Jeremi Suri: History of American Power | Lex Fridman Podcast #180

1. 0:00 – 8:23

   Introduction

   1. LFLex Fridman0:00

      The following is a conversation with Jeremy Surrey, a historian at UT Austin, whose research interests and writing are on modern American history, with an eye towards presidents and in general, individuals who wielded power. Quick mention of our sponsors: LMNT, Munk Pack, Belcampo, Four Sigmatic, and Eight Sleep. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say that in these conversations, for better or worse, I seek understanding, not activism. I'm not left nor right. I love ideas, not labels, and most fascinating ideas are full of uncertainty, tension, and trade-offs. Labels destroy that. I try ideas out, let them breathe for a time, try to challenge, explore, and analyze, but mostly I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to think and to make up your own mind together with me. I will try to have economists and philosophers on from all points on the multi-dimensional political spectrum, including the extremes. I will try to both have an open mind and to ask difficult questions when needed. I'll make mistakes. Don't shoot this robot at the first sign of failure. I'm still under development, pre-release version 0.1. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast, and here is my conversation with Jeremy Surrey. You've studied many American presidents throughout history, so, uh, who do you think was the greatest president in American history?

   2. JSJeremi Suri1:36

      The greatest American president was Abraham Lincoln, and, uh, Tolstoy reflected on this himself actually, uh, saying that, uh, when he was in the Caucuses, he asked these, um, peasants in the Caucuses who was the greatest man in the world that they had heard of, and they said Abraham Lincoln. And why? Well, because he gave voice to people who had no voice before. He turned politics into an art. This is what Tolstoy recounted the peasants in the Caucuses telling him. Uh, Lincoln made politics more than about power. He made it an art. He made it a, a source of liberation, and those living even far from the United States could see that, uh, model, that inspiration, uh, from Lincoln. Uh, he was a man, uh, who had two years of education, yet he mastered the English language and he used the language, uh, to help people imagine a different kind of world. Y- you see leaders and presidents are at their best when they're doing more than just manipulating institutions and power, when they're helping the people imagine a better world, and, and he did that as no other president has.

   3. LFLex Fridman2:40

      And you say he gave... he gave voice to those who are voiceless. Um, who are you talking to, uh, a- about in general? Is this about African Americans or is this about just the populous in general?

   4. JSJeremi Suri2:51

      Certainly part of it is about, uh, slaves, uh, African Americans, and many immigrants, uh, immigrants from all parts of Europe and other areas that have come to the United States, but part of it was just for ordinary American citizens. The Republican Party, for which Lincoln was the first president, was a party created to give voice to, uh, poor White men, as well as, uh, slaves and others, and Lincoln was a poor White man himself. Uh, grew up without slaves and without land, which meant you had almost nothing.

   5. LFLex Fridman3:20

      What do you think about the trajectory of that man with only two years of education? Is there something to be said about how does one come from nothing and nurture the ideals that kinda make this country great into something where you can actually be a leader of this nation, to espouse those ideas, to give the vo- voice to the voiceless?

   6. JSJeremi Suri3:43

      Yes, I think, uh, I think you actually hit the nail on the head. I think, uh, what he represented was, uh, the opportunity, and that was the word that mattered for him, opportunity, that came from the ability to raise yourself up, uh, to work hard, and to be compensated for your hard work, and this is at the core of the Republican Party of the 19th century, which is the core of capitalism. It's not about getting rich. It's about getting compensated for your work. It's about being incentivized to do better work, and Lincoln was constantly striving. One of his, uh, closest associates, uh, Herndon, said, "He was the little engine of ambition that couldn't stop." He j- just kept going. Taught himself to read. Taught himself to be a lawyer. He went through many failed businesses before he even reached that point, many failed love affairs. (laughs) Um, but he kept trying, he kept working, and what American society offered him and what he wanted American society to offer everyone else was the opportunity to keep trying, to fail, and then get up and try again.

   7. LFLex Fridman4:40

      What do you think was the nature of that ambition? Was there a hunger for power?

   8. JSJeremi Suri4:44

      I think Lincoln had a hunger for success. Uh, I think he had a hunger to, um, get out of the poor station he was in. He had a hunger to be someone who had control over his life. Freedom for him did not mean the right to do anything you wanna do, but it meant the right to be secure from being dependent upon someone else, so independence. Uh, he writes in his letters when he's very young that he hated being dependent on his father. He grew up, uh, without a mother. His father was a struggling farmer, and he would write in his letters that his father treated him like a slave on the farm. Uh, some think his hatred of slavery came from that experience. He didn't ever wanna have to work for someone again. He wanted to be free and independent and he wanted, again, every American... This is the kind of Jeffersonian dream-

   9. LFLex Fridman5:29

      Mm-hmm.

   10. JSJeremi Suri5:30

       ... to be the owner of themself and the owner of their future.

   11. LFLex Fridman5:34

       You know, that's a really nice definition of freedom. We often think kind of this very abstract notion of being able to do anything you want, but really it's ultimately breaking yourself free from the, the constraints, like the very tight dependence on whether it's the institutions or on your family or the expectations or the community or whatever, be, be able to be... to realize yourself within the constraints of your own abilities. Y- it's still not true freedom, 'cause true freedom is probably sort of, uh, almost like designing a video game character or something like that.

   12. JSJeremi Suri6:10

       (laughs) I agree. I, I think, uh, I think that's exactly right. I think freedom is not, uh, that I can have any outcome I want. I can't control outcomes. The most powerful, freest person in the world cannot control outcomes-

   13. LFLex Fridman6:23

       Yeah.

   14. JSJeremi Suri6:23

       ... but it means at least I get to make choices. Someone else doesn't make those choices for me.

   15. LFLex Fridman6:29

       Is there something to be said about Lincoln and, on the political game front of it? Which is, he's accomplished some of them... I- I don't know, but it seems like there was some tricky politics going on. We, we tend to not think of it in those terms because of the dark aspects of slavery. We tend to think about it in sort of ethical and human terms, but in, at, in their time, it was probably as much a game of politics, not just these broad questions of human nature, right? It was, it was a game. So is there something to be said about being a skillful player in the game of politics that you take from Lincoln?

   16. JSJeremi Suri7:08

       A- absolutely, and, um, Lincoln never read Carl von Clausewitz, the great, uh, 19th century German thinker on strategy and politics, but, but he embodied the same wisdom, which is that everything is politics.

   17. LFLex Fridman7:18

       (laughs)

   18. JSJeremi Suri7:18

       If you wanna get anything done, uh, and this includes even relationships, uh, there, there's a politics to it. What does that mean? It means that, uh, you, you have to persuade, coerce, encourage people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Uh, and Lincoln, Lincoln was a master at that. He was a master at that for two reasons. He had learned through his hard life to read people, to anticipate them, to spend a lot of time listening. One thing I often tell, uh, people is, uh, the best leaders are the listeners, not the talkers. And then second, um, Lincoln was very thoughtful and planned every move out. He was thinking three or four moves, maybe five moves down the chess board while others were at room, move number one or two.

   19. LFLex Fridman7:59

       That's fascinating to think about him just listening.

   20. JSJeremi Suri8:02

       Yeah.

   21. LFLex Fridman8:02

       Just studying. That's, uh, you know, they, they, they look at great fighters in this way, like the first few rounds of boxing and, uh, mixed martial arts, you're studying the movement of your opponent, uh, in order to sort of, uh, to find the holes. That's, that's a really interesting frame to think about it. Is there, in terms of relationships,

2. 8:23 – 14:14

   Power of charisma

   1. LFLex Fridman8:24

      where do you think as president or as a politician is the most impact to be had? I've been reading a lot about Hitler recently, and one of the things that, uh, more and more I'm starting to wonder h- what the hell did he do alone in a room with a, one-on-one with people? Because it seems like that's where he was exceptionally effective. When I, when I think about certain leaders, um, I'm not sure Stalin was this way. I apologize, been very obsessed with these-

   2. JSJeremi Suri8:54

      (laughs)

   3. LFLex Fridman8:54

      ... with this period of human history. Uh, (laughs) it just seems like certain leaders are extremely effective one-on-one. You know, a lot of people think of Hitler, even, and Lincoln as a speech maker, as a great charismatic speech maker, but it seems like, to me, that some of these guys were really effective inside a room. And, uh, w- what do you think? What's more important, your effectiveness to, uh, to make a hell of a good speech, sort of being in a room with many people, or does it all boil down to one-on-one?

   4. JSJeremi Suri9:29

      Well, I think in a sense, it's both. One needs to do both and most politicians, most leaders are better at one or the other. It's the rare leader who can do both. I will say that if you are going to be a, a figure who's a president or the leader of a complex organization, not a startup, but a complex organization where you have many different constituencies and many different interests, uh, you have to do the one-on-one really well because a lot of what's going to happen is you're going to be meeting with people who represent different groups, right? The l- leader of the labor unions, the leader of your investing board, et cetera, and you have to be able to persuade them, and it's the intangibles that often matter most. Lincoln's skill, and it's the same that FDR had, um, uh, is the ability to tell a story. I think Hitler was a little different, uh, but I'm, I'm, what I've read of Stalin is he was a storyteller too.

   5. LFLex Fridman10:18

      One-on-one storyteller?

   6. JSJeremi Suri10:19

      Yeah, that's my, my understanding is that he, he, uh... And, and what Lincoln did, I don't wanna compare Lincoln to Stalin.

   7. LFLex Fridman10:24

      (laughs)

   8. JSJeremi Suri10:24

      What Lincoln did, uh, is he, he was not confrontational. Uh, he was happy to have an argument if an argument were to be had, but actually what he would try to do is move you through telling a story that got you to think about your position in a different way, to basically disarm you. And Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. Storytelling is a very important skill.

   9. LFLex Fridman10:49

      It's almost heartbreaking that we don't get to have, or maybe you can correct me if, if I'm wrong on this, but it feels like we don't have a lot of information how all of these folks were in private one-on-one conversations. Even if we get, like, stories about it, it's like... Again, sorry to bring up Hitler, but, like, uh, people have talked about his, uh, piercing gaze when they're one-on-one. Like, there's a feeling like he's just looking through you. I wonder, like, it makes me wonder, was Lincoln somebody who was a little bit more passive? Like, who's more... Who the ego doesn't shine, it's not like an overwhelming thing. Or is it more like, um... Again, don't wanna bring up controversial figures, but, uh, Donald Trump where it's more, uh, menacing, right? There's a more, like, physically menacing thing where it's almost like a, almost like a bullying kind of, uh, uh, dynamic. So I wonder, you know, I wish, I wish we knew. I, I wish... 'Cause it, it, from a psychological perspective, I wonder if there's a thread that connects most great leaders.

   10. JSJeremi Suri11:53

       Yeah. It's a great question. Um, so I think the best writer on this is Max Weber, right? And he talks about the, the power of charisma, that the term charisma comes from Weber, right? And Weber's use of it actually to talk about prophets.

   11. LFLex Fridman12:05

       Mm-hmm.

   12. JSJeremi Suri12:06

       And I think he has a point, right? Uh, leaders who are effective in the way you describe are leaders who feel prophetic, uh, or Weber says they have a kind of magic about them. And I think that can come from different sources. I think that can come, that can come from the way someone carries themselves. It can come from the way they use words. Um, so maybe there are different kinds of magic (laughs) that, that, that someone develops. But I think there, there are two things that, that seem to be absolutely necessary. First is you have to be someone who sizes up the person on the other side of the table. You cannot be the person who just comes in and reads your brief.... and then second, I think it's interactive, uh, and there is a quickness of thought. So you brought up Donald Trump. I don't think Donald Trump is a deep thinker at all, but he's quick, and I think that quickness is part of... It's different from, from delivering a lecture where it's the depth of your thought. Can you, for 45 minutes-

   13. LFLex Fridman12:56

       Mm-hmm.

   14. JSJeremi Suri12:56

       ... analyze something? Many people can't do that, but they still might be very effective if they're able to quickly react, size up the person on the other side of the table, and react in a way that moves that person in the way they wanna move them.

   15. LFLex Fridman13:10

       Yeah, and, and there's also just a... Coupled with a quickness is a kind of instinct about human nature.

   16. JSJeremi Suri13:17

       Yes.

   17. LFLex Fridman13:17

       Sort of asking the question, "What does this person worry about? What are th- what are the biggest problems?" Somebody, um, what is it? Steven Schwarzman, I think, said to me... He's th- this businessman. I th- I think he said, like, "What I've always tried to do is try to figure out... Like, ask enough questions to figure out what is the biggest problem in this person's life."

   18. JSJeremi Suri13:40

       Hmm.

   19. LFLex Fridman13:40

       "Try to get a sense of what is the biggest problem in their life, because that's actually what they care about most, and most people don't care enough to find out." And so, he kinda wants to, uh, sneak up on that-

   20. JSJeremi Suri13:52

       Right.

   21. LFLex Fridman13:52

       ... a- and, and find that, and then use that to then build closeness in order to then... Probably he doesn't put it in those words, but to manipulate the person into whatever-

   22. JSJeremi Suri14:02

       Sure, sure.

   23. LFLex Fridman14:03

       ... to do whatever the heck they want, and I think, (sighs) I, I think part of it, uh, part of it is that and part of the effectiveness Donald Trump has is how quick he's able to figure that out.

3. 14:14 – 25:00

   US presidency

   1. LFLex Fridman14:14

      You've, uh, written a book about how the role and power of the presidency has changed. So, has... How has it changed since Lincoln's time, the evolution of the presidency as a concept? Which seems like a fascinating lens through which to look at American history-

   2. JSJeremi Suri14:33

      Sure.

   3. LFLex Fridman14:33

      ... 'cause a president... You know, (laughs) we seem to only be talking about the presidents-

   4. JSJeremi Suri14:37

      (laughs)

   5. LFLex Fridman14:38

      ... maybe a general here and there, but it's mostly... The, the story of America is often told through p- presidents.

   6. JSJeremi Suri14:45

      That's right. That's right. And one of the points I've tried to make in, in my writing about this, uh, and, and various other activities is we use this word "president" as if it's something timeless-

   7. LFLex Fridman14:55

      Mm-hmm.

   8. JSJeremi Suri14:55

      ... but the office has changed incredibly. J- just in, in Lin- from Lincoln's time to the present, which is, you know, 150 years, he wouldn't recognize the office, uh, today, and George Washington would not have recognized it in Lincoln. Just as I think a CEO today would be unrecognizable to a Rockefeller (laughs) or a Carnegie of 150 years ago. So, what are some of the ways in which the office has changed? I'll, I'll just point to three. There are a lot. Uh, one, uh, presidents now can communicate with the public directly. I mean, we've reached the point now where a president can have direct, almost one-on-one communication. The president can use Twitter if he so chooses to circumvent all media. Um, that was unthinkable. Lincoln, in order to get his message across, often wrote letters to newspapers-

   9. LFLex Fridman15:40

      (laughs)

   10. JSJeremi Suri15:40

       ... uh, and waited for the newspaper, for Horace Greeley and the New-York Tribune to publish, uh, his letter. That's how he communicated with the public. There weren't even many speaking opportunities. So that's a big change, right?

   11. LFLex Fridman15:49

       Yeah.

   12. JSJeremi Suri15:49

       We feel the president in our life much more. That's why we talk about him much more. Uh, that also creates more of a burden. This is the second point. Presidents are under a microscope. Presidents are under a microscope. You have to be very careful what you do and what you say, and you're judged by a lot of the elements of your behavior that are not policy-relevant. In fact, the things we judge most and make most of our decisions on about individuals are often that. Uh, and then third, um, the power the president has, um, it's, it's inhuman, actually, and this is one of my critiques of how the office has changed. This one person, uh, has power on a scale that's, that's, I think, dangerous in a democracy and certainly, uh, something the founders 220 years ago would have had trouble conceiving. Um, presidents now have the ability to deliver force across the world to, to literally assassinate people with remarkable accuracy, uh, and that's an enormous power that presidents have.

   13. LFLex Fridman16:44

       So your sense... This is not to get conspiratorial, but do you think a president currently has the power to, you know, initiate the assassination of somebody, of a political, um, enemy, or like a terrorist leader, or, or that kind of thing, to, to frame that person in a way where assassination is something that he alone or she alone could decide to do?

   14. JSJeremi Suri17:12

       I think it happens all the time, and it's not to be conspiratorial. This is how we've fought terrorism, by, uh, targeting individuals. Now, you might say these were not elected leaders of state, but these were individuals with a large following. I mean, the killing of Osama bin Laden was, was an assassination, uh, operation, um, and we've, we've taken out very successfully many leaders of terrorist organizations and, and we do it every day.

   15. LFLex Fridman17:35

       You're saying that back in Lincoln's time or George Washington's time, there was more of a balance of power? Like, a, a president could not initiate this kind of assassination?

   16. JSJeremi Suri17:43

       Correct. I think presidents did not have the same kind of military or economic power. We could talk about how a president can influence a market, right? By saying something pre- uh, about, uh, where, uh, money is gonna go, or, uh, singling out a company or critiquing a company in one way or another. They didn't have that kind of power. Now, much of the p- power that a Lincoln or a Washington had was the power to mobilize people to then make their own decisions. At the start of the C- Civil War, Lincoln doesn't even have the power to bring people into the army. He has to go to the governors and ask the governors to provide soldiers, so the governor of Wisconsin, the governor of Massachusetts. Could you imagine that today?

   17. LFLex Fridman18:22

       (laughs) So, but yeah, so they used speeches and words to mobilize versus direct action in closed-door environments, i- initiating wars, for example.

   18. JSJeremi Suri18:34

       Correct.

   19. LFLex Fridman18:36

       (sighs) It's difficult to think about. If we look at Barack Obama, for example-This, if you're listening to this and you're on the left or the right, please do not make this political. In fact, if you're a political person and you're getting angry at the mention of the word Obama or Donald Trump, please turn off this podcast-

   20. JSJeremi Suri18:56

       (laughs)

   21. LFLex Fridman18:56

       ... and unsubscribe. We're not gonna get very far. I hope we maintain apolitical discussion about even the modern presidents that, uh, viewed through a lens of history, I think there's a lot to be learned through, abou- about the office and about human nature. Some people criticize Barack Obama for, for sort of, uh, expanding the, the military-industrial complex, engaging in more and more wars, as opposed to sort of the initial rhetoric was such that we would pull back, uh, from, sort of be more skeptical in our decisions to wage wars. So, from the lens of the power of the presidency, as the modern presidency, the fact that we continued the war in Afghanistan and different engagements in, in military conflicts, do you think Barack Obama could've stopped that? Do you put the responsibility on that expansion on him because of the implied power that the presidency has? Or is this, power just sits there and if a president chooses to take it, they do, and if they don't, they don't? Almost like you don't want to enga- take on the responsibility because of the, the burden of that responsibility.

   22. JSJeremi Suri20:13

       So, uh, a lot of my research is about this exact question, not just with Obama, and my conclusion, and I think the research is pretty clear on this, is that structure has a lot more effect on us than we like to admit, which is to say that the circumstances, the institutions around us drive our behavior more than we like to think. So Barack Obama, I'm quite certain, came into the office of the presidency committed to actually reducing the use of military force overseas and reducing presidential war-making power. Uh, as a trained lawyer, he had a moral position on this, actually (laughs) . And he tried, and, and he did withdraw American forces from Iraq, and was of course criticized by many people for doing that, but at the same time he had some real problems in the world to deal with, terrorism being one of them, and the tools he has are very much biased towards the use of military force. It's much harder as president to go and get Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to agree with you. It's much easier to send these wonderful toys we have and these incredible soldiers we have over there, and when you have Congress which is always against you, it's also easier to use the military because you send them there and even if members of Congress from your own party or the other are angry at you, they'll still fund the soldiers. No member of Congress wants to vote to starve our soldiers overseas, so they'll stop your budget, they'll even threaten not to pay the debt (laughs) , but they'll still fund your soldiers. And so, you are pushed by the circumstances you're in to do this, and it's very hard to resist. So that's, I think the criticism of Obama, the fair one would be that he didn't resist the pressures that were there, but he did not make those pressures.

   23. LFLex Fridman21:47

       So, is there something about the putting the responsibility on the president to co- to form the structure around him locally such that he can make the policy that the r- that matches the rhetoric? So, what I'm s- talking to is hiring. So, basically just everybody you work with, you have power as a president to, to, to fire and hire or to, to basically schedule meetings (laughs) -

   24. JSJeremi Suri22:15

       (laughs)

   25. LFLex Fridman22:15

       ... in such a way that, uh, can control your decision-making. So, I imagine it's very difficult to, to, uh, get out of Afghanistan or Iraq when most of your s- scheduled meetings are with generals.

   26. JSJeremi Suri22:29

       Right.

   27. LFLex Fridman22:30

       Or something like that.

   28. JSJeremi Suri22:31

       Right.

   29. LFLex Fridman22:31

       But if you reorganize the schedule-

   30. JSJeremi Suri22:33

       Yes, yes.
4. 25:00 – 30:06

   Aliens

   1. JSJeremi Suri25:00

   2. LFLex Fridman25:00

      Let me ask you the most absurd question of all that you did not sign up for, but it's, uh, es- especially I've been hanging out with a guy named Joe Rogan recently.

   3. JSJeremi Suri25:08

      Sure.

   4. LFLex Fridman25:08

      So it's very important, um, for, for m- for me and him to figure this out. If a president, 'cause you said, you implied the president's very powerful. If a president shows up and, and, uh, US government is in fact in possession of aliens, alien spacecraft, do you think the president will be told? A more responsible adult historian question version of that is, uh, is there some things that the machine of government keeps secret from the president or is the president ultimately at the very center? So if you, like, map out the set of information and power, you have, you have, like, CIA, you have all these organizations that, like, that do the, um, the machinery of government, not just, like, the passing of bills, but, like, uh, gaining information, ho- uh, homeland security, uh, actually, like, engaging in wars, you know, all those kinds of things. Uh, how central is the president? Would the president know some of the shady things that are going on? A- aliens or some kind of cybersecurity stuff against Russia and China, all those kinds of things. Is the president really made aware and how n- if so, how nervous does that make you?

   5. JSJeremi Suri26:26

      So, um, presidents, like leaders of any complex organizations, uh, don't know everything that goes on. Uh, they have to ask the right questions. This is Machiavelli. Most important thing a leader has to do is ask the right questions. You don't have to know the answers. That's why you hire smart people. But you have to ask the right questions. So if the president asks, uh, the US government, those who are responsible for the aliens or responsible for the cyberwarfare against Russia, they will answer honestly. They will have to. Um, but they will not volunteer that information in all cases. So the best way a president can operate is to have people around him or her who are not the traditional policymakers, this is where I think academic experts are important, suggesting questions to ask to therefore try to get the information.

   6. LFLex Fridman27:14

      It makes me nervous because I think human nature is such that the a- the academics, the experts, everybody is almost afraid to ask the questions for which the answers might, uh, be burdensome.

   7. JSJeremi Suri27:32

      Yes.

   8. LFLex Fridman27:33

      And so-

   9. JSJeremi Suri27:34

      That's right.

   10. LFLex Fridman27:35

       A- a- and you can get into a lot of trouble not asking ... It's the old elephant in the room. (laughs)

   11. JSJeremi Suri27:40

       Correct. Correct. Y- y- e- e- this is exactly right, and too often mediocre leaders and those who try to protect them try to shield themselves. They don't want to know certain things. So this is part of what happened with the use of torture by the United States, which is a war crime, um, during the war on terror. Uh, President Bush at times intentionally did not ask and people around him prevented him from asking or discouraged him from asking questions he should've asked to know about what was going on, and that's how we ended up where we did. Uh, you could say the same thing about Reagan and Iran-Contra.

   12. LFLex Fridman28:15

       I wonder what it takes to be the kind of leader that steps in and asks some difficult questions. So aliens is one. UFO spacecraft, right? A- a- another one, yeah, torture is another one. The CIA, how much information is being collected about Americans? I can see as a president being very uncomfortable asking that question 'cause if the answer is a lot of information's being collected by, uh, Americans, then you have to be the guy who's lives with that information. Y- for the rest of your life, you have to walk around, you're probably not going to reform that system. It's very difficult. You have to, you probably have to be very picky about which things you reform. You don't have much time. It takes a lot of sort of effort to restructure things. But you nevertheless would have to be basically lying to, uh, to the r- you know, to, to yo- to yourself, to others around you about the unethical things. Depends of course what your e- uh, the ethical system is. I wonder what it takes to ask those hard questions. I wonder if how few of us are, can be great leaders like that, and I wonder if our political system, the electoral system is such that makes it likely that such leaders will come to power.

   13. JSJeremi Suri29:35

       It's hard and you can't ask all the right questions, and there is, uh, a legal hazard if you know things at certain times. But I think you can, back to your point on hiring, you can hire people who will do that in their domains, and then you have to trust that when they think it's something that's a question you need to ask, they'll pass that onto you. Uh, this is why it's not a good idea to have loyalists because loyalists will shield you from things. It's a good idea to have people of integrity, uh, who you can rely on and who you think will ask those right questions and then pass that down through their organization.

5. 30:06 – 32:57

   Bill Clinton

   1. JSJeremi Suri30:07

   2. LFLex Fridman30:07

      What's inspiring to you, what's insightful to you about several of the presidencies throughout the recent decades? Is there somebody that stands out to you that's interesting in, in sort of in your study of how the office has changed?

   3. JSJeremi Suri30:22

      Well, Bill Clinton is one of the most-

   4. LFLex Fridman30:24

      (laughs)

   5. JSJeremi Suri30:24

      ... fascinating figures.

   6. LFLex Fridman30:25

      Why can I, I apologize. Bill Clinton just puts a smile on my face every time somebody mentions him at this point. I don't know why.

   7. JSJeremi Suri30:31

      (laughs)

   8. LFLex Fridman30:31

      He's, I guess charisma, I suppose.

   9. JSJeremi Suri30:33

      Well, and he's a, he's-

   10. LFLex Fridman30:34

       (laughs)

   11. JSJeremi Suri30:34

       ... he's a unique individual. But, but, uh, he, um, he fascinates me, uh, because he's a figure of such enormous talent and enormous appetite and such little self-control, uh, and such, uh, extremes. Uh, and, and I think it's not just that he tells us something about the presidency, he tells us something about our society. Uh, you know, American society, this is not new to our time. It's filled with enorman- re- enormous reservoirs of talent and creativity.... and those have a bright and a dark side, and you see both with Bill Clinton. In some ways, he's the mirror of the best and worst of our society, and maybe that's really what presidents are in the end, right? They're mirrors of our world, that we get the government we deserve, we get the leaders we deserve.

   12. LFLex Fridman31:18

       I wish we embraced that a little bit more. You know, a lot of people criticize, you know, Donald Trump for certain human qualities that he has. A lot of people criticize Bill Clinton for certain human qualities. I wish we kind of embraced the chaos of that. I w- uh, uh, you know, because he, he does, you're right, in some sense represent ... I mean, he doesn't represent the greatest ideal of America, but the, the flawed aspect of human nature is what he represents, and that's the beautiful thing about America, the diversity of this land with the, the mix of it, the, the corruption of, of within capitalism. The, the beauty of capitalism, the innovation, all those kinds of things that people that f- start from nothing and create everything. The Elon Musks of the world-

   13. JSJeremi Suri32:03

       That's right.

   14. LFLex Fridman32:03

       ... and the Bill Gates and so on, but also the people, Bernie Madoffs and, and all as the Me Too movement has showed, the, the multitude of creeps that apparently-

   15. JSJeremi Suri32:13

       (laughs)

   16. LFLex Fridman32:13

       ... (laughs) permeate the, uh, the entirety of our system. So, I don't know. There is something, um, there, there is some sense in which we put our president on a pedestal, which actually creates a fake human being. Like, we, the, the standard we hold them to is forcing the fake politicians to come to power versus the authentic one, which is, in some sense, the promise of Donald Trump is, uh, a s- like, it's a, it's a definitive statement of authenticity. It's like, this is the opposite of the fake politician. It's whatever else you wanna say about him is there's th- the, the chaos that's unlike anything else that, uh, came before.

6. 32:57 – 37:47

   Students of history

   1. LFLex Fridman32:57

      One thing, and this is a particular maybe preference and quirk of mine, but I really admire ... Maybe I'm romanticizing the past again, but I romanticize the presidents that were students of history.

   2. JSJeremi Suri33:09

      Yeah.

   3. LFLex Fridman33:10

      The, uh, they were almost like king philosophers, you know, great ph- gr- you know, that made speeches that, um, you know, reverberated through decades after, right? And we, uh, we kind of, uh, z- using the words of those presidents, whether written by them or not, we tell the story of America. And, I don't know, does ... Even Obama has been an exceptionally good, as far as I know, I apologize if I'm incorrect on this, but he, from everything I've seen, he was a very deep scholar of history, and I really admire that. Is that through the, through the history of the Office of the Presidency, is that just your own preference or is that supposed to come with the job? Are you supposed to be a student of history?

   4. JSJeremi Suri34:00

      I, I think, I mean, I'm obviously biased as a historian, but I do think it comes with the job. Every president I've studied, uh, had a serious interest in history. Now, how they pursued that interest would vary. Uh, Obama was more bookish, more academic. Uh, so was George W. Bush in strange ways. George H.W. Bush was less so, but George H.W. Bush loved to talk to people, so he would talk to historians, right?

   5. LFLex Fridman34:24

      Mm-hmm.

   6. JSJeremi Suri34:24

      Ronald Reagan, uh, loved movies and movies were, uh, an insight into history for him. He likes to watch movies about another time. It's not, wasn't always the best of history, but he was interested in what is a fundamental historical question. How has, how has our society developed? How has it grown and changed over time? And how has that change affected who we are today? That's the historical question. It's really interesting to me, I do a lot of work with business leaders and others too, uh, you reach a certain point in any career and you become a historian.

   7. LFLex Fridman34:57

      Mm-hmm.

   8. JSJeremi Suri34:57

      Because you realize that the formulas and the technical knowledge that you've gained got you to where you are, but now your decisions are about human nature, your decisions are about social change, and they can't be answered technically. They can only be answered by studying human beings. And what is history? It's studying the laboratory of human behavior.

   9. LFLex Fridman35:19

      To, to sort of play devil's advocate, I kinda, especially in the, uh, engineering scientific domains, I often see history holding us back. (laughs) Sort of, uh, the way things were done in the past are not necessarily going to hold the key to what, uh, will progress us into the future. Uh, of course, with history in studying human nature, it does seem like humans are just the same. (laughs) It's just, like, the same problems over and over.

   10. JSJeremi Suri35:51

       Yes. Yes.

   11. LFLex Fridman35:51

       So, in that sense, it feels like history has all the lessons, whether we're talking about wars, whether we're talking about corruption, whether we're talking about economics.

   12. JSJeremi Suri36:02

       I think there's a difference between, um, history and antiquarianism.

   13. LFLex Fridman36:06

       Mm-hmm.

   14. JSJeremi Suri36:06

       So, antiquarianism, what some people call history, uh, is the desire to go back to the past or stay stuck in the past. So, antiquarianism is the desire to have the desk that Abraham Lincoln sat at. Wouldn't it be cool to sit at his desk?

   15. LFLex Fridman36:18

       Yes.

   16. JSJeremi Suri36:19

       I'd love to have that desk. If I had a few extra million dollars, I'd acquire it, right? So, in a way, uh, that's antiquarianism. That's trying to capture and hold on, hold onto the past. The past is a talisman-

   17. LFLex Fridman36:30

       Mm-hmm.

   18. JSJeremi Suri36:30

       ... uh, for antiquarians. Um, what history is, is the study of change over time. That's the real definition of historical study and historical thinking. And so, what we're studying is change, and so a historian should never say, "Um, we have to do things the way we've done them in the past." The historian should say, "We can't do them the way we did them in the past. We can't step in the same river twice." Every podcast of yours is different from the last one. Right? You plan it out and then it goes in its own direction, right? (laughs)

   19. LFLex Fridman36:59

       Yeah. (laughs)

   20. JSJeremi Suri37:00

       Um, and, um, what are we studying then in history? We're studying the patterns of change and we're recognizing we're part of a pattern.So what I would say to the historian who's trying to hold the engineer back, I'd say, "No. Don't tell that engineer not to do this. Tell him to understand how this fits into the relationship with other engineering products and other activities from the past that still affect us today." For example, any product you produce is going to be used by human beings who have prejudices. It's gonna go into an unequal society. Don't assume it's gonna go into an equal society. Don't assume that when you create a social media site that people are going to use it fairly and put only truthful things on it.

   21. LFLex Fridman37:38

       Mm-hmm.

   22. JSJeremi Suri37:38

       Uh, we shouldn't be surprised. That's where human nature comes in. But it's not trying to hold onto the past, it's trying to use the knowledge from the past to better inform the changes today.

7. 37:47 – 40:34

   George Washington

   1. JSJeremi Suri37:48

   2. LFLex Fridman37:48

      I have to ask you about George Washington. It ... may be, maybe you have some insights. It seems like he's s- such a fascinating figure in the context of the study of power. Because I kind of intuitively have come to internalize the belief that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

   3. JSJeremi Suri38:07

      Yes.

   4. LFLex Fridman38:09

      And then, and (laughs) and sort of like basically i- in thinking that we have to, we cannot trust any one individual. I can't trust myself with power. I can't tr- nobody can trust anybody with power. We have to create institutions and structures that prevent us from ever being able to amass absolute power. And yet, here's a guy, George Washington, who seems to, uh, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to give away, relinquish power. Uh, it feels like George Washington did it like almost like the purest of ways. Which is, uh, believes in this country, but he just believes he's not the person to, to uh, to uh, to carry it for- forward. I ... what, what do you make of that? What, what kind of human does it (laughs) take to really, to give away that power? Is there some hopeful message we can carry through to the future to h- to, to elect leaders like that or to h- or to, uh, find friends to hang out with who are like that? Like what is that?

   5. JSJeremi Suri39:10

      So-

   6. LFLex Fridman39:10

      How do you explain that? (laughs)

   7. JSJeremi Suri39:11

      So it's uh, it, it's actually the most important thing about George Washington. It's the right thing to, to bring up. Um, what, uh, the historian Garry Wills wrote years ago, I'm gonna quote him, was that Washington recognized that sometimes you get more power by giving it up than by trying to hold on to every last piece of it. Uh, Washington gives up power at the end of the Revolution. He's successfully carried through the Revolutionary War aims. He's commander of the Revolutionary forces, and he gives up his command. And then of course he's president, and after two terms, he gives up his command. What is he doing? He, he's an ambitious person. But he's recognizing that the most important currency he has for power is his respected status as a disinterested statesman. That's really what his power is. And how does he further that power? By showing that he doesn't crave power. (laughs)

   8. LFLex Fridman40:04

      So he was self-aware of this.

   9. JSJeremi Suri40:05

      Very self-aware of this, and very sophisticated in understanding, understanding this. And, and I think there are many other leaders who, who recognize that. Um, y- you can look to, uh, in some ways, um, the story of many of our presidents who even before there is a two-term limit in the Constitution leave after two terms. Um, they do that because they recognize that their power is the power of being a statesman, um, not of being a president.

8. 40:34 – 47:16

   Putin

   1. JSJeremi Suri40:34

   2. LFLex Fridman40:34

      I still wonder what kind of man it takes, what kind of human being it takes to do that. Because I've been studying Vladimir Putin quite a bit.

   3. JSJeremi Suri40:44

      Right.

   4. LFLex Fridman40:44

      And he's still, I believe, he still has popular support, that that's not fully manipulated. Because I know a lot of people in Russia, and actually b- almost the entirety of my family in Russia are big supporters of Putin, and everybody I talk to. So this is not just like on social media.

   5. JSJeremi Suri41:05

      Right.

   6. LFLex Fridman41:06

      Like the people that live in Russia seems to, seem to support him. It feels like this will be, uh, in a George Washington way, now would be the time that would P- Putin, just like Yeltsin, could relinquish power, and thereby, in the eyes of Russians, become in the, in like the long arc of history, be viewed as a great leader. Y- you look at the economic growth of Russia, you look at the rescue from the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia finding its footing, and then relinquishing power in a way that, that perhaps if Russia succeeds, forms a truly democratic state.

   7. JSJeremi Suri41:47

      Mm-hmm.

   8. LFLex Fridman41:48

      This would be how Putin can become one of the great leaders in Russian history, uh, at least in the, in the, in the context of the 21st century.

   9. JSJeremi Suri41:56

      I, I think there are two reasons why this is really hard, uh, for Putin and for others. Uh, one is the trappings of power are very seductive. As you've said before, they're corrupting. This is a real problem, right? Uh, if it's in the business context, you don't want to give up that private jet. (laughs) Uh, if it's in Putin's context, it's billions of dollars every year that he's able to take for himself or give to his friends. It's not that he'll be poor if he leaves. He'll still be rich, and he has billions of dollars stored away, but he won't be able to get the new billions.

   10. LFLex Fridman42:26

       Mm-hmm.

   11. JSJeremi Suri42:26

       And so that's part of the trappings of power, are, are a big deal. And then second, uh, in Putin's case in particular, he has to be worried about what happens next. Will he be tried? Will someone, you know, try to come and arrest him? Will someone try to come and assassinate him? Um, Washington recognized that leaving early limited the corruption and limited the enemies that you made. And so it was a strategic choice. Uh, uh, Putin has at this point been in power too long. And, and this comes back to your core insight. It's a cliche, but it's true. Power corrupts. No one should have power for too long. This was one of the best insights the founders of the United States had, that power was to be held for a short time as a fiduciary responsibility, not as something you owned. Right? This is the problem with monarchy, with aristocracy, that you own power. Right? We don't own power. We, we are in ... holding it in trust. (laughs)

   12. LFLex Fridman43:17

       Okay.Yeah, there's, uh, there's some probably, like, very specific psychological study of, uh, how many years it takes for you to forget that you can't own power.

   13. JSJeremi Suri43:28

       That's right.

   14. LFLex Fridman43:29

       There's, you know, that could be a, a much more rigorous discussion about the length of terms that are appropriate, but really there's an amount, like Stalin had power for 30 years, like Putin is pushing tho- those, that many years already. There's a certain point where you forget the person you were before you took the power.

   15. JSJeremi Suri43:48

       That's right.

   16. LFLex Fridman43:49

       You forget to be humble in the face of this responsibility, and then there's no going back.

   17. JSJeremi Suri43:55

       That's right.

   18. LFLex Fridman43:55

       And that's how dictators are born. That's how the evil, like, uh, authoritarians become evil or let's not use the word evil, but, uh, counterproductive, destructive to the, to the idea that they initially probably came to office with.

   19. JSJeremi Suri44:13

       That's right. That's right. One of the core historical insights is people should move jobs. (laughs)

   20. LFLex Fridman44:19

       (laughs) And this applies for CEOs probably too.

   21. JSJeremi Suri44:21

       Absolutely. They can go become CEO somewhere else, but don't stay CEO one place too long. It, it's a problem with startups, right? The founder, you can have a brilliant founder and that founder doesn't wanna let go.

   22. LFLex Fridman44:31

       Yeah.

   23. JSJeremi Suri44:32

       Right? It's the same issue.

   24. LFLex Fridman44:33

       At the same time, I mean this is where Elon Musk and a few others like, uh, Larry Page and Sergey Brin that stayed for quite a long time and they actually were the beacon. They on their shoulders carried the dream of the company-

   25. JSJeremi Suri44:48

       Yeah.

   26. LFLex Fridman44:48

       ... where everybody else doubted. So, but that seems to be the exception-

   27. JSJeremi Suri44:53

       Right.

   28. LFLex Fridman44:53

       ... versus the rule.

   29. JSJeremi Suri44:54

       Well, and even Sergey for example, right, has stepped back, right? He plays less of a day to day role and is not running Google in the way he did.

   30. LFLex Fridman45:01

       But the interesting thing is he stepped back in a quite tragic way-
9. 47:16 – 1:02:28

   FDR

   1. LFLex Fridman47:17

      Uh, you've mentioned that FDR, Franklin D. Ro- Ro- Roosevelt is, uh, one of the great leaders in American history. Why is that?

   2. JSJeremi Suri47:25

      Franklin Roosevelt had the power of empathy.

   3. LFLex Fridman47:29

      (laughs)

   4. JSJeremi Suri47:29

      No leader that I have ever studied or been around or spent any time reading about was able to connect with people who were so different from himself as Franklin Roosevelt. He came from the most elite family. He never had to work for a paycheck in his life. When he was president, he was still collecting an allowance from his mom.

   5. LFLex Fridman47:46

      (laughs)

   6. JSJeremi Suri47:46

      I mean you couldn't be more elite than Franklin Roosevelt, but he authentically connected, this was not, you know, propaganda. He was able to feel the pain and understand the lives of some of the most destitute Americans in other parts of the country.

   7. LFLex Fridman48:01

      That's interesting. So through the, through one of the hardest economic periods of American history he was able to feel the pain.

   8. JSJeremi Suri48:08

      He was able to... The number of immigrants I read oral histories from or who have written themselves... Saul Bellow is one example, the great novelist, who talked about how as immigrants to the US... Saul Bellow was a Russian Jewish immigrant. He said, "Growing up in Chicago, politicians were all trying to steal from us. I didn't think any of them cared until I heard FDR and I knew he spoke to me." Uh, and, and I think part of it was FDR really tried to understand people. That's the first thing, he was humble enough to try to do that. But second, he had a talent for that and it's hard to know exactly what it was (laughs) . But he had a talent for putting himself, imagining himself in someone else's shoes.

   9. LFLex Fridman48:45

      What, uh, stands out to you as, uh, important... I mean, so he was... He went through the Great Depression, the, so the New Deal which some people criticize, some people see... I mean it's, it's funny to look at some of these policies and their long, um, ripple effects. But at the time, it's some of the most, uh, innovative policies-

   10. JSJeremi Suri49:07

       Yes.

   11. LFLex Fridman49:08

       ... in the, in the history of America. You could say they're, they're ultimately not good for America but they're nevertheless hold within them very rich and important lessons. But the New Deal and obviously World War II, um, that entire process, is there something that stands out to you as, um...... particularly great moment that made FDR?

   12. JSJeremi Suri49:30

       Yes. I think, uh, what FDR does from his first 100 days in office forward, and this begins with his fireside chats, is he helps Americans to see that they're all in it together.

   13. LFLex Fridman49:42

       Hmm.

   14. JSJeremi Suri49:43

       And that's by creating hope and creating a sense of common suffering and common mission. It's not offering simple solutions. One of the lessons from FDR is, "If you wanna bring people together, don't offer a simple solution."

   15. LFLex Fridman49:56

       Right.

   16. JSJeremi Suri49:56

       'Cause as soon as I offer a simple solution, I have people for it and against it.

   17. LFLex Fridman49:59

       Mm-hmm.

   18. JSJeremi Suri50:00

       Don't do that. Explain the problem, frame the problem, and then give people a mission. So Roosevelt's first, uh, radio address, uh, in March of 1933, the banking system is collapsing and we can't imagine it, right? Banks were closing and you couldn't get your money out. Your life savings would be lost, right? We can't imagine that happening in our world today. He comes on the radio, he takes five minutes to explain how banking works. Most people didn't understand how banking worked, right? They don't actually hold your money in a vault.

   19. LFLex Fridman50:28

       Mm-hmm.

   20. JSJeremi Suri50:28

       They lend it out to someone else. And then he explains why if you go and take your money out of the bank and put it in your mattress, you're making it worse for yourself.

   21. LFLex Fridman50:36

       Mm-hmm.

   22. JSJeremi Suri50:36

       He explains this, uh, and then he says, "I don't..." He doesn't... "I don't have a solution, but here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna send in government, uh, officers to examine the banks and show you the books on the banks, and I want you help me by going and putting your money back in the banks. We're all gonna do this together." No simple solution, no ideological statement, but a sense of common mission. Let's go out and do this together. When you read, as I have, so many of these oral histories and memoirs for people who lived through that period, many of them disagreed with some of his policies. Many of them thought he was too close to Jews, and they didn't like the fact he had a woman in his cabinet and all that.

   23. LFLex Fridman51:13

       Mm-hmm.

   24. JSJeremi Suri51:13

       But they felt he cared and they felt they were part of some common mission. And when they talk about their experience fighting in World War II, whether in Europe or Asia, it was that that prepared them. They knew what it meant to be an American when they were over there. Uh, so that to me is a model of leadership, and I think that's as possible today as it's ever been.

   25. LFLex Fridman51:33

       So you think it's possible? Like I- I was going to ask, this... Again, it may be a very shallow view, but it feels like this country is- is more divided than it has been in, uh, recent history. Perhaps the s- social media and all those kinds of things are, um, merely revealing the division as opposed to creating the division, but is it possible to have a leader that unites in the same way that FDR did without... Well, we're living through a pandemic. This is already very-

   26. JSJeremi Suri52:07

       Yes.

   27. LFLex Fridman52:08

       So like, I was gonna say without suffering, but there's... This is economic suffering.

   28. JSJeremi Suri52:12

       Right.

   29. LFLex Fridman52:12

       A huge number of people have lost their job.

   30. JSJeremi Suri52:14

       Right.
10. 1:02:28 – 1:12:21

    Henry Kissinger

    1. LFLex Fridman1:02:28

       Speaking of war, you wrote a book on Henry Kissinger.

    2. JSJeremi Suri1:02:34

       (laughs)

    3. LFLex Fridman1:02:35

       It's not a great transition, but it made sense in my head. (laughs) Who was Henry Kissinger as a man and as a historical figure?

    4. JSJeremi Suri1:02:43

       So, Henry Kissinger to me is one of the most fascinating figures in history because he comes to the United States as a German-Jewish immigrant at age 15 speaking no English and within a few years, uh, he's a major figure, uh, influencing US foreign policy at the height of US power. Uh, but while he's doing that, he, he's never elected to office and he's constantly reviled by people, including people who are antisemitic because he's Jewish, uh, but at the same time also, his, uh, exoticism makes him more attractive to people. So someone like Nelson Rockefeller wants Kissinger around, he's one of Kissinger's first patrons 'cause he wants a really smart Jew-

    5. LFLex Fridman1:03:22

       (laughs)

    6. JSJeremi Suri1:03:22

       ... and Kissinger's gonna be that smart Jew. I call Kissinger a policy Jew. There were these court Jews in the 16th and 17th and 18th centuries in Europe, every king wanted the Jew to manage his banking and in a sense in the United States in the second half of the 20th century, many presidents want a Jew to manage their international affairs. And what does that really mean? It's not just about being Jewish-

    7. LFLex Fridman1:03:41

       Yeah.

    8. JSJeremi Suri1:03:41

       ... it's the internationalism, it's the cosmopolitanism, uh, and that's one of the things I was fascinated with with Kissinger. Someone like Kissinger is unthinkable as a powerful figure in the United States 30 or 40 years earlier because the United States is run by WASPs, it's run by, uh, white elites who come from a certain background. Uh, Kissinger represents a moment when American society opens up, not to everyone-

    9. LFLex Fridman1:04:02

       Mm-hmm.

    10. JSJeremi Suri1:04:03

        ... but opens up to these cosmopolitan figures who have language skills, historical knowledge, networks that can be used for the US government when after World War II we have to rebuild Europe, when we have to negotiate with the Soviet Union, when we need the kinds of knowledge we didn't have before. And Harvard, where he gets his education late, he started at City College actually, but Harvard where he gets his education late, is at the center of what's happening at all of these major universities, at Harvard, at Yale, at Stanford, at the University of Texas, everywhere, where they're growing in their international affairs, bringing in the kinds of people who never would be at the university before, training them, and then enlisting them in Cold War activities. And so Kissinger is a representative of that phenomenon. I became interested in him because I think he's a bellwether, he shows how power has changed in the United States.

    11. LFLex Fridman1:04:52

        So he enters this whole world of, uh, politics, what, post-World War II in the '50s?

    12. JSJeremi Suri1:05:00

        Yes. So he, he actually, in the '40s even, it- it's an extraordinary story. He comes to the United States in 1938 just before Kristallnacht, his family leaves, they- they- he actually grew up right outside of Nuremberg, they leave, uh, right before Kristallnacht, uh, in- in fall of '38, come to- come to New York, he originally works in a brush factory cleaning brushes, goes to a public high school, and in 1942 just after Pearl Harbor he joins the military and he's very quickly in the military first of all given citizenship, which he didn't have before.

    13. LFLex Fridman1:05:33

        Mm-hmm.

    14. JSJeremi Suri1:05:33

        Uh, he's sent for the first time outside of a kosher home, he had been in a kosher home his entire life, he's sent to South Carolina to eat ham for Uncle Sam-

    15. LFLex Fridman1:05:41

        (laughs) Nice.

    16. JSJeremi Suri1:05:42

        ... and then he is, and this is extraordinary, at- at the age of 20, uh, barely speaking English, uh, he is sent back to Germany with the US Army in an elite counterintelligence role. Why?

    17. LFLex Fridman1:05:55

        Wow.

    18. JSJeremi Suri1:05:55

        Because they need German speakers. He came when he was 15 so he actually understands the society, they need people who have that cultural knowledge.

    19. LFLex Fridman1:06:02

        Mm-hmm.

    20. JSJeremi Suri1:06:02

        And because he's Jewish, they can trust that he'll be anti-Nazi. And there's a whole group of these figures, uh, he's one of many, and so he's in an elite circle. He's- he's discriminated against in New York. When he goes to Harvard after that, he can only live in a Jewish-only dorm. But at the same time, he's in an elite policy role-

    21. LFLex Fridman1:06:21

        Mm-hmm.

    22. JSJeremi Suri1:06:22

        ... in counter-intelligence. He forms a network there that stays with him the rest of his, uh, career. Uh, there's a gentleman named Fritz Kraemer who becomes a sponsor of his, uh, in the emerging Pentagon Defense Department world, and as early as the early 1950s he's sent then to Korea to comment on affairs in Korea. He becomes both an intellectual recognized for his connections, but also someone who policymakers want to talk about. His book on nuclear weapons when it's written is given to President Eisenhower to read because they say, "This is someone writing interesting things, you should read what he says."

    23. LFLex Fridman1:06:56

        There's a certain aspect to him that's kind of like Forrest Gump. He seems to continuously be the right person at the right time in the right place. (laughs)

    24. JSJeremi Suri1:07:03

        That's right.

    25. LFLex Fridman1:07:04

        Somehow finding him in this... I don't- I- I don't under- you know, you can only get s- lucky (laughs) so many times because he continues to get lucky in terms of being at the right place in h- in history for many decades, until today.

    26. JSJeremi Suri1:07:19

        Yeah. Well, he has a knack for that. He- I- I spent a lot of time talking with him, um, and what comes through very quickly is that he has an eye for power. Uh, it- it's, I think, unhealthy. He's obsessed with power.

    27. LFLex Fridman1:07:33

        Can you explain, like, an observer of power?

    28. JSJeremi Suri1:07:36

        Yes.

    29. LFLex Fridman1:07:36

        Or this, or being, uh, does he want power himself?

    30. JSJeremi Suri1:07:39

        Yes. Both of those things. Both of tho- a- a- and I think, I explain this in the book, uh, he doesn't agree with what I'm gonna say now, um, but I think I'm right and I think he's right. (laughs) It- it's very hard to analyze yourself, right?
11. 1:12:21 – 1:24:12

    Realpolitik

    1. JSJeremi Suri1:12:21

    2. LFLex Fridman1:12:21

       So that, that speaks to the very pragmatic approach that he's taken, um, the realistic approach versus the idealistic approach, uh, t- termed, uh, realpolitik. What is this thing? What is, what is this approach to world politics?

    3. JSJeremi Suri1:12:39

       So, realpolitik for Kissinger is, um, really focusing on the power centers in the world and trying as best you can to manipulate those power centers to serve the interests of your own country. And so that's why he's a multilateralist, he's not a unilateralist. He believes the United States should put itself at the center of negotiations between other powerful countries, but that's also why he pays very little attention to countries that are less powerful, and this is why he's often criticized by human rights activists. For him, parts of Africa and Latin America which you and I would consider important places are unimportant because they don't have power. They can't project their power. They don't produce a lot of economic wealth, and so they matter less. Realpolitik views the world in a hierarchy of power.

    4. LFLex Fridman1:13:27

       How does realpolitik realize itself in the world? What does, what does, what does that really mean? Like, how do you, uh, push forward the interests of your own country? You said there's power centers, but it, uh, is a, is a big bold move to negotiate, to work with a communist na- to, to, with your enemies that are powerful. How... what is the sort of, if you can further elaborate-

    5. JSJeremi Suri1:13:53

       Sure.

    6. LFLex Fridman1:13:54

       ... the philosophy behind it.

    7. JSJeremi Suri1:13:55

       Sure. So there, there, there are two key elements that then e- end up producing all kinds of tactics, but the two strategic elements of Kissinger's way of thinking about realpolitik, which are classical ways going back to Thucydides and the Greeks-

    8. LFLex Fridman1:14:06

       Mm-hmm.

    9. JSJeremi Suri1:14:07

       ... uh, are to say first of all, you figure out who your allies are and you build webs of connection.... so that your allies help you to acquire what you want to acquire. Right? This is why, according to Herodotus, the Greeks beat the Persians. The Persians are bigger, but the Greeks, the Spartans, the Athenians, and others were able to work together and leverage their resources, right? So, it's about leveraging your resources. For Kissinger, this makes Western Europe crucially important. It makes Japan crucially important. It makes Israel and Egypt crucially important, right? In building these webs, you build your surrogates, you build your brother states in other parts of the world, you build tight connections, and you work together to control the resources that you want. The second element of the strategy is not to go to war with your adversary, but to do all you can to limit the power of your adversary. Some of that is containment, uh, preventing, uh, the Soviet Union from expanding. That was the key element of American Cold War policy. But sometimes it, it's actually negotiation. Um, that's what detente was about for Kissinger. He spends a lot of time, more time than any other American foreign policy maker, negotiating with Soviet leaders as well as Chinese leaders. What does he want to do? He wants to limit the nuclear arms race. The United States is ahead. W- we don't want the Soviet Union to get ahead of us. We negotiate, um, to limit their abilities, right? We play to our strengths. Um, so it's a combination of keeping your adversary down and building tight webs. Um, within that context, military force is used, but you're not using war for the sake of war.

    10. LFLex Fridman1:15:38

        Mm-hmm.

    11. JSJeremi Suri1:15:39

        You're using warfare to further your access to the resources, economic, political, geographic, that you want. And then-

    12. LFLex Fridman1:15:46

        To build relationships, and then the second thing, to limit the powers of those you're against.

    13. JSJeremi Suri1:15:51

        Exactly.

    14. LFLex Fridman1:15:51

        So, uh, is there any, uh, sort of, um, insights into how he preferred to build relationships? Are we talking about like, again, s- it's the one-on-one? Is it through policy or is it through like phone conversations? Is there any c- cool kind of insights that you could speak to?

    15. JSJeremi Suri1:16:09

        Yeah. Kissinger is the, um, ultimate kiss-up. (laughs)

    16. LFLex Fridman1:16:14

        (laughs)

    17. JSJeremi Suri1:16:14

        He is, uh, some- some used to make fun of him. In fact, even, uh, the film, the- the- the filmmaker, uh, from Dr. Strangelove, whose name I'm forgetting, uh, right, Stanley Kubrick-

    18. LFLex Fridman1:16:23

        Yeah.

    19. JSJeremi Suri1:16:23

        ... called him kiss-up at that time (laughs) , right? Um, he had a wonderful way of figuring out what it is you wanted, back to that discussion we had before-

    20. LFLex Fridman1:16:33

        Mm-hmm.

    21. JSJeremi Suri1:16:33

        ... and trying to show how he could give you more of what you wanted as a leader. It was very personalistic. Uh, very personalistic. And, uh, he spends a lot of time, for example, kissing up to Leonid Brezhnev. Uh, kissing up to Mao, and tells Mao, "You're the greatest leader in the history of the 20th century. People will look back on you as the great leader." Some of this sounds like BS, but it's serious, right? He's feeding the egos of those around him. Second, um, he is willing to get things done for you. He's effective. You want him around you because of his efficacy. So, Richard Nixon is always suspicious that Henry Kissinger's getting more of the limelight. He hates that Kissinger gets a Nobel Peace Prize and he doesn't. But he needs him 'cause Kissinger's the guy who gets things done. So he performs. He builds a relationship in almost, I say this in the book, in almost a gangster way. He didn't like that. He criticized that part of the book. But again, I still think the evidence is there. Um, "You need something to be done, boss? I'll do it. And don't forget that I'm doing this for you." (laughs) And you get mutual dependency in a Hegelian way, right?

    22. LFLex Fridman1:17:34

        Yeah.

    23. JSJeremi Suri1:17:35

        And- and- and so he builds this p- uh, personal dependency through ego and through performance. And then he's so skillful at making decisions for people who are more powerful because he's never elected to office. He always needs powerful people to l- let him do things. But he convinces you it's your decision when it's really his. To read his memos are beautiful. He's actually very skilled at writing things in a way that look, looks like he's giving you options as president.

    24. LFLex Fridman1:18:03

        Mm-hmm.

    25. JSJeremi Suri1:18:03

        But in fact there's only one option there.

    26. LFLex Fridman1:18:05

        (laughs) Is he, speaking to the gangster, to the loyalty, is he ever... Like, the sense I got from Nixon is he would, Nixon would backstab you if he needed to. Uh, one of the things that I admire about gangsters is they don't backstab those in the inner circle. Like, loyalty above all else. I mean, at least that's, uh, the sense I've gotten from the stories of the past at least. Is, uh, where would you put Kissinger on that? Is he loyalty above all- all else, or is it... Are humans... It's like the Steve Jobs thing is like as long as you're useful, you're useful, but then once y- long us- s- uh, the moment you're no longer useful is, uh, when you're knocked off the chess board.

    27. JSJeremi Suri1:18:55

        I- it's the latter with him. He- he- he's backstabbing quite a lot.

    28. LFLex Fridman1:18:58

        (laughs)

    29. JSJeremi Suri1:18:59

        Uh, and- and he's self-serving. Um, but he also makes himself so useful that even though Nixon knows he's doing that, Nixon still needs him.

    30. LFLex Fridman1:19:07

        Yeah. By the way, on that, uh, point, so having spoken with Kissinger, what's your relationship like with him as somebody who is in an objective way writing his story?

Episode duration: 2:08:47