The Empire Strikes Out: Rick Atkinson on 1776, Is Britain Broken?, and Socialists in New York

- It's Tuesday, June 30th, 2026. And welcome back to Goodfellows, a Hoover Institution broadcast, examining history, economics, and geopolitics. I'm Bill Whalen. I'm a distinguished policy fellow here at the Hoover Institution. I'll be your moderator today moderating a conversation featuring three of my colleagues who we jokingly refer to as the Goodfellows. That would be of course, the historian, ser Ferguson, economist John Cochran, and former Presidential National Security Advisor, Lieutenant General H hr McMaster, Neil, John, and HR are Hoover Senior Fellows. Gentlemen, two, two segments to get into Today. In the second part of our show, we're gonna talk about politics in the UK and politics back here in the US musical game of chairs, the Prime Ministers and the apparent rise of Democratic socialism here in the us. But first, we're going to turn our attention to the events of 1776, and we have a very special guest for you making His goodfellows debut is Rick Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson is the author of eight narrative histories about five American wars that includes his revolutionary trilogy on the War for American Independence, and a liberation trilogy detailing America's involvement in World War ii. His most recent book, the Fate of the Day, Chronicles the three years of fighting from Fort Taai Kga to Charleston during the Revolutionary War. His awards include the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for History. That book was an army at dawn, the war in North Africa in 1942 to 1943. And while the employment of the Washington Post Pulitzer Prizes for National Reporting and Public Service. Rick Atkinson, welcome to Goodfellows. Thank you Bill. Happy to be here. Well, it's an honor to have you, sir, and thank General McMaster. He suggested we have you on and the time was great. But the 4th of July approaching Rick, I look at the Revolutionary War as you would a World Cup soccer match, and on paper it would appear to be a mismatch. The continental Army, I think at its peak was about half the size of the British Army in the North America. The Continental Navy was about one fourth the size of the rural Navy. And yet from 1775 to 1781, what do we have an American victory Question, Rick, did the American military win the Revolutionary War or did the British military lose it? Those are not incompatible concepts. I think what we see, first of all, the Royal Navy had 400 warships. The continental Congress built 13 frigates. Not one of them survived the war. So the Continental Navy was non-existent, and the Royal Navy was the greatest Navy the world's ever seen. You know, I think what we see in the American Revolution is something that's familiar to us throughout history generally, and certainly the American history. When you're waging a counterinsurgency, especially, especially one that's expeditionary, we have to travel a long distance to put down the insurrection. You have to win. And if you're the rebels fighting an insurrection, you have to not lose. Washington doesn't recognize that immediately, but he comes to understand it. He doesn't articulate it quite that well, but he certainly understands the concept and they have to not lose. And for the British eight years of war crossed 3000 miles of open ocean in the age of sail, they have neither the, the generals nor the will within the military, and particularly at home to prevail. And so I think that you see some of both the way the revolution turned out. Well, hey Rick, I'll tell you, I just wanna ask you a general question. First of all, you know, obviously huge fan of all your work. We, we met, we met 35 years ago, Rick, if you can believe that man in the in, I actually, we were, we were young, you were a young pup hr, you were Captain McMaster back then in Iraq. So, So, you know, I'm a huge fan of all your work. When you did the Liberation Trilogy, I thought, man, you can never top that. The Revolution trilogy is so darn good. I, you know, I'm amazed at how much new material you brought in to the, to the revolution. Can you maybe share with our viewers the papers that you accessed, what those papers told you? I mean, I'm thinking about accounts from British soldiers officers as they're dying, you know, writing their last letter and just, it's so powerful the way you go in all your books from the, you know, from the human experience in battle to the strategic and back down. And you keep the reader with you, but the materials that you access allow you to tell such a compelling story. How did you find them and maybe what surprised you the most about these new materials you accessed? Thank you for that. Hr. Yes. I think that first of all, I start with the principle that all great events in human history, like all great personages in human history, they're bottomless. There's more to discover, there's more to write. There always will be, people will be writing about Abraham Lincoln 500 years from now. So a a couple points on this. First, the way you get inside Washington's head, and he is the indispensable man. He's the long pole in the tent, and he's pretty opaque. He deliberately does not want you to be inside his head. One of the, the artists who painted him from life remarked on his, his remarkably dead eye 'cause he could make his eyes go dead and not wanting the, the viewer to see inside him. So the way you do it is, the only way I know is through the papers. The University of Virginia has been curating the Washington paper since 1968. They're on volume 37 of the Revolutionary War papers. They're almost finished. I've read volumes one through 27 for the first two volumes of my trilogy. They're each 600 pages along, and that's the best way to get inside Washington. One thing, he's a really capable writer, and that's where you see how he's thinking, how he's reacting. The letters to his, his his cousin, Lund Washington, who's taking care of Mount Vernon while he is away, give you insights into what he really cares about in this life, which is Mount Vernon. And then, you know, another example of where you can dig the, the papers of of George iii, your last king as my friend Ken Burns says so far are kept in Windsor Castle, just west of London in 2016, queen Elizabeth ii, who, who owns those papers, opened up to outside scrutiny, the Georgian papers, the papers of all four Georgias that became king in the 18th and 19th centuries. I was one, one of the first allowed in to take a look for a whole month at Windsor in April, 2016, every day showing my badge at the Henry VII gate to get into the castle. And then climbing 102 stone steps and pointing on wooden stairs to the, to the garage of the round tower begun by William the Conquer in the 11th century. That's where they keep the papers and that's where you find, that's where you get inside Georgia Third's head. George, among other things, was a great list maker. So lists of all his regiments abroad from 1768 to 1775, his recipes for insecticide, his correspondence with Queen Charlotte, his correspondence about his kids, and of course the correspondence about the those damn rebels. And I, you know, I found that first of all, it humanizes him in a way that the American caricature, he is not the sinister ninny who prances across the stage every night in Hamilton singing, you'll be back, you'll Be back soon. You'll see. He's much more complicated than that. He's a, he's a patriot king, he's a constitutional monarch. He's got reasons for doing what he's doing. They're not necessarily good reasons, but they are reasons. And so I think, you know, if you keep plugging away, if you don't have a day job, as I do not, it, it allows you the opportunity to go rummaging around in archives all over the country and around the world. And that, that's what I'm trying to do. Hey, just for our readers too, I'll tell you, when you get these volumes, don't skip reading the endos. I'm telling you, Rick, the endos are bel they're so darn good. I mean, and, and they're all explanatory. And anyway, hey, fantastic job. I Did 'em, I did 'em just for you. April. Alright Rick, I I want to give you a quotation and I'll reveal who it's by. Maybe you interrupt me and do it. I think I can announce it as a fact that it is not the wish or interest of that government, Massachusetts, or any other upon the continent, separately or collectively to set up for independency. I'm as well satisfied as I can be of my existence that no such thing as desired by any thinking man in all North America. On the contrary that it is the ardent wish of the warmest advocates for liberty, that peace and tranquility upon constitutional grounds may be restored. And the horrors of civil war, civil discord prevented at October 9th, 1774, George Washington. Is there not a sense in which these great events that you so brilliantly chronicle were avoidable contingent? There didn't need to be a War of Independence and it might not have ended the way it did. Should we talk about the history that might have been, if, if George Washington two years before the dec, less than two years before the Declaration thinks that civil discord can be prevented and nobody wants it? Isn't there, isn't there something somewhat accidental about these events? Oh, I think absolutely Neil. I think that contingency is always a major operant in history. It's, it is like gravity. It just, it's just part of the way the universe operates. When the shooting starts at Lexington Concord on April 19th, 1775. Most people, overwhelmingly most people are not thinking about independence. They're thinking about a redress of grievances as they define them. And they deliberately set out to blame parliament, in particular, the king's men in the cabinet, Lord North and sandwich and the rest of them, while avoiding being accusatory toward the king. 'cause they prefer to believe. And I think many of them genuinely do believe that this is the king being misled by, by his counselors. And so it's gonna take a while for people to come around. It's gonna take the likes of Thomas Payne to articulate in plain spoken, bold language, a reason for throwing over the monarchy for cutting all ties to, to empire. And it's gonna take the spilling of blood, I think once things like Bunker Hill occur. That's June 17th, 1770 5, 226 British dead at Bunker Hill. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle once the killing begins in earnest. So yes, I think particularly had the British offered some of the generous terms that they would later offer in 1778, for example, when there was a mission sent from London to basically concede everything that the British, that the British had denied previously to concede everything that the Americans had earlier with the exception of independence. And, but by that point it's too late. And, you know, the, the, the rebels have the bit in their teeth. And I, I don't think that you're ever going to stop short of, of, of final decision. The truth is that even if Washington is killed, even if the British win militarily, I think it's very difficult to see a political settlement that is satisfactory to what the king and the British government are hoping for. The American population is doubling every 25 years. It's four times the rate of growth in Britain at that time. It's a greater rate of growth than ever seen in modern European history. The United States is gonna get big very quickly. And I think it's gonna be difficult for the United States to, to, to remain in a subservient role forever, particularly because it's become a blood feud at that point. And there there's gonna be a, a residual insurrection, especially in the South where it really is a civil war. So I don't think that, you know, once we get to 1778 or so, I don't think that you're ever going to see a resolution that is, is more or less amicable as far as the British are concerned That that does come later. So first of all, I'm especially glad to have you on because I've never seen HR and Neil starstruck before. I wanted to see in person, I of course am amazingly starstruck. For example, you found new primary sources on the revolution. I would've thought, you know, that every single letter had been read Will well done and, and amazingly written. You know, one thing for example, I, I as an economist got out of it. I, I did not realize the extent to which the rebels had denied land access completely to the British. And so it was actually much harder for them than, than I would've thought, as you mentioned. 'cause they have to supply everything by sea in the yes. So that's, Yes, Not going to work. But at some point there, there was a, a settlement as, as the George Washington quote said, I mean, eventually Canada and New Zealand and Australia worked out a deal with, you know, that that could have been on the table for the US I think much longer. So I, I think their, you know, independence was such a crazy idea, especially when you depend on international trade and Britannia does rule the waves. Just, it would seem that the contingency is just a little more common sense in, in the British part, could have avoided it. And similarly, I read in, in your books as, as elsewhere so many what seem like horrible mistakes going up and down the see the coast of New England and burning down towns does not look like a brilliant idea. I mean, one thing you're trying to do in a counterinsurgency is you're trying to win the Civil War and to say, look, we can run things better, you know, better a tyrant 3000 miles away than 3000 tyrants one mile away, as as right lights, what's his name said. And this seems like a horrible mistake. So not, not, not giving the demands of 1778 and 1774 seems like a good idea. Not doing that kind of sim thing. Same good idea. Also, did they have to win? Could they have not simply blockaded and, and waited for the American, the, the inevitable American Civil War to break out when things got really hard? 'cause you can't have any in international trade. So that seems possible. And finally, if you have had it not turned out differently, you know, what would the US have looked like within the larger British empire? It's sort of the way Canada and, and New Zealand ended up. But that's a separate thought. Well, I think did they have to win? I think once it becomes a global war, which it does with the entry of France into the war in the spring of 1778, and then the Spanish, and then the Dutch, with substantial material support provided by other European powers who are not combatants, but they're helping, that includes the Russians, the Swedes, the Danes, the Portuguese. So then they've gotta win. It becomes an existential fight for Britain. You know, people in southern England wake up one morning in 1779 and look off the coast and there is a huge fleet, a Franco Spanish fleet off the coast preparing to invade. It's a larger fleet than the 1588 Spanish ar armada. So that does two things. First of all, it takes their eye off of the American insurrection and necessarily puts the eye back on, especially the French, but the bourbon powers generally. And that helps to unify Britain in a way that just war against the Americans had not. And second, it reminds people that this really is about the preservation of the British empire. Now the British Empire is gonna be chipped away. They're gonna lose more than 30,000 dead in the war. They're gonna lose the, the war is gonna cost Britain the la latter day equivalent of $25 billion and it's gonna cost them about a half a million acres out of the sun. You know, the empire in which the sun never sets, which is a phrase that was coined in 1774. But first of all, they've still got most of the empire. The Treaty of 1783 tends to be pretty generous to, to the British. And they're gonna another bigger, better batter empire. So I, I think that they do have to win. They have to at least come to a noble draw because the French and the Spanish are trying to cut their throats. There's, but, but it was not existential 'cause they did not win. They, but but what you're saying is they rather brilliantly managed to come to a noble draw with the Americans and win the world war. Yeah. And, and understand that winning against the Americans was not crucial to winning the World War. Very, very well done UK if that's the case. Well, yes. And they don't know. It's not existential. Right. You don't know that till 1783. It seems existential if you one of those people wake up and see that fleet off your southern coast, it seems pretty dire. So I I I think that, you know, there, it has to be said that the British are strategically incoherent when it comes to trying to figure out how to defeat the insurrection. They don't recognize the complexities of the human terrain. To use a phrase that, that HR has used in my presence in America. They don't have brainiacs deciding how to best fight this war. They bounce from strategy to strategy end up with a southern strategy because nothing else seems to be working, which is predicated on false assumptions. It's predicated on the, I was just in Charleston, the British thought that South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina were full of, of loyalists. And that there was a large silent majority of loyalists just waiting for the British Army and Navy to show up, to allow them to surge forward, to take up arms and to participate in the destruction of, for the good Americans, quote unquote the loyalists that come and help defeat the bad Americans, the rebels. That is false. And they don't realize it really until very late in the war that it is that it's, it's an assumption that is not predicated on fact. Well you're saying the America, the rebels won the Civil War, which is what let them win the war against Britain. But actually the internal Civil War sounds like a, a really important one in this history. It is, and it's, it's a civil war on several levels. It's obviously between the mother country and the insurrectionists in America between Americans where it really does anticipate the Civil War, not in the causes of the, the disagreement, but in the ness and nastiness of it as the war goes on, particularly in those last couple years of fighting are almost exclusively in the South. And it is brother on brother, father against son. A lot of extra judicial killings, a lot of hangings. And then it's a civil war among Indian tribes, the six nations of the Iroquois. The Haudenosaunee have gotten along very well. They have a kind of family compact that has preserved the peace for the B harvest century. And the American Revolution forces them to choose sides. And four of them align with the British and two of them align with the Americans and they fight each other. And it, it's quite nasty also. So that civil war nature of the revolution plays out on several levels. Right. Throw in a couple of reading recommendations in addition to Rick's brilliant books. Maya Jain Off's book on the loyalists Yes. Is a great read. And reminds us that a fifth of the inhabitants of the 13 colonies were loyalists. And of course a great many of them left after it was clear that the Patriots, the proponents of Independences had won some to Canada, some to the Caribbean. The other thing I'd highly recommend is JCD Clark's brilliant essay British America in the book virtual history, which in which he explores all the possible counterfactuals. My favorite counterfactual is the 17 63 1 when at the peace of Paris, at the end of the seven years war, instead of taking Canada, the British imperial government takes Guadalupe and the counterfactual, which is quite a plausible. One is, and people said this at the time, if they'd just taken the little Caribbean island of Guadalupe rather than Canada, then the incentives would've been very different for the people in the 13 colonies. I'm gonna quote William Burke here, who, who said, if sir the people of our colonies find no check from Canada, they will extend themselves almost without bounds into the inland parts by eagerly grasping at extensive territory. We may run the risk. And that perhaps in no very distant period of losing what we now possess. So Guadalupe instead of Canada, no American Revolution. That's one of my favorite counterfactuals. That's, that's a good one. I love all counterfactuals. 'cause you can never be wrong. You know, obviously the real monies in the West Indies and Absolutely Guadalupe Would've been the fur trade in in Canada is not insignificant. But I think you're right. I think that that was a, a a, a bad choice by the British in 1763. I would add one other recommendation to the reading list. There are many, but Gordon Wood, who I was just with him two days before he died, right at a conference on Lake George, and then at the age of 92, where he is amazingly vigorous and funny and electric in his wit and his wisdom. He's walking across the supermarket parking lot, hit by a car and killed everything that Gordon Wood ever wrote was excellent. Some of it was so foundational to the way all of us who come in is, is Wake. Think about the revolution. You know, and just for, for, for our, you know, listeners, I mean, creation, the American Republic, unbelievable. Yes. Radicalization, you know Yep. Passage books. That's right. Hr. I agree. We have about five minutes left, John and h do you wanna squeeze attention? Rick? Rick? Yeah. I wanna ask you, okay, first of all, in, in your books, this whole idea of contingency, it comes out and everything you mentioned Charleston, I love that chapter on the seeds of Charleston and like what happens to the fleet just from weather, you know, on the way there. So you see sort of fortune acts of God, but you know, I I I'm always drawn to Saratoga, right? As as you know, the ultimate Yeah. Contingency because so many levels, right? The command decisions that were made. Yeah. The logistics decisions that were made prior to that, the diplomatic contingencies associated with the engagement with the French. So I mean, could you maybe share your assessment about the most important contingencies that, that were the ones that get you most excited about learning and, and writing about in in the trilogy? Well, I think Saratoga is a, a good case in point, again, British incoherent strategy. The, their initial plan is to send an an, an army under general Bogo out of Montreal, down Lake Champlain into the Hudson River Valley, and cleave the New England colonies away from the middle Atlantic colonies. And the Maine British army under General Howe, who's the commanding general of all British forces in America, is going to come up the Hudson River Valley and they're gonna meet at Albany or someplace to complete this, this, but He must, but he must have heard about the cheese stakes in Philadelphia. So he goes, the Philadelphia instead Go ahead. Go ahead. No, Go ahead. Go, Go on please. You're a Philadelphia guy. You know how good they are and can't, can't hold him accountable for, so yeah, he, hal the plan has been approved by the king, by Lord north by the cabinet generally. And then Hal changes his mind and he says the war is really gonna be won in Philadelphia because there are all these mythical loyalists in Pennsylvania. And so Burgo has already started down into the Lake Champlain and he is in the Hudson Valley and how is going 180 degrees the other direction. And he goes by ship and it takes forever. It's the middle of the summer in 1777, horses are dying by the hundreds. The prevailing sound of that expedition is of horse carcasses being hoisted out of the holds and thrown into the Chesapeake Bay. And so Rego has about 8,000 men who have come with him, but he's got no partner to meet in Albany or anywhere else. And so the farther away he gets from Montreal, the thinner his supply lines are stretched, the more the Americans are reinforcing not only with continental army forces, but with militia forces. And so it's at Saratoga, the two battles there in September and October, 1777 where the, the guy at the canon's mouth of winning the battles for the Americans is Benedict Arnold. Yeah. He's the best tactical leader on either side the first couple years of the war, born to lead other men in the dark of night. And almost none of those 8,000 men who've come out of Canada ever see Canada again. The destruction of that army leads the French to finally believe Benjamin Franklin, our first and arguably greatest diplomat who's been working the case in in Paris and Versailles, this victory leads the French to finally say, okay, we'll do it. We'll come in with you. So it, it's an amazing turning point and there are so many things that could have gone wrong for the home team in this whole string of events. But the British not having particularly capable generals, the British having an incoherent strategic muddle and the Americans for once getting themselves together and fighting well with both militia and continental troops together under pretty good battlefield leadership, including General Gates, former British army officer who is the commanding general of Saratoga. So let me ask you a couple of the economic questions. Paying for this war was always hard. Washington's always complaining about not having enough money. Yeah. The logistics of the war were tremendous. And, and the US never really did solve that problem. Well they, they in printed up paper money, which Alexander Hamilton did not assume, unlike the interest paying debt, which he decided was worth paying off. Yep. And, and to some extent the French coming in was a supply of money which bankrupted the French king and contributed to that Yes. Of an evolution. So, and so one aspect of this is just financing the war I'm curious about. And the other is, of course the American economy cutoff from trade during the war must have been suffering. And the prospect of, so how are we gonna go it alone if we're not friends with the British? After all this is over. It must have been a little worrisome. Yeah. So tell us about the money. No, you're absolutely right John. It, first of all, the French are contributing a lot. It's, I can't remember, 23 million lires. Ultimately that's a big pile of money. And you're right, it contributes to the unbalancing of the French economy at home. They do not have the Bank of England and the trustworthy system that, yep. Britain has evolved the previous century for financing expeditionary wars. The French just don't have that. So the, the money from the French lesser degree from the Spanish, lesser degree from the Dutch, all of that is important because the only way the Americans have of, of getting hard currency is through the kindness of strangers. The Congress Is they have taxes. Well they have taxes except they have no taxing authority. Right. You know, so they don't have taxes. They're, they're fighting a war in order to to, to avoid taxation without representation. Famously. And there's not enough political courage in the continental Congress to say, okay, we're gonna, we're gonna do what we have to do. We're gonna, we're gonna insist that people be taxed. Well, no, they're relying on the states. The states are not reliable. They're also wary of, of taxing to the degree that's necessary. And so what do they do? They print money and they print money to beat the band. It's astonishing. And of course, not worth a continental is literally true by 1779 when the dollar is so devalued that people are lighting their pipes with continental dollars and making jackets out of continental dollars. So it's, it becomes essentially a barter society. It becomes a, a politically dicey problem. We're gonna see both a soldiers mutant mutiny and then we're gonna see officers mutiny. 'cause the officers aren't paid for months and then ultimately for years at a time. And we're gonna see very serious mutiny. Washington is gentle with the first one, the Pennsylvania line. He is brutal with the second one, drumhead, court marshals execute the leaders of that mutiny. And it's largely about money. These guys are trying to take care of their families. They're trying to keep up their, their, their shops and their tanneries and their farms at home. They've got no money. They can't send home a farthing if we had farthings. So it's a very difficult part of the, of the whole struggle. You're gonna have a guy, Robert Morris, come in as a something of a savior. He's savvy enough to kind of cobble together loans in some of his own personal mo money. He's become rich during the revolution. So it's, you know, you have to say that the, the piece that's established in 1783 comes just in the nick of time. And then it's now what? Well over to you Hamilton, Rick, I'm getting the send note from our producer that our time is up. So thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with this. By the way, I'm reading your works right now, Rick, because later this later in July, I'm headed to Charleston, South Carolina where my sister lives and her four grandsons want to me to take them to Fort Ult tree. So I may surrender to heat stroke. I was, I was just there this week 'cause it was Carolina Day. It's, you know, a celebration has been for 250 years in Charleston. The defeat of the Royal Navy by South Carolina. Militian, one of the most improbable victories of the entire war for the home team. Right Rick, I gets in the book again, the fate of the day. Thanks so much for coming on. Good fellows, come back sometime. Thank you. I'd like you, thanks so much. Good talking with you guys. Hey, great to be with you Rick. Take care. You too. You too hr. Thanks very much. Alright gentlemen, onto the B block and let's begin with anarchy in the uk. Actually, my apologies to the Sex Pistols. We're talking about political anarchy in the UK and the game of musical chairs at his British Prime ministers. So Neil Ferguson, I turn to you of course Kiir Starber becomes the sixth British prime Minister over the past decade to resign. Does his resignation Neil, change the UK's current arc? In other words, is labor going down anyway? Does this change matters? Well, I don't think it's anarchy. And so I don't want viewers to imagine riots in the street. London burning on the contrary. It's a very British political crisis in that is essentially played out inside the House of Commons, which is the lower House of Parliament. Right? K lost the support of the very large number of members of parliament that he had helped win the 2024 election. It happened quite quickly and he's being replaced. It's not quite done, but it'll probably be done by late July by the now former mayor of Manchester, a chap named Andy Burnham. Are you ready for this? Who's slightly to the left of Kio, but I mean, don't get the impression that it's 1917 in Petrograd. I think he is going to find himself Mr. Burn. That is in much the same situation as Akia. These social democratic governments all over Europe always run into the same insuperable problem. There's no money. Of course, they are primed to expand welfare programs from the mid 20th century model of social democracy, but there's no money. And an aging population means that the public finances are almost always going to deteriorate. This is of course precisely why Stama lost the support of the mps in his own party. And exactly the same thing will happen to Andy Burnham within about the same timeframe, a sort of two year contract you implicitly get. In other words, it's a bit like managing one of those ailing soccer clubs. Tottenham Hot Spur comes to mind. There's high turnover of coaches because the team just doesn't have enough money to be any good. That is not anarchy. It's more like just senescence or gerontocracy if you like. And I don't think there's a way out that any social democratic party can deliver in any country. What do you think John? Ah, very interesting. I think there's a reflection here of what's going on in the rest of the world. Yes. This is sort of, of the left in, in the uk we're sort of of the right in the US there's a common sense center of I think all of our politics, which doesn't want ami level craziness on the left and doesn't want Trump or reform level nationalism on the right. So the but is tired of the incompetence of the existing elites. Not just the scale of the welfare state, but it's in its incompetence, the immense amounts of money down rat holes, but's funny that we are, our political systems have not been able to give voice to that common sense of the center. And we seem to be delving, jumping in between kind of crazies of both left and right. The, the one optimistic note I'm remembering, where else Al always supposed to be optimistic, right? HR we're in a time of big change and, and that's better than a time of, of stagnation and stasis. So we gotta hope that eventually something will come out of it that's a lot better than the stagnation we were stuck in. But boy, we got a ways to go. Can I disagree with, oh, please John, I want you to, I I I actually think the problem in Britain is precisely the supposedly sensible center. Ah, and, and what's lacking is the kind of radicalism that would address the public finance problem would reform the welfare state would reduce the taxation on business. In other words, the kind of thing that we see in Argentina under our friend El Loko Javi, the problem in Britain and in most European countries is whether they're social Democrats or Christian Democrats, moderate left or moderate right, they just can't do the radical stuff that would get the economy growing again. And exactly the same is true in Germany. I was in Berlin last week. They've got a Christian democrat led government in coalition with the social Democrats under Friedrich Mertz. And it's failing in just the same way that Stama failed. And if it was as easy to get rid of CDU leaders as it is to get rid of British leaders, I think Mertz would probably already be gone. I think it's a slightly different situation from the one in the United States because in the US the primary system favors the radical wings of the two parties. That's why you get MAGA on the right and momani on the left. But Europe actually has something of the opposite problem. There is a radical right option, it's reform in the uk M and al in France, a FD the alternative for Germany in Germany, all the center can think of is how do we keep these people out? But if all that you are thinking about is how do you keep the radical right out, you can't actually come up with any coherent policy that would revive the economy and answer some of the popul grievances that are feeding the populists. Let, let me just, I wanna radically agree with you and thanks for, I'll call it a clarification. When I'm thinking of the center, I'm thinking of the average elector, the average voter, which I, I of course always imagined to be on my side, which is the side of radical reform of of get rid of the ridiculous regulations that are, are stopping our economy, incredibly high taxes spending that's going down all sorts of tubes. The center is the policy blob that proved itself completely incapable, for example, in COVID the political center. But, but I, I get a, I have hopeful that the voters have a certain common sense that are are hoping for a Malay style reform. You know, this is our 250th, the spirit of the founders, Liberty limited government, all those things that'll let grow growth happen if the voters aren't there. De definitely not where the average voter is in the UK or in Europe. The average voter wants more government, more benefits. And if there could be lower taxes, that would be nice. But no, let's just put the taxes up on the rich. That's where the average voter is, which is why we have a labor government and why we're moving slightly to the left with Mr. Burnham and his solutions. He gave a speech yesterday included building more public housing, increasing the role of the state in, in transportation and creating a new center of government, a new Downing Street in Manchester. So double the central government. So all of this is going to fail with absolute certainty, but it's kind of what voters want because voters really do still believe that there is, you know, jam today and, and jam tomorrow and someone else will pay for it. Well then globally, you know, welfare states with declining populations are, are doomed. If that's what you're saying. HR bring us some optimism. Well, Hey, I just wanna ask you guys, hey do, do you have to go through a cycle of failure first before you return to rational policies and recognize, you know, how smaller government's better, how the free market economy actually works much better than socialism. I mean, I'm thinking about, you know, the pink wave, the, that kind of swept across the western hemisphere a few years ago that has been reversed as you already mentioned Neil, like in Argentina. But we've seen it reversed now just in Columbia very recently in, in Peru and Chile. And maybe it'll happen in Brazil even, you know, so we'll we'll see, you know what, what happens? But I think, do you have to go through a cycle of failure like the pre Thatcher years before you get kind of a more rational approach to government and economic policy? What do you Yes, I think the ans the answer is very much, and, and one of the things I'm acutely aware of when I'm back in the UK is how like the seventies it feels with the sort of general cynicism and pessimism things are referred to frequently as broken. Broken Britain is the typical shorthand that people use when they're trying to explain why the train is late or why there's a huge pothole in the road. It's very reminiscent of the mood in the seventies. The difference is, this is a much more, I hate the word, but diverse Britain. It's a much more multiracial Britain than it was back in the 1970s. So that issues aren't just economic and that's why a party like Reform UK gains ground because it says the problem is immigration. And, and, and it's so long as voters are focused on that analysis that our problem has to do with immigration, it's very hard to have a serious discussion about welfare reform for example. 'cause in a sense the energy has gone outta those issues, which eventually did become salient in the seventies under Thatcher. It's just harder to do thatcherism now. I think there are many more distractions from the core question of how do you get taxes down? How do you get welfare spending down? How do you introduce incentives back into, into an economy that is essentially flatlining. I think the same is true just about everywhere in Europe. And that's why Americans have the perception when they come to Europe that that really the place is, is stagnating. It's sort of the opposite of the world cup effect. Yeah, right. Neil, you look at Labor's campaign for office, the slogan, real improvements in the lives of working people. And yet I lived at England, for example, and what I see, England was the only European nation, Neil, that imposes a standard rate vat on private school fees. Maybe that hits you personally or not. Is there the same appetite for class warfare in the UK as there is here in the us? I think the appetite has always been quite great class is to England, what race is to the United States, the great preoccupation. And it's striking how labor defaults to class war with policies that have no rationale other than to punish people for being middle class value. Added tax on, on private school fees is a pretty good example. And I think there'll be other measures in the same vein. Taxes will go up, but they'll go up on the, on the welfare and labor will be told by economists, Hey, this won't work if you crank up capital gains tax, it won't actually generate much revenue and the labor response will be, yeah, but we're gonna do it anyway. 'cause well they, they have it coming to them. That mood is still here. And of course it's utterly self-defeating because you gradually drive out the, the wealth creators, you drive out the entrepreneurs, the exodus of millionaires from Britain is on a massive scale, has been, this has been going on for some years now. It predates labor. 'cause the tax hikes get ex in fact began with the supposedly center right conservatives. So the the pictures are somewhat disparaging. One the consolation going back to hrs point is that at some point things get so bad that people get real. That's precisely what's happened in Latin America, especially in Argentina. Trouble is Britain hasn't quite got to that point yet and nor have any of these European countries. One point, just to add hr, it it's a sign of the times that this country where I'm sitting has so disarmed that its Navy is probably at its weakest points in 1667 and they say of the British army that it could capture a small market town on a good day. That this is a, a real headache. Britain is disarmed to an extent that most members of the public simply don't appreciate. And any major threat to national security is gonna expose that, that the labor government for all its pledges to President Trump to raise defense spending clearly can't deliver it. And the latest defense review is really just moving around the deck chairs on the one destroyer that can still set set sale. John, let's turn our attention to America. We had recently elections in New York state where two house Democrats were kicked out of office replaced by democratic socialist candidates. But here in California, John, our California, there is a big conversation coming our way in November over a wealth tax. This is a 5% tax on California billionaires. It would take 5% of their wealth away. That's a very good question. Whether or not it's legal or constitutional. Enter now John California, governor Gavin Newsom who opposes the California wealth tax John, but he now supports a federal wealth tax. It would kick in for wealth north of a hundred million dollars. John, I wanna read to you how CNN describes this and get your thoughts. I'm about to put a very big golf ball on the tee for you. Here's what CNN wrote, quote Newsom says. His idea comes out of wanting to create a bulwark against how artificial intelligence will reshape the economy. Also proposing what he calls a quote, national public equity fund to give every American, rather than just tech companies and investors, a share in the wealth likely to be produced. That fund would cover worker transition benefits, universal childcare, free higher education and career training healthcare in a na in a national industrial strategy for ai. John, what's not to like All of it Now, the, the impulse toward national wealth tax is obvious because if you put in a state wealth tax, the rich people leave. And if you put a national one, it's much harder for them to leave. 'cause where they can go uk good luck to you. I think a lot of the objective is not to raise revenue. The objective is to get rid of the rich and, and all of their problem is you get rid of them, you get rid of all their companies while you're at it. The idea of grabbing, you know, the shares of AI redistributing to the public obvious, you know, shares come with voting rights. Obviously the government is not gonna run these companies in a profitable way and these companies are not profitable. If you grab the, you know, the cash flows of all the AI companies is negative billions of dollars a year. So the taxpayers are gonna be coughing up rather than getting out of it. It's, you know, the val market value is all on the hope that this stuff will issue some profits in the far future. But there is a, there's a mean streak that the point is to get rid of the billionaires, which the UK has done a good job of. They all leave and come to the us We talked to some British politicians a while ago who were, who were bemoaning the fact that there's plenty of startups in the UK and the minute they want to go to scale, they move to the US well, we'll we'll send them on back again. So it's economically obviously not the road to prosperity. But you know, to our previous discussion, the blue states and blue cities in the US are pretty darn dysfunctional. And Neil said, you know, Neil and HR were saying, well it's gotta get bad before it gets better again. And certainly these have not provoked a Malay style reform effort. Even even LA's mayor race, the, the two leftists in the end did win though through some questionable count maybe, but over two thirds of LA voters voted for more of the same, you know, bring back the homeless, burn down the burn down the cities and don't rebuild them. But John haven't gotten, Gotten better enough yet. Please set me right again, Neil Dare. We hope John, that a Brit, Steve Hilton could become a reforming California governor because that would be Javi MA comes to California if it happened. I I I mean he's done much better than I think many people Yes. Expected thus far. And that would be, that would be refreshing. There might even be a, a turnaround in Sacramento, maybe not in la, but dare one hope for this. I don't know. I'm not enough of a California politics expert to know Within the Democratic party of California, there is a common sense reform, YIMBY movement, a lot of the Central valley, a lot of the ethnic groups we're, we're divided ethnically as well as others are, you know, wait a minute, I, I wanna run a business around here. I don't want the, the coastal craziness. So maybe there's hope. Of course he will be a, a, a individual person on top of a well-oiled, partisan machine. So good luck to him fixing things. Well, the Hilton thing will be fascinating, Neil, because first of all, he'd probably need to hire somebody to taste his food and start his car every morning because he would come to Sacramento with instant enemies. It would be very much like the second term of the Obama presidency. Neil, he would've a pen and a phone and he'd probably just have to do constant executive orders because the legislature wouldn't play ball with him. And also particularly, there'd probably be a recall election to get to within about six months of taking office. So it would be very brief, very meteoric, I think as a governorship. But HR, this, you know, attacking wealth in California, we're seeing billionaires leaving the state. People live close to you in Newport Beach and they're headed to places like Austin, Texas, Nashville, Tennessee, Wyoming, Florida. Well, I'm just wondering based on, you know, what we, what we did with Rick Axon discussion, maybe, maybe there could be a billionaire, you know, Boston Tea Party moment. And I, and I, I'm reading for Rick's book, the British are coming, the rally Mohawks, bring out your axes and tell King George will pay no taxes. So I think, I think maybe there needs to be a billionaire, you know, Boston Tea Party moment and maybe that's what's happening with the, the, you know, with so much capital, you know, and, and tax base, you know, fleeing, fleeing California. Yeah. Neil, I wanna get your thoughts on the elections in New York and the rise of Democratic socialism and how potent of force do you think this is? On the one hand, you see these, these results, some of them are jarring. In one case, a house incumbent kicked out of office. I think he got one third of the primary vote. On the other hand, Neil, these are primaries with notoriously low turnout. So making this a direct mayor of American politics, I'm not sure about, but you look at what Madami is doing in New York. Neil, do you see this having national legs and is this a way for Democrats to get 270 electoral votes? Well, I think it's worth just to throw out a counterfactual, imagining where we would be if Mr. Madani had been born, not in Kampala, Uganda, but in a, let's say Queens. I mean, if he'd been born in the United States, can you imagine what would be the conversation on the American left right now? Because clearly he has got significant charisma. He is an effective political organizer. He has coattails as we've just seen. So it's just as well that, that he can't run for president because there is a big part of the Democratic party that wants to rerun the Bernie Sanders insurgency with a far more electable figurehead than Bernie ever was. We must remember that, that Bernie Sanders was a real contender for the nomination. It took a lot to stop him. I, I think there's an assumption, and I've often made it myself, that if the Republican party has a relatively right of censor incumbent in the White House, then the right move for the Democrats is to take to the center and find the next Bill Clinton. I don't think that's true anymore. I don't think that's the response. I think the response of the Democratic party to the Trump ascendancy is let's go further out on our side of the political spectrum. And the trouble is they just don't have a native born momani to play that part. Not yet. But you can, you can sense that the hunt is on. I think the really interesting race will get going next year. And it probably won't really be clear until the end of the year who it's gonna be. But it's the race to find an electable democratic socialist. I wanna agree. And I'm even more worried 'cause you know, congress matters, Senate matters character of the Democratic Party in local o in state offices, governors, cities matters. Now you may say that the monds are the extreme left and you know, there's an extreme left and extreme right and that's not enough to win elections. But I I spent last weekend with a, a group of relatives who are all proper, fairly wealthy New Yorkers or used to be wealthy New Yorkers. And I was struck, this is my, my focus group, you know, they're all proper liberals, but they have in, in Trump derangement. And I think this is, this is a pattern you see most, more generally nationally. I me call it a great op-ed by Cliff Asne and Aaron Brown. The, the derangement over Trump is leading people to join their team on very extreme positions. So even, even my, you know, generations of proper Democrat relatives are on board with a fairly extreme anti-Israel position, fairly extreme. You know, they, they're, they're now for rent control and city run housing and you know, all the mond stuff, even though their, their class will suffer greatly in the end for it. And this is just my, my one focus group of, of waring that in fact the tribalism of the rest of the democratic party is going to cause them to support these, these issues. And that's a dangerous turn for whoever wins the election. I think a lot of this too is like a symptom of, of, you know what, you know what Mo Fiorina our colleague is called unstable majorities, you know, this, this kind of phenomenon of sorting that he's described where, you know, the, the, the tense of both political parties have shrunk to the degree to which a lot of Americans have sorted themselves as independence. And, and now, you know, as, as a result of that, you know, they're, they're responders rather than participators in the political process. They, they respond to these candidates who are produced by the, by the political parties and, and, and with, with, you know, neither candidate appealing to them. Right? So I I I think this is a real, a real problem, you know, and, and if you get like a Bernie Sanders type candidate on the left and then you get maybe, you know, a, I don't know, nativist, neo isolationist, retrenching kind of candidate that, that reflects kind of a, a fringe of, of the, the MAGA movement on the right. You know, I think Americans are likely to be dissatisfied with both. Again, they're the majority of Americans Though it, as we approach our 250th and, and thinking about constitutional structures, I mean, people are thinking, hey, the rules of the game are kind of busted here. One of the obvious ones is that going to primaries that are are direct primaries rather than the parties choosing their candidates obviously has been a way of, of radicalizing who the primary wins. And when it was old white guys in smoke filled rums picking candidates, well one fe there was lots of bad parts of that. But one good feature is they, they picked people who thought they thought could win in the general election. Yeah, right. How about that? Exactly. So, you know, the, the, it's not just the, the, the, the character of the electorate. It is the rules of the game by which we aggregate those feelings that are, are blame. Alright, let's wrap up the segment. Neil, I want you to play poly markets for us and the list of democratic socialists looking at 2028 a OC mom, Donny, well, we can't run for president, obviously Roanna here in California. Gavin Newsom, who appears to be kind of born again with his national agenda, if you wanted to do a poly markets here in Neil and handicapped this, who do you think has the inside track right now? I think none of the above, none of the, the pattern in, in, in at least the relatively recent past is for somebody to emerge relatively late IE late next year. I hadn't heard of Barack Obama until late 2007. For example. C Clinton was not seen as a major contender until quite late. Well, because, because The, the leading candidate dropped out due to cancer, Right? Yeah, Yeah. I I, Jimmy Carter was not one of the people picked early in, in the race back in, in 1976 by the New York Times. He didn't feature at all in their top 10 contenders. So I think the Democrats have a, have, have a tendency to go for an outsider. And, and I think that will happen again. And so the people you just listed Bill, they they will actually fade. They've all, they've all in a sense run too early. But, but Neil, don't you think whoever it is w will certainly be an opportunist and we'll be sculpting his or her positions and views in order to win favor and is going to pack very much to the left in order to bring these people along and, and appoint people like this in in his or her administration and and so forth. But John, you mentioned Cliff Asness excellent Wall Street Journal op-ed. It's worth quoting from that I think because this, this is the key point quote, the only credential a democratic candidate now needs is having quote taken on Trump, usually only in rhetoric filmed for a commercial beneath the Trump bashing Lux, a genuinely radical program that would've been a non-starter, not only in your grandfather's democratic party, but in your slightly older brothers. What's in the program The left has embraced under the banner of opposing Mr. Trump a hard turn towards socialism dressed as fairness and the anti-Semitism that you mentioned earlier, John. And because it's such a kind of straightforward path bash Trump, and then the Trojan horse is full of radical leftism. A lot of people can play game, and I think there'll be quite a crowded field by, certainly by this time next year. Gentlemen, onto the lightning round. Alright, John Cochrane, we begin with you. Ellen Greenspan, rest in peace. Your thoughts on his legacy, the Wall Street Journal, writing a column quote, the Myth of Alan Greenspan as the maestro. Yeah, I think this is a case where future historians will read the primary sources. Another hat tip to Rick Atkisson will come out with something different than the capsule biographies. You know, one inflation noticeably inscrutable, let housing bubble go was too libertarian with financial regulation. That that's basically all wrong. And I, I hope to see a more nuanced biography in the future. He, he did a, a great job. Bad things happen on his watch. They sometimes do for more complex reasons than usually said, and, and we're trying to be short. So I won't try to give you a, a first draft of that. I do think what we, we and my fellows may wanna opin in that. So now we have a scorecard. How are the academics at Fed Share doing versus the bankers versus the lawyers. Fed chair is not a PhD academic job and Greenspan did pretty good as the inscrutable banker versus the transparency in rules and model-based academics who didn't do noticeably a whole lot better. I hate to say my team doesn't have a huge record to stand on that. So Godspeed, Alan Greenspan, and I hope that future great historians will do you more, more justice than I see in the op-ed pages. HR General Chris Donahue, the commander of the US Army Europe and Africa's retiring the request of War Secretary Peak headset. It is the latest in a string of high profile leadership changes in the upper ranks of the military, including the abrupt firing of former Army Chief of Staff General Randy George earlier this year. General Master. What is the story here? Well, it's a disappointing one because you CD Donahue was, was universally respected. I think that there is now sort of a kind of a political litmus test of some kind that's opaque. We don't really understand what's happening that's resulting in, in a lot of these, a lot of these, you know, early retirements is really what they are requesting officers retire. I think it's unfortunate because it, it sort of drags the military into partisan politics. You know, this idea that secretary he has is that, you know, there are woke generals and novels. Hey, there already woke generals and novels. There, there are woke people who were maybe or so-called woke people, you know, who were in the Department of Defense pushing what I think was a radical and destructive social general in the military. Hey, they're gone, right? And they're gone. Secretary Het is in charge. So he's essentially, I guess my perception is that he's fighting a rear guard against phantoms. I think we should just let the military, you know, adhere to his professional military ethic, which our senior leaders are doing and execute their responsibilities under the constitution, you know, to support and, and, and, you know, and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And recognize that, you know, that, that they are implementers of orders of their civilian bosses. You know, we all recognize that. So I think the, you know, the, the leadership within the Trump administration should recognize that Hey, hr, there's been some recent retirements from the Russian and Chinese top, top ranks. At least ours go a little bit smoother than those, don't they? Well, They do. Standards in Washington seem to be a lot stronger. Well, and we have a very deep bench, I'll tell you. I mean there, there are tremendously talented officers ready to step in. And of course all of us know. I mean, any of us who are stay in the Army as long as, as as CD Donahue does, I mean it, I mean, they know they serve at the pleasure of the President and they believe that they're in a bonus round, right? I mean, when I, when I extended beyond 20 years, I was in a bonus round. I was grateful for every day that I was able to continue serving. And, and that's how they feel too. And that's why when they retire, they, they retire as professionals and they're silent about it. And, and so I'm proud of him and and proud of all those who've done their duty and recognize that they've served at the pleasure of the President and retired. Alright, finally, Sunil Ferguson, European World Cup fans visiting America have been stunned. The differences they discovered in the new world. We're talking suburban superstores, hawking plates of food, sprawling houses, central air conditioning. You are we ready for a Europe in wish fish and ships come with a healthy side of w Ranch dressing? I do think it's good that so many people coming, not only from Europe but from all over the world, are seeing the United States as it is rather than as it's represented on their media. I'll give the example of the United Kingdom, where I think the United States is often represented in quite a negative way on the BBC, particularly President Trump, but, but also the administration more broadly. And then the Tartan Army arrives in Boston and what do they discover? Quality of life, significantly higher than they're accustomed to in say, my native Glasgow. And the same experience is happening all over the United States, wherever games are played. And meanwhile, it's a wonderful reciprocal thing. Americans get to see a really good sport. They get respite from the agos and tedium of baseball. So everybody wins and, and the world emerges a, a better place and good luck to the United States against Bosnia these days. Of course, it's kind of role reversal. This, this is the other way around. 'cause the United States is now the great mighty empire and the Bosnia is the little guys. It's the opposite of 1776. But that's part of the beauty of the World Cup giant killing where the little guys take down the big guys. We just said farewell to Germany and there isn't a dry eye in England at the departure of Germany from the World Cup, but at the hands of Paraguay who saw that coming? That's the beauty of the World Cup. Could I add Peggy Nunan wrote very nicely about this, what the brilliance of this World Cup is. It sent people out to the heartland of the us not just the standard tour spots where they got to see a Chick-fil-A and a Bucky's and what a suburban housing track looks like. You know, you go to go to Europe, you see the monuments and museums looks kinda nice, but the heart of the US of course, is not our monuments museums and our blue cities. It's the Chick-fil-A's the Buckys and, and, and the housing and what housing looks like here. And, and they're going back. This has been a, a wonderful foreign policy and, and sales for America unintentionally. But the reports going back to Scotland are these Americans make boast about their quality of life, but they've, they have a beer shortage, a chronic beer shortage. Alright, Neil, you didn't make any predictions on England Congo. I've learned not to make footballing predictions. I was asked how Scotland would do against Brazil. Sadly, I was wrong about that. I, I think the, the non-European teams have learned how to defend against European teams. And so, so England have already encountered that they struggle to, to score couldn't score against Ghana. DRC will pro probably shut England down the nightmare for England will be penalties if penalties can take the Dutch and the Germans out. As just happened. Every England fan has A-P-T-S-D relationship to penalty shootouts because England have been on the wrong side of those on so many occasions. So my prediction based on history, as all my predictions are, is it goes to penalties and England lose. Okay, finally, we literally have one minute left very quickly, gentlemen, your plans for the fourth, I assume none of you're going to Taylor Swift's wedding on July the third. So hr, what are you doing on the fourth? Hey, we're getting our grandkids together. We, we have a great little local kids parade here and everybody decorates the wagons and everything. And then after that, we'll, we'll watch the American Legion Boat parade. It'll be, it'll be a great, it'll be a great day on the 250th anniversary. John Flying and Gladder, up and down the Sierra and the fireworks display at Donor Lake. Fantastic. It's deal. Well, oddly enough, it's not celebrated in England where I'm going to be a cop. Think why that is. So I'm going to the opera at Garsington to hear Monteverde and that's terrible. That's true. I don't expect there be that's so Un-American. So un-American. You know what I do take away a citizenship, come on. But my son laughing is gonna be celebrating. He's gonna be celebrating our place in the us What? But try get s eating the hot dogs and launching the fireworks on my behalf. I am going to eat hot dogs. Watch baseball, sir Neil Ferguson and finally of a of a 4th of July, Woodside, California, where I got to see Neil Ferguson work at Growth. You see, I'm an American, really. There you go. All right, gentlemen, great conversation. I wish you all a very joyful 4th of July, and we'll be back at the new show very soon. We're actually gonna talk about Donald Trump and in Austin Power's terms as he lost his mojo, so you don't wanna miss that. Well, on behalf of the Good Fellows, Sunil Ferguson, HR McMaster, John Cochrane loves us here at the Hoover Institution. We hope you enjoyed the show. We'll be back soon. Till next time, take care. Thanks again for watching. One.