Rod Dreher On Politics And Religious Awe

The prolific writer has a new book coming out — his best yet.

Rod is an old-school blogger and author living in Budapest. He’s a contributing editor at The American Conservative and has written several bestsellers, including The Benedict Option and Live Not by Lies. His forthcoming book is Living in Wonder: Finding Mystery and Meaning in a Secular Age, which you can pre-order on Amazon. And check out his raw and honest writing on Substack, “Rod Dreher’s Diary.”

You can listen to the episode in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — on what red-pilled JD Vance, and embracing the mystery of Christianity — pop over to our YouTube page.

Other topics: Rod moving to Hungary; his begrudging vote for Trump this fall; his vote for a crook against David Duke; Harris baiting, and beating, Trump in the debate; her evasion on immigration; not disavowing her extreme views from 2020; her response on Israel; the cat-eating thing; how Trump makes wokeness worse; Vance as the future of the right; his tolerance of January 6; him signing on to Trump’s abortion pivot; the Kavanaugh hearings; the canceling of Judge Kyle Duncan; politics destroying friendships; riots and speech crimes in the UK; Orbán and migrants; the war in Ukraine; racial violence on Elon’s X; rightwing anti-Semitism; Vance’s conversion to Catholicism; “childless cat ladies”; pronatalism; the sexual revolution; Ross Douthat; the loss of freedom in parenthood and its joys; Deneen’s Why Liberalism Failed; Houellebecq’s Submission; Zygmunt Bauman and liquid modernity; environmental destruction; Trump’s grudge against windmills; Germany nixing nuclear power; the Iraq War; Trump vs. the neocons; his phone call to rig the vote-tally in Georgia; lawfare; the Hunter laptop story; Iain McGilchrist and the cultural crisis of the West; Pascal; religious faith arising in a crisis; conversion stories; Kierkegaard; transcendentalism; Rod attending an exorcism; demons and miracles; psychedelics as a window to the divine; Rod’s LSD trip in college; my MDMA trip in Miami; the lack of silence in modern life; and an update on my Ozempic summer.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Michelle Goldberg on Harris, David Frum on Trump, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on the history of animal cruelty, Mary Matalin on life, Anderson Cooper on loss and grief, John Gray on, well, everything, and Sam Harris for our quadrennial chat before Election Day. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

From a fan of last week’s episode:

Thank you for the lively conversation with Eric Kaufmann. I found myself agreeing with his thesis that liberalism itself is just as much to blame for the “postmodernist moment” as the critical theorists themselves.

And to that point, my wife shared with me her experience sitting through a DEI “training seminar” last year as a public school teacher in New Jersey. The DEI trainers emphasized that time — yes, time, e.g. reading time, using clocks, and being punctual — are all forms of white supremacy. According to them, minority students shouldn’t be held to these standards because “not all cultures read a clock the same way.” Got that, everyone?

Next time you wonder why Trump won’t go away, it’s nonsense like this — and the deafening silence of Democrats — that makes otherwise fellow travelers appalled, feeling isolated, and looking for politicians and leadership willing to stand up and call it what it truly is: racist.

On the following clip, in which Eric and I discuss whether wokeness is declining, a listener responds, “I very much doubt it, because the kids who really believe in it are still on their way to every institution/workplace/etc, and when you indoctrinate children, it tends to be immovable.”

A dissent over the episode:

Having paid attention to you for going on 39 years, from your early days as the golden-boy editor of TNR, I think I know and appreciate your style. Perhaps because you’ve grown older and more curmudgeonly, you seem to have become a bit more extreme and absolutist with certain opinions. Take it as a friendly observation when I say that it’s unbecoming of your intellect, and it does your listeners no service. (You likely benefit from Chris’ editing in your writing, although the same tendency creeps in.)

For example, in your conversation with Eric Kaufmann, you actually said (starting at about 54:24): “The idea that Matthew Shepherd was murdered by two strange rednecks cuz they hated gays is just the THE BIGGEST LIE THAT WAS EVER CONSTRUCTED.” (Emphasis kind of added, but not really). Seriously? You sound as unhinged as Donald Trump, for whom every personal offense is the worst thing in history. Please stop the ridiculous hyperbole, or risk losing longtime listeners like me.

You haven’t followed me that closely then. The Dish blog covered the Matthew Shepard myth for many years, but Ben Kawaller recently tackled it for the Free Press — in an article, a pod, and this video:

In my chat with Kaufmann, I made a simple and irrefutable fact: his murderer knew Shepard well, and murdered him in a fit of insane meth-fueled rage after a dispute over a meth deal. As the sheriff of Laramie said, this was a murder about drugs, not sexual orientation. That you might have never even known of this is testimony to the woke censorship that plagues the mainstream media.

The dissenter follows up:

Omg, and now this (at about 1:18:50), regarding the Progress flag: “this fucking flag I HAVE TO SEE!” (My emphasis added again, but only to point out how much you sound like Mrs. Alito.) You go on to state that the rainbow flag, in contrast, is “no longer allowed, no longer allowed.” You speak as though it’s some mandate imposed by the government, with the risk of criminal penalty if we don’t salute the Progress flag (“Did we vote for this?”). Even worse, you imply that you alone should be able to stop the egregious offense of the more-than-elaborate flag. Who elected you?

Of course it’s not a legal mandate. It’s creepier: a clear attempt to redefine gayness as anti-racist and rooted in gender, not sex (the colors added are, if you can believe it, black and brown for black and brown people; and pink and blue for transgenderism, as if these are inextricable from being gay). Unlike the rainbow flag — a mere symbol of diversity — this new flag is an attempt by the far-left activists who have captured the remnant of the gay rights movement to press their point. Most people are clueless of course. Others fly it because if they don’t, the woke will come for them. Others are true believers and want homosexuality itself replaced with “gender-diversity”.

Another listener on flags:

A sincere thank you for your diatribe against seeing the “Progress” flag everywhere in Provincetown. I live in Oregon and also see the flag — and BLM posters — all the time, in completely inappropriate places like public schools, public and private universities, and countless businesses. They are inescapably political symbols and signs. BLM is expressly political: they want to defund the police; they said “looting is reparations”; and they celebrated Hamas’ brutal invasion of Israel on October 7.

But only in Portland would the public school district say the following — quoted in a news piece titled “Portland Public Schools quietly adopts rule barring teachers from ‘political or personal’ classroom displays”:

“The rainbow flag and BLM poster are district-approved symbols of inclusion to often-marginalized students,” district spokesperson Valerie Feder said.

Preposterous.

These flags are designed to enforce obedience to our ruling class’s successor ideology. It’s totalitarian. Another listener looks to religion:

Thank you for all the lively discussions on your podcast. I had no idea that last week’s guest, Eric Kaufmann, would be a fellow Vancouverite! (And now that I look him up, I see that he’s less than five months older than me, so I wonder how often he and I were in the same place at the same time? Maybe during Expo 86 … ?)

Anyway, I wanted to chime in regarding the immaculate conception. First, you state that Mary’s ever-virginity is “part of” her “immaculacy”, as if belief in Mary’s ever-virginity depended somehow on belief in Mary’s immaculacy — but the Eastern churches believe in Mary’s ever-virginity without the Immaculate Conception. We do believe in Mary’s purity, partly because without it she wouldn’t have survived carrying God in her womb for nine months, but the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is rooted in Augustinian beliefs about sin that have never been all that influential in the East (e.g. that it is a “stain” passed down through the generations).

Second, the existence of Jesus’ brothers and sisters (we can’t forget the sisters!) does make it a little more difficult to believe in Mary’s ever-virginity, but not that much more difficult. A very early tradition says they were Joseph’s children by a former (now dead) wife, and it is possible that some of them were cousins or adopted or some combination thereof. So they might have been step-siblings or adopted siblings etc., rather than half-siblings.

For me, the bigger hurdle is the fact that, when Jesus’ family thought he was crazy and tried to stop him from preaching (as per Mark 3:20-35), Jesus basically snubbed them all — his brothers and his mother — which seems odd if he and Mary had always had a unique, special relationship. (There are ways to explain what might have been going on there, but I won’t get into that here.)

On the other hand, in John’s gospel, at the crucifixion, Jesus makes a point of asking the beloved disciple to look after Mary. Seems like an odd request if Mary already had other sons who would have been obliged to look after her. So there are all sorts of data points here, and they point in different directions.

Another on religion:

I loved the pod with James Carville. I also love what you wrote here:

What I said was that some converts see the Magisterium as a perfect guide, a way to resolve all doubts, and see it as a blueprint for society as a whole, a one-stop shop for every question. I’ve been there and realized that approach was too full of pride, precision, and projection, and came to embrace more humility, mystery, and silence. That’s the core narrative of my book on Christianity, which I’m beginning to write. (I think my mother’s death ended my writer’s block on it.)

I am so sorry for your mother’s death. I am so sorry you are having to go through a truly integrating human loss — one that we all share, or will share. I’m sorry for your family. I’m sure it’s a sad time.

Pheonix, Arizona, 6.05 am. (Sent by another reader “across the hall from my dad’s hospital room.)

I was with my friend overnight at her cabin when we talked about our concepts of God and religion. We both agreed that reverence — in the presence of nature, mystery and power (that we cannot and will never possess) — is the key to being fulfilled spiritually. We decided that, to understand God, you must first study nature. We can craft mythology, build churches, and imbue rituals with meaning, but we can’t make a blade of grass. Only God can make nature, and to discern his will for his kingdom on Earth, you must study what you’ll never understand: the natural world, in all its grandeur and unknowability. Its study is a pathway to God’s will: embed yourself in relationship and respect those connections.

I have a feeling you will love the new episode with Rod Dreher. We explore this a lot. I am a passionate Saint Francis Catholic. Another listener has a poem:

Condolences on the death of your mother, Andrew; and the death of your stepfather, Chris. Having also lost a parent, I’ve realized there are only two ways parents die: one is sudden and usually painless, but a huge shock to those left behind; and the other is slow and tortuous, which gives time to prepare but still doesn’t give emotional space to prepare. Hope you’re both doing ok.

Here’s Oliver St. John Gogarty’s poem “To Death,” which you probably know:

But for your Terror
Where would be Valour?
What is Love for
But to stand in your way?
Taker and Giver,
For all your endeavour
You leave us with more
Than you touch with decay!

Another listener looks ahead:

I was pleased to hear that David Frum is going to be return guest. I’m a fan. The last time he was on, he told a funny anecdote. He said you were both government TAs at Harvard, and the section he led was right after yours, in the same room. He said all the students came out of your class brimming with energy and enthusiasm, and then his section trudged in: “Another hour with this guy [Frum].” I thought that was so funny because I had the identical experience (from Frum’s perspective) when I was a TA. The guy before me was a preternaturally gifted teacher and I was just beginning learning how to teach.

ANYHOW, I have a suggested question for Frum. Again, I admire him immensely and his two books on Trumpism are brilliant. He knew, better than anyone, how Trumpism would function. He got it right. But he’s been very wrong about this 2024 election. He thought Biden was going to win (“The Coming Biden Blowout”) because the Dems would remind everyone of how dangerous and awful Trump is. Frum used a metaphor: “Americans are unhappy with the choice between regular visits to the dentist or all their teeth falling out.”

Yet we now have Kamala Harris — surprisingly, a far stronger candidate than Biden — and the race is a coin toss.

I’m wondering if you’ll consider asking Frum what he got wrong. Concomitant to this: why aren’t Dems doing more to trash Trump (as Frum predicted)? I expected Generals Mattis, Milley and McMaster to go on 60 Minutes, or hold a press conference, and warn the nation about Trump. Why aren’t we hearing from scores of Trump loyalists whom he fucked over? Is there any chance, in this emergency situation, that some diehard Republicans who know better will finally find the courage to speak up? I’m thinking of Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and my governor, Brian Kemp (all of whom despise Trump).

We’re less than two months out, but I fear Dems aren’t doing enough to build the lead we need, and I’m terrified.

I’d be careful about even more endorsements from the old Republican establishment. Almost every architect of the Iraq War is now for her, including war criminal Dick Cheney. Alberto Gonzales — remember that mediocrity? — just chimed in. Harris is the neocon candidate, the favorite of the blob.

Another reader:

I subscribe to both the Dish and the Making Sense podcast, and I recently went back to listen (for the first time) to the conversation you had with Sam Harris on 10/30/2020. It was fantastic, and fascinating with the perspective of what has transpired since. I really hope you will reprise that conversation in advance of the upcoming Trump-Harris election.

Indeed, Sam is returning to the pod ahead of November 5. Our first convo was on 10/26/16, on his podcast:

A reader takes a break from politics:

I was going to dissent on your latest hyperventilating over Trump, but then I got drawn into the ping-pong video you posted as a Mental Health Break and … all my cares just vanished! I laughed until I cried at the astonishment and joy every time they figured out they could actually do … all of those things! This is the tonic we need against Trump. I’ll take two cases, please.

However the Dish Video Selection Committee works, thank you. Reminds me of the old days when you guys were introducing us to that crazy Snow White video guy, and all that.

NGL, it’s all Bodenner. Very, very rarely, I suggest something else. But no one surfs the web like Chris. If I haven’t made this perfectly clear before, TWD is a Bodenner-Sullivan production. I couldn’t do a fraction of this without him.

Also, that reader is probably referring to the mashup artist Pogo, specifically this vid:

Or this one:

Another reader continues a debate from last week:

A pro-Trump reader wrote:

The Pelosi/Obama coup has given us the ultimate patsy candidate — a person thoroughly devoid of original thought. That the legacy media is not only allowing this undemocratic selection to go unquestioned, but celebrating it, is unfathomable to me.

This is such a tired false narrative. There was of course nothing remotely like a coup, because Biden stepped down from the nominee contest voluntarily, and he did so based more on internal polling than on “Pelosi/Obama.” Further, there was no nominee yet when he dropped out of the race, so there was nothing to “coup” yet.

And there was nothing “undemocratic” about it. Democratic primary voters had voted for delegates to the convention. The delegates’ job was to pick a nominee at the convention (or earlier if they so chose). While they were “pledged” to Biden, they weren’t committed to him under party rules, and he had taken himself out of the running before the delegates voted. The democratically-elected delegates did their jobs precisely according to the rules and voted for a nominee.

As for that being “undemocratic”, democracy is a form of government; the Democratic Party is a private club, and can run itself under any rules that it wants. (For decades during the “smoke-filled room” era, it selected its nominees with no primaries at all — as did the Republican Party, another private club.) This “undemocratic” “coup” conspiracy theory is unfathomable to me.

And primary voters cast their ballots for the Biden-Harris ticket, knowing full well how old Biden is, and that Harris had a real chance at becoming president by default if he died in office, or became too infirm. My reader is spot-on.

Here’s another:

I think the big takeaway from this election cycle, and the previous one, is that the Democratic Party insiders are successfully pulling strings on their side … which might be a good thing. In 2020, they got Buttigieg and Klobuchar to bow out and endorse Biden; and this time around, they’re writing Kamala’s speeches and otherwise putting a gag order on her. Certainly in the first case, and possibly in the second, they did it to produce an “electable” candidate in the face of voters itching to put up an extremist. It worked in 2020 at least, so raise a glass to party insiders.

Contrast that with the Republicans. In 2016, party insiders confidently assured me that they would scuttle this whole Trump phenomenon, and a normie Republican like Jeb Bush would get the nomination. We know how that turned out. So the Dem elites still have control of their party, while Republicans don’t.

I personally don’t think Biden running as a moderate was “disingenuous.” I think he is a true centrist and always has been, but the woke staff in his administration were a different story, and they took over frail old Joe. For example, compare Biden’s in-person response to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict in 2021 (“The jury system works and we have to abide by it”) to the official statement (“While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken”).

And compare those quotes to Kamala’s tweet: “Today’s verdict speaks for itself. I’ve spent a majority of my career working to make our criminal justice system more equitable. It’s clear, there’s still a lot more work to do.”

It would be accurate to say the Democrats sold us a moderate and then infused the administration with extremism. They may very well be doing it again.

Fair enough. Another reader is sick of both parties:

As always, thanks for your wonderful weekly substack! I look forward to it every Friday. I have been following your dilemma about whether to vote or not, and for whom. I also see your readers shaming you about it. Fuck ’em.

Years ago, I commented to my dad (a WWII bomber pilot and professional journalist) that I found it appalling that a US citizen would not vote, and how unpatriotic I thought it was. He replied, “Thank God you live in a country where you have the right NOT to vote.”

That has always stuck with me. I have voted since 1976, when I turned 18. I voted for Jimmy Carter and never regretted the decision. Since then, I have voted for every election as a Democrat. But for the first time in this presidential election, I will go to the polls, wait in line, and cast my vote for “None of the above.” I am still actively voting and exercising my constitutional right, but I am sending a loud message to the pollsters and politicians that I have had enough of their bullshit and idiot candidates. As a country, we must do better moving forward.

Another reader differs on voting:

I have been voting for president since 1976, and I have twice voted for someone other than the major party candidates. In 1980, Carter was a failed president (and he had been a failure as my governor in Georgia), but the MSM convinced me that Reagan would get us into WWIII, so I voted for John Anderson. Reagan turned out to be much better than I had ever hoped, so I regret that vote.

In 1992, I could not vote for Bush I or Clinton, as the former was a squish and a wimp and the latter was deceitful and only interested in himself. I voted for Ross Perot. Although Clinton turned out to be a better president than I had thought (though, like Trump, a worse person), I do not regret that vote. My suggestion would be that if you find that you cannot vote for Harris, you should find another candidate — from the Libertarian, Green, or some other party — and vote for them. Abstaining seems to me to be a losing proposition.

This next reader has no qualms about their candidate of choice:

I believe this year’s election is so important that it requires actions from as many as possible — to not just oppose Trump, but actively push for the election of the Democrats nationwide. I understand, I think, your ambivalence about Harris. But she is a normal candidate, who would do her best to enact progressive (leftist?) policies, many of which have broad popular appeal. She would continue many of Biden’s policies, and try to do more in some areas. She does not deny climate change, and might give the earth a chance to avoid the worst effects of it. She supports our allies, not foreign autocrats. She supports Ukraine.

However, unless she has (large?) majorities in both houses, she won’t be able to accomplish all she would like. She would probably run again in 2028, and indeed would be sure to hold that election. And if defeated, she would peacefully cede power, like all other presidents except Trump. In short, she is a normal candidate, and would govern like a normal president. The other option offers an “administration” that would leave an unrecognizable country and very possibly an unlivable planet.

Thank you for considering these points; one of the reasons I subscribe is because you welcome dissent and opposing opinions.

They’re also valued by this reader:

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you being honest about your uncertainty about how to vote in the election. From reading readers’ responses (which I love, by the way — it’s so fascinating and helpful to me to see the range of views that your columns and interviews provoke), I gather that your uncertainty drives many people crazy. I understand where they’re coming from, because on some days, I feel confident that I know how to proceed and wonder how anyone could have doubts. On those days, I remember a yard sign that made me laugh: “Harris Walz, Obviously.”

But on other days, I have doubts myself and wonder if the more ethical thing to do would be to write in a candidate, as a way to register how condescending I find the Democrats’ apparent belief that they don’t have to put forward any positive program and can just rely on being Not Trump. On all days, I appreciate you and what you and Chris have curated with my fellow readers ,where I feel I have space and quiet to think, without being shouted at about WHAT I MUST DO THIS MOMENT OR ELSE. I’m not a quick thinker — it takes me time to mull things over — and I like being able to think with you and other readers.

What a lovely email. That’s what we’re trying to do, and my agony is real. I have days when I think — fuck it, endorse her. And days when I fear she could be a terribly weak president, and offends some of deepest principles (like non-discrimination, color-blindness and equality of opportunity).

One more dissent for the week:

My diss is with your throwaway comment that “‘unreliable’ wind now provides nearly a third of the UK’s power needs.” It is true that in 2023, wind contributed 29.4% of the UK electrical generation — but electricity is only a part of the primary energy mix. In 2022 (the latest figures I could find), fossil fuels provided 77.4% of primary UK energy, with nuclear providing 8.1%. The remaining 14.5% was provided by wind, solar, biomass and hydro combined.

This might seem like semantics, but equating electricity with primary power and saying that a third is now supplied by wind helps to perpetuate the dangerous fantasy that net zero can be achieved with renewables alone, without greatly increased nuclear power generation. It can’t. At least it can’t without the development of significantly improved (and hitherto unforeseen) renewable energy generation and storage technologies.

While continuing to ignore nuclear power as we phase out fossil fuels, Western governments are continuing to invest trillions of dollars in technologies like wind and solar that can’t viably do the job. The social, economic and environmental impacts of this are likely to be severe.

I’m with you on nuclear power. And happy to learn the difference between electricity generation and “primary UK energy.”

Keep the dissents coming by sending all your vents and insights to dish@andrewsullivan.com. We promise to air a full debate, as is tradition.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Weekly Dish, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends