Transcription
Michael, I have to start by asking you what civil servants in the American federal government actually do and what is the risk if they're fired? Because your latest book was actually mostly written last year before Donald Trump returned to the office. It seemed to predict Elon Musk's gutting of the federal workforce. So, what happens if they're fired?
Well, it depends on which ones you fire. But uh, but for starters, if you kind of think about the federal government, there's several frames that are useful, but one is this just manages a portfolio of risks and risks and problems that the free markets don't want to manage or deal with. And and it's all the hardest problems, you know, it's from everything from like how you keep nuclear weapons from exploding when they shouldn't to cleaning up to cleaning up horrible waste to like forecasting hurricanes. Is like you, you, if you move from from from sort of agency to agency in the US federal government, inside each one, you will find spine-tingling risks being dealt with. And the the way they've gone about de, you know, the the supposedly addressing the waste, fraud, and abuse that they say existed in the government was just to cut arbitrarily whoever they could rather than subjecting them to any kind of relevant relevancy test or or competency test. And so God knows what happens. It's like it's like watching a, you like the little fat fat kid loosening a nuclear reactor, just pulling buttons and and and and pushing levers and all the rest. It's like you never know. It's very hard to to to predict where this leads.
Okay. So, so no biggie. But so in your estimation, does that mean that the United States is perhaps closer to experiencing like another pandemic or a nuclear accident now than say before all of these Doge cuts?
Of course. Yes. All the above. Name your risk. I don't think there's a single risk it's less likely to to uh to to to have to deal with. I mean, it's um, the so the mental model that Elon Musk and his crowd had when they came into the government was, I think that it's all kind of wasteful and we'll figure out which parts aren't by just firing everybody and hiring them back if we need to. And um, and they, and so it, they didn't, they were, they were, they were making cuts to things they didn't understand. Um, and they were, they were doing it as if it was like a tech company like Twitter. Yeah. That which is it's true that if like if Twitter goes down for a few hours because you fire the wrong engineers, who cares? Yeah. This this does not matter. But if like tornado forecasting goes down for a day, Yeah. Or the Newark airport uh sort sort the the uh the uh the FAA at the Newark airport is nonfunctional, the computers go down, it's potentially catastrophic. So, um, I mean, I, it'd be interesting to actually play this play this out as a game. You try to name a risk that I don't think is all of a sudden made worse by what they've done. C certainly, they've done nothing to make me feel more comfortable that our government is more competent.
Okay. And so the huge contrast to this, of course, is the eight incredible civil servants that are profiled in your latest book. And I want to read something from your book because you contrast uh federal civil servants to say elected government officials. And you write of bureaucrats. You say they were the carrots in the third grade play, our elected officials, the kids who bludgeon the teachers for attention and wind up cast as the play's lead. You said, you know, they take credit for the good, the good work that the civil servants do, and then they blame them when things go wrong, right? You're talking about totally different profiles of people. So, I really want to ask you, it's something of an existential or profound question, really, which is, are the civil servants of the like that you profiled, are they better off to lead the country than say our elected officials? Because the people you profiled, they're mission-driven. They're selfless. You know, they're the people that are keeping up the minds, the ceiling, the roofs of minds from collapsing over the heads of people. They're the people who are finding cures, you know, for rare diseases. Are they better suited to lead the country than our elected officials?
Their hearts are generally pure, but you know, leadership is a funny thing. These are tend to be very recessive characters, like like that. You put them on stage and make them talk, and it often makes them very uncomfortable. All the seven writers of of the of the book, all the people who did these profiles found that in the very beginning, anyway, with all their characters, it was like pulling teeth. Like, I don't want to talk about me, I want to talk about my team. Uh, you know, that kind of thing. But but as like characters, far more admirable than the, if you take the average civil servant and put them next to the average elected official, I think nobody would have trouble identifying who is the superior human being. Uh, but but they have also have different talents. Like, you, you, it might be hard to take the average civil sergeant and try to put them in charge. They might, they might not be comfortable in the role, right? Kind of thing. Uh, but but the bigger point is, in our country, anyway, um, there has been allowed to grow and fester this really lazy stereotype of not of the politician, but of the government, of the civil servant. They are either the deep, deep state, or they are lazy, or they are inefficient, or at worst, they're corrupt, like they're wasting or stealing taxpayer money, which this stereotype is so outrageously different from what you actually find when you rattle around the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Commerce or the Treasury Department. So that that it's unbelievable the stereotype exists.
Okay. And the and the reason it exists is that these people's stories don't get told. And they don't get told because I'm, I'm sorry to interrupt your question. They don't get told. They don't get told one because they are precisely the kind of people who sit in the, who quietly toil in the background, are interested in their work and in solving problems, and they don't publicize themselves. Let, let's take one civil servant from your book. So she's from the Food and Drug Administration. Now, that probably doesn't light any of our brains on fire. This is Heather Stone. Uh, and she creates a tool to help doctors find new treatments for rare, deadly diseases. And I think she's a case study, right, about the kind of people that you found, or you know, your co-writers found in the civil service. They're mission-driven. They're selfless. They could have made a lot more money in the private sector, right? But they want to help humanity, right? So tell me what drove her and and and tell me really about the devastating ending to her story, which kind of illustrates what happens when you get an incredible mind like hers that isn't used to its full potential in terms of being able to help humanity within the government.
So, it's the last piece in the book by me, and it's there for a reason because it sort of hints at the source of fa, one of the sources of failure in the US government. But but she herself, quite admirable. And so, so a little backstory here, um, when I was writing a book about the pandemic called "The Premonition," I got to know a scientist at the University of California, San Francisco, which is like the preeminent medical research institution in our country. Joe Daresi is his name. He tells me a story. The story is that someone had come into their hospital with, they didn't know what, but their brain was being eaten. It was because something was going on in the brain. Before they figured out what's wrong with the woman, she was dead. They cultured her brain. They found that she had, he found that what she had in her brain was something called balamuia, brain-eating amoeba. U only discovered in like the mid-90s. Jodesi, the scientist, tries to figure out if there's anything that could cure balamuia. He takes all known chemicals that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration here and in Europe and finds there's actually a thing called nitroxylene, which is weirdly a UTI drug used in Europe and in China, uh, for all I know, in Australia, that if you give it to people, it's, it, it seems to kill the the balamuia bug without doing any damage to the patient. So I say to Joe Reesi, like, "Oh, that's great. If I get balamuia, I don't know how you get balamuia, but I think you get by eating dirt, but uh, like it's fine now. You figured out the cure." He says, "No." He says, "The way the world works is I do this research and I can publish a paper, maybe, although the papers, these sort of papers don't get published usually, of like, I found this random thing in my lab." He said, "But there is this woman at the Food and Drug Administration, Heather Stone, who, um, who has taken it upon herself all by herself to gather up, to try to gather up as many case studies as she can around the world of doctors addressing rare disease, both both with success and with failure, because all we have is case studies with rare disease. You can't do science with rare disease. You can't build a, they can't get a big enough sample. You can't do randomized case studies with with a drug that you know where the disease might kill the people who don't get the drug. So all we have is the stories, and she's built this website, this this and this app to accumulate the stories. It is a brilliant idea. It is exactly what the government should be doing. The market won't deal with this rare disease. There's no big business in rare disease because it's rare. And so this cure exists. Nobody knows about the cure. But the government, as it should, is going to step in, gather the stories of these cures, disseminate them all doctors around the world. So when you walk into your hospital with this amoeba eating your brain, they can fix you. Our government has lost its stomach for these great things. She's doing this thing all by herself. The app is Cure ID, it's called, is up and running. She can't publicize it. She can't promote it. This kind of dissent within her own operation about just how much emphasis they'd be placed on this because it's not exactly science. It's telling stories. Um, the story I tell, I mean, it's a happy, it's sort of a comedy or a happy story with a with it's a, it's a tragedy with a happy ending. A little girl in the middle of Arkansas contracts balamuia. The only reason she's given the drug that saves her life is that the mom finds Heather Stone herself, uh, through obscure academic paper, gets in touch, and these FD, and the woman at the FDA gets her the drug. Yeah. Doesn't work the way it's supposed to. It's sort of like that story sort of dramatizes the disconnect between the the the ambition and the quality of the people in the government and what the government seems capable of carrying out right now. It is this thing that's incredibly frustrating. I promise you that if I, if I dropped you just randomly into the federal government, you would be shocked by the caliber of the people, and you would be shocked by how it doesn't, the whole thing doesn't work very well, and it's very upsetting. It's sort of like these people grinding away, and they're being like misused by the society, and it's the society's fault, like we're not managing them well.
And then in contrast to that, really hugely would have to be, you know, the monetization of the presidency that we've seen with Donald Trump. You know, I've read that, you know, the president and his family have monetized the White House more than any other occupant. And and I've read, you know, one journalist in the New York Times wrote that the Trump administration is a candidate for the most brazen use of government office in American history, perhaps eclipsing even Watergate. Do you agree?
Of course. It's not even close. Uh, I mean, it's, I mean, I don't know. I'm not a historian of the 19th century. Perhaps there was some very crafty president who figured out how to turn the White House into a cash machine. Uh, but no one in my lifetime has done that. Richard Nixon didn't do that. Uh, I mean, there were there were norms in place that, and the country's kind of been on a hair trigger alert for this kind of corruption for a long time. The idea that you are like issuing your own cryptocurrency token and having dinners that people pay you a million dollars for by buying your cryptocurrency token to to promote it. It's just it's, and never mind like the hotel business. I, I mean, it's, it, there's been there seem in the mind of Donald Trump, there seems to be no distinction made between his interests and the country's interests, and and he does seem to proceed as if the country exists to serve his private interests.
Okay. Okay. So, this brings me to my next question because everything you've just mentioned, coupled with, of course, what we're seeing on the streets of Los Angeles and him bringing in the National Guard, you know, over top of the California governor and so forth. I mean, are you, do you, me, stop you for a sec, that the streets of Los Angeles are largely peaceful? That there's like one tiny little piece where, and it's not that big a deal, and he's trying to inflame the situation. Exactly. So, I, my question is, I mean, are we seeing the end of the American empire? Is this the beginning of the end?
Not if I can help it. I'm here. I'm here. I love your work, and you have predicted some incredible things, right? I, I know a lot of good people, and I, and I love my country, and I think my country has is a very, it's like a complicated person. Uh, it's capable of lots of bad stuff and lots of great stuff. And I, I think that we are, obviously, look, if, if Donald Trump proceeds unchecked and he, like, realizes whatever his vision is, Uh, yes. The answer to your question is yes. I don't think that's what's going to happen. I'm more hopeful than that.
Why, why don't you think that's going to happen?
Because I've got to say, one of the things the people aren't with him. I'm sorry. People aren't with him. The people aren't with him. I mean, it's, he's got, he's, he's not a popular president.
Okay. The people might not be with him. But if you look at the people under him. So I was reading, I mean, just in March, you know, Florida Governor Ronda Santis. So his response, as I understand it, to Donald Trump's plan to to invoke the biggest mass deportation of illegal immigrants ever is to loosen child labor laws. So he's like, "Okay, all these illegal immigrants who, uh, who, who pick the fruit and vegetables upon which our common economy based is based, they'll be gone. That's fine. We're going to, we're going to let children 14 and over do it." I mean, is that not the beginning of, of the end of an empire?
I mean, it's not a good sign. Uh, I'm not, I'm not celebrating this. I just don't think I think it's pretty grand claim, end of the empire. And I also think I, I think there is this huge disconnect between what's coming out of the mouths of our elected leaders and the standards of behavior and the values of the of individual Americans. I think even now, if you put Obama in a room with Donald Trump, and and they each got to talk to every single American, and then you had an election, I think Obama would win 85% of the vote. I think that that there's that we, we are, we've kind of lost our mind at the top of the country right now. It's going to snap back. We, but you need the problem is you need elections to do that. And in the very short term, Donald Trump terrifies anybody who's running for office as a Republican who holds office as a Republican. So they're kind of marking marching in in lockstep with him. But that could break. I mean, these things, things move fast. This could change and move in another direction very fast.
And and what do you, what do you think it might take? And the reason I'm asking you this is a midterm election. A midterm election. So you've got hopes for the midterm elections that the Democrats will will take control of the House of Reps.
Look, I don't think Donald Trump. I don't think anybody's going to think. I think I think even fewer people a year from now are going to think the country is being well-run than they think now. I think that he's created conditions for things to get even worse for lots of people, not just the economy. There's going to be an ill, ill feeling in the air. And assuming we have a free and fair election, and I assume we will, that I think he's going to get shellacked. I think they, they might lose both houses. Uh, that that, and and once they're on the run, once the bully gets punched, it's amazing what happens in the schoolyard. Uh, so I just think someone needs to punch the bully.
Now, Michael, I've got a question for you because you just said, you know, not, you know, it's not going to be the fall of the American Empire if I can help it. And I've got to, I've got to say to the listeners who don't know, and many of them will, you have sort of predicted, I think, massive social changes that have happened, or you've explained them. You know, you explained what brought about the 2008 financial crisis.
Yeah, I don't predict anything.
You don't predict?
Well, except this latest book. I mean, it did precede all of the Doge cuts.
But anyway, but I want to ask you about something totally different, which is about gambling because you've got your own podcast and it's all about "Against the Rules," and it's all about, you know, legalized sports betting companies and how they're exploiting fandom and gambling advertising has been a massive point of political contention here. So, I'm wondering if you can teach us something because our government has stalled banning gambling advertisements on television, and it's a proposal that had bipartisan support. So, can you tell me from what you know, what, just how bad are the risks of gambling, and what would you say to our government, you know, when they're considering whether to ban ads, TV ads about gambling full stop? Like, would you say you got to do this?
Yes. But I would also say, why haven't you done it already? Because you said you were going to do it. And so what, what's happened is this happens in industry after industry, right? Especially the vice industries, they get so big, they have so much money, and there's such a concentrated interest, it's very hard, uh, for politicians to fight them rather than just take the money. And the, and the organ, there's not an organized and well-financed opposition. So that's hap, that's happened in a nanosecond in this country. It was sports gambling was illegal, was basically illegal except in Nevada until six years, seven years ago, and now it's what, 38 states that it's legal, I think, is that right? I mean, it's moving so fast, I'd hate to even put a number at least 38 states. And it, so it's, here's what I'd say. It's a predatory industry, the way that, and it's predatory in a way that even casinos are quite predatory, right? But it's, it's, it's taken it to a, a completely different level because because the the the leading sports gambling companies, they're actually data companies. They know more about you, the gambler, than any casino's ever known about its customers. And they're able to manipulate you into wages that you would never make, you know, naturally on your own. And, um, and you got the casino on your pocket 24/7. Uh, it's on your phone. And so it's, it's just, it's a really toxic form of gambling. Um, and it's targeted at young men. So it is a, it's almost like a war on young men. It's shocking that there've been surveys done, like 60% of the young, of college males are are sports gambling in the United States from basically not many, almost zero 10 years ago. So, uh, it's, um, and and the way the industry is structured, um, it essentially mines addiction. That they don't make that, it's not like, oh, everybody's all having fun making a little wager, and some win, and some some lose, and a few more lose than win. No, that's not how it works. If you actually know what you're doing, you get banned or limited to the point where you might as well be banned. They figure out very quickly that you know what you're doing, and they don't take your bets. If you really don't know what you're doing and you're kind of incontinent about it, you become a VIP. And if you're a VIP, you're in trouble because you've been identified as someone who's bad, as bad at this, and they're gonna, and they're gonna, and so there's studies that show, I mean, this is new in our country. You all may be a bit more inoculated because it's been in your, it's been in the water there longer, but it, that from, sort of first voyager to addiction problem hits crisis is like six, seven years, kind of thing. And I, I, it's, we're, we're headed there. I mean, like there's going to be, I think it's going to become actually a public health issue here, and people are going to start noticing, and there's, there's signs there already, signs turning up that it is becoming a public health issue.
And people here have criticized our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for not putting in this reform. You know, he said he was going to do it, and it's been stalled. Do you think that's just sort of gutless in terms of the impact that it will have on people here?
Yes. Yes. Why let these people advertise? Why encourage people to do something that's bad for them? Uh, I mean, we, we, we don't, I don't know what you do in your country. We don't allow cigarette advertisements here. That makes a lot of sense. I mean, people will find it. Make the, the way you deal with this problem in the modern world, you're not going to probably ban it or make it illegal to gamble on sports, but you just make it harder. You make it, you, you create snags. You don't make it really easy to ruin your life. You, you, and you know, decent society sort of tries to protect its citizens. And the problem you have is probably the problem we have is you've got some probably very powerful financial interests in the form of the gambling companies.
Oh, absolutely. That that that don't want that to happen.
Well, the gambling companies in the sports. Yeah. The sports organizations. And the sports. Well, everybody makes money off this.
M. I've got one last question for you, and it's, it's, it's a left-field one, but you do teach a master class on storytelling. Now, this is very left-field, but you are, of course, a master storyteller. And I know that a lot of people here around the world are really struggling when they speak to people, this is very left-field, about Gaza and Israel, and say they're on, say they're on opposing sides of the political spectrum. What are your tips for people about how they can help the other side understand what they're saying? Not necessarily even to persuade them of how what they believe, but just so that the conversation doesn't devolve into recriminations.
Do you, one simple tip is actually to find a character and tell a story about them. Like, who this per, if someone on the, you know, humanize the other side through an individual would be one way to do it. Uh, I mean, making is in the same way you might make a Doge person read one of the stories in our book before they go and slash the government. They couldn't look, they couldn't look at it in the same way. If you give them a true concrete story of to an Israeli of some Palestinian or a Palestinian, some Israeli that you, you might, you might temper views a bit. I don't think actually this is, it's funny you say this. There's a, there's an economist at MIT, uh, who right now is working on this question of can you change people's minds? Can you present them with stuff that will change their minds? And there's a sort of trope out there that, oh, people don't change their minds. They have their opinions and they just dig in, and it's, it's sort of true and sort of not. He's proving it's actually not true. You can get them to temper their views. You just present them with story and fact, and, and make them live with the, the those uncomfortable things, and, and you, you, you, you kind of move them in some direction. Um, but that is out of left field. I'm sure I'll wake up tomorrow morning with a brilliant answer that I wish I had given you, but I, that's the best I got right.
As we all do. And we love you for your humanity and your storytelling. So, thank you so much, Michael Lewis.
Thanks for having me. See you.