But I imagine that there's some other term that would get at essentially the same thing, which is your core humanity. What makes you an estimable human being. Compassion, honor, dignity, being a peacemaker, and so forth.

AK: You're also more cheerful in the sense that you want to remind everyone that, of course, we want to cultivate hope, humanistic hope. But all this needs to be understood within the historical context. You argue that, in the Atlantic piece, presumably Trump's only going to be around for four years. Things change, there are always party realignments, so, cheer us up, Pete. Why might this just be a blip in the history of humanity rather than the end of it in some way?

PETE WEHNER: Yeah. It's not going to be the end of humanity. Even if my most dire warnings are realized. Look, I would say that there can be a kind of catastrophism that happens on all sides and that we need to be careful about it. Life is complicated. Human history is complicated. There are moments of glory and moments of catastrophe and disaster. You know, in the American experience, we had the 1850s that lead up to the Civil War. We had the Civil War. We had the profound difficulties in reconstruction. We had segregation, child labor laws, women can't vote. Just enormous challenges in this country. The first election, really contested election in America between Adams and Jefferson in 1800, was a vicious affair. So, you know, we've we've faced a lot. And that's just America. And, you know, you look at world history, I quote it at the end of my essay, "Don't Give Up on the Truth" in The Atlantic, a speech, one of my favorite speeches, that Bobby Kennedy gave in 1966 at University of Cape Town in South Africa, where he talked about the ripples of hope, and how the ripples of hope can overcome the worst and highest walls of oppression. Now, when Kennedy gave that speech, it was 66. It was at the apex of of apartheid, and eventually apartheid was overthrown, and—

AK: Yeah, it's worth repeating the RFK quote, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." Of course, it's particularly resonant given that his son is involved in the Trump administration and is probably not someone you're particularly keen on.

PETE WEHNER: No, he's, no pun intended, but I'm not particularly keen on his son. But the father I admired, and I think those words are timeless words. And we shouldn't forget them. Look, the other thing I'd say, Andrew, is that what we're called to be in our lives, personally and maybe vocationally, is to be faithful, not necessarily successful. Whether a person is successful in life depends often on circumstances that they can't control. That's just the nature of human existence. But you do have some measure of control of whether you're faithful or not. And that's really what honor is. I mean, honor is living a life—an imperfect life. We all struggle, we're all fallen, we're all flawed—But trying to advance that. And the other thing I would emphasize again is that human life, human history, the progression of countries, are not straight lines. There's forward and backward, there's zigs, there's zags, inflection points develop, and things change in ways that a person may never anticipate. You mentioned John Rauch earlier, and he and Andrew Sullivan were leading the campaign for same sex marriage. When they started that campaign, especially, Andrew, in 1989, I think he wrote a cover story in The New Republic on the conservative case for gay marriage. Now, if you would have asked either of them in the late 80s, 90s and so forth, whether gay marriage would be prevalent or even be found to be a constitutional right, they would have said that's inconceivable. It couldn't happen. And it happened. Whether you agree or not with same sex marriage, it shows capacity of events to change. And you and I could name a lot of things in which that's happened. So you don't know when those moments come, when those inflection points happen. And I also believe the American capacity for self-renewal is a kind of wonder of the world and that people will—

AK: Say that again: American self-renewal is a wonder of the world.

PETE WEHNER: Yeah. I think the American capacity for self-renewal is extraordinary. I think it's shown itself throughout history. Again, it's a mixed history, but—

AK: But where does that come from, that American self-renewal? Is it a spiritual thing? Is it an economic thing?

“I think that what's important in telling the truth is that one does it truthfully. That is, that it corresponds and aligns to reality, that it's rooted in empirical evidence, and that one does not dehumanize in the process.” -PW

PETE WEHNER: You know, I'd imagine part of it is part of the American DNA. The things that shape anybody in any country, the factors, the history...there's certainly something, I think it's reasonable to say, in America, about freedom and liberty, that is part of the American character. You know, people could go back and read Tocqueville, which is still relevant to what Americans are like. I think our political history has helped shape us. Civil society has helped shape us. So, you know, each country has a certain kind of a DNA. And I think by and large, America's has been good. So there's history to give you hope, and not just American history. So, I just think you need to keep putting one foot in front of the other. I think you have to call out things that happen that are wrong, immoral or illegal as they as they happen, and hope that over time you bend events enough in your direction. Martin Luther King Junior had that quote, which is pretty well known, about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, but that does not—

AK: It's not natural, is it? As you suggest, it requires human agency, doesn't bend on its own. Finally, Pete, and you've been very generous, as always, with your time. A lot of comparisons, there always have been, with America and the Roman Republic, this shift into, sort of, decadence. There's also a fashion these days for stoicism. Some of the ideologies or the intellectual movements of the late Roman decadent, not the republic, but imperial Rome. What would you say to people—won't say necessarily Stoics formally, but people who are espousing a kind of stoicism—who will say, "Well, I'm just not going to watch the news for the next four years, Trump doesn't really affect me. I'm just going to ignore him. I'm going to go to sleep for four years, and when I wake up, things will have changed." Do we all need to stay awake? Is the stoical response to essentially ignore the political world, is that healthy in Trump's America?

PETE WEHNER: I think some people need to stay awake. You know, it really would depend on the facts and circumstances, Andrew. I mean, if you're an individual who feels overwhelmed by what Trump represents and really can't process it in a very healthy way, and you find your spirit being pulled down and obsessing on him and just, you know, casting shadows over your life, then I'd say, yeah, just to the degree that you can pull the plug. Don't follow, you know, the unfolding events, and attend to your life, your inner life, and the people that you love and care for. On the other hand, if that happens more broadly, and just people shut up and don't speak out, I think that that would be a great tragedy, because I think it's important to speak the truth in its own terms. I think it's important that there are individuals who give voice to what people believe and the moral concerns that they have when they don't have the capacity to do it on a large scale. And as I said, you know, I mentioned earlier, Solzhenitsyn and Havel, and I don't pretend that America is in a situation like the two of them faced. So the challenges and sacrifices that are called on Americans today who are in the so-called resistance isn't comparable to what Solzhenitsyn and Havel and many others have faced. But you need to speak out, and you can't go to sleep. Democracy is, as you said earlier, about human agency. We're not corks in the ocean. We're not fatalistic. We shouldn't be fatalistic. We can create movements and trends and moments and trajectories and moments of and periods of honor and and virtuous chapters in the American story. But they don't happen accidentally. And you can be discouraged, but you've got to stay at it. A friend of mine once said that you could be a theoretical pessimist, but you should be an operational optimist.

AK: That's a nice way of putting it. Peter Wehner, I'm not sure about American self-renewal being a wonder of the world, certainly your self-renewal is a wonder of the world. It's wonderful to have you around, and we will be calling on your wisdom, your ethical spirit of resistance against injustice, over the next four years. Keep well, keep safe, Pete, and we will talk again in the not-too-distant future. Thank you so much.

PETE WEHNER: Thanks. It's great to be with you, Andrew.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

...more