Rahm Emanuel critiques the current administration's weakened stance against China due to strategic setbacks in Iran and South Korea, while warning that Democratic focus on identity politics has created a cultural cul-de-sac ignoring critical issues like literacy. He highlights Mississippi's success with phonics instruction, contrasts it with national failures, and addresses rising anti-Semitism alongside his long-standing disagreement with Benjamin Netanyahu over West Bank policies. Ultimately, Emanuel argues that sustainable peace requires diplomacy rather than endless conflict, urging the party to pivot from cultural battles to pragmatic governance before the 2028 election. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Measuring American Education Standards00:14:06
You're listening to Making Sense with Sam Harris.
This is the free version of the podcast, so you'll only hear the first part of today's conversation.
If you want the full episode and every episode, you can subscribe at samharris.org.
There are no ads on this show, it runs entirely on subscriber support.
If you enjoy what we're doing here and find it valuable, please consider subscribing today.
I'm here with Rahm Emanuel.
Rahm, thanks for coming back on the podcast.
Thanks for having me.
I didn't have to travel as far this time.
There's no jet lag, or maybe you've got some jet lag.
I adjusted.
Just kick me underneath if I start the dose.
Yeah, we were just talking off mic about you wrapping up life in Japan and my expectation that things are going to get pretty interesting there from a foreign policy perspective pretty soon.
We're going to jump into all of it the war in Iran and everything else, but what's your sense of that?
Well, in about six weeks from now, the president's going to sit down with Xi, President of China.
The second is he's going to go in in a weakened position, which is what.
Everybody knows that because of Iran and a series of things.
If you just take kind of a landscape, you've irritated a 30 year project for the United States, which is bringing India closer to our bosom, both by what you've done with Pakistan, what you did degrading Modi.
Second, you removed our THAAD and our aircraft carrier from both THAAD from South Korea and our aircraft carrier out of Okinawa and other assets that have come out of the region that are a deterrent and add credibility to our deterrent.
While you have been focused all on Iran, China, after five years of not building another island in the South China Sea off the Philippines coast, they finally built another one, which is dangerous because they're claiming that is their water, is not an international waterway.
40% of the GDP, maritime GDP, goes through that water.
Lastly, the biggest economic crush on China was deflation.
People were talking about entering a possible lost Japanese like generation.
And now they finally, for the first time, you gave them inflation, which is what they wanted, which is higher energy prices.
And prices are up now for their products.
So I can go on and on.
And I think our allies, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, are holding their breath because they don't believe the president knows how to stand up to Xi and is desperate for Xi's affirmation and therefore will give away the store to the region.
Remember, our goal is to communicate.
We are a permanent Pacific power and presence.
You can bet long on America.
And the one thing you know about our president is he punches down, kisses up.
He is always seeking Xi and Putin's affirmation.
And I think he's going in weakened.
He knows he's going in weakened and he's desperate for Xi's affirmation.
And Xi has another card on him, which is I helped get your chestnuts out of the fire in Iran and you owe me.
So at every level, I think this is a very bad situation for the United States in the Indo-Pacific and a very bad situation for our allies who not only rely on us, we rely on them.
But maybe we'll come back to that.
That'll be a sidebar for the moment.
Remind people, I want to start with the domestic picture and American politics.
Remind people of all the roles you have served for our government, because there are many, many levels.
For President Clinton, I was his senior advisor for policy and politics and replaced Stephanopoulos in that position.
First term, I was director of special projects, doing the crime bill, the assault weapon ban, welfare reform, immigration policy, to name a couple.
I was a congressman from the fifth district in Chicago.
Second term was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to help not only take the House back for the Democrats, but make Nancy Pelosi the first woman speaker.
And then I was fourth, I was caucus chair.
I served, get elected four terms, serve only three, become President Obama's first chief of staff and help him pass the ACA health care bill and the financial reform, the Recovery Act and the auto industry bailout and saving.
I then run for mayor of the city of Chicago, served two terms, most proudly.
Left with Sean Reardon at Stanford calling it the single best education system of the top 100 in America, when it was once called by William Bennett the worst in America.
And then I served as our ambassador to Japan for the United States.
And in that process, brought a historic meeting together between Japan, Korea, the United States that culminated at Camp David.
So the goal is not titles, but results.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm a results driven.
I don't need titles.
I want results.
But obviously, you have an unusually clear perspective of how the machine works.
Are you running for president in 2028?
I'm seriously evaluating it.
I think that you, I think we're at a crosshairs as a country.
What I'm most interested in getting across if I decide to do this, I think we've had two presidents back to back, both Trump and Biden, who are focused on restoring a past that's not coming back.
2028, I'm going to make a bit about the future and who has a plan to make that future.
And then, as I always say, Tough times require a tough leader, have the kahunas to get it done.
10 million kids got health care because of it.
The country got an assault weapon ban because of it.
Nancy Pelosi became speaker because of it, passed the minimum wage because of it, and kids got free community college because of it in the city of Chicago.
So, will I do it?
I think there are real challenges about restoring faith in America by the American people that is broken and having an election where we start taking care of the future.
I think we have spent 12 plus years.
In some nostalgic, dreamlike way of trying to restore a past that's not coming back and was not good to all Americans.
It was good to you and I, not all Americans.
Well, there are parts of the past that I think we are rather desperate to restore, like normal institutions that can be trusted.
I actually think, yeah, I don't mean to cut you off, but there's parts of the past I agree, but not in some kind of nostalgic sense, but in the sense that it's updated as a guiding post and a guiding principle for the future.
I'm talking about what I should have probably been clear, but some element of some kind of black and white Ozzy and Harriet life that didn't really truly exist when we think it did.
And it's not about the future.
We need something that is not about you and me, but about your kids and my kids.
It's Ozzy and Harriet plus robots.
So, what is the state in your view of the Democratic Party?
And are we past?
So, when you were ambassador to Japan and rather tongue tied in your role there, I was twisting your arm.
Around identity politics.
You were.
You were very diplomatic.
In a rare moment.
Yeah.
And the manual, diplomatic.
Think of that.
You had the seal of the executive branch behind your desk, if memory serves.
But are we past this social justice hysteria and identity politics, or is the party ready to double down on it and lose again, emphatically, in 2028?
Well, so the answer is an ambivalent yes and no in this sense.
I'm a, I mean, I said it when I came back.
I don't want to.
But this point was stop talking about bathroom access and start talking about classroom excellence.
50% of our kids cannot read at grade level.
And you are arguing about a bathroom in a locker room access when you should be focused on how do we improve reading scores?
And that's why I went to, I don't know if you know this, but I went to Mississippi because they have this miracle, the first national leader to go down.
I said, okay, the science of reading and all the other types of parts of that should be the national model.
The answer is right there.
You just got to have the courage to take it.
Yeah, what is the miracle there?
They turn their education system around?
So let me finish the first question.
So, do I think, as somebody also that said, you know, we weren't really good in 2024 when we talked about the kitchen table, the family room, the only room we did well was the bathroom, and it's the smallest room in the house.
Do I think that's dead?
I think people know that there was a consequence getting caught in what I call a cultural cul-de-sac.
We declared and wanted to bring the cultural wars to our schools, and we lost that.
Do I think people are conscious of that?
I think they were aware.
And I, somebody that in 2016 as mayor of Chicago signed bathroom access, but I never lost my focus on graduation rate, 3D scores, and math scores.
So we can be a culture, and we are as a party, rightfully, a culture of acceptance.
We became a culture of advocacy, and that's where we crossed the line.
As I like to take the issue, I've said this before on boys playing in girls' sport.
I'm not undermining Title IX.
The reason we're winning in soccer worldwide, the reason we're winning in hockey worldwide, the reason we're winning in swimming worldwide is Title IX.
I don't think the party should be in the business of undermining one of our great accomplishments, as an example.
So I do think there's been some sense that that was a mistake.
Does it mean that everybody buys it?
No.
Now, what you had said, what Mississippi did, and I want to also repeat, they did this 20 years ago.
In Mississippi, they don't call it a miracle, they call it the marathon.
Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee replicated it and all seeing massive increases in reading scores.
One, it was a mandate statewide.
You couldn't opt in or out.
This was required.
Every teacher got retaught on the phonics or science of reading.
They got coaches for each school to keep the teachers and the principal focused and trained constantly.
Third, kids going all the way back to kindergarten and first grade were prepped for their third grade reading test.
They got three times to pass it, the kids.
If they didn't, they were held back.
So there were standards, there was accountability, there was support.
If kids were showing challenges, they got extra tutoring time.
Each child got, I think I'm doing this by memory, an hour and 15 minutes minimum every day on reading.
They went from 49th in Mississippi on reading scores across the country to 9th.
And if you account for demographics, they're beating Massachusetts now.
So, with a result like that, what's controversial about this project?
Well, there's a professor.
Call it 25 years ago out of Columbia University, who taught people, got a lot of school districts to go into what the art of reading, not the science.
You like the letter of A, you can use it.
If you don't like the letter A, don't use the letter of A and ruin the generation.
And when I find that professor, you don't have to do any forensics for what the physical body harm.
I did it.
It's unbelievable what they did, ruining.
So, what got controversial, and this is one is some people don't like the accountability part, the testing.
As one principal in Hattiesburg told me, you need those tests to help improve what you're going to do, not only for that student, but for the next class, the second grades coming into third grade.
You can't be scared of accountability and standards.
I want to come back to that in a second.
On the other side, which is Mississippi did not abandon their public schools with some other fancy thing called vouchers.
They invested in their public schools.
It was all started, by the way, by Mr. Barksdale from Netscape.
And he came from Mississippi, put his money into it, put the first $200 million.
So, public schools were supported with public resources and accountability came with those resources.
Around the country, Republicans are advocating a way to abandon public schools and Democrats advocated and succeeded in abandoning standards, and our kids are falling through the cracks.
We're at a 30 year low.
50% of our kids can't read at grade level.
I don't know what makes you think fourth and fifth grade are going to be okay.
If they're third grade, they're failing.
And nobody seems to think this is worth worrying about.
Now, there are other reforms along the way.
Every place that has adopted the whole Programs, not just science and reading, the support for teachers and the support for students with standards attached to it.
As I said, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee being the most kind of comprehensive in adopting the Mississippi model, all seeing rapid increases in reading scores.
Democrats, getting back to the science of reading or the accountability, thought that leave no child behind under President Bush, they were teaching to the test rather than using the test as a measure of success or failure or improvement.
Not wrong, but the answer wasn't to abandon it, which is what we all did as a country.
The answer is how to find that sweet spot where, yes, you have a test.
Yes, you have a measure.
It's a reflection of whether we're making progress, but it doesn't become the only thing you're doing from an academic standpoint.
And we, meaning the country, led by Democrats, walked away from standards and accountability.
And that is a mistake.
Now, this is going to get me in trouble, but I'm for it.
I'm not only for it as a parent, but I'm for it as a former mayor that had responsibility for the schools, which is why we saw our reading and math scores.
Each year successfully.
This gets you in trouble because standards and accountability are perceived at some level as being racist or?
No, I mean, I don't know about racist, but the criticism is not wrong.
We had gotten to a point where the test was supposed to measure.
It became not the means, it became the ends, which was we're going to teach to the test.
The remedy, throw it all out, was the mistake.
Don't measure anything.
Yeah.
It's a contributor.
It's not the only thing.
What has happened is we abandoned measurements.
And I get you back to the principal in Hattiesburg, who took a school from the nine in Hattiesburg last to first.
Accountabilities and standards are our friend.
We have to be open to them, receptive to them, know how to find that sweet spot between measurement and using it to improve our teaching.
All right.
Well, I'm going to ask you about a standard of moral sanity here.
I don't know how we test for it, but we've seen an explosion of anti-Semitism on both the left and the right.
We can come back to the right if you want, but on the left.
Yeah.
We're going to come back to it because it's a generational thing.
Yeah.
But it's a, I mean, this is sort of confirmed horseshoe theory, at least for the Jews, because the far right and the far left seem to agree that they are the problem.
Israel, Prime Minister, and Violence00:07:15
77% of Democrats think that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
Don't think that, right?
Then they're the undecided.
This seems to me it's going to be an issue in the Democratic primary.
How would you navigate this question?
So let's, you did it, you started it up.
So I don't mean to do the Talmudic version of the question around the question, but I'm going to do that to you.
That's all right.
I'll get back to the question.
No, I know the question.
I'm going to get to the question too.
There's three questions that are out there, not one.
Okay.
Okay.
First, you started about anti Semitism and then you went to Israel.
So as somebody that had, I've been a target of anti Semitism in his public life.
That's separate and distinct, but it's attached to what's happening around the prime minister and Israel.
I would say to you, it was very ugly in my campaign for Congress.
It was seen, if you know Chicago, as the Polish seat.
Dan Rasenkowski, Frank, Enuncio, Roman Puczynski were all predecessors.
Got it very ugly.
And I said, then, as I said, there's only 2% in the district, and they elected Ram Israel Emanuel, and I was running against a Polish woman who was a state rep. I know the people of the city of Chicago, good people with good values.
They were going to see through this ugliness.
When Amy and I, when you came to visit, when we were ambassador in Japan, I was ambassador and we were living.
Somebody sprayed Nazi insignia on our fence.
Next day, a neighbor cleaned it up.
I still don't know.
They never came forward and said who they were.
I've said this many times, hoping one day they'll introduce them so I can thank them.
So I've seen the worst and I've seen the best.
Anti-Semitism always exists.
What happened in this country that it allowed it to go from not being kosher, To coming public.
That's something that we all have to ask about why it all of a sudden became acceptable not only to express it, but to act on it violently from the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh to what we saw in Colorado to what we saw in DC, where it's not just saying ugly things about Jews, but then acting on it in a real violent way.
And what gave that permission slip that nobody would have done that when I first ran for Congress in 2002?
They said some ugly things about a money changer.
He's not one of us, the normal tropes of anti Semitism.
But that became somewhere you could act on it and not just act on it and say it publicly, but then violent.
That's another topic I hope we can get into.
Now, to Israel, somebody, and I want to say this to you look, I didn't need a war to know that this prime minister was not good.
2009, I don't know if you know this, we got in such a public fight when I was President Obama's chief of staff.
Publicly, he called me a self loathing Jew.
Is this when he came and addressed Congress?
No, that was 2015.
This is 2009.
Okay.
My disagreement with him, and it's gotten pretty direct, was over housing in the West Bank because I thought he was destroying a two state solution.
If you destroy that, Israel was on a course to endless wars.
A lot of other people thinking about running for national office were lip syncing his stuff.
I was 20 years ahead.
I knew where this was going to go.
So we got into it, he and I, to the point that publicly he said I was a self hating, self loathing Jew was attacked.
And the prime minister and I have always disagreed with his approach.
And I think, in fact, this is the first year.
In Israel's history, there are more people who have left than came.
He has led Israel in a way that the endless wars that he's doing is destroying the fabric of the country.
And I don't think it was good for Israel.
I don't think it's good for the Jewish community of Israel.
And for a host of reasons inside Israel.
And I was upfront about it.
I didn't need, again, as I want to say.
Well, let's bracket Netanyahu and his political problems.
It's hard to do with the longest serving prime minister to say that he isn't the face of that country.
But swap in the perfect prime minister, how differently would he or she have navigated the October 7th moment?
Well, as members of What should Israel have done on October 8th?
If you go, so there's three things.
I'm not saying, look, I give no pass to a country's self defense, nor to any of the people of the world.
But even elements of the IDF, Israel Defense Force, were telling him we're just killing for the sake of killing.
The opportunities of security have to be enhanced by diplomacy and politics.
He has never seized that in the way that Yitzhak Rabin did, the way Menachem Begin did, the way Golda Meir did, or the way that Ben Gurion did.
And as somebody that participated in both Oslo Accords for President Clinton, the Y Plantation Agreement, the Agreement in Akaba between Israel and the state of Georgia, in all those processes, he has isolated the state of Israel.
Not only has he lost world opinion for Israel, he's losing it in the United States.
So I can't, what he didn't do is, you know, as Yitzhak Rabin famously said, you make peace like there's no terror, you fight terror like there's no peace.
Mm hmm.
He has never extended himself politically on the diplomatic front.
Now, there's three chapters to Israel.
There's one, which was Egypt, Jordan, and the Abraham Accords making peace with stable governments and parties.
Second was unilateral decisions on Lebanon and Gaza that gave you Hamas and Hezbollah.
And then third, the divorce attempt in the West Bank.
And now what they're doing, which is violence.
Even one of the leading settler voices, the violence that's being created by settlers is destroying Israel.
And the leadership of the IDF, my criticism, is no different than elements of the IDF.
So, what Israel is no more secure having gone from 40,000 Gazans dead to 70,000.
It was violence for the sake of violence with no political strategy.
The difference between Oslo, and I want to say, I understand the hardened heart that if you agree at Oslo to peace and a two state solution and you have buses blowing up and dizzying off, and now parts of Tel Aviv and parts of Jerusalem, your heart will get hard.
But the choices are more violence or what you have now, which is Arab countries saying, okay, we're going to reform the Palestinians, give you a real partner for real peace.
Where we were in the infant days of 93, 94, 95, and even 2000 when President Clinton with Echel Barak and Yasser Arafat try at Camp David to get a final agreement, there will never be a river to the sea as the Palestinians advocate, and there will never be a greater Israel as elements of this prime minister's government try to advocate.
They're heads and tails of the same coin and too extreme.
In the end of the day, you're going to have to have two people live side by side and respect each other's needs a sovereign nation for the Palestinian people and a secure Israel for the Jewish people.
If you don't, it's not going to work.
Members can hear the full conversation by subscribing at samharris.org.
Subscribers get a private RSS feed you can use with your favorite podcast player.
I am not a fan of what Israel has done.
You can believe in Israel's security without your heart being so hard that you're not moved by the pain.
of Palestinian mothers seeing their kids killed.
The Iranians in Geneva offered you everything you wanted and you were too stupid to know and your two negotiators, the strategic mind of Wyckoff and Kushner, didn't know what they had.
The American people still have and want hope that their kids can do better.
They have real doubts that we're taking care of business.
My faith is not your challenge or your problem.
The faith you need to be worried about is that America and Americans have lost faith in this great country.