Why Trump's Iran Strikes Are Unconstitutional — with David French

Content warning: This conversation includes some graphic descriptions of violence and sexual violence. David French, New York Times columnist, Iraq War veteran, and constitutional lawyer, joins Scott to explain why he believes the Iran strikes violated the Constitution — and why that's not a technicality. They discuss what just war doctrine actually requires, why democracies that skip the constitutional process lose wars, and why the Pope's standoff with Trump is more consequential than it sounds. Want to listen to this and other episodes ad-free? You can, if you subscribe at profgmedia.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Northwest Registered Agent. Your business identity is everything that makes your business legitimate and professional. With Northwest Registered Agent, you don't just form a business, you start a complete foundation built for privacy, credibility, and growth. That includes registered agent service, a business address, operating agreement, domain, website, professional email, phone number, and built-in privacy. In other words, your home address, personal email, and phone number stay private. Don't pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for what you can get from Northwest for free. Visit northwestregisteredagent.com/profgfree and start using free resources to build something amazing. Get more with Northwest Registered Agent at northwestregisteredagent.com/profgfree.

• 0:48Speaker 01

  If your best finance people are doing expense reports, chasing receipts, or spending time on month-end close, it's time to get Brex AF, agentic finance that eliminates that work before it starts. Learn more at brex.com/af.

• 1:08Speaker 02

  If you're looking to hire, you need Indeed. With Indeed Sponsored Jobs, you can spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help your job get the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

• 1:54Scott Galloway?

  Episode 397. Three nine is the country code for Italy. In 1997, Netflix was founded. I recently watched a documentary on Netflix on Subliminal Persuasion. It is terrible. I finally, I finally turned it off after 11 seasons.

• 2:10Scott Galloway?

  Get it? I can do better than that. So there's also a documentary on a woman's G-spot, but I swear I couldn't find it.

• 2:29Scott Galloway?

  Welcome to the 397th episode of the ProvG Pod. 397, I don't remember what I had for breakfast. I can't remember. We've done 397 of these things. They're all starting to mix together. I don't get it. Anyways, I remember the ZipRecruiter ads. I remember those. Yeah, other than that, I don't remember much. Anyways, what's happening? In today's episode, we speak with David French, an American political commentator and columnist for The New York Times. David touches on topics we talk a lot about here on ProvG: law, culture, religion, and armed conflict. I'm a big fan. I like the way he thinks. You've probably read his work. Just a clear blue flame thinker. Anyways, with that, we hope you enjoy our conversation with David French.

• 3:15Scott Galloway?

  Also, before we get into this episode, a quick heads up. This conversation includes some graphic descriptions of violence and sexual violence.

• 3:26Scott Galloway?

  Where are you, David?

• 3:27Speaker 03

  I am in Nashville, Tennessee, right now.

• 3:30Scott Galloway?

  Oh, my gosh. Is that home or?

• 3:32Speaker 03

  That's been home. That area's been home for a very long time, but we're also up in Chicago helping my oldest daughter with her kids while she goes to law school. Grandbabies have a powerful gravitational pull. Let's put it that way.

• 3:47Scott Galloway?

  That's nice. So let's bust right into it. You're one of the few people in American media who has actually been to a war, to war, I should say, and knows the law of armed conflict from the inside. You deployed to Iraq as a JAG officer, and you spent your career litigating constitutional questions, and you've written seriously about just war doctrine. So let's start with the basics. Are there rules in war? Do they actually matter? And what happens when they're not followed?

• 4:13Speaker 03

  Yeah, there are rules of war that have to be... Let's put it this way. To say there are rules of war that have to be followed is a bit of an oversimplification because it requires a choice. It requires international bodies. It requires the United States, or say, Israel, or combatants to comply with the laws of So in the United States, we have statutory rules, laws passed by Congress that govern how our armed forces act in the field. And so we absolutely have binding laws of war. Other countries do not, but there are international systems that sometimes, though unfortunately,

• 4:56Speaker 03

  not always bring them to justice. So there is such a thing as the law of armed conflict. Gosh, we've got more than 1,000 page Department of Defense Law of Armed Conflict Manual. We have binding rules. Soldiers go to jail when they violate the laws of armed conflict. So they do exist. They are very real, but they can't always be enforced everywhere against all combatants.

• 5:20Scott Galloway?

  Yeah, it's always struck me that rules of engagement, providing corridor, that it's not only the right thing to do, but it's a smart thing to do because your enemy is more likely to surrender if they believe they'll be treated fairly and the populace is more. I think it's to your advantage to be seen as the good guys, no?

• 5:38Speaker 03

  Oh, absolutely. You know, a lot of people, when I, when I say that things like the laws of war, a law of armed conflict, you'll sometimes see people kind of roll their eyes and say, well, the law of war is to win, or the law of war is to be lethal. But it really overlooks why we have them. I mean, this is the product of really more than 1,000 years, honestly, if you're, if you're sort of walking through human development of and how human beings have approached war. And they're also the product, not just of, of hundreds and hundreds of years of hard earned, hard learned experience. They're also products really, truly in the last 100 years

• 6:20Speaker 03

  of the terrible experience of two world wars. And so a lot of the laws of war are both designed over the course of centuries to make war humane, both for the combatants and for non combatants. But also they've been developed particularly since World War Two to try to block the emergence of another world war. So they both, they really both limit human behavior once a war has started, but they're also supposed to strongly limit when wars can start. And so it's, it's on the front end and on the back end that the law should apply, should apply.

• 6:58Scott Galloway?

  So I don't know how to segue into this, so I'll just start with Iran, question mark.

• 7:03Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 7:05Scott Galloway?

  Talk about our entry into the war. Talk about where, what is on your mind in terms of where we are now.

• 7:12Speaker 03

  Yeah, I mean, this is a really good example. The Iran war is a really good example of why the law matters so much. So, under traditional just war doctrine, you're not supposed to be able to go to war. You should not go to war under the old school just war doctrine unless you're going to war under the command of the lawful sovereign for a just reason and to pursue just ends. And so usually what this means is self-defense. Self-defense or collective self-defense are the main reasons why one goes to war. But what's very key in that is that first element, the lawful order of a, the order of a lawful sovereign. So, has that happened here in the United States?

• 7:54Speaker 03

  And the answer is no, because American law requires for the declaration of war that that's a role reserved to Congress. So, we made that decision very early in the republic as part of the very deliberate decision to break up the power of a king, because the king used to have the power to declare war and also to wage war. And what we did is we split those two powers. We put part of that in the hands of Congress to declare war. And then we put the power to wage war and the president, that's the commander in chief power. And so, now, that doesn't mean that a president can't respond immediately when there is an attack on our forces or there's an emerging immediate situation that requires military

• 8:39Speaker 03

  force. But even in those circumstances, the president is supposed to go to Congress immediately to get ratification and support of his actions. And so, this isn't just, it's really important for people to realize, this is not just some sort of like constitutional technicality. It is actually very important to the ability of the United States to wage war and to wage war effectively. Because if there's one thing that we know from history, it's that democracies that have achieved public support for a war are among the most powerful entities we've seen in the world. Democracies that do not receive public support for a war can be very fragile and brittle in their pursuit of the war.

• 9:22Speaker 03

  And so when you actually take the time to follow the constitutional process, as I said, that's not just dotting i's and crossing t's. It's the, it's part of the fundamental role of getting the people of the country to understand why they're supporting it, why we're going to war, they're choosing to support it, and that creates an enormous staying power in the conflict. Because every conflict, or almost every conflict, has periods and times of adversity. And if you've actually rallied the people, you can endure that. But as we've seen in this war, we had no constitutional process, no public support for it. And so we really have very little patience for it at all.

• 10:05Speaker 03

  So even if you thought it was wise to attack Iran, for example, the fact that we didn't do the constitutional process undermines the entire war. And if you don't believe it was wise to attack Iran, undermining the constitutional process has cut you completely out of the debate. It means your voice doesn't really matter to the debate. It didn't matter to the decision to go into war, and that's antithetical to the purposes of our democracy.

• 10:32Scott Galloway?

  I mean, hasn't this train left the station about sixteen or sixty-odd years ago with the Vietnam conflict? I mean, granted, Bush did go to the UN. Isn't this a large structural problem where we've ceded more and more power from Congress to the executive branch?

• 10:48Speaker 03

  Yes and no. So I'll do the yes part first. It's absolutely true that there have been multiple armed conflicts fought since World War II without congressional approval. Most notably, the Korean War was fought under a UN resolution. For example, the Libyan bombing campaign that began in 2011, that was under a UN resolution. Now- If you want to sort of break it down legally, the argument that those presidents, that both Truman and Obama would make around the Korean War and the Libyan intervention was that, well, we have, we, we've ratified the UN Treaty. So we, we, we did have Senate ratification of the UN Treaty, and under the UN Treaty, the Security Council members are empowered to use armed forces when the Security Council says so.

• 11:33Speaker 03

  So there's at least some argument there that that's still connected to our process. However, at the same time, when people say, oh, we never go to Congress anymore, that's just wrong. So in the Vietnam War, we had the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which I think was stretched beyond its, its purpose, but it still existed. Before Desert Storm, George H. W. Bush not only got a UN Resolution, he got congressional authorization. After 9/11, Bush could have struck the Taliban without Congress after that attack on the US, but he went ahead and got congressional authorization. Before the Iraqi, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the invasion of Iraq, he had Department of

• 12:13Speaker 03

  Justice lawyers telling him he did not have to get congressional resolution or congressional authorization, but he went and he got congressional authorization and UN, or UN Resolution. And so we have had, in our largest armed conflicts, really, since Korea, have all had some form of congressional authorization or UN Security Council authorization. And in this circumstance, it's a direct attack on a nation state, Iran, without congressional authorization, without a UN Security Council Resolution, and without it being an immediate self-defense. In other words, there was no indication that we were under imminent attack by Iran.

• 12:55Speaker 03

  But even if there was, and we responded to what we thought was an imminent attack, we're supposed to go to get congressional approval for a longer conflict anyway.

• 13:03Scott Galloway?

  I'm gonna back up. Tell us a little bit about your service. Why did you decide to serve? What did you do in, in, you know, Dad, what did you do in the war?

• 13:12Speaker 03

  Yeah. That's a great question. I joined later in life. I got an age waiver and I joined at age 36 and went to Officer Basic at age 37. And it's a really simple reason is that I had supported the Iraq War in 03. And then I just felt convicted in my conscience that I was supporting a war while I was still healthy enough and young enough to serve in it. And I was allowing other people to go serve in the war that I had. Now, I was not a congressman. I wasn't a pundit back then. I was a constitutional lawyer, but still, whatever little tiny public voice I had back in 2003, I was saying, I think we should do this. And then my conscience just wouldn't let me stay at home, to be

• 13:55Speaker 03

  honest. So I walked into a recruiting office after they raised the minimum age to, or the maximum age to 35. And I thought, hey, I'm 36. I can, I bet I can get an age waiver. And he would have laughed at me. I walk into a recruiting office in downtown Philly. And I'm just as bald as I am now, covered up by, covered up by my hat. We have very, I think we go to the same barber. And, and I walk in and I say, hey, I'm a little bit too old. I need an age waiver and I want to join the JAG Corps as a lawyer. So I wanted to be an Army lawyer. And they had no idea what to do with me. So they put me, they

• 14:36Speaker 03

  said, go to Fort Dix in New Jersey, get a physical, which I passed by the skin of my teeth. And then I had to just kind of Google how to get an age waiver and how to do this. And I followed the steps. And then about six months later, I was in Fort Lee in Virginia in the summer of 2006, 2007, I finished my legal training. And then at the very end of 2007, in November, I deployed to Iraq for almost a year with the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. I was with a second squadron, Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. We were detached from the main regiment and kind of put on our own in Eastern Diyala Province, near

• 15:18Speaker 03

  the Iranian border. And we're given a really, really challenging assignment. We were plopped in the middle of one of the last and largest Al Qaeda strongholds in the country. And this is at the height of the surge at the end of 07 and beginning of 08, and basically had to fight our way out. And so We had our first enemy contact as a unit in late November of 07. And then we had either daily or near daily enemy contact for, gosh, I would say until August is when it really began to ease off. And it was a tough, hard deployment. My, my role as a, as the JAG officer was primary to, I had two primary jobs.

• 16:00Speaker 03

  Primary job number one was helping make these targeting decisions. Shoot, don't shoot, bomb, don't bomb, those kinds of decisions. And then primary role number two was I was overseeing detainee operations. So I was responsible for the treatment of detainees. I was responsible for their, their conditions in which they were held. I just, as soon as we, as soon as we caught a detainee, they were my responsibility at that point. And then the final thing that was sort of a thankfully, blessedly, was a very small part of my life was military justice. In other words, dealing with soldiers who may have violated the law of war that we just talked about, or soldiers that violated the law in other ways, such as, you know, we,

• 16:44Speaker 03

  we were in an environment where it was absolutely prohibited for any of us to drink, for example. And every now and then a wife or a girlfriend would send their soldier boyfriend or husband, let's say vodka in a, in a mouthwash bottle or something like that. Or sometimes we would have things like fights between soldiers, but it was super rare. Our guys were very, very, very disciplined. So my, 90% of my job was the, was the rules of engagement. Do we bomb? Do we not bomb? And handling detainees. And we had a lot of detainees because we were in the thick. Our unit was in the thick of the fight for month after month after month. And in fact, the unit at the end of the deployment received something called the

• 17:29Speaker 03

  valorous unit award, which is a, a very high award given to combat arms units that have really been fighting, who, who had these very tough deployments and very successful. We, we actually did clean out Al Qaeda from our area of operations. And just to give you one statistic on how successful we were, when we first arrived in, in November of 07 to that area. There was about a 25% chance that if you left, if you left the gate of our base, a 1 in 4 chance you would get attacked by the enemy in some way, a bomb, a mortar

• 18:08Speaker 03

  attack, rocket attack, sniper fire, ambush, whatever. So anytime you went out, you knew, just have a, take like a four-sided dice and roll it, and if it came up 1, you were going to hit hit. And then by the time we left, we'd been so successful in dealing with Al Qaeda, it was about a 1% chance that when you rolled out of the gate, that you would face enemy contact. So that is a, that was a remarkable thing. And we saw markets come back to life. We saw people move back into their homes. We really saw an entire part of Iraq just sort of come back to life where we were.

• 18:44Scott Galloway?

  Being on the ground, how, what was reality versus your perception of the men and women you served with, the war itself, actual combat? Like, what did you think, what surprised you most to, I won't call it the upside or the downside, but what surprised you most versus what you thought you would encounter in this, in service?

• 19:06Speaker 03

  That's a, a great question. So when I came back, I would say, you know, I was always asked, what is it that you learned? And, and I would say, I'll say three things. Number one, deployments are much more difficult than I ever imagined. That the, the stress, the strain, the, the risk, the pain of it all is, you know, we had a little over 700 guys in our squadron. And by the end of the, end of the deployment, I'd, you know, I'd have to check with our, our S1 who kept, who kept track of all of these statistics.

• 19:46Speaker 03

  But I believe we were, out of the 700 plus of us, we had about 100 total who were killed or injured out of that 700. So we had a, we had a high rate of casualties for that phase of the war.

• 19:58Scott Galloway?

  Sorry, how many out of the 700?

• 20:00Speaker 03

  About 100 were killed or injured. And it was a high rate of casualties, especially, you know, it's a high rate of casualties for the unit. And, you know, I lost I lost guys I loved. I mean, friends, people I was serving with, people, you know, I felt close to me as brothers. And it was, it was, it's hard to put into words how hard it all was. That was number one. Number two was that the enemy was far more, I knew going into it that this enemy was, had no lines that it wouldn't cross. That was all theoretical to me. But then when I saw, when, what we were fighting was not exactly al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were already transitioning over to ISIS. And in fact, the, the branch that

• 20:45Speaker 03

  was very active in our, in our area was called the Islamic Caliphate of Iraq. So this is sort of like a proto-version of ISIS. And so, everything that you saw, remember when ISIS just came roaring out of nowhere in like 2014, 2015, and all of these unbelievable atrocities were being broadcast around the world? Well, we saw all that stuff. It was all in our area of operations. It was brutal. I never was more motivated. I don't think in my life I've been more motivated to do anything than to crush those guys. Because what they would do to innocent people, what they, it's just even hard to put into words,

• 21:28Speaker 03

  some of the things you would see. And they would, they would do things like, for example, we were known in, in an area that was known as the female suicide bombing capital of the world, where women were blowing themselves up. And one of the ways that they would quote-unquote "recruit" women to be suicide bombers is they would rape them, and then tell them the only way to restore their honor was to blow themselves up, say at an American checkpoint, or in a restaurant, or at a wedding, or in a, in a, in a hospital. It was horrific. So that was number two. That the enemy was far more brutal and evil than I imagined.

• 22:07Speaker 03

  And then, but the third thing was, democracy and, and civil order, anything like we would recognize here in the United States was far more elusive than I thought. And so, you know, one of the things that I think is a, a mistake that previous administrations have made, is that we're just too idealistic. I think George W. Bush was too idealistic about Iraqi society without Saddam Hussein. I feel like Barack Obama was too idealistic about sort of how the Muslim world would Or say jihadists would be less motivated to attack us if if we changed policies or moderated

• 22:47Speaker 03

  in our stance. And so we had a lot of this view that I think was just sort of too idealistic about the complexities of the situation. And so I have I'm now I have less idealism about what's possible in the Middle East over time than I did before. I was one of these people who I thought that genuinely, you know, and I'm embarrassed to admit it right now, that if you remove Saddam Hussein in 03, the trip from Saddam Hussein to a functioning democracy in Iraq would be much shorter than it's proven to be. That it's actually was much more painful. It's still an ongoing process. I mean, obviously Iraq

• 23:30Speaker 03

  is much more of a democracy than it ever was under Hussein now. But I thought that trip from A to B would be shorter than it turned out to I mean, would would be shorter much shorter than it turned out to be.

• 23:42Scott Galloway?

  And what about the men and women you served with?

• 23:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, so that about those guys, I was one of the we're in an all male combat arms unit. I think that I might have served over the course of my time in Iraq with two or three women who would come into our base briefly and then go. But I will tell you, men, women, incredibly disciplined, incredibly, as a rule, I'm not going to say every last one, but as a rule incredibly compassionate, literally willing to risk their lives rather than harm civilians in my experience. And I just can't say enough about them. I mean, I remember being walking into it and I was a late replacement. I was a reservist added

• 24:29Speaker 03

  on to an active duty unit. And if anyone knows anything about military culture, being the reservist, especially the lawyer for crying out loud, the reserve civilian, previously civilian, obviously, I wasn't civilian when I was serving, but I had spent my whole career as a civilian, come in rookie military lawyer as a reservist to an active duty unit. And I was even warned about that unit when I came on. The other JAGs said, one of them even used the term, I believe, penal battalion, that you're joining the unit that of all the units in the regiment had the most people in it for whom there were waivers when they joined about previous criminal activity.

• 25:10Speaker 03

  And so they told me to watch out, to be watched like a hawk, to see if there were going to be discipline issues, if there were going to be morale issues, et cetera. But no, I mean, no. The discipline was incredible. The courage was incredible. And really, the care and consideration for civilian life was remarkable. So I'll give you a statistic. You know, we probably faced, I would say, just ballparking, the 300 or so days that we were in that particular base, I think we faced combat, our unit did, about 250 of those days. I would say, you know, maybe getting close to 80% of the days we were downrange, somebody

• 25:54Speaker 03

  in our unit, some element of our unit was attacked in some way. And that entire time, all of that intensity, I think that at most, we ended up harming, killing less than five civilians the whole time in all of that intense combat. And that was, that was no accident. That was a result of incredible amount of discipline, just an incredible amount of discipline. And in one of those civilian death incidents, it was because an artillery shell just fell short. Like, it wasn't, we had the proper target, we had the proper technology, we had everything. It was just a dud shell that fell short and just horrible, horrible. But that, that's the level of discipline.

• 26:39Speaker 03

  I know there were other incidents in Iraq where, you know, you can talk, we could talk about Abu Ghraib, we could talk about some incidents in Western Iraq and other places where American soldiers committed war crimes, but that, that was not my unit, that was not the guys I served with. And in fact, I'm, I'm in, literally in daily contact, contact with the staff officers I served with. We have, we get together all the time, we have our WhatsApp group and, and just some of the greatest, I mean, literally just some of the greatest people I've ever known in my life. And I know that sounds cliched and I know a lot of people sort of. Kind of put American soldiers on a pedestal. But I will tell you, the folks I served with were just great people who risked their lives,

• 27:21Speaker 03

  sometimes gave their lives to protect civilians, to protect the innocent. And so I may, and we were also at that same time, very successful in our mission. So I'm the last person to say that we have to sacrifice compliance of the law and the protection of the innocent to accomplish a military objective.

• 27:44Scott Galloway?

  So I wasn't planning to go this way, but we, we talk a lot about the struggles of, of young men on this show.

• 27:51Speaker 03

  And I think that's been, that's been just an incredible part of your focus. And I've really appreciated that, by the way.

• 27:58Scott Galloway?

  I appreciate you saying that. So, but one of the things that comes up a lot is, and I wish I knew more about it, and I'm planning to do some podcasts on it, is service as an option for, for young men and women. And the question I get a lot, and I want to put to you is, who is, who is the right fit for service and who is not?

• 28:20Speaker 03

  So I'm going to say this, you are probably, if you were listening and you were healthy, physically healthy, you are probably the right fit for service. You would be amazed at the diversity of people, personalities, et cetera, who serve in the US military. There isn't a type, there isn't a one mold. And, you know, it's funny, I grew up watching, you know, war, World War II movies, Vietnam War movies, all of this. And there was always the stereotype, you know, you have the infantry platoon that's got, you know, the wisecracking kid from Brooklyn, the kid from Appalachia and Kentucky who's never been outside of his hometown until he joined the military, the guy from Puerto

• 29:02Speaker 03

  Rico, the guy from California and, you know, you've got these sort of stereotypes of all these people from around the country. And then I arrive and it's all true. That's the way it is. So here, you know, we had. I was with an armored cavalry unit, not an infantry unit, but we had the very same dynamic. And it was just remarkable, the diversity of people. I put it this way, that the US military has achieved the diversity that colleges say they want, but never get close to achieving. We had diversity by race, by ethnicity, by religion, by class. I mean, the whole spectrum and lots of different personality types.

• 29:46Speaker 03

  You know, you have to be willing. You have to be somebody who's willing to take orders and to take direction. You have to be humble enough and pliant enough to recognize that you don't know everything, that you are not an expert in everything, and that sometimes people are going to have to tell you what to do. And it's going to be absolutely critical that you say, yes, sir, yes, ma'am, and do it. But beyond just that very basic ability, if you're able-bodied, if you have an ability, you know, if you have enough humility to swallow your pride and take orders. And I will honestly say, even if you have doubts about your courage, you are someone who can serve.

• 30:29Speaker 03

  It's funny, who rises to the occasion and who shrinks away is not predictable based on someone's attitude about themselves entering the military or entering a combat zone. I saw people who were very quiet, people who had expressed privately to me doubts, perform magnificently, just magnificently. I mean, and again, this is a cliche. I saw people who had a lot of bravado, who said they couldn't wait to get out there and get at the enemy, that when we took our first losses and it became very, very real, and you realize that, no, this isn't theoretical anymore, people are getting hurt, that I saw them shrink away. And so, don't predict about yourself who you would be in the circumstance.

• 31:13Speaker 03

  Realize that if you have, if you feel that call to serve, there's also a lot of molding that goes on. You become somebody different during your service. And my wife would say that about me. She said, there's one person who left, and there's a second person who came home. And there's a lot of resemblances between the two, but there are very real differences as well. It was a life-changing experience for me, without question. And I would say, in the ways that are both good, And not so good and bad. But it was absolutely life changing. But I would say do not count yourself out. Don't, don't look at a TV show. Don't look at a body type or whatever and say, well, that's just not me.

• 31:56Speaker 03

  I wouldn't fit in or there's nobody like me in the military. I would bet you there is absolutely not just somebody like you in the military, but a lot of somebody is like you because it is a, it's a remarkably diverse institution.

• 32:12Scott Galloway?

  We'll be right back after a quick break.

• 32:25Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Superhuman. The pace of modern work can be relentless. You're getting a constant influx of messages from a ton of different apps. You haven't closed all your browser tabs in a year. Everything seems urgent and staying on top of it all feels like an impossible task. Superhuman Go is an AI chat that's always there when you need it, already aware of what you're doing and doesn't ask you to start from zero. Superhuman Go, from the makers of Grammarly, help you be the best version of yourself at work. It handles the repetitive stuff so you can focus on the work that only you can do. Whether you need to summarize an endless email thread or prep for a meeting that's happening in five minutes, Superhuman Go works inside the tools and sites you already use, your browser, inbox, docs, and your project tools. And its AI chat is available on the side of your browser and it's always ready.

• 33:10Scott Galloway?

  No new tabs, no switching apps, no losing your place. This is AI that works with you, not on top of you, so that you have the time and brain space to solve the problems that matter. Check it out, find out more at superhuman.com.

• 33:27Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Vanta. As AI adoption grows, so does your company's security risks and requirements. New frameworks, audits, and vendors keep piling on, but your team isn't getting any bigger. Most compliance tools promise automation, but you're really stuck doing all the work by hand, chasing screenshots, validating controls, and playing catch-up when audit season comes around again. Vanta works differently. The Regentic Trust platform is built to scale with you, not slow you down. With over 1,400 automated tests across 400-plus integrations, Vanta collects evidence and monitors your controls year-round, cutting your audit prep by 82%. Plus, you can access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, whether your team is in Vanta every day or living in tools including Claude or Cursor. Want proof?

• 34:12Scott Galloway?

  Over 16,000 fast-growing companies like Ramp, Ryder, and Harvey save time and resources while scaling fast with Vanta. Learn more at vanta.com/profg and get $1,000 off. That's spelled V-A-N-T-A dot com slash profg for $1,000 off.

• 34:34Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Vanta. As AI adoption grows, so does your company's security risks and requirements. New frameworks, audits, and vendors keep piling on, but your team isn't getting any bigger. Most compliance tools promise automation, but you're really stuck doing all the work by hand, chasing screenshots, validating controls, and playing catch-up when audit season comes around again. Vanta works differently. The Regentic Trust platform is built to scale with you, not slow you down. With over 1,400 automated tests across 400-plus integrations, Vanta collects evidence and monitors your controls year-round, cutting your audit prep by 82%. Plus, you can access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, whether your team is in Vanta every day or living in tools including Claude or Cursor. Want proof?

• 35:19Scott Galloway?

  Over 16,000 fast-growing companies like Ramp, Ryder, and Harvey save time and resources while scaling fast with Vanta. Learn more at vanta.com/profg and get $1,000 off. That's spelled V-A-N-T-A dot com slash profg for $1,000 off.

• 35:49Scott Galloway?

  So, under the auspices of a lack of elegant segues, let's talk about the Pope.

• 35:54Speaker 03

  That's still, given the circumstances, that's a pretty good segue.

• 36:02Scott Galloway?

  I thought that was great, and I'm glad we went there. You wrote that the Trump-Pope-Leo standoff was the most important theological debate of your lifetime. Can you make the case for why it matters to someone who isn't following it or isn't quivering, isn't religious?

• 36:16Speaker 03

  Oh, absolutely. So, if you're going to look at, let's back up a little bit and just do super short history 101. So, after World War I, which was this catastrophic confrontation that cost, by some estimates, 20 million lives, the Western world said, "Let's not do that again." And they passed something called the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was trying to outlaw aggressive war. They began to enter into a bunch of treaties requiring kinds of humane treatment in war. So, the basic desire was to create something called the war, that to make World War I the war to end all wars. In other words, we, that was so horrific, we're never going to do it again.

• 36:57Speaker 03

  And when they began to construct laws of war, they weren't building from a blank, they weren't painting on a blank canvas. What they essentially did was took Catholic just war doctrine and began to incorporate it into international law. Now, we all know that it didn't work. World War I was, initially, World War I was not the war to end all wars. One of the reasons why these international institutions didn't work was that they were, the United States didn't participate. The most powerful economy in the world, the theoretically potentially most powerful military in the world, did not participate. And so, when Hitler arose, there was no real great power that had the willingness and capacity to resist him.

• 37:42Speaker 03

  So, we went through it all again, except maybe, by some estimates, three times worse. There are some guesses, as many as, say, 60 million people died. So, then we said, "Again, let's not do that again." And this time, the United States stuck with the plan. And we passed the UN, we created the UN, we ratified the UN Charter. And the UN Charter does exactly what was attempted after World War I, and that was to ban aggressive warfare. It was rooted in just war doctrine. So in other words, if you're, interestingly enough, in a very religiously diverse world and an increasingly secular West, when you're hearing the Pope talk about the war, what

• 38:26Speaker 03

  you're in essence is hearing a descendant of a founding father talking about the Constitution in an interesting way. He is the heir to the intellectual tradition that created the legal system that our entire international system is based on. So these debates about just war doctrine are not esoteric debates. They're exactly like debates around the Federalist Papers, say around the Constitution. This goes into what do these words mean? What do these doctrines mean? And the way I would put it is, after World War II, we replaced a Clausewitzian worldview. And Clausewitz is the military strategist who described war as the extension of politics

• 39:11Speaker 03

  by other means. In essence, war just is an instrument of national policy. And replaced it with the Aquinas view of just war doctrine, that war is a last resort, not a first resort, and permissible only in very limited circumstances. So I'm not going to claim that all of the law of armed conflict is rooted in Catholic just war doctrine. But you can read the Department of Defense Law of War Manual, and it will tell you, it will tell you that just war doctrine is one of the foundational pillars of the international law of armed conflict. And so this fight over the Pope isn't like just picking a fight with, say, some megachurch preacher in Dallas.

• 39:54Speaker 03

  It's picking a fight with the intellectual heir of the entire just war tradition that underpins international law.

• 40:01Scott Galloway?

  So you argue that Christian nationalism isn't really Christianity. But from the outside, and I realize this is reductive, a lot of people look at evangelical support for Trump, which hovers around 80%, and thinks, isn't this just what American Christianity is now?

• 40:19Speaker 03

  Yeah. Well, they'd be forgiven for thinking that, given how vocal and outspoken, and we just had this 250 rededication service on the National Mall, publicly funded. But American Christianity is a lot more diverse than white evangelicalism. So it's very true that 82% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. It's also true that somewhere between 80 and 90% of black Protestants voted for Harris. It's also true that the mainline split about 50/50. It's true that the Catholic Church slightly leaned towards Trump over Harris. But American religion is quite diverse, and it's just that the white evangelical church

• 41:04Speaker 03

  sort of punches above its weight in that debate because it's so big, especially in the South, and it's so hyper-concentrated in one party, that I would argue that white evangelicalism is the strongest faction and the strongest political party in the strongest nation in the world right now. So that means that white evangelicalism is arguably one of those potent religious movements in the entire world at the moment, and it has thrown its weight around, behind Donald Trump in an, just in an overwhelming fashion. And speaking as someone who grew up evangelical, who is evangelical, that is incredibly grievous to me. It's just incredibly grievous, and it's grievous in part because it's making hypocrites of

• 41:48Speaker 03

  millions of Americans, because I'm old enough to remember when evangelicals united in rage against Bill Clinton for all of his, you know, sexual sins and indiscretions and all of that. And even in 1998, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the Southern Baptist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, put out a statement that said, "Tolerance of serious wrongs by leaders sears the conscience of a culture, results in unrestrained lawlessness, and surely will result in God's judgment." And you know what? They were right. Right now unrestrained lawlessness has seared a conscience. All right, it's seared their conscience.

• 42:31Speaker 03

  It's sponsoring unrestrained lawlessness, one of the most corrupt administrations I've. It is the most corrupt administration I've seen in my life. So corrupt that the Gilded Age dudes are like rolling over in their graves, saying, I was born in the wrong era. I could have gotten crypto riches if I had just been, you know, been born a little bit later. So it's the most corrupt administration I've seen in my lifetime by miles, by miles. And it is the most divisive. It's wrecking, it is wrecking the social cohesion of this country. And it's, and the fact that this is empowered by people who believe they're saving the country in the name of Jesus is just, it's just grievous.

• 43:12Speaker 03

  It's grievous and I'm hoping, I'm praying for a recognition in the church of the damage that they have inflicted. But no one who's listening to this podcast should think that is what the American church does. The American church is, you know, let's put it this way. Donald Trump is supported by one part of the American church. Another part of the American church is embodied by Pope Leo, who has turned out to be one of Trump's chief international antagonists in some ways. So American religion is big, diverse and messy. But a big branch of that, a bigger of American religion is supporting Donald Trump overwhelmingly and still does. And it's very grievous to me.

• 43:52Scott Galloway?

  So there's a, I don't know if it's fair enough, but Democrats have a reputation for being somewhat hostile towards religion. That it's not as welcoming or embracing. If you were advised, if you were advising the Democratic Party on how to speak to religious voters that they've lost, what would you tell them to do?

• 44:14Speaker 03

  That's a great question. So first, it's absolutely true. Aside from black Protestants who are overwhelmingly democratic, there is a giant God gap between the parties. The more often you go to church, the more likely you are to say you believe the Bible is the word of God, the more likely you are to be Republican. And there's a giant gap there. And that has led many Democrats, especially white Democrats, white liberals, to see sort of Christianity or conservative iterations. And when I say conservative, I don't mean politically, I mean theologically, to be the enemy. And I would just say this, nobody wants to go where they're not wanted or where they're not liked.

• 44:59Speaker 03

  And if you create an impression with all of these conservative Christians that we hate you, we think you're backwards, we think you're bigoted, then guess what? They're going to stay in the exact place where they are right now. And then if you berate them and you say, how dare you? How dare you stay in this place? And they try to come to you and you say, well, no, I don't want you unless you agree to everything I believe in. That becomes a real problem. And I saw this really interesting interview with James Talarico, who I think, we'll see, you know, Texas is always fool's gold for Democrats. It's like Charlie Brown with the football for Democrats of late.

• 45:39Speaker 03

  But if Ken Paxton wins the primary, I think Talarico has a really good opportunity to beat him with this message. Because I saw, he was on an evangelical Christian podcast with conservative hosts, and they said to him, would you welcome a pro-life voice into the party? And he said, without hesitation, absolutely. He said, I'm pro-choice, but the Democratic Party has to be about becoming a bigger and bigger tent, and we have to put fewer roadblocks and hurdles in front of people to join the party. And he says, I would want to work if somebody wants to be a pro-life Democrat, we're going to disagree about abortion, but we're going to work together on the many, many, many other

• 46:24Speaker 03

  things that we agree with. And my colleague, Michelle Goldberg, had a great statement recently about one of the problems of the left. And she said this, she said, "There are movements that look for converts, and there are movements that hunt for heretics." And she was talking about how the left had been really focused, especially on the 20 teens, on narrowing the tent, hunting for people who didn't toe the line 100%. And this is when you began to see the just utterly absurd spectacle of Democrats running candidates in places like Alabama, or Tennessee, or Mississippi, or Georgia, who would be virtually indistinguishable from Democratic

• 47:07Speaker 03

  candidates in Massachusetts, and California, and Rhode Island, when they're never going to fly. My friend Ezra Klein and other colleagues said, "It's easier for him to almost imagine the republic ending than it is to imagine a Democrat-winning Senate in Arkansas." But I'm old enough, we're both old enough, to remember when Democrats held sway over much of the South. It wasn't that long ago. And so I think the Democratic Party has to concentrate on becoming more tolerant of differences within the tent. And it's interesting, they can actually look at the Trump GOP. There was this interesting dynamic in 2024 where the GOP had a broader ideological tent than the Democratic Party. There was one condition

• 47:52Speaker 03

  to join the GOP tent. To walk into that tent was the red hat. You had to have the red hat. You had to pledge loyalty to Trump. But you could be pro-vax or anti-vax. You could be pro-Ukraine, you could be anti-Ukraine. You could be pro-war with Iran, you could be anti-war with Iran. Now, that kind of messy coalition can get messy when you're governing, but it's a great way to win elections. And so, you know, I would say, if you see somebody, to Democratic listeners, if you see somebody who agrees with you 70% of the time,

• 48:23Speaker 03

  Lean into that 70%. Don't sit there and focus on the 30% and say, "You're just not like me. You're horrible. You're awful." And there really is a perception, just sort of to the core of the being of a lot of theologically conservative Christians, that they just, no matter how much they may oppose Trump, no matter how much they may be appalled by the way the Trump administration is governing, no matter how much they may want to protect the human rights and dignity of immigrants, for example, or no matter how much they want to lift up and improve the lives of the middle class, that if they don't toe the line 100% on all the various social issues, they're not just an outcast and not welcome in the Democratic Party. They're viewed as evil.

• 49:06Speaker 03

  That's an incredibly self-limiting way of looking at the world, for any political party to look at the world. If somebody wants to be a part of you and wants to work with you on shared interests, and I'm not saying, "Give up all standards." If somebody's walking in with a swastika and says, "Hey, I want to join with you guys." And no, I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. We do have lines. But as a general view, and sort of that great American spectrum of politics, if someone is in that great American mainstream, and they come to you and they say, "Can I join you?" Here's the answer. Yes. Yes, you can. We won't agree on everything, but we'll work together on shared interests, and then we'll disagree with each other with civility and decency when we have disagreement.

• 49:49Speaker 03

  But my gosh, that seems to be way too heavy a lift, especially for people who are sort of at that core, highly ideological activist base.

• 50:02Speaker 04

  We'll be right back.

• 50:10Speaker 05

  Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing in a wearable. So your vitals app, now with heart rate variability, can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash apple watch series 12.

• 50:40Speaker 06

  Support for the show comes from Delta Airlines. Every athlete at the top of their game knows that greatness isn't just a destination. It's a grueling, lifelong journey. It's built on early mornings, silent sacrifices, and an unwavering drive to outclimb the achievements of yesterday. That is the journey of a WNBA athlete, and Delta is there every step of the way. Delta is proud to host these competitors, providing charter flights for every WNBA team to elevate their travel experience and champion equity on every leg of their trip. Keep climbing with Delta Airlines, the official airline of the WNBA.

• 51:25Scott Galloway?

  Support for the show comes from Nutraful, the number one dermatologist-recommended hair growth supplement brand used by over one and a half million people. When you get to the stage of life where you start to notice hair loss, you have a few options. You can shave it all off and enjoy your new look, or you can commit to a new team whose logo you wouldn't mind constantly spotting on a hat, or you can actually restore some of your hair's former glory with Nutraful. Nutraful has formulas built for men at different life stages, such as Nutraful Men for guys aged 18 to 49, or the new Nutraful Men 50 and older. It's the first product of its kind specifically made for men over 50. You can address the key root causes of thinning wherever you are in life, grow visibly thicker, fuller hair in three to six months. Start Nutraful today and make the hat optional.

• 52:10Scott Galloway?

  Visit nutraful.com and enter promo code PROVGE for $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping. Find out why Nutraful is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at nutraful.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com, promo code PROVGE. That's nutraful.com, promo code PROVGE.

• 52:37Scott Galloway?

  We're back with more from David French. One of the things I really respect about you, David, is that when I see you on Bill Maher or another program, I have a difficult time assigning a political label to you. And I say that as a feature, not a bug. So I want to talk a little bit about conservatism and identity. I would argue you've been pushed out of the conservative movement. And you write for a paper that half the country calls the enemy. You left your church. What is your home? Do you have a home politically? Or it seems like everyone's saying they're politically homeless. Where do you stand on this?

• 53:13Speaker 03

  I definitely do not have a home. I mean, the Republican Party, there's no way I can belong to a party that puts a man like Donald Trump as its leader, much less an object of devotion. I mean, he's so far beyond the leadership that I saw in my adult lifetime. I was, the first election I voted in was 1988. So George H.W. Bush was the first Republican that I voted for. So I've been through multiple iterations of party leadership of the Republican Party. I was a delegate to the 2012 Republican National Convention for Mitt Romney. And at no point, successful, unsuccessful, did any president have as much control over the party as Donald Trump does.

• 53:57Speaker 03

  And so, including just grassroots devotion that Donald Trump enjoys. So I can't be a part of a party that puts that much devotion into a man of such low character. I just can't do it. But I also know the Democratic Party doesn't, you know, going back to what we just said, I'm a pro-life evangelical. I'm not, I'm the kind of person a lot of Democrats would say is evil. And so I don't have a home there either. But I'm in very good company because... The maladies of both parties are so severe that they're driving a lot of people to label themselves now as independent. And independents are now a plurality of America.

• 54:40Speaker 03

  So I feel like all of those of us who say that we're homeless, we actually, we might not have a home in a party, but I don't think it's right that we're homeless anymore. We're actually part of the biggest faction of American politics, and that is the independent faction. And so, but as far as being pushed out of the conservative movement, I'm just going to use that old Ronald Reagan line that he said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." On basically every measure, the Republican Party has changed its approach into a way that I would describe it as no longer a conservative party, it is a populist party. And those two things are not the same.

• 55:23Speaker 03

  And one of the great cons the Republican establishment has kind of pulled is they've told the base now that this populism is conservatism, when it is not. And so I will consistently get people who have changed their position on everything from debt to deficits to NATO, to the importance of abortion in the Republican Party platform, they'll look at me and they'll say, "What happened to you?" And I look at them and I say, "What happened to me? What happened to you?" And you have a lot of people sort of saying that back and forth to each other. So similarly with my church, when I said I was never, ever going to support Donald

• 56:04Speaker 03

  Trump, and this goes all the way back to very early 2016, late 2015, I never in a million years, I knew my church was overwhelmingly Republican, I never in a million years thought that that would create a breach that would lead people in my denomination to want me gone, to want me out of it, as literally as being a heretic. But you know, by a couple of years ago, I was invited to speak at my denomination's General Assembly and to speak on political polarization. And there was such an outcry, they canceled the invitation because I was a heretic. Why was I a heretic? Not because I disagreed with the Westminster Confession, the Apostles' Creed, any sort of tenet of

• 56:48Speaker 03

  basic conservative theology. No, no, because I had vocally opposed Donald Trump and that had created, to some people, that made me a heretic. To some people, that made me too divisive. I mean, it's dreadful. It's contemptuous. It's just, I have contempt for that position. And I just have utter contempt for the idea that Donald Trump, in support for Donald Trump, should be any sort of litmus test for inclusion in a Christian community. Who would you like to see run for president? Hmm, that's a really, that's a great question. You know, I think there are a

• 57:29Speaker 03

  number of people on both sides that I would like to see. I would like to see Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania. I'd like to see him run. I have a lot, although I don't, I think he would last maybe about nine seconds in a primary because he doesn't have the kind of national name recognition. Jared Polis out of Colorado, I think, is an interesting figure, although I really strongly disagree with his position. He just recently granted clemency to a woman who was imprisoned for her role in trying to steal the election for Donald Trump. I strongly disagree with that decision. Look, I recently heard Rahm

• 58:09Speaker 03

  Emanuel speak. He has some very, he's a guy out there who's making that big tent argument that you just made in a very forceful fashion. I think there are quite a few Democrats who I would say, quote unquote, "get it" in the sense that what they need is a bigger tent. What they need is to aggressively reach out to disgruntled independents that they realize they don't need to be ideologically litmus testing and who have a very strong commitment to the post-Cold War order, to NATO, to our international alliances. To me, that's just an absolute deal breaker, just a deal breaker. On the Republican side, you know, I have long admired how Brian Kemp of Georgia

• 58:52Speaker 03

  Is about the only Republican to stand up to Donald Trump and live to tell the tale politically. Because remember, he defied, he's a very conservative governor of Georgia, but he outright defied Trump in the two, in the 2020 election. And then unlike, you know, we saw Senator Cassidy go down, we saw five Indiana state senators go down recently, we might see Thomas Massey go down to the Trump effect. I think of the 17 Republicans who cast votes against Trump in the whole impeachment in 2021. What, 13, 14 of them are out of, are gone? So Brian Kemp is a guy who defied Trump and yet still retained enough Republican support to win reelection in Georgia. He's somebody who's interesting.

• 59:37Speaker 03

  I really love and for a long time loved what Spencer Cox is doing out in Utah. As far as like he is, he is really trying to create, to depolarize America, because I think our polarization is the biggest emergency facing our country is our polarization. So right there, there's five names off the top of my head that I think if any one of them win, we're going to be okay.

• 1:00:01Scott Galloway?

  So just as we wrap up here, David, you've been generous with your time. You're a New York Times columnist or reporter, I don't know what the term is.

• 1:00:11Speaker 03

  Columnist is the official title, yeah.

• 1:00:14Scott Galloway?

  You live in Nashville, you've served in Iraq. I think you're a man of faith. Would that be fair to say?

• 1:00:18Speaker 03

  Yes, absolutely.

• 1:00:19Scott Galloway?

  A Republican or Republican-ish. A lot of young men listen to this podcast. I mean, you've, you've had a very interesting life. What advice would you give to your 25-year-old self? Or a young man who has some credentials? You know, is not struggling, but is, but is trying to find his place in the world? What advice would you have for, for him or her?

• 1:00:49Speaker 03

  Well, you know, giving that I have a, giving me the, the hypothetical of telling my 25-year-old self isn't that far off because I got a 25-year-old son. He's a, he's a one L at Northwestern. And if I had to give one sentence of, one sentence of advice, it would be cultivate virtue, not ambition. And, and when I say that, I am not just making something up off the top of my head. What I'm doing is I'm pulling people back. Back to the conception of manhood and masculinity that would really be sort of the dominant conception, say, at the era of the founding. Let me, let me recommend a book to the guys listening right now.

• 1:01:32Speaker 03

  It's, it's called The Pursuit of Happiness. And it is by Jeff Rosen, who, who until recently ran the National Constitution Center. And is focused on that phrase, the pursuit of happiness. And what did it mean? And he went back and from the Declaration, you know, we're, we're endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, the pursuit of life, liberty, you know, life, liberty and happiness. And so the, the, what was the pursuit of happiness? It wasn't the pursuit of doing things you like. It wasn't the pursuit of having a quote unquote fulfilling life. It was the pursuit of virtue. And if you look at the founders, some of the most impressive men in the history of this country, much less world history, think about how fortunate we were to have such remarkably

• 1:02:16Speaker 03

  far sighted political philosophers, statesmen, soldiers, generals at that point in our history. They focused on virtue. Benjamin Franklin used to keep a list of virtues. I think there are 13 virtues and he would literally grade himself daily by his adherence and how, how he upheld his own standards about himself. Jefferson maintained lists of virtues. They were very interested in like the Stoic virtues, the Aristotelian kinds of virtues. And so the cultivation of virtues and, and my colleague, well, he just recently left, David Brooks, had a great way of phrasing it. He called it the difference between eulogy virtues and resume virtues. Eulogy virtues are the ones where someone at the end of your life is describing what kind of man you were.

• 1:03:01Speaker 03

  Resume virtues describe what you did, the bullet points. And the virtue of concentrating on virtue, unlike concentrating on, on ambition, and I'm not saying don't be ambitious. You know, industry is a virtue. Industry is a virtue. And by industry, we're not talking about making cars. We're talking about thrift, efficiency, hard work ethic. Can you, do you have that grit and that grind to, to succeed? And so one of the virtues is, is industry, but. If you're concentrating on virtue, you're actually concentrating on something that is far more ultimately in your control than if you're concentrating on the bullet points on the resume. And so you can become, it is possible to become the kind

• 1:03:45Speaker 03

  of person you want to be if you pursue virtue. And the other thing about it is because these virtues are never perfected, no human being has ever perfected these virtues. It really is a lifelong quest for self-improvement. It never ends, even when you're retired. My dad, he's 80 years old. He's retired. He used to teach math. He was a math professor at a college. Now he raises cattle in our family farm that we've had in our family since the 1850s and in rural Tennessee. And guess what he's doing? At 80 years old, he's perfecting the virtues that are required to raise cattle. And he's becoming a better man in different ways, even at age 80. It's wonderful to see. I admire him so much because he's

• 1:04:30Speaker 03

  just never stopped trying to be a better human being his whole life. And that's the model I want to set for my kids. I want my son, when he's 57 like I am, to say, "My dad never stopped trying to be a better human being." And that is something within our grasp. And I'm not going to say that if you try to be a better human being, that you're going to achieve high-status wealth or a high-status career. Nobody can promise you that. But what you can achieve is looking in the mirror and being proud of who you see looking back at you. And that's a lifelong process. And it's one that concentrates

• 1:05:13Speaker 03

  on virtue, not accomplishment.

• 1:05:16Scott Galloway?

  David French is an American political commentator and columnist for The New York Times. He was former senior editor of The Dispatch, a fellow of the National Review Institute, and a staff writer for The National Review. It's pasty to say this, David, but I appreciate on a lot of levels, really appreciate your service. And I think you're a great American and a real role model. And we come at this from, we have much different politics. Actually, not that different on some key issues, we differ. But I really think you're a real asset to the country and to the New York Times. Very much appreciate your time.

• 1:05:47Speaker 03

  Well, that's so kind of you to say. And I'm going to repeat it. I just think you're doing, the phrase I'm going to use is the Lord's work out there, reaching, you know, reaching struggling young men who, you've got a manosphere out there that it's the opposite of virtue, is what they're filling kids, you know, they're filling young men's heads with. And I just think you're doing very important work, some of the most important work in our culture in reaching young men right now.

• 1:06:19Scott Galloway?

  This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Janer. Kami Reek is our social producer. Bianca Rosario Ramirez is our video editor. And Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G Pod from Prop G Media.

• 1:06:40Speaker 06

  Are you a pet owner? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the US gets hit with a vet bill over $1,000. Always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance for dogs and cats, according to consumeradvocate.org. You get paid back up to 90% of vet bills at any vet in the US and Canada, with claims paid back in as little as two days. Go to fetchpet.com/save right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.com/save.

• 1:07:19Speaker 05

  Your heart can tell you a lot about your health. Apple Watch Series 12 measures your heart rate every five seconds with the most accurate heart rate sensing and wearable. So your vitals app, now with heart rate variability, can tell you when something is off. And your readiness score can let you know when to rest and when to push. Hear the story in every heartbeat with Apple Watch Series 12. The features described are for wellness purposes only and not for medical use. iPhone 11 or later required. Based on Apple conducted study of heart rate accuracy, August 2026. Visit apple.com slash apple watch series 12.

• 1:07:50Speaker 07

  Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow, none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at Odoo.com slash vox. That's O-D-O-O dot com slash vox.