George Packer On Our Post-Liberal World

His new novel is a bleak, unsettling look at our polarized time.

George is a journalist and novelist. He was a long-time staff writer at The New Yorker, now a staff writer at The Atlantic. He’s the author of 10 books, including The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America — which won the National Book Award — and Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century. His new novel is called The Emergency. It’s a parable of our polarized times — and a deeply unsettling one. We had this conversation the afternoon after I finished the book, and, as you’ll see, it really affected me emotionally.

An auto-transcript is available above (click “Transcript” while logged in Substack). For two clips of our convo — on the clarity of Orwell’s writing, and the savior complex of the woke — head to our YouTube page.

Other topics: raised by two Stanford professors; his dad accused of fascism by his leftist students and red-baited by the right; his dad’s stroke and subsequent suicide at a young age; George’s time in the Peace Corps; how Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia “saved me”; entering journalism at 40; reporting in Iraq; Orwell’s contempt for elites; Auden and Spender; the ideologies of intellectuals; the young turning on their elders; the summer of 2020; Camus’ La Peste; January 6; Orwell’s bigotries; his love for the countryside and common decency; Animal Farm; Nineteen Eighty-Four; Hitchens; utopianism; Nietzsche and slave morality; Fukuyama and boredom; the collapse of religion; intra-elite competition; Mamdani; the Gaza protests; virtue signaling; struggle sessions; mobs on social media; the loss of gatekeepers; the queer takeover of the gay rights movement; the brutality of meritocracy; Nick Fuentes; Trump’s multi-racial win; his Cabinet picks as trolling; the utter capitulation of Vance; Haidt and smartphones; and our post-literate democracy.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: Shadi Hamid in defense of US interventionism, Simon Rogoff on the narcissism of pols, Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness, Vivek Ramaswamy on the right, and Jason Willick on trade and conservatism. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Here’s a fan of last week’s episode with Michel Paradis:

That discussion on Gen. Eisenhower was a perfect way to end my Thanksgiving weekend. We Americans should be thankful above all for the legacy we inherited from leaders of character like Ike. In order to continue the legacy, we must prioritize character in how we lead our lives and in how we choose our leaders.

Another writes, “That was a fascinating, riveting conversation — I stayed put and soaked it all in.” More props: “One of your best recent episodes. You two were in perfect sync.” A dissent:

You are brilliant and I’ve enjoyed your work for 30 years — but your Churchill imitation needs a lot of work. I’m from the South Bronx and my Churchill voice is better than yours.

Haha. A fan of Michel’s voice:

What a great episode with Michel Paradis, and I was rather surprised that he did not read his book for the audio version (I checked after the pod finished), because he has such a great voice. I would look forward to a followup discussion about Eisenhower’s presidency!

Yeah he has a voice for radio. Another clip of Michel’s baritone:

A related book rec:

I agree with all the accolades you gave Eisenhower on his performance in WWII, including the military planning and his skill in dealing with Britain. However, you never got to his actions as president. Having recently read The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer, I have to say Eisenhower’s foreign policy — aside from ending the Korean War — was very bad, even disastrous in the long term. It’s unclear whether the Dulles brothers pushed Eisenhower into the actions they took, or if they were simply carrying out his policies.

The disastrous policies included overthrowing the governments of Nicaragua and Iran (installing the Shah), undermining Sukarno in Indonesia, mishandling the conflict between the French and Ho Chi Minh, ordering and facilitating the killing of Lumumba in the Republic of the Congo, and planning the Bay of Pigs. By also ordering the assassination of Castro (not successfully of course), Eisenhower was the only president before or since to have ordered the killing of not just one, but two leaders of foreign countries.

Eisenhower understood the British very well, especially Churchill and Monty, but he didn’t at all understand the thinking of the Asians Ho or Sukarno. From his actions, it’s doubtful he had much understanding of the people of Iran either. The installation of the Shah seemed like a good idea at the time, but we all know how that turned out — long after Eisenhower was gone.

Two more book recs:

I read Michel Paradis’ book a few months ago and was overwhelmed with admiration for the manner in which Ike dealt with the pressure, the politics, and the personalities in weaving together all that it took to pull off D-Day. I can’t imagine any other human being who could have pulled off that amazing feat — much like Lincoln and the Civil War. Similarly, the book Eisenhower 1956 presented a brilliant strategist, placed in a terrible situation by his purported allies, Britain and France, having to make a terrible decision to abandon Hungary in order to prevent an armed confrontation in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Rick Atkinson’s book on the European campaign in 1944-1945 showed that every commander has personal flaws that limits his effectiveness. Thousands of frontline troops suffered and died needlessly because of foolish decisions that Ike made in the final year of the war. Perhaps no one could have done any better through such a long, taxing, unprecedented, and traumatic command. Indeed, none of the other major figures involved acquitted themselves any better. But one cannot overlook the price of so many of the mistakes.

Another recent episode:

I often don’t get a chance to listen to your podcasts for a few weeks, so I just finished listening to your conversation with Michael Wolff. Really loved it, since it explores what a truly bizarre oddball Big Orange is.

I must say, I marvel Wolff’s ability to spend so much time in proximity to that toxicity. Oh well, different strokes.

Wolff’s capacity to soak in the company of Epstein — and suck up to him — is also beyond my human understanding. But cometh the hour, I guess.

On another episode:

I am just listening to your pod with Mark Halperin, and the point about how Trump was right to focus extensively on naming individuals murdered by illegal immigrants is just deeply unpersuasive. I think it underlines how immigration issues punch above their weight and can be goosed by demagogic appeals.

It is extremely powerful, and emotionally compelling, to focus on crimes committed by immigrants, but it’s also deeply misleading — in exactly the same way that individual police-brutality cases are extremely emotionally charged and politically potent, while being (thankfully) relatively rare events. In both cases, it’s making hay out of tragedies that appeal to our emotions, and they are easily exploited to capture people’s attention and anger. Trump is very good at stoking this outrage, but the people pouring cold water on this view are more right about the actual facts of the matter.

I say that as someone who thinks the wanton abuse of the asylum system was a catastrophe that gave us Trump II, and I readily concede that people can justifiably be pissed about levels of immigration broadly and the disorder that accompanies huge numbers of new arrivals. In any case, thanks for the episode, and for your efforts to foster a broad discussion with lots of folks with different viewpoints.

I find Trump’s personalization of immigrant crime abhorrent because it is so misleading. But I can also see its pagan power.

Some guest recs:

I don’t think I’ve heard you do a Canada episode. With a looming economic crisis, out-of-control immigration only now being tackled, wokeness on steroids, a failing unrepresentative media now completely on the government dole, rising separatism, indigenous land claims, and a collapse in national identity — but paired with hope in a new prime minister, a commitment to bring the country together, and a reevaluation of itself on the world stage. This could be the most interesting time to talk about the world’s most boring country.

If you’re looking for guest ideas, I recommend the Canadian pollster Darrell Bricker and political journalist John Ibbitson, who have co-authored a new book called Breaking Points. Here’s a podcast episode on the book to give you a flavor:

A worthwhile Canadian initiative. And the country has become more fascinating in the last decade or so.

Here’s a reader email from a “fellow Catholic who has voted for Trump three times — and wrestled so deeply over my choice”:

I really appreciate your latest column, “The Question of Decency.” I so often feel dismissed in my wrestling with regret over Trump (or not? I don’t know?), because of precisely what you pointed out:

people on the right often want to characterize any regret as “caving” to the overreach, or an ignorance of positive effects under this administration. It’s felt, in certain circles, like regretting my vote is treated as a moral/spiritual failure somehow. I was raised to believe that “we don’t have to like our leaders.” But yikes, shouldn’t our leaders be … likable? Or more than likable, as you’ve said — decent?

So thanks for this. It’s humbling, and it helps me continue to wrestle with the ways I’ve been ignorant or blinded.

The anti-anti-Trump position has some points. A lot of the resistance is cringe, leftist, dogmatic, and strategically stupid. But the longer you weigh it all, the more obvious it seems to me that simply being anti-Trump is the least worst take.

A view from abroad:

I’m writing from a vacation in France to thank you for your column “The Question of Decency.” It has been indescribably wonderful to be somewhere other than the US and not feel submerged in the daily awfulness of Trump. (But of course, there is only so much distance, and Trump’s 28-point plan to sell out Ukraine has broken my heart.) I hope you’re wrong and that you won’t be overwhelmed with accusations of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which is a crap diagnosis if there ever was one. But just in case, I thought I’d let you know that “The Question of Decency” was for me the best piece you’ve written since I started to subscribe.

Another on the column:

It’s one of my favorites of all time, and I say this as someone who has been reading you for over 20 years. I’m no card-carrying liberal, and I had to hold my nose to vote for Biden in 2020 and abstained from voting at all in 2024. But the one question I’ve always posed to my Trump-supporting friends and family is whether they would ever point to him, to this president, and tell their kids that they should try to be like him when they grow up. Not a single one has ever said yes.

Another writes, “I’m surprised you did not once mention the ‘Christians’ who overwhelmingly voted for this vile, vulgar, and indecent man, and whom still support him not in spite of, but because of it.” I know. I just don’t know what to say to them, or even about them. The contradiction is so massive it befuddles me. There are at least two Christianities in America: one is fearful and fundamentalist; the other is unafraid and humble. Trump is a natural, if starkly pagan, option for the former.

Another reader:

Your column was written just in time for a Trump-Mamdani lovefest in the White House.

That was not on my bingo card. Just when you thought things couldn’t get any fucking weirder …

And another:

I did not vote for Trump in 2016, primarily because of his indecency. I also don’t believe you have TDS, as Trump truly is indecent. However, I disagree with you that his indecency portends fascism. In fact, I would argue that some of the most effective US presidents in modern history have been quite indecent, while the decent ones have been disasters.

Many believe that Bill Clinton was a very good and effective president, yet we know he was far from decent — but did not bring on fascism. On the other hand, most would agree that Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and even Joe Biden were decent people, but by all accounts they were the least effective and probably the worst presidents in modern history.

Recently, a friend was mourning the death of Dick Cheney, since he loved the Bush/Cheney administration. I asked this man — who is extremely well-read and wise) — “Name one good policy decision that W effectuated.” He was honestly stumped, and finally said, “But he was truly a compassionate conservative” — a decent man.

Yet another:

I don’t think you have TDS, but I do think you’re discounting the fact that Trumpism — if not Trump himself — was inevitable. Pussy hats. Russiagate. Cancel culture. “Trans women are women, period.” The 1619 Project. Extended COVID school closures. People dressed as the grim reaper to harass people at the beach, whereas the next day huge public gathering were necessary because “racism is a public health threat.” One could go on (and on, and on … )

Did we think there would be no reaction to these things? Or rather, what did we think the reaction would be? Some staid, balanced, middle-of-the-road alternative? No. The pendulum swung hard in one direction in recent years; with Trump, it swung back hard — maybe harder — in a different direction.

The question isn’t “why Trump.” Trump was elected and re-elected as a finger in the eye to the woke madness. Problem is, after winning elections you have to govern, preferably responsibly, and Trump isn’t capable of that. So in 2028 we have a choice: normalcy, or even greater extremism.

That’s about right. Another reader looks to the UK:

I’m not going to respond to your invocation of Orwell’s paeans to decency by accusing you of TDS, nor am I going to argue about any of Trump’s character flaws — which as many people have pointed out, were well known to most Trump voters, even if they didn’t approve of them and had to hold their noses to vote for him.

I’m an American, but I just finished reading several books on England’s constitutional crisis beginning with Peter Hennessey’s The Hidden Wiring: Unearthing the British Constitution (1995). I’m sure you’re familiar with the so-called “good chap theory” that underlies many of the unwritten elements of England’s constitutional order. It relies precisely on the “decency” that Orwell describes, and I see it as massively failing — to the point where I don’t think it can ever be reconstructed. Whatever “decency” may remain in the UK populace, none remains in its leaders. The type of authoritarianism that one sees in Starmer’s England is so beyond anything even contemplated by Trump and his supporters that it almost beggars belief, and it highlights why England desperately needs a written constitution at last.

You’ve got Starmer proposing getting rid of jury trials for some crimes to deal with a backlog crisis that the Labour government created in the first place by underinvestment and neglect. You’ve got a government openly announcing that it will raise taxes on an already crushed and hollowed-out middle class. You’ve got a country that, if London was subtracted from the economy, would rank among Third World economies. I trust I don’t have to rehearse for you the disasters of the UK immigration policy, in which all parties were complicit.

What I learned from my reading was that Parliament already has the type of almost extra-legal powers that Trump and his associates would die for. Again, I’m not arguing about any of his character flaws, but he can’t really be a “dictator” or a “king” because dictators don’t go to the courts to strike at their perceived enemies; they simply ignore or sideline them. Trump may fume about adverse court rulings on his social media accounts, often with crude remarks, but to my knowledge he has never outright defied or failed to comply with a legitimate court order (I’m open to counter-evidence).

You’ve got UK citizens being arrested by the hundreds for “offenses” that violate not written statutes but merely hurt the feelings of some group that the government has designated as privileged. I’ve seen the videos where the London Metro police freely admit that the person they are hustling away to JAIL has broken no written laws.

My point is that manners and tacit cultural capital are no substitute for written laws and a Bill of Rights. When there are no longer any “good chaps” in government, the whole unwritten constitution breaks down, and you have arrests for thought crimes and speech “offenses” that are simply not possible under the Bill of Rights, even though we share the corruption of wokism and cancel culture. When “decency” can be claimed by woke elites who are convinced they have it on their side, there is no defense.

Very powerfully put. Here’s an Orwell-inspired poem:

Your column on decency and Trump reminded me of a limerick by poet Annaliese Emmans Dean, in an entry to a 2009 New Statesman competition — to summarize a book with a limerick:

From the farm they banished the people.
“Hurrah!” cried the beasts. “We’re all equal!”
But superior plotters,
With trotters, the rotters,
Took over. The End. (There’s no sequel.)

Good one. Lastly this week, a reader has a “quick response to your reply to my recommendation of Boots on Netflix”:

You’re right — the vast majority of gay shows and films not made by Andrew Haigh (Looking, All of Us Strangers, Weekend) have been mostly terrible. But the last few recent, gay-themed entertainments I’ve seen — Boots, Twinless, and The History Of Sound (with Paul Mescal and Josh O’ Connor) — have all been really fucking good.

I feel like the difference is that the characters in the bad gay films and shows have been gay first and human beings second. But with the ones I mentioned above, the characters are human beings first and foremost — and their being gay is just an aspect of who they are. Seems like maybe we’ve finally turned a corner as far as gay storytelling is concerned? Know hope.

Yessir. That’s my sense too — for a couple years now. Let’s not forget Mike White for his resuscitation of “evil queens.” The Dishcast with Mike remains one of my favorites.

Thanks for all the great emails, and see you next Friday.

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