As probably the only person who is described to two specific Substacks, Ethan's and Martyr Made's, I do feel an obligation to defend Cooper. Apologies for the length. There is a reason why he had a popular history podcast even before he was on Tucker, because he is very good at what he does, which is deep dives on subjects not commonly discussed in history. His series on the founding of the state of Israel is commonly cited as one of the best on that subject, but I really do think that his look at Jonestown is special. The way he weaves the story of Jonestown with the story of the larger Civil Rights Movement in the United States is something I had never encountered in all my years of History classes, and it is a close look at the parts of the Civil Rights Movement which are not widely discussed or known, as seen through the most radical result of it, Jonestown. By the end, Jonestown wasn't even really a religious movement but its leaders talked about the mass suicide as an act of revolutionary courage. They didn't think the suicide would send them to heaven or anything like that, but instead demonstrate to the world that their political beliefs were superior.
In terms of specifically what was said on Tucker, part of the reason Cooper said that people blowing up at him was a sign that he was right is because many people, including Ethan and Moynihan, are either not understanding what he was saying or choosing to go off of some very small snippets of a much larger conversation. Cooper did not minimize or even directly talk about Holocaust. In a discussion of the Eastern front, Cooper talked about the immediate POW situation after Barbarosa began, saying that the Germans were unprepared for the logistical situation they were in. He still said the Germans bore moral responsibility for all the deaths in those specific camps on the Eastern Front during Barbarossa, but again it was not at all about the Holocaust. In terms of his jokes on Twitter, Cooper deleted one after a friend of his told him he had gone too far, and the joke about Hitler not being in hell was specifically in reference to the Trump shooter going to hell and realizing that Trump was not there.
Additionally, and these are nitpicks but I do think they give the sense of Ethan and Moynihan not understanding Cooper and Tucker's perspectives, the reference to the leaders of Poland no longer being on the side of the people was a reference to the Law and Justice party recently being ousted there and being replaced by a more Western approved party. When Tucker talks about William F Buckley, it is not because of his accent or parents, but rather because the one thing that Buckley is most known for on the right is of him forcing out the John Birch Society from the mainstream of the right in the 1960s. Some on the righter side of the political spectrum view that as a mistake, as they believe the John Birch Society's concerns about communist infiltration of American institutions was not overblown.
In terms of having a problem with who won WWII, I don't think Cooper has ever talked about that, but my impression is that he does think the bad guys won: the Soviet Union. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were terrible countries, and I don't think that it makes you a bad person if you think the Soviets were worse.
Finally, and I again apologize for the length, the reason why I know Cooper isn't an anti-Semite is that while he was at the DoD, Cooper worked off and on for years in Israel on Iron Dome. I think an actual anti-Semite would done something else than help build a system that protects innocent Israelis every time there is a missile attack, but that's just me.
I also subscribe to both substacks and I can assure you that Cooper is an unabashed antisemite. Jew hatred is an essential component of his theology, as Ethan alluded to.
Yeah I hadn't encountered him before, but had heard good things about his coverage. And I think there was just enough light showing through the cracks of his discussion especially combined with a few of those highlighted tweets, that it seems pretty clear where he stands (with the antisemites).
That said I doubt he is entirely without insight or points, and I always appreciate different looks at things. Some of the things he said on the Tucker appearance were good points/perspectives you don't hear a lot. It is just that others were incredibly stupid/biased or showed him doing the exact thing I hate where historians pound round pegs into square holes because of modern political concerns.
I also think the easy explanation for why he could do a great podcast on say Israel vs Palestine is likely he doesn't like either party, so can come at the whole thing very impartially. Whereas with WWII he comes off as more of a crank because he has more of an axe to grind.
What theology? He seems like an Orthodox Christian.
Did you listen to his podcast on Job? That wouldn't make sense for an anti-Semite to put out theologically, he clearly loves the Book of Job and has spent a ton of time thinking about it.
“The coming of the Messiah fulfilled the Jews’ special purpose in the world. They were invited into the new covenant, but were jealous of their chosenness and too resentful over their historic defeats to accept equality under God with Gentiles. So they were cast out, and the Israelite religion disappeared from the world forever in 70 AD when its leprous second temple was destroyed. The covenant passed to those who accepted the invitation. Christianity is not rooted in Judaism, it overcame it. Those who rejected Christ rejected the covenant and God Himself. The Gospel and epistles couldn’t possibly be clearer about this.”
I think this is too hardcore (and if I was saying something like this, I would have mentioned that plenty of Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah), but he is responding to someone who is claiming that Christians have a religious obligation to support Israel, so Cooper is pissed. It is basically Christianity in a really blunt fashion, outside of the leprous temple which I don't know anything about.
I understand that this is historically the most common interpretation of Christianity, but it is not standard American “Judeo-Christian” ideology of the last century
I did listen to the Job podcast, which was consistent with his idiosyncratic theology of God’s evolution as a consciousness in dialogue with his children, the Hebrews. In Cooper’s view, this evolution culminates in a decision to rescind the original covenant, in favor of a new covenant with all of mankind through the blood of His son. This new covenant is explicitly rejected by the Hebrews, who (in Cooper’s twisted theology) commit (or at least abet) deicide. In this new covenant, from Cooper’s perspective, you might refer to the Jews as the “chief villains.”
What? Where is any of that? When has he said that the Hebrews specifically committed deicide? When did he say or even imply that the Jews were the chief villains?
A condensed way to describe what Cooper says in that episode is that Job convinces God that He has been cruel to His people, which cause God to withdraw from them for a bit, only to later return as Christ to sacrifice himself for His people, instead of asking them to sacrifice for Him.
It is very evocative, more than a little heretical, and it is an argument that God was too cruel to the Hebrews, not that they committed deicide or that they were villains. Cooper said that God was the bad guy!
“Some on the righter side of the political spectrum view that as a mistake, as they believe the John Birch Society's concerns about communist infiltration of American institutions was not overblown.”
That’s a hell of a summation. But I would add additional context in that (1) Buckley literally wrote a book* that offers a qualified defense of Joseph McCarthy and takes quite seriously the threat of communist infiltration, as did the pages of his magazine. He did not dismiss this.
However, (2) the Birchers were nutjobs. Buckley was initially not hostile to them when trying to build the conservative movement, and before denouncing them, privately wrote to Robert Welch politely asking, in more diplomatic terms than I’m using, if Welch and his crew could tone down some of their paranoid lunacy. The shit later hit the fan for Buckley when an internal mailer from Welch to other Birchers, that alleged that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist agent, publicly leaked. Buckley correctly surmised that the Birchers were high on their own supply and wisely distanced his movement from them.
To address another assertion of yours, Buckley was as instrumental in steering the midcentury Republican Party away from the control of its liberal Rockefeller wing than anyone else. He started YAF which was instrumental in organizing for Goldwater, which paved the way for Reagan. He ran a spoiler campaign for mayor of NYC, successfully tanking John Lindsay’s campaign to send a message to the Republican Party that its conservative wing could not be taken for granted and would not accept liberal candidates.
If as you say in some right wing circles Buckley is most-known for distancing himself and his movement from the Birchers, then that corner, too, is full of nutjobs.
Sorry, I should have been more clear in what I was trying to articulate above. I think there is a massive distinction between the actual WFB (who I agree was great on many things, including the second Iraq War and his spy novels) and the single aspect simulacrum that many on the more establishment right (for lack of better term) think of him today. They have this sense that Buckley was able to expel the people he disliked (the Birchers) from having any political influence, and they would love to do the same to Tucker and people on the dissident right.
I was trying to think of how to demonstrate this, and the following flawed method is the best I could think of. Erick Erickson has tweeted about Buckley once in his history on Twitter and it was about WFB expelling the Birchers. Noah Rothman tweeted about the acutal WFB once in his history on Twitter, and it was about Buckley expelling the Birchers. Jonah Goldberg knew Buckley, so he has a ton of historical tweets on him, but over 2024, he has mentioned WFB twice and once was about expelling the Birchers. Those were the three people who immediately came to mind as representative of those wanting to wish Tucker away, and I do think it is fair to say that expelling the Birchers is how two of the three use Buckley in their arguments. I know this single aspect WFB simulacrum exists for a certain kind of establishment figure on the right, this is the best I can do to show it. This is how WFB is being used in connection to Tucker, and why he is reacting against it.
As for the historical Birchers, I haven't read up on them in a while, and my memory of how they actually were is fuzzy. It certainly may be the case that the pro-Bircher stuff I've seen is also a kind of single aspect simulacrum, where they are just the people to WFB's right whom he cast out. My main point above was to defend Cooper and try to say why certain comments were made in that Tucker episode, but maybe I should have cut out the WFB aside, I was just having a running list of things I felt needed to be explained and it was on it.
I'm a big fan of both Ethan's podcast and The Fifth Column so this was a real treat for me, what a great conversation. I could listen to the two of you talk to each other on any number of subjects all day long!
I hate to be *that guy (gal)* especially after Michael revealed how upset he gets when he discovers that he's given incorrect information, and this isn't super important but the Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down) book about the Tet Offensive is not called Tet; the name of that book is Hue 1968. It's a really good one and I just wanted to make sure anyone interested would be able to find it.
Thanks for having Michael Ethan, more guests like this please! How about writer and fellow Substacker Ross Barkan, who recently lost a number of subscribers for having the temerity to suggest that Kamala Harris should talk to the press? He may have some astute observations and interesting insights about this mad, mad, mad, mad election season
Great podcast, love MM on all the platforms, and when he does Bill Mahers show. I have a million different thoughts about the topics discussed, but I'll keep it brief and just say this. When people talk about the weird double standard with the media letting Trump/Rs off the hook on everything, this "young mean now love Trump" is a perfect example. For context, as easy as it is to joke about, the whole incel/no pussy angle is 100% part of it. I have conservative single guy friends who absolutely believe women will stop ghosting them and be more eager to date them/sleep with them once Trump is elected and "women are put back in their place." This is a very common opinion among single guys right now, not even just incels! But my question is, why is it considered a failure by Dems that they are losing all these young men, but not equally or more so a failure by Rs that they are losing young women at equal or greater numbers? Why do Dems need to look inward at their messaging and how they alienate these poor precious incels, but nobody on the right ever says "hey guys, should we maybe reasses our approach to American woman voters?" The solution on the right is apparently to ship over a bunch of subservient Eastern European women who all look like models and have read Dostoevsky cover to cover, but want to be Trad homemakers and pump out children and home cooked meals all day every day the next 70 years while their beloved Trad husband tends to the farm. It would be nice to have a little balance here and call out the right for this obvious blind spot. In the EC system, it may not cost them any elections, but you'd think the side that keeps losing popular votes over and over and over would do at least a tiny bit of soul searching, no?
This is what happens when you only have straight men. Grace Kelly was Philadelphia Mainline. I know this because I am obsessed. I was 99% sure Katherine Hepburn was from Boston, but she was from Connecticut.
In regards to accents, my dad's Bronx accent no longer exists.
We need to come up with a better term to describe someone who is intensely interested in studying the Jonestown phenomenon, as the existing options are…problematic:
Tucker Carlson is so bizarre to me. There's clearly a space in the media for conservative people b/c everything is so skewed left. And he obviously has talent as a provocateur or whatever you'd call him. Instead he is doing...I dont even know what you'd call it.
One extra thing on Tet. Moynihan says the media misled people as to the VC/NVA defeat, which is not really the point of why Tet was influential in the US. The event was shocking because it appeared to show politicians and military leaders were either lying about the military balance and/or too incompetent to see such a large operation coming. Cronkite famously called the war a stalemate a few weeks later — after the US had regained the initiative. Moynihan’s commentary seems to misunderstand the goals of the communists in undertaking Tet, who had no expectation of holding territory indefinitely or winning the war at that point. Eventually defeating the VC/NVA units after they seized cities, killed thousands of US and ARVN personnel, and proved their fighting worth is not the “resounding defeat” (or whatever he says) he made it out to be.
Conversation started out a bit too fragmented and chaotic for my taste, but I’m glad that I stuck with it as I really enjoyed it. It was like every party that I’ve gone to where the energy and excitement level is just too much for this introvert before things settle down to a more comfortable pace. Will start following Michael’s work more because of it.
This was my favorite conversation of the week. I could listen to you guys talk endlessly about anything. Thanks Ethan! I used to work Pipeline construction and traveled through almost every state. Pittsburgh was my favorite city, I almost moved there. I haven’t been back since 2011 but when I was there it felt like a time capsule. Like I was seeing how life was in the 70’s.
As probably the only person who is described to two specific Substacks, Ethan's and Martyr Made's, I do feel an obligation to defend Cooper. Apologies for the length. There is a reason why he had a popular history podcast even before he was on Tucker, because he is very good at what he does, which is deep dives on subjects not commonly discussed in history. His series on the founding of the state of Israel is commonly cited as one of the best on that subject, but I really do think that his look at Jonestown is special. The way he weaves the story of Jonestown with the story of the larger Civil Rights Movement in the United States is something I had never encountered in all my years of History classes, and it is a close look at the parts of the Civil Rights Movement which are not widely discussed or known, as seen through the most radical result of it, Jonestown. By the end, Jonestown wasn't even really a religious movement but its leaders talked about the mass suicide as an act of revolutionary courage. They didn't think the suicide would send them to heaven or anything like that, but instead demonstrate to the world that their political beliefs were superior.
In terms of specifically what was said on Tucker, part of the reason Cooper said that people blowing up at him was a sign that he was right is because many people, including Ethan and Moynihan, are either not understanding what he was saying or choosing to go off of some very small snippets of a much larger conversation. Cooper did not minimize or even directly talk about Holocaust. In a discussion of the Eastern front, Cooper talked about the immediate POW situation after Barbarosa began, saying that the Germans were unprepared for the logistical situation they were in. He still said the Germans bore moral responsibility for all the deaths in those specific camps on the Eastern Front during Barbarossa, but again it was not at all about the Holocaust. In terms of his jokes on Twitter, Cooper deleted one after a friend of his told him he had gone too far, and the joke about Hitler not being in hell was specifically in reference to the Trump shooter going to hell and realizing that Trump was not there.
Additionally, and these are nitpicks but I do think they give the sense of Ethan and Moynihan not understanding Cooper and Tucker's perspectives, the reference to the leaders of Poland no longer being on the side of the people was a reference to the Law and Justice party recently being ousted there and being replaced by a more Western approved party. When Tucker talks about William F Buckley, it is not because of his accent or parents, but rather because the one thing that Buckley is most known for on the right is of him forcing out the John Birch Society from the mainstream of the right in the 1960s. Some on the righter side of the political spectrum view that as a mistake, as they believe the John Birch Society's concerns about communist infiltration of American institutions was not overblown.
In terms of having a problem with who won WWII, I don't think Cooper has ever talked about that, but my impression is that he does think the bad guys won: the Soviet Union. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were terrible countries, and I don't think that it makes you a bad person if you think the Soviets were worse.
Finally, and I again apologize for the length, the reason why I know Cooper isn't an anti-Semite is that while he was at the DoD, Cooper worked off and on for years in Israel on Iron Dome. I think an actual anti-Semite would done something else than help build a system that protects innocent Israelis every time there is a missile attack, but that's just me.
I also subscribe to both substacks and I can assure you that Cooper is an unabashed antisemite. Jew hatred is an essential component of his theology, as Ethan alluded to.
Yeah I hadn't encountered him before, but had heard good things about his coverage. And I think there was just enough light showing through the cracks of his discussion especially combined with a few of those highlighted tweets, that it seems pretty clear where he stands (with the antisemites).
That said I doubt he is entirely without insight or points, and I always appreciate different looks at things. Some of the things he said on the Tucker appearance were good points/perspectives you don't hear a lot. It is just that others were incredibly stupid/biased or showed him doing the exact thing I hate where historians pound round pegs into square holes because of modern political concerns.
I also think the easy explanation for why he could do a great podcast on say Israel vs Palestine is likely he doesn't like either party, so can come at the whole thing very impartially. Whereas with WWII he comes off as more of a crank because he has more of an axe to grind.
What theology? He seems like an Orthodox Christian.
Did you listen to his podcast on Job? That wouldn't make sense for an anti-Semite to put out theologically, he clearly loves the Book of Job and has spent a ton of time thinking about it.
“The coming of the Messiah fulfilled the Jews’ special purpose in the world. They were invited into the new covenant, but were jealous of their chosenness and too resentful over their historic defeats to accept equality under God with Gentiles. So they were cast out, and the Israelite religion disappeared from the world forever in 70 AD when its leprous second temple was destroyed. The covenant passed to those who accepted the invitation. Christianity is not rooted in Judaism, it overcame it. Those who rejected Christ rejected the covenant and God Himself. The Gospel and epistles couldn’t possibly be clearer about this.”
— Darryl Cooper
I think this is too hardcore (and if I was saying something like this, I would have mentioned that plenty of Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah), but he is responding to someone who is claiming that Christians have a religious obligation to support Israel, so Cooper is pissed. It is basically Christianity in a really blunt fashion, outside of the leprous temple which I don't know anything about.
Which part of this isn’t standard Christianity?
I understand that this is historically the most common interpretation of Christianity, but it is not standard American “Judeo-Christian” ideology of the last century
https://x.com/jordanschachtel/status/1831121897410486628?s=46&t=4QVlO3bgyyEE-qVUhAfQ9A
I did listen to the Job podcast, which was consistent with his idiosyncratic theology of God’s evolution as a consciousness in dialogue with his children, the Hebrews. In Cooper’s view, this evolution culminates in a decision to rescind the original covenant, in favor of a new covenant with all of mankind through the blood of His son. This new covenant is explicitly rejected by the Hebrews, who (in Cooper’s twisted theology) commit (or at least abet) deicide. In this new covenant, from Cooper’s perspective, you might refer to the Jews as the “chief villains.”
Also, if you're so convinced he is an anti-Semite, why do you subscribe to him on Substack?
I am considering it, but I also subscribe to Ethan’s “buffet” approach to content.
What? Where is any of that? When has he said that the Hebrews specifically committed deicide? When did he say or even imply that the Jews were the chief villains?
A condensed way to describe what Cooper says in that episode is that Job convinces God that He has been cruel to His people, which cause God to withdraw from them for a bit, only to later return as Christ to sacrifice himself for His people, instead of asking them to sacrifice for Him.
It is very evocative, more than a little heretical, and it is an argument that God was too cruel to the Hebrews, not that they committed deicide or that they were villains. Cooper said that God was the bad guy!
“Some on the righter side of the political spectrum view that as a mistake, as they believe the John Birch Society's concerns about communist infiltration of American institutions was not overblown.”
That’s a hell of a summation. But I would add additional context in that (1) Buckley literally wrote a book* that offers a qualified defense of Joseph McCarthy and takes quite seriously the threat of communist infiltration, as did the pages of his magazine. He did not dismiss this.
However, (2) the Birchers were nutjobs. Buckley was initially not hostile to them when trying to build the conservative movement, and before denouncing them, privately wrote to Robert Welch politely asking, in more diplomatic terms than I’m using, if Welch and his crew could tone down some of their paranoid lunacy. The shit later hit the fan for Buckley when an internal mailer from Welch to other Birchers, that alleged that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist agent, publicly leaked. Buckley correctly surmised that the Birchers were high on their own supply and wisely distanced his movement from them.
To address another assertion of yours, Buckley was as instrumental in steering the midcentury Republican Party away from the control of its liberal Rockefeller wing than anyone else. He started YAF which was instrumental in organizing for Goldwater, which paved the way for Reagan. He ran a spoiler campaign for mayor of NYC, successfully tanking John Lindsay’s campaign to send a message to the Republican Party that its conservative wing could not be taken for granted and would not accept liberal candidates.
If as you say in some right wing circles Buckley is most-known for distancing himself and his movement from the Birchers, then that corner, too, is full of nutjobs.
*McCarthy and His Enemies (1954)
Sorry, I should have been more clear in what I was trying to articulate above. I think there is a massive distinction between the actual WFB (who I agree was great on many things, including the second Iraq War and his spy novels) and the single aspect simulacrum that many on the more establishment right (for lack of better term) think of him today. They have this sense that Buckley was able to expel the people he disliked (the Birchers) from having any political influence, and they would love to do the same to Tucker and people on the dissident right.
I was trying to think of how to demonstrate this, and the following flawed method is the best I could think of. Erick Erickson has tweeted about Buckley once in his history on Twitter and it was about WFB expelling the Birchers. Noah Rothman tweeted about the acutal WFB once in his history on Twitter, and it was about Buckley expelling the Birchers. Jonah Goldberg knew Buckley, so he has a ton of historical tweets on him, but over 2024, he has mentioned WFB twice and once was about expelling the Birchers. Those were the three people who immediately came to mind as representative of those wanting to wish Tucker away, and I do think it is fair to say that expelling the Birchers is how two of the three use Buckley in their arguments. I know this single aspect WFB simulacrum exists for a certain kind of establishment figure on the right, this is the best I can do to show it. This is how WFB is being used in connection to Tucker, and why he is reacting against it.
As for the historical Birchers, I haven't read up on them in a while, and my memory of how they actually were is fuzzy. It certainly may be the case that the pro-Bircher stuff I've seen is also a kind of single aspect simulacrum, where they are just the people to WFB's right whom he cast out. My main point above was to defend Cooper and try to say why certain comments were made in that Tucker episode, but maybe I should have cut out the WFB aside, I was just having a running list of things I felt needed to be explained and it was on it.
Fair enough and appreciate the clarification.
And 12 years after his book, he used his nationally-televised show to offer similar thoughts on MCCarthy.
https://youtu.be/yiuvVk5LjYc?feature=shared
I'm a big fan of both Ethan's podcast and The Fifth Column so this was a real treat for me, what a great conversation. I could listen to the two of you talk to each other on any number of subjects all day long!
I hate to be *that guy (gal)* especially after Michael revealed how upset he gets when he discovers that he's given incorrect information, and this isn't super important but the Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down) book about the Tet Offensive is not called Tet; the name of that book is Hue 1968. It's a really good one and I just wanted to make sure anyone interested would be able to find it.
Thanks for having Michael Ethan, more guests like this please! How about writer and fellow Substacker Ross Barkan, who recently lost a number of subscribers for having the temerity to suggest that Kamala Harris should talk to the press? He may have some astute observations and interesting insights about this mad, mad, mad, mad election season
Great podcast, love MM on all the platforms, and when he does Bill Mahers show. I have a million different thoughts about the topics discussed, but I'll keep it brief and just say this. When people talk about the weird double standard with the media letting Trump/Rs off the hook on everything, this "young mean now love Trump" is a perfect example. For context, as easy as it is to joke about, the whole incel/no pussy angle is 100% part of it. I have conservative single guy friends who absolutely believe women will stop ghosting them and be more eager to date them/sleep with them once Trump is elected and "women are put back in their place." This is a very common opinion among single guys right now, not even just incels! But my question is, why is it considered a failure by Dems that they are losing all these young men, but not equally or more so a failure by Rs that they are losing young women at equal or greater numbers? Why do Dems need to look inward at their messaging and how they alienate these poor precious incels, but nobody on the right ever says "hey guys, should we maybe reasses our approach to American woman voters?" The solution on the right is apparently to ship over a bunch of subservient Eastern European women who all look like models and have read Dostoevsky cover to cover, but want to be Trad homemakers and pump out children and home cooked meals all day every day the next 70 years while their beloved Trad husband tends to the farm. It would be nice to have a little balance here and call out the right for this obvious blind spot. In the EC system, it may not cost them any elections, but you'd think the side that keeps losing popular votes over and over and over would do at least a tiny bit of soul searching, no?
A couple of Ethan's guests make me consider unsubscribing, Wos and Bomani to name a few, but MM and Ethan are nearly impossible to beat.
2 of the 3 regulars who are black. Interesting.
Really good pod. But why use a pic of your guest that looks like they trying to hold in a fart?
This is what happens when you only have straight men. Grace Kelly was Philadelphia Mainline. I know this because I am obsessed. I was 99% sure Katherine Hepburn was from Boston, but she was from Connecticut.
In regards to accents, my dad's Bronx accent no longer exists.
We need to come up with a better term to describe someone who is intensely interested in studying the Jonestown phenomenon, as the existing options are…problematic:
Jonestown fan
Jonestown aficionado
Jonestown connoisseur
how about Jonestown jonesing, jonesing for Jonestown
Belated listen, but Moynihan is the best in the biz right now when it comes to political x media analysis
Tucker Carlson is so bizarre to me. There's clearly a space in the media for conservative people b/c everything is so skewed left. And he obviously has talent as a provocateur or whatever you'd call him. Instead he is doing...I dont even know what you'd call it.
One extra thing on Tet. Moynihan says the media misled people as to the VC/NVA defeat, which is not really the point of why Tet was influential in the US. The event was shocking because it appeared to show politicians and military leaders were either lying about the military balance and/or too incompetent to see such a large operation coming. Cronkite famously called the war a stalemate a few weeks later — after the US had regained the initiative. Moynihan’s commentary seems to misunderstand the goals of the communists in undertaking Tet, who had no expectation of holding territory indefinitely or winning the war at that point. Eventually defeating the VC/NVA units after they seized cities, killed thousands of US and ARVN personnel, and proved their fighting worth is not the “resounding defeat” (or whatever he says) he made it out to be.
Conversation started out a bit too fragmented and chaotic for my taste, but I’m glad that I stuck with it as I really enjoyed it. It was like every party that I’ve gone to where the energy and excitement level is just too much for this introvert before things settle down to a more comfortable pace. Will start following Michael’s work more because of it.
This was my favorite conversation of the week. I could listen to you guys talk endlessly about anything. Thanks Ethan! I used to work Pipeline construction and traveled through almost every state. Pittsburgh was my favorite city, I almost moved there. I haven’t been back since 2011 but when I was there it felt like a time capsule. Like I was seeing how life was in the 70’s.
So good
Five stars, no notes.
We are seriously debating a 50 year old man who decided to be known publicly as “Martyr Made”?
我个人欢迎我们的中国霸主！
The absolute best guest! Great job Ethan!