Just a thought. Next time try a debate between Sam Harris and Douglas Murray. Not that Ben did not hold his own – which he did. It’s just that Douglass Murray I believe has a more equal distain for Kamala Harris, which would be a mirror image of Sam Harris’s view toward Trump. (TDS vs HDS, with two intellectual juggernauts.)
Excellent discussion. Two of the best. Thank you Bari for bringing these two stellar minds together. I’m a Conservative who is reluctantly voting for Trump and passionately voting against Kamala Harris. Neither of these two said anything that surprised me, or swayed me in any new direction. Yet, it was very refreshing to have a conservative stand up to Sam Harris, AND visa versa.
So the best thing that was said about determining who to vote for was to base it not on the character of any candidate but on the character of the American people -who can best let the people build up their destiny at the local level.
““I think that when we look at the character of our politicians, if we believe the character of our politicians is the destiny of the country, then we are certain to have a bad fate. If we believe the character of the American people is the future of the country, the question becomes, how do we delegate the most power back to the American people to live lives of virtue?”
From Honestly with Bari Weiss: Trump or Kamala? Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris Debate., Oct 29, 2024
I appreciated the debate between Sam Harris and Josh Shapiro. They each arrived (and really began) at bottom lines. For Harris, Trump’s efforts to subvert the electoral Will was disqualifying, and evidence of a fascist mentality and means of governing. Shapiro saw Trump’s record in office as determinative, believing a second term would look much like the first and Trump’s wilder impulses would be restrained again by Constitutiional guardrails. In a sense, the argument came down for both to how bad and possibly good is Trump?
I thought Shapiro blew it in answering the character question, saying that the nation’s character is what truly counts in determining the nation’s ultimate fate, since so many of our leaders have been profoundly flawed and yet the nation persists. While there’s a point to that, it skirts the practical issue of how much character or the lack of it influences good governance. Trump’s first term was significantly hampered by his narcissism since every time he advanced a positive policy he vitiated a measure of its positive rffext by engaging in petty squabbles.
Harris missed the greater problem, however, in failing even to consider the profoundly false worldview of the Democratic Party. Wokeness, intersectionality, and identity politics are not “the excesses” of what is otherwise, as Harris viewed it, a normal politics. This is the way in which Democrats now look at the world, a philosophy grounded in class structure—in other words, contemporary adaptations of Marxism. If you base your thinking on such premises, everything you do—everything—will be destructive and demeaning.
Trump’s problems are those of a narcissist (with sociopathic tendencies). Kamala Harris’s problems are principled; she’s committed to what’s false. She has her own problems of character, too, of course—rarely has naked ambition been more exposed. Even if she were personally a saint, however, her philosophy would lead her constantly astray.
I will vote for a bad king every time over a good class warrior.
Quite simple: she/Sam cannot defend the policies of the Biden-Kamala administration so she/Sam flips the script to ripping the character of her opponent.
Sam Harris brought up Joe Biden’s stutter, maybe that’s a real thing. I started stuttering when I was 8 and I still have a stutter. I’ve watch Joe Biden throughout my life and not until he was president and fumbling with words did I hear that he had a stutter. I’ve watched him closely and he doesn’t have a vocal block, he doesn’t have repetitive speech, and I have heard prolonged syllables. He just sounds confused when he speaks. A person with a stutter knows exactly what they want to say, it’s just difficult getting the syllables out.
I thought this was a superb discussion/debate. It was thoughtful, provocative, well-reasoned, and respectful. There was zero interrupting, no personal attacks, and no mis-characterization of the other person's points. Both Sam and Ben clearly understood and acknowledged the the other person's positions while offering carefully-articulated arguments in response. There were points of agreement and disagreement, and Bari's moderation was excellent. As others have commented, this is why the Free Press is the best thing to happen to journalism in decades. If more of the country were exposed to coverage and analysis like this instead of what we get from partisan media outlets and social media, our politics would be in a much better place.
Ben won. Sam said nothing you won't hear every night on MSNBC. I was expecting a lot more from him. Maybe it just shows that there is no reasonable argument in favor of Kamala other than "orange man bad". For the record, I find Kamala's (and the entire Democrat/MSM structure's) ongoing lies about the mental competence of the leader of the free world much more egregious than Trump lying about a golf score. Sam trying to say Biden is a weak public speaker, but still in charge behind the scenes was embarrassing. Even KJP dropped that line a few months ago.
This is one of the best, thought-provoking debates and yet still so frustrating. Sam’s position that Trump should be disqualified is understood, but I’d really like to hear thoughtful, reasoned arguments about why Kamala. On Israel Sam states that Kamala knows Hamas is a death cult and will support Israel - I don’t think that’s a given at all. Yes, she has to appease fringe groups and yes the Democrats have surrounded her campaign (mostly) with more centrists … but Joe Biden ran on a centrist campaign and then pursued a deeply progressive agenda.
It's sad that exploding debt from spending is ignored by Rs, Ds and voters. The financial rape of our children/grandchildren is the accepted political norm. Voters can't connect money printing as a tax they'll pay for inflation.
With all the intellectual brilliance mr Harris has, it is really odd that he attributes authoritarianism, election results denial and so on to Republicans while completely ignoring the exact same problems with Democrats. What I really like about mr Shapiro is his honesty also about the flaws of his side. So consequently, on trustworthiness and intellectual scale mr Shapiro wins (and along with that his conclusions about the persons on the ballot).
Ben Shapiro argued that Trump’s policies worked because he’s “unpredictable” then proceeded to predict that he won’t do what he says he’s going to do. Harris was, and is, much more convincing and consistent.
I was reading a totally different article by Paul Bloom entitled "Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings" The reason I thought it might apply to this debate is that he suggests "consumers of scientific information should be more skeptical when journals produce findings that are in lockstep with the political views of their editors, reviewers, and readers." He also suggests that readers find it most compelling if the research supports findings that are in opposition to their political views because releasing their data will cost them some social capital.
When I look at Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris who are two people that I respect, I think the more compelling argument was Ben Shapiro based on the fact that he was not a Trump supporter in 2016 and wrote that he would never support Donald Trump. Sam Harris as far as I can tell has never been a Trump supporter and therefore has not changed his mind about Trump.
I listened to Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster interview Bill Ackman who admitted he was not a Trump supporter even throughout the primaries ,who now supports Donald Trump and an interview on Dan Crenshaw's podcast of Shawn Maguire who was very against Trump until he was "converted when all his beliefs about the Russian collusion and the Laptop were proven to be exactly opposite of what the mainstream media was telling the country on a daily basis. These weren't debates but because these men changed their mind about Trump and could articulate why they did so, they offered a more compelling argument. I wonder is interviewing a previous Trump supporter, maybe one of those 40 people who Sam Harris kept claiming worked for Trump and now cannot support him versus someone who was for Biden and now is a Trump supporter would offer an even more compelling argument.
As a total side note, as a Christian I have always felt that Alex O'Connor offers a much more convincing argument in support of atheism than does Sam Harris for many of the same reasons his argument against Trump seems weaker. His argument seems more subjective and emotional, perhaps because he is very dismissive of the other's viewpoint rather than understanding that it might have some elements of validity.
This debate is why I subscribe to The Free Press. Here was a conversation between two principled and intelligent people who stated their position and reasons and disagreed with each other. It had substance, points of agreement, and clear disagreement. What is interesting is that they both, directly or indirectly, said that the sort of politics we are looking at cannot become normal. I hope it does not. Thanks for hosting this.
Of course there are no "perfect candidates" - why would we think that possible?? There are no perfect people. We are not here to pick somebody "perfect".
It's too bad Bari can't see her own blind spots. She prides herself on thoughtful evaluation, yet she cannot apply that to evaluating Trump. I doubt she's done anything more than watch MSM sound bites like everybody else. She gets so disappointed when people do that in regard to Jewish issues, then turns around and applies that lack of rational review to this important question! If she had some truly thoughtful policy issue, I'd be fine. But her "character" being king is rather ridiculous. MSM sound bites don't do anything to find the true character. A lifetime of day to day living is where character is formed and found.
She posted today that this is a "non binary" choice - neither is good. No "enemy within" and no "garbage". I'd challenge her to really read about and investigate the IRS whistleblowers case and tell me there actually is nothing going on "within". And Biden/Harris have been divisive and labeling Trump voters as amoral/immoral garbage since 2020: "MAGA supremicists", "biggest threat to our democracy are MAGA Republicans" "you need to pay your fair share", "white supremicists" - who can forget Biden's awful "red dawn of the dead" speech of anger and division. Harris labels Trump voters all the time. Biden even vilified the border patrol on horseback in front of the entire nation! They hate Americans.
Trump often uses crude language, but always directs this toward other politicians or reporters. He does not label or reject any average voter - even if people disagree with him.
I'd challenge her to read his book "Art of the Deal" - you'll see details of exactly what Trump thinks and all the decades of work to get where he is now. Watch 1-2 roundtable discussions or photo ops with friendly interviewers. You will see how he is uniquely suited to be where he is now.
Show me something (anything) that Harris does or has done? When I read her resume and read details about how little work she actually did when in DA office or the AG, it all makes even more sense. I've watched several interviews she's given in detail. I can find nothing of substance. I've been looking - I just can't find it.
This interview just reinforced this point - if you hate Trump, it's an emotional, gut reaction to what's been fed to you by MSM. There are no real policies. (if you do tout policies, it's generally clear you didn't get input/read/review both sides and then make up your mind).
And if you do have some well thought out points and still feel that way, I can respect that.
Just a thought. Next time try a debate between Sam Harris and Douglas Murray. Not that Ben did not hold his own – which he did. It’s just that Douglass Murray I believe has a more equal distain for Kamala Harris, which would be a mirror image of Sam Harris’s view toward Trump. (TDS vs HDS, with two intellectual juggernauts.)
Excellent discussion. Two of the best. Thank you Bari for bringing these two stellar minds together. I’m a Conservative who is reluctantly voting for Trump and passionately voting against Kamala Harris. Neither of these two said anything that surprised me, or swayed me in any new direction. Yet, it was very refreshing to have a conservative stand up to Sam Harris, AND visa versa.
So the best thing that was said about determining who to vote for was to base it not on the character of any candidate but on the character of the American people -who can best let the people build up their destiny at the local level.
““I think that when we look at the character of our politicians, if we believe the character of our politicians is the destiny of the country, then we are certain to have a bad fate. If we believe the character of the American people is the future of the country, the question becomes, how do we delegate the most power back to the American people to live lives of virtue?”
From Honestly with Bari Weiss: Trump or Kamala? Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris Debate., Oct 29, 2024
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/honestly-with-bari-weiss/id1570872415?i=1000674840245
This material may be protected by copyright.
I appreciated the debate between Sam Harris and Josh Shapiro. They each arrived (and really began) at bottom lines. For Harris, Trump’s efforts to subvert the electoral Will was disqualifying, and evidence of a fascist mentality and means of governing. Shapiro saw Trump’s record in office as determinative, believing a second term would look much like the first and Trump’s wilder impulses would be restrained again by Constitutiional guardrails. In a sense, the argument came down for both to how bad and possibly good is Trump?
I thought Shapiro blew it in answering the character question, saying that the nation’s character is what truly counts in determining the nation’s ultimate fate, since so many of our leaders have been profoundly flawed and yet the nation persists. While there’s a point to that, it skirts the practical issue of how much character or the lack of it influences good governance. Trump’s first term was significantly hampered by his narcissism since every time he advanced a positive policy he vitiated a measure of its positive rffext by engaging in petty squabbles.
Harris missed the greater problem, however, in failing even to consider the profoundly false worldview of the Democratic Party. Wokeness, intersectionality, and identity politics are not “the excesses” of what is otherwise, as Harris viewed it, a normal politics. This is the way in which Democrats now look at the world, a philosophy grounded in class structure—in other words, contemporary adaptations of Marxism. If you base your thinking on such premises, everything you do—everything—will be destructive and demeaning.
Trump’s problems are those of a narcissist (with sociopathic tendencies). Kamala Harris’s problems are principled; she’s committed to what’s false. She has her own problems of character, too, of course—rarely has naked ambition been more exposed. Even if she were personally a saint, however, her philosophy would lead her constantly astray.
I will vote for a bad king every time over a good class warrior.
Quite simple: she/Sam cannot defend the policies of the Biden-Kamala administration so she/Sam flips the script to ripping the character of her opponent.
Sam Harris brought up Joe Biden’s stutter, maybe that’s a real thing. I started stuttering when I was 8 and I still have a stutter. I’ve watch Joe Biden throughout my life and not until he was president and fumbling with words did I hear that he had a stutter. I’ve watched him closely and he doesn’t have a vocal block, he doesn’t have repetitive speech, and I have heard prolonged syllables. He just sounds confused when he speaks. A person with a stutter knows exactly what they want to say, it’s just difficult getting the syllables out.
I thought this was a superb discussion/debate. It was thoughtful, provocative, well-reasoned, and respectful. There was zero interrupting, no personal attacks, and no mis-characterization of the other person's points. Both Sam and Ben clearly understood and acknowledged the the other person's positions while offering carefully-articulated arguments in response. There were points of agreement and disagreement, and Bari's moderation was excellent. As others have commented, this is why the Free Press is the best thing to happen to journalism in decades. If more of the country were exposed to coverage and analysis like this instead of what we get from partisan media outlets and social media, our politics would be in a much better place.
Ben won. Sam said nothing you won't hear every night on MSNBC. I was expecting a lot more from him. Maybe it just shows that there is no reasonable argument in favor of Kamala other than "orange man bad". For the record, I find Kamala's (and the entire Democrat/MSM structure's) ongoing lies about the mental competence of the leader of the free world much more egregious than Trump lying about a golf score. Sam trying to say Biden is a weak public speaker, but still in charge behind the scenes was embarrassing. Even KJP dropped that line a few months ago.
This is one of the best, thought-provoking debates and yet still so frustrating. Sam’s position that Trump should be disqualified is understood, but I’d really like to hear thoughtful, reasoned arguments about why Kamala. On Israel Sam states that Kamala knows Hamas is a death cult and will support Israel - I don’t think that’s a given at all. Yes, she has to appease fringe groups and yes the Democrats have surrounded her campaign (mostly) with more centrists … but Joe Biden ran on a centrist campaign and then pursued a deeply progressive agenda.
It's sad that exploding debt from spending is ignored by Rs, Ds and voters. The financial rape of our children/grandchildren is the accepted political norm. Voters can't connect money printing as a tax they'll pay for inflation.
With all the intellectual brilliance mr Harris has, it is really odd that he attributes authoritarianism, election results denial and so on to Republicans while completely ignoring the exact same problems with Democrats. What I really like about mr Shapiro is his honesty also about the flaws of his side. So consequently, on trustworthiness and intellectual scale mr Shapiro wins (and along with that his conclusions about the persons on the ballot).
Ben Shapiro argued that Trump’s policies worked because he’s “unpredictable” then proceeded to predict that he won’t do what he says he’s going to do. Harris was, and is, much more convincing and consistent.
This was a pretty lopsided debate. Ben crushed Sam primarily because Sam failed to explain what Kamala stands for.
I was reading a totally different article by Paul Bloom entitled "Progressives should worry more about their favorite scientific findings" The reason I thought it might apply to this debate is that he suggests "consumers of scientific information should be more skeptical when journals produce findings that are in lockstep with the political views of their editors, reviewers, and readers." He also suggests that readers find it most compelling if the research supports findings that are in opposition to their political views because releasing their data will cost them some social capital.
When I look at Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris who are two people that I respect, I think the more compelling argument was Ben Shapiro based on the fact that he was not a Trump supporter in 2016 and wrote that he would never support Donald Trump. Sam Harris as far as I can tell has never been a Trump supporter and therefore has not changed his mind about Trump.
I listened to Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster interview Bill Ackman who admitted he was not a Trump supporter even throughout the primaries ,who now supports Donald Trump and an interview on Dan Crenshaw's podcast of Shawn Maguire who was very against Trump until he was "converted when all his beliefs about the Russian collusion and the Laptop were proven to be exactly opposite of what the mainstream media was telling the country on a daily basis. These weren't debates but because these men changed their mind about Trump and could articulate why they did so, they offered a more compelling argument. I wonder is interviewing a previous Trump supporter, maybe one of those 40 people who Sam Harris kept claiming worked for Trump and now cannot support him versus someone who was for Biden and now is a Trump supporter would offer an even more compelling argument.
As a total side note, as a Christian I have always felt that Alex O'Connor offers a much more convincing argument in support of atheism than does Sam Harris for many of the same reasons his argument against Trump seems weaker. His argument seems more subjective and emotional, perhaps because he is very dismissive of the other's viewpoint rather than understanding that it might have some elements of validity.
This debate is why I subscribe to The Free Press. Here was a conversation between two principled and intelligent people who stated their position and reasons and disagreed with each other. It had substance, points of agreement, and clear disagreement. What is interesting is that they both, directly or indirectly, said that the sort of politics we are looking at cannot become normal. I hope it does not. Thanks for hosting this.
Of course there are no "perfect candidates" - why would we think that possible?? There are no perfect people. We are not here to pick somebody "perfect".
It's too bad Bari can't see her own blind spots. She prides herself on thoughtful evaluation, yet she cannot apply that to evaluating Trump. I doubt she's done anything more than watch MSM sound bites like everybody else. She gets so disappointed when people do that in regard to Jewish issues, then turns around and applies that lack of rational review to this important question! If she had some truly thoughtful policy issue, I'd be fine. But her "character" being king is rather ridiculous. MSM sound bites don't do anything to find the true character. A lifetime of day to day living is where character is formed and found.
She posted today that this is a "non binary" choice - neither is good. No "enemy within" and no "garbage". I'd challenge her to really read about and investigate the IRS whistleblowers case and tell me there actually is nothing going on "within". And Biden/Harris have been divisive and labeling Trump voters as amoral/immoral garbage since 2020: "MAGA supremicists", "biggest threat to our democracy are MAGA Republicans" "you need to pay your fair share", "white supremicists" - who can forget Biden's awful "red dawn of the dead" speech of anger and division. Harris labels Trump voters all the time. Biden even vilified the border patrol on horseback in front of the entire nation! They hate Americans.
Trump often uses crude language, but always directs this toward other politicians or reporters. He does not label or reject any average voter - even if people disagree with him.
I'd challenge her to read his book "Art of the Deal" - you'll see details of exactly what Trump thinks and all the decades of work to get where he is now. Watch 1-2 roundtable discussions or photo ops with friendly interviewers. You will see how he is uniquely suited to be where he is now.
Show me something (anything) that Harris does or has done? When I read her resume and read details about how little work she actually did when in DA office or the AG, it all makes even more sense. I've watched several interviews she's given in detail. I can find nothing of substance. I've been looking - I just can't find it.
This interview just reinforced this point - if you hate Trump, it's an emotional, gut reaction to what's been fed to you by MSM. There are no real policies. (if you do tout policies, it's generally clear you didn't get input/read/review both sides and then make up your mind).
And if you do have some well thought out points and still feel that way, I can respect that.