Ross Barkan On The DSA And Mamdani

Ross is a journalist and novelist. He’s the editor-in-chief of The Metropolitan Review, and a columnist for the Nation and UnHerd. He’s the author of six books, including his new novel, Colossus. A new non-fiction book, about the rise of Zohran Mamdani, is coming soon. Find much more of his writing on his substack, “Political Currents.”

An auto-transcript is available above for paid subscribers (just click “Transcript” while logged into Substack). For two clips of the episode — on whether the DSA is truly dangerous, and the US elites’ obsession with Israel — head to our YouTube page.

Other topics: growing up Jewish in diverse Bay Ridge, BK; parents both federal workers; his dad working at the WTC on 9/11; Ross’ cynicism over Obama’s rise; coming of age in the Great Recession; the DNC screwing over Bernie in ‘16; Ross running for the state senate with Mamdani as his manager; identifying as “left-populist, woke-skeptical”; engaging and persuading ideological rivals; universal health care; questioning Covid policies; US aid to Israel; the horrors of Oct 7; the war in Gaza and the civilian toll; no pro-Palestine speakers at the ‘24 Dem convention; the decentralized DSA; calls to abolish prisons and the Senate; Jon Chait; AOC’s move to the center; border security; Trump’s norm-busting; Buckley and the Birchers; trans athletes; the + in LGBTQ+; corporations ditching DEI; the Arday scandal; The Odyssey; Jon Ossoff; the surprising surge of El-Sayed; and debating whether wokeness is dead.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: John O’Sullivan on conservatism, Emily Eakin on postmodernism, Azam Ahmed on terrifying new drugs, and Arianna Huffington on anything but politics. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

From a fan of last week’s pod with Megan McArdle:

I always enjoy reading her, and this time I enjoyed listening. Thanks!

Here’s a dissent:

I love Megan McArdle and her writing! But something came up lately, and kept coming up, so I couldn’t let it go.

In your column last week, you gave a very balanced assessment of Dr. Fauci, but I think you betrayed some doubt about his intent by asking McArdle about the coziness between him and the Washington elite.

So I have to dissent to both your column and McArdle’s defense of Fauci — not because I knew him or worked in any discipline connected to infectious disease, but because I became part of a different Washington elite and watched it absolutely corrupt people who thought, and still think, they are on the side of the angels, and that their community of elites in Washington is a harmless or even productive clique for our nation.

I understand McArdle’s defense of the Washington scene. When you are a part of it, it seems natural. Everyone at the galas and dinners you attend are working for the betterment of some cause, and it seems like all are on the same team. And to the extent people are “helping each other” — through funding, information, etc. — well, that is just another aspect of how work gets done.

Except it also corrupts. Coziness begets coziness. Power coalesces and eventually shuts out new or opposing voices. Because those voices haven’t been a part of your grand cause, how would they know how things get done?

It’s so seductive. It’s so normal-seeming after a while, and you forget that the nation is watching you in disgust — because their voices are not being heard. My husband and I left DC and our cozy circles for this very reason and started to state our opinions about it. In response, the very successful organizations we created have tried to blackball us.

I’m with you. One year at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, I looked around and said to myself: last time here. Being gay also helps in DC: you can have a social life not entirely about your work. And then there’s my anti-social nature. But I take the point, saw it happening to myself, and tried to correct.

Here’s another clip from the Megan pod:

A regular contributor to the VFYW contest wrote to Chris last week:

I’ve been meaning to write several dissent emails to Andrew, but I keep having so much fun with the contest that I forget why I was angry about him in the first place.

Bodenner rescues Sully yet again! My Fauci column got more reader emails than any column this year, many of them angry. Here’s one:

I’m probably among those who lionize Fauci. His work on HIV alone is enough for me to think highly of him — and that work included politics. So I disagree with parts of your piece but, on the whole, I think its main point(s) are fair: good scientist, all too human. There was, though, one section that caught my attention:

But he’s a public health enforcer, and they are by nature power-mad authoritarians. They focus on stopping a virus, not nurturing a society. It’s the job of politicians to see the broader picture — to balance the costs and benefits of lockdowns, for example — not the scientists.

First, that’s not fair to folks devoting their lives to public-health. It’s sensationalistic to describe them as “by nature power-mad authoritarians.”

Second, “It’s the job of politicians to see the broader picture — to balance the costs and benefits of lockdowns, for example — not the scientists." I concur. But, how should we respond when politicians don’t do their jobs? And how should we respond when those who are doing their jobs are faced with tasks requiring a degree of scientific literacy they lack — or, worse, politicians who think they understand how science works, but are wrong?

I don’t have a neat answer. Society is filled with people of vastly different ideas, all of whom believe they understand how science works. But here’s a thought: if it’s the job of politicians to see the broader picture, on an issue demanding scientific understanding, and they’re shirking their duty (ivermectin anyone?), then maybe the idea a scientist who has spent a lot of time around politicians might want to speak up isn't totally out of line.

Fair enough. Some praise:

Thank you for this essay. I have generally given Tony Fauci the benefit of the doubt and have found myself defending him against friends who believe him to be guilty of gross malfeasance. Yet, you make valid points that I cannot dismiss. But mostly, your article was extraordinarily balanced, examining difficult shades of gray instead of dwelling in the certainties like the vast majority of pundits.

This is why I read the Dish. Rarely can one find humble opinions that claim not to have the answers but instead examine the nuances. Keep it up.

Consider subscribing to the Dish if you like that kind of balance. We’re experiencing a little bit of the Substack swoon right now, so every subscription counts.

From a doctor:

I simply could not believe how Fauci was behaving in the Senate testimony last week. The weekend of diary entries that I initially thought were jokes from The Onion — but were obviously all too real — were juxtaposed with the past two days of all kinds of medical colleagues on social media who have gone back to the same old bullying and condescension to support Fauci. The mind reels.

When I find myself in a situation where my heart is telling me one thing and my brain is telling me another, I often go to my elders and discuss things with them. So I called one of my last remaining elders: a 92-year-old former department chair and member of multiple prestigious medical academies. He’s as real as real gets.

He actually started crying.