The America of the New Yorker. Interview with the director Remnick

David Remnick has been the editor of The New Yorker since 1998 , and in these twenty-seven years he has seen his adopted city reborn from the mortal wound of September 11, from the impoverishment that followed the 2008 financial crisis, and from the sudden and devastating desertification generated by the pandemic. With the exception of the 35 years in which William Shawn reigned, his direction is the longest in the history of the magazine, which continues to reach a million subscribers while maintaining the excellence of quality, the essential accuracy of fact-checking, and a tone that manages to be both profound and ironic at the same time: there is no author in the world who would not like to be published in The New Yorker. A native of New Jersey, and winner of a Pulitzer Prize for Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire , Remnick is a kind and witty man who loves to mix the highbrow and the lowbrow, high culture and popular culture, as well as politics and sports : the book The Bridge: the Life and Rise of Barack Obama is no less beautiful or less passionate than King of the World: Muhammad Ali and the Rise of an American Hero . It's an attitude that is reflected in his private life: he speaks competently about literature, politics and history, converses confidentially with presidents and Nobel Prize winners, but he loves to play the guitar with his closest friends or eat pastrami and sturgeon omelette at Barney Greengrass, the Upper West Side restaurant where Isaac Bashevis Singer and Philip Roth used to dine. Even more than articles, his books often deal with the ideal points of reference of a country whose youth he celebrates or laments, depending on the case . Energy, on the other hand, is a characteristic of the American spirit that exalts at all times, even when it is the heritage of those who fight head-on, like Donald Trump: he considers his return a tragedy, and at the end of the so-called honeymoon he wrote an article entitled “One Hundred Days of Ineptitude”. The wink to Márquez is typical of the spirit of the New Yorker: cultured, ironic and bordering on snobbery, elements that have also characterized the unforgettable covers, starting with the completely black one with the shadow of the Twin Towers published after September 11th. Images that have the power of an editorial.

Since Trump was re-elected, he has written fiery articles alternating irony with indignation, but he is aware that his words do not undermine the certainties of the president's electorate, which identifies the New Yorker as one of the symbols of the hostile elitism of the liberal world . He is not a man to lose heart, however, and is convinced with Kennedy that "what is good in this country can defeat what is bad". Do not believe that this reference to the president of the American Camelot represents a sign of nostalgia or partisanship: the fact that he is a man of strong liberal convictions has not stopped him from writing vitriolic articles on the American left as well. In short, despite the risk of what here in America they call entitlement, the superiority complex, the most authoritative cultural magazine in the world represents a lesson in what the press should be in terms of depth, quality and variety. When he hears me state what I have just written, he hints at a smile, then asks me: where do we start?

Let's start with the main differences between the first and second Trump presidencies.

This time Trump has had the time and experience to realize that he wants to get rid of everyone who might criticize him . There is not a single person in the establishment who will tell him “no” and nothing that makes him think twice. Yet the Administration is at the same time chaotic and indifferent to liberal democracy and the rule of law .

This new attitude is highlighted by the official photo, absolutely unprecedented for a White House portrait. What was your reaction? I hope you don't mind if I say that your fierce determination to appear terrifying makes me smile.

And how do you comment on the one in which he portrayed himself as Pope? Trump has never stopped using Twitter and now Truth to scandalize liberals. To mock, attack and, as in this case, offend . The truth is that he has no respect or deference for anyone or anything. The Pope died a few days ago and he is already making a vulgar joke with the intent of exalting himself. This is all part of his character, dominated by an indifferent and unscrupulous cruelty: if God forbid you raise any objections, you are immediately accused of being a bigot and without a sense of humor. He has offended everyone in these years, even the disabled: I am not at all against comedians with aggressive humor like Don Rickles and Bill Burr, but I have no interest in seeing an aggressive comedian occupy the most powerful and sensitive office on Earth. The Oval Office is many things, but it should not be a nightclub .

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church has elected a new Pope… And he chose a Pope originally from Chicago and with Creole roots.

A Pontiff who was a missionary and chose the name of the Pope of “Rerum Novarum”, the most important social encyclical. In short, a Pope with a reputation as a progressive, in this anomalous compared to the American clergy. It is striking that he comes from the rich West, where evidently the Church feels there is a greater need for evangelization. Robert Francis Prevost is an American Pope, with all that such a choice can mean . As far as his teaching is concerned, he has a close bond, and in the deepest sense, with Pope Francis. We are living in a difficult period, in which it is difficult to have hope, but perhaps he, precisely in this dark moment, offers us a glimmer of hope. This in itself is significant.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Trump said that during his first term he did not know Washington and trusted people who did not deserve his trust. What is true? I think that is absolutely the case, and it is precisely this aspect that is the basis for what constitutes the difference between the two mandates. On this occasion he has had time to create a circle of Maga loyalists , and most of them speak an absolutist language . There is no dissent and the loyalty of clearly incompetent people, like Pete Hegseth, is rewarded.

Do you agree that the left, not only in the United States, is increasingly elitist? I would turn the issue on its head: the Democratic Party cannot succeed in the future without putting the concerns and needs of the working class at the center of its politics and concerns . So far, many Democratic politicians have failed to listen to the distress and increased poverty caused by deindustrialization, and worse, they have lost touch with this world. Trump has realized this and has taken advantage of it. Of course, calling a billionaire who is creating a real oligarchy a populist is an absurdity, and my European brothers and sisters will understand what I mean.

A few days ago I interviewed Margo Jefferson, who argues that the left should have the “clear and courageous language” of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders: do you agree or do you think that radicalization could lead to a new defeat? There are many things I admire about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders , starting with the fierce energy with which they oppose each other, but I do not think that their political proposal should represent the heart of the Democratic Party or its main voice. I think that the polls and the perception of what America is outside of certain circles tell us that it would be a sure recipe for defeat. The party must become a large camp, inclusive of ideas and different cultural affiliations. I sincerely admire both of them for the courage and clarity of their ideas, but we must come to terms with the fact that the majority of this country is not left-wing.

In your opinion, where should the left start again? Maybe I say this a little late in the conversation, but I am a journalist, not an activist. But since you asked me… First of all, we need to ask ourselves what is meant by “left”: in the United States it represents something very different from Italy, even today, but let’s put this aside. I believe that today it is very important that every type of person – leftist, center-left, independent, Republican with a conscience – wakes up and realizes the gravity of what is happening. The Administration that is governing us is anti-democratic, authoritarian and even has oligarchic elements: if it continues to be left unchallenged, it will implement a project that will have enormous consequences throughout the world . With a few exceptions, the country has remained passive so far and the damage may become irreparable.

Don't you think it's time for a radical changing of the guard among the Democrats? If we’re talking generationally, it’s coming soon: Nancy Pelosi is gone, Chuck Schumer is challenged internally. This changing of the guard is already happening.

A reference text for the American left today is 'Abundance' by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. What do you think about it?

The text proposes theses that are not entirely new, but they are well argued and are generating interest. The two authors are certainly right when they say that too often the excess of rules has not allowed some essential things to see the light, such as a decent railway system or the creation of urban plans. My opinion is that the book represents a valid contribution: it is in the most authentic nature of liberalism to question itself and evolve, but at the same time the strength of one's convictions is necessary and not the surrender to these forms of bullying and illiberal policies that we are seeing in the United States, Italy and many other countries.

In the possible rebirth of the left, a book of sociological analysis indicates a possible path…

Let's also say a book. What Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson write can represent an element of democratic theses and policies, even when the focus is on more traditional themes such as compassion and dignity, fundamental components of a more social democracy.

You mentioned “Republicans with a conscience.” What role can they play today? And are their voices being heard?

Conservatives fighting Trump? There aren’t many I listen to, with the exception of a few senior politicians who aren’t very relevant today (I’m looking at you, Mitch McConnell!) Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski says they’re all “scared” of challenging Trump, and I think she means it. Apostates are facing not just political opposition and the loss of their precious seat, but real threats. I mean real physical threats—that’s the climate of fear we’re living in.

How is it possible that the Republican Party, with a glorious history starting with Abraham Lincoln, is today totally in the hands of Donald Trump?

The independent politics of the Republicans that Trump represents—illiberalism, bigotry, isolationism, and more—is not new to American history. It was present in the 19th century, opposing the abolition of slavery and then the reconstruction of the country. In the last century, we saw it clearly with Charles Lindbergh and the neo-fascist America First movement. What is particularly sad about the Republican Party today is the uniformity, the culture of absolute loyalty and obedience.

Would you call Trump a Republican?

At the moment, Trump defines who a Republican is. His ideology and his impulses. The Maga movement is the party, more and more every day. As I said before, challenging him means losing your seat at the table and few have the courage to do so.

In my opinion we are experiencing the greatest betrayal of what America is since McCarthyism.

Yes, unfortunately that is exactly how it is. I have never been a fan of Reagan and Reaganism, but what is happening today is totally different and infinitely more damaging to the essential principles to which this nation aspires and to what a democratic spirit must hold dear, starting with respect for rules and justice.

How do you explain that Trump has had success with the female electorate despite his violent and vulgar misogynistic statements?

I could ask a similar question: How do you explain that in 2024 Trump had a majority among Spanish-speaking immigrants and blacks? Partly it is due to illusory economic interests. And partly it is also due to the colossal mistake of the Democrats in letting Joe Biden's candidacy live for too long, even though it was clear that he would not be in a position to do his job or convince voters that he would be able to do it until 2028. The Democratic Party cannot believe that it is the enlightened party and by virtue of this reason still have the vote of the voters.

Trump went so far as to say that nothing would happen to him even if he killed someone on Fifth Avenue. How is that possible? People know who Trump is, no one is blind to his qualities. They know that he lies all the time, that he is intolerant and all the rest. He does not hide anything . You might reasonably ask why an evangelical Christian considers him a champion even though he is blatantly irreligious, and worse, immoral in his life? The answer is that people consider him a champion for their other interests, especially economic ones. They are willing to take on evil and that is a pact with the devil. However, after the recent economic catastrophe, which will most likely lead to a recession, his approval ratings have started to decline . I would add that many would like to see much tighter control of the southern border, but that does not mean they are also in favor of deportations in the middle of the night of hundreds of people, including children with cancer. Increased border restrictions do not imply a national policy of cruelty in cooperation with the dictator of El Salvador Nayib Bukele.

I am of the opinion that Trump is a brutal and vulgar reaction to the degeneration of cancel culture, political correctness and woke. There is no doubt that what defines woke culture has repeatedly gone to excess. But I think it is also a bugbear used by Trump. Just to give an example, do we really want to go back to the pre-#MeToo world, when harassment was common and accepted?

Why does Trump's conviction seem so irrelevant to his voters? Margo Jefferson argues that he and his fans have a cult-like relationship. Trump has been impeached twice, convicted of crimes, and impeached for many more before the trials disappeared. And please don’t forget that he incited the insurrection on Capitol Hill, calling it “a day of love”: the willingness to justify all of this will go down in history as much of a disgrace, even if some of the charges were weak. And that’s not even talking about financial corruption, like cryptocurrencies.

Richard Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate, which seems like a minor scandal by comparison. Today, it seems no scandal can undermine Trump… Nixon was forced to resign when Republican Party leaders went to inform him that impeachment proceedings were about to begin that would most likely result in his conviction in the Senate. In a corner of Richard Nixon's conscience there was still shame, Trump on the other hand does not know it and believes he is not to blame.

How do you interpret Vance's definition of Europe as a “parasite”? Like the wisdom of those who have none. It is true that in some ways European prosperity has been greatly helped and even amplified thanks to the guarantees given by American security and power. But it is one thing to push Europe to increase its defense budget and its contribution to NATO, another to threaten the dissolution of NATO or to try to humiliate and mock European leaders. We can clearly see the effect that this “foreign policy” has had in Canada, where Trump has succeeded in uniting a country that he wanted to become the 51st state. As it turns out, it was a gift to the Canadian Liberal Party.

Canada's new Prime Minister Mark Carney is a moderate with significant financial experience: after the Democrats' defeat, many declared that another candidate would have been more effective than Kamala Harris. I think any other candidate would have had a hard time with so little time: Biden should have finished his first term, celebrated his achievements and accepted his age. He would have been appreciated and would have given the party adequate time to prepare an alternative. History could have gone in a different direction, after all Trump did not win with a huge mandate, but with a margin of 1.5 percent of the popular vote.

Is there anything the left should regret or be responsible for in Trump's success? This is a very important issue, and I would start with two fixed points: 1) as I said, Biden should not have run again. 2) In 1968, when Robert Kennedy was assassinated on the verge of the nomination, the Democratic Party was the party of the working class and the middle class, of blacks, Latinos, other groups, and also of well-educated voters on both coasts. It was a much larger camp than it is now. Today, Democrats cannot simply be the party of well-educated people on both coasts or big cities. And that requires hard political and intellectual work, as well as a greater sense of tolerance on many issues and a discussion that is not exclusive, but much more open.

Most of the press is hostile to Trump, but this doesn't seem to matter: how do you explain it? The media are no longer what we have been used to for a long time, they have changed radically thanks to new realities such as social media. There is no doubt that the New York Times is powerful, within an infinitely more varied ecosystem, composed of healthy plants, others that risk dying and also many poisonous plants. Trump's rise coincides with that of the new media and he has been very skilled at using them: Fox News is only the beginning of all this, the media at Trump's disposal range from Joe Rogan's radio show to podcasts to Newsmax and many others.

Margo Jefferson told me she has no respect for Trump, but she can't help but acknowledge his charisma. In addition to the charisma and energy of a politician, I recognize his talent as a demagogue. But I too cannot feel any form of admiration for a person who abounds in malice, cynicism, cruelty and absolute contempt for many values ​​and institutions - such as a free press - that are precious and fragile.

Are there any political choices of his that you give him credit for? Despite the miserable and disastrous way he handled the pandemic, he did what any other sensible person would have done, accelerating the search for vaccines.

Is there a book that can help you understand what is happening in America today? Philip Roth's The Plot Against America can certainly be a good viaticum.

How should an intellectual behave in America today? Speak and act courageously and incessantly. I disagree with Noam Chomsky on many things, but it is worth rereading his essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals.

Do you agree that only an economic disaster can bring down Trump? It's hard to imagine Trump not staying in the White House for four years: Presidents don't get impeached for a recession, and he was democratically elected. The first opportunity to limit his power will be the 2026 midterm elections.

Do you think America is at risk of becoming an authoritarian country? Yes, I fear it partly. The rise of authoritarianism does not necessarily happen with an earthquake or some calamity, just look at Hungary. It is necessary to oppose it with courage, strength and faith in the law.

I want to close with the question I ask all my interlocutors: how would you explain Trump to a ten-year-old? I try never to scare the children when they go to bed.

More on these topics: