We finally have a counter-balance to the moral values of Trump. In Rome.

There is already a debate about the new Pope and where he fits into American politics. Is he right or left? Did he diss JD Vance? Will he go easier on the old Latin mass? Is he going to bash Trump on immigration? His social media has been assiduously scanned for leftism. He tweeted about George Floyd! Oh wait! He has a full-on (and hilarious) MAGA brother. Which side of our tribal war is Leo on?

This is fun. It’s also the wrong debate. What’s striking about Leo’s old X feed is its caution and banality. It’s all re-posting others. And no tweet expresses anything but very conventional Catholic positions. His posts on immigration — a major source of concern from the right — are indistinguishable from what his four pontifical predecessors would have said.

What makes Leo remarkable, of course, is not politics. It’s that he is one of us, an American. This American-ness has been diluted by his long career and life in Peru, his ease in Spanish and Italian, and his role in Rome. But then he opens his mouth. I honestly never thought I’d hear from the mouth of a Pope the classic Midwestern pronunciation of “Almighty Gad.” Once I heard it, I couldn’t stop grinning.

And it’s Leo’s American identity that distinguishes him in the global imagination, and in the history of the last two millennia. Which means, as David French has noted, that two Americans now bestride the entire globe in universal recognition and influence: this Pope and this President. And it’s the contrast between their personalities and values — not their politics — that makes the pairing so poignant at this moment in history. They represent two Americas — both genuine, but very different.

Leo is a classic American immigrant mix: Creole/French/Italian. His father was part of the Normandy invasion, Leo grew up on the South Side of Chicago, he went to Villanova when Rollie Massimino was basketball coach, and his two brothers made fun of him at home for being such a goody two-shoes. The brothers are classic: one, John, a mild-mannered, well-spoken former school principal, the other a ridiculously familiar Florida Man called Lou. How much more American can you get?

Leo himself seems so profoundly Midwestern to me, in all the best ways. Quiet in affect, careful in speech — and not that exciting. I’ve now listened to a few of his public interviews and speeches and I have to say they are terribly dull, full of words drained of freshness. I’m not saying his intellect is pedestrian; it obviously isn’t. But he is constantly avoiding the making of waves; he’d rather re-tweet than tweet; his description of selecting a bishop — a process he was in charge of — is all about a bishop’s ability to listen, to be humbly in dialogue, and to be fully engaged in the messy world as a still, small — but potent — voice of calm. He seems to know who he is, with no particular need to impress.

Trump, of course, is a near-mirror American image: from Queens, not Chicago, all inflammation all the time, a deeply insecure human with no discernible equanimity at all. Where Leo has been saturated in the tenets of Catholicism, Trump’s core moral values are entirely pagan. Power over others, for Trump, is a good to be sought at all times and costs. Great wealth is the clearest sign of an admirable person. Greed is healthy. The weak and the poor and the homeless are pathetic. It’s better to be a liar than a sucker. Revenge is the real point of life, and forgiveness dependent on the total submission and humiliation of the other.

If he were just this, of course, Trump wouldn’t be president. He also represents a gloriously American vulgarity — a brash, restless, money-grubbing carnival barker. He loves fast food, Coke Zero, and WWE. He swindles and charms. His energy is prodigious, his worldliness fathomless. And he can be terribly funny. Who wouldn’t laugh at the following brag in his Riyadh speech this week: “We renamed the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America. That was very popular … other than perhaps with Mexico.” This shameless hucksterism has never ascended to the presidency in quite this way before — but it is deeply, authentically American nonetheless. I can’t help but be fond of it, even as Trump’s core character still appalls.

Leo is preternaturally American as well: his good nature, his generosity of spirit, his modesty and reserve all have a deeply Midwestern feel to me, that part of this crazy country that always seems the most sane. And these are such starkly different American personalities that they help convey the complexity of this country to a world that often misreads us. That’s a good thing for this country right now.

But there is, of course, a deeper distinction between Leo’s Americanness and Trump’s. It’s not cultural, or political. It’s simply moral. Leo is a moral American and Trump an utterly amoral one. I don’t mean by this that Leo is a liberal, globalist, or Democrat, while Trump is the opposite. I mean simply that Leo is a decent human being. And Trump manifestly isn’t.

Being decent is a nebulous thing, but we know it when we see it. Christians, for example, can fight about what to do about illegal immigration furiously. We can take diametrically opposite positions on policy. But we cannot ignore the dignity and humanity of migrants — period. We do not call human beings “illegals”. We don’t mock trans people by purposely misgendering them. We treat allies with respect, not contempt. We engage dictators in foreign policy, but we never lionize them.

This decency was once part of the American image. It’s rooted in memories of the Marshall Plan, of the sense that in wartime, if you saw an American G.I. you’d be in good hands, whoever you were. America is on the side of the underdog, the dissident, the outsider who belongs nowhere else. Americans go to foreign gulags only ever to rescue someone. But this administration actually sends its cabinet officials to foreign gulags to brag about how they have sent someone there. By mistake.

This is surely Leo’s unspoken role: to remind the world that America is not all about power, selfishness, and money, and that however much we may disagree on policy, we must not sacrifice our defense of the equal dignity of every human soul.

What does this mean in practice? Take the intense debate over Gaza. We can debate the strategy of Israel, the evil of Hamas, and the whole thorny history. But no Christian can defend the killing and near-starvation of so many defenseless children, or the despicable use of children by Hamas as human shields. We can argue over how we grapple with the immense consequences of AI. But as we do, Christians have to insist on the uniqueness of every human soul, and protect that against the aspirations of techno-utopians and bloodless capitalists. (Leo’s only real departure from his predecessors is his focus on this new technological revolution, its potential, and its danger. I suspect he’s right.)

We can debate theology about transgender or gay people without othering or demeaning them. Pope Francis remained opposed to gender ideology, but he invited trans people to dine with him at the Vatican. He didn’t change the doctrine that bars the expression of sexuality outside procreative, heterosexual intercourse, but he obviously loved many gay people, made us feel more human and more at home in a church we love. This unyielding defense of the dignity and value of every single soul — from the womb until death — is what Leo represents.

And it is what America has always represented at its best. It may feel dark right now, but we need to remember the American values that Pope Leo reflects have not disappeared, even though they are now in the shadows. I see good, quiet people all around me, modest people like Bob Prevost, who do good every day. We Americans are not just about money and power and fame, and never have been. We are also about faith and dignity, modesty and hard work, common sense and mercy. The very person of this mild-mannered Chicagoan will remind the world that this too is true. And that at some point, the current depravity will end.

New On The Dishcast: David Graham

David is a political journalist. He’s a long-time staff writer at The Atlantic and one of the authors of the Atlantic Daily newsletter. His new book is The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America. We go through the agenda and hash out the good and the bad.

Listen to the episode here. There you can find two clips of our convo — on whether SCOTUS will stop Trump, and what a Project 2029 for Dems might look like. That link also takes you to commentary on our recent episodes with Claire Lehmann on staying independent in the Trump era, and Byron York on the president’s first 100 days. I also have a lengthy response to a dissent over a trans-sports controversy in Maine, and much more — including some puppy love from Truman. Check it out.

Money Quotes For The Week

“The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ ‘neocons,’ or ‘liberal nonprofits.’ Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought about by the people of the region themselves,” – Donald Trump, this week in Riyadh.

“Can girls have 30 dolls if they’re a gift from Qatar?” – Preet Bharara.

“Is there no one at these major outlets who is capable of taking a step back and exercising some judgment? How about a note from New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger … that goes something like this: ‘Katie and Joe, I’m concerned that we’re going overboard with both coverage and commentary about Biden’s age. Let’s keep this in better perspective and tone it down.’ Believe me, those two sentences would make a world of difference,” – Margaret Sullivan, February 2024.

“It’s all Biden. He totally fucked us,” – David Plouffe on the 2024 election.

“A very confused Trump just saluted Saudi military officials at the Royal Court in Riyadh — a blatant breach of U.S. presidential protocol. Imagine for one second if Joe Biden had done that. Fox News would have a week-long meltdown and demand hearings,” – Chris D Jackson.

“After causing catastrophic inflation, Comrade Kamala announced that she wants to institute socialist price controls. This is Communist; this is Marxist; this is fascist,” – Donald Trump, nine months before unveiling price controls on pharmaceuticals.

“Elon donated $291 million to Trump. Then, Trump’s administration didn’t take action on 40 investigations and killed cases involving Tesla, Space X, and Neuralink — saving Elon billions. The $291 million was a bribe. This is what corruption looks like,” – Melanie D’Arrigo.

“So let me get this straight…. David Hogg started complaining, loudly — and rightly — that the Democrats alienated young men and have no plan to win them back (and in general are too deferential to older establishment figures and identity politics), and the DNC is voiding his vice chairmanship to humor a 61-year-old Native American woman who claims the process was not sufficiently rigged in favor of a woman,” – Robby Soave.

“I’ve already returned over 24,000 [migrants] with no right to be here. And I won’t stop there,” – Keir Starmer, fighting for his political life.

“I implore all writers out there: Stop waiting for a permission slip. If you feel so strongly about something, say it with your chest. But don’t do it expecting a parade, a cookie, a fat publishing contract, a call from Oprah, or a nice trophy from the Center for Fiction. Do it because you have to. Because you have a burning need to see it on the page,” – Andrew Boryga.

Yglesias Award Nominee

“The [Episcopal] Church cannot accuse ⁦Donald Trump⁩ of being racist and anti immigrants and do the same thing they accuse him of. This was a great opportunity to show that they care for all immigrants regardless of color. But they failed the test!!” – Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Dem politician in NYC responding to the Episcopal Church ending its refugee program with the US government over white South Africans.

The View From Your Window

Budapest, Hungary, 8 pm

Dissents Of The Week

A reader responds to my latest column, “How Trump Could Re-Boot On Immigration”:

I do think a re-boot on immigration is possible, but I take issue with your column as a whole. Conservatives have had numerous opportunities to fix immigration and have generally refused to do so. In fact, during Joe Biden’s term, there was a chance to effectively write a bill as Republicans wanted — and Trump killed the bill. Since taking office, he’s shown zero interest in actually fixing the immigration system.

Republicans don’t want to fix the system: they want to exploit it for political purposes. This has been true my entire life, and will continue so long as Trump runs the Republican Party. Your arguments should reflect this fact.

It’s just not true that the Lankford bill was “as Republicans wanted.” It accepted permanent mass migration to the US, and was designed to facilitate, not arrest it. My column noted GOP insincerity by highlighting their refusal to legislate a federal mandatory E-Verify program.

Another dissent:

I appreciate your efforts to propose more humane solutions to immigration, but I want to respond to your argument that we need to redefine asylum because “as climate change and political dysfunction have super-charged big population movements from South to North, we need to adjust. Regrettable I know, but anything else will swamp us.” There are two problems here.

First, while it might make us feel better to think that most immigrants who claim asylum are actually economic migrants, it’s actually much more complicated. Amidst many economic migrants are many, many people who are actually desperately in need of asylum. These include thousands of victims of political persecution (such as political opponents of Maduro, Ortega, or the Cuban regimes), as well as a whole different set of people who have been targeted for recruitment and/or extortion by the cartels and gangs that are operating unchecked in large parts of Mexico and Central America.

These people are in severe danger of persecution if they are returned to their home countries; cartels and gangs have many brutal methods of finding, torturing, and killing people who don’t cooperate. And these abominably vicious cartels exist because of our own massive drug consumption here in the US. Are we really supposed to dismiss them all as “economic migrants” and send them back where they came from? And in particular when they are fleeing a situation that we helped create?

The second point is the one you casually make: “anything else will swamp us.” How can we simultaneously be in danger of being “swamped” by immigrants yet also desperately depend on their labor? Whole industries — including the two you mention: construction and agriculture — will basically collapse if the immigrants who do that work are deported. There simply isn’t the native-born workforce to replace them. In fact, our population would be declining if it weren’t for immigrants. And yet these people who are here doing this essential work are also “swamping” us?

I know that your main objection to mass migration from Latin America is cultural, and I agree that that’s a tricky issue when a lot of migrants arrive with a different culture than the native-born, but at the same time, we can’t really expect people to come and do the shit jobs that Americans won’t do and then object when they look, behave, and sound different from us — at least for the first generation.

A few more dissents, on other topics, are over on the pod page. As always, please keep the criticism coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Mental Health Break

Eminem’s mega-hit is covered by hundreds of actors. Genius:

In The ‘Stacks

• Steve Vladeck details Trump’s threat to habeas corpus. Jack Goldsmith pwns Stephen Miller.
• Matt Yglesias has “11 thoughts on a really shitty House budget.” Greg Sargent’s take: “the ‘C-suite’ side in the GOP identity crisis keeps winning out.” The budget would boost the debt by $5 trillion.
• Medicaid is “overdue for an overhaul,” argues Dominik Lett.
• Rashmee Roshan Lall details the “worst clash in decades” between India and Pakistan.
• Park MacDougald wonders, “Will Trump knife Israel?”
• A depressing forecast by Yascha Mounk: “The Resistance Is Gonna Be Woke.”
• Kamala isn’t helping.
• Nate Silver shows how the Dems could win back the Senate next year.
• “No, Public TV Isn’t a Constitutional Right,” says Jon Miltimore.
• The 10th anniversary of Obergefell is upon us, but WorldPride DC is silent.
• Kara Dansky calls the WaPo’s recent trans coverage “unusually refreshing.”
• Free speech dodges a bullet in Colorado when it comes to “misgendering”.
• Leighton Woodhouse dings Matt Taibbi for “saying almost nothing critical about Trump’s blitzkrieg on free speech.”
• Yglesias cheers: “At last, a workable plan for high-speed rail.”
• Mark Oppenheimer fisks Tyler Cowen over the latter’s AI pessimism. Here’s Kate Epstein on AI “remaking us in its own image.”
• A delicious takedown of the mutual circle-jerk of elite leftists known as the Pulitzers.
• Talia Barnes has great advice: “Don’t Doomscroll. Garden.” I’ll be reviving my Ptown flower garden soon.

The View From Your Window Contest

Recommend The Weekly Dish to your readers

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” – Orwell