When Neocons Lecture the World: A 2025 Power Grab in Progress

Tucker  Carlson:

Good evening. Tonight, you’re about to hear something you haven’t heard in a while—because most people thought this movement was dead. But as it turns out, they were just regrouping.

They’re back. The neocons. The same people who brought you Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and a foreign policy that somehow managed to cost trillions of dollars while making the world more dangerous.

And now, in 2025, they want to do it all over again. But this time with more AI, more sanctions, and yes, even more democracy bombs—because that worked so well the first time.

This series features a who’s who of unelected strategists and moral crusaders who believe they know what’s best not just for America—but for the world. You’ll hear them talk about ‘leadership,’ ‘order,’ and ‘responsibility’—but what they really mean is control. Control of foreign governments, foreign people, and in many cases, your tax dollars.

What you won’t hear is any serious discussion of how this serves you. The American worker. The soldier. The citizen whose town is crumbling while billions are wired to war zones.

So watch carefully. Take notes. Because when this group starts talking about freedom, you can be sure someone, somewhere, is about to lose theirs. Just probably not in Washington.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.) 

The Future of U.S. Global Leadership (2025)

Moderator: Condoleezza Rice

Participants:

1. Irving Kristol – Foundational neoconservative thinker (represented posthumously through his published ideas)

2. William Kristol – Political commentator and neoconservative strategist

3. Paul Wolfowitz – Former Deputy Secretary of Defense

4. Richard Perle – Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs

5. Anne Applebaum – Historian of authoritarianism and democratic decline

6. Robert Gates – Former Secretary of Defense

7. Condoleezza Rice – Former Secretary of State (moderator)

Scene: A Private Roundtable in Washington D.C. – Early 2025

The air in the Georgetown townhouse hums with quiet intensity. Seven figures sit around an oval mahogany table—some old friends, some longtime adversaries, all veterans in shaping the fate of nations. The topic before them: What does American leadership look like in a world that no longer asks for it, and may no longer trust it?

Moderator’s Opening – Condoleezza Rice

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. The world we once knew—where the U.S. stood unquestionably as the axis of global order—is gone. Today we ask: Can the United States still lead? And if so, how?"

Part I: Defining Leadership in 2025

William Kristol sits forward, fingers laced.

“The world may not openly ask for U.S. leadership, but it still depends on it. No one’s looking to Beijing or Moscow for moral clarity. If we retreat, tyranny wins by default.”

Robert Gates, calm and measured, counters.

“Leadership doesn’t have to mean domination. The U.S. should lead by building coalitions, not commanding obedience. Influence is more sustainable than control.”

Anne Applebaum adds,

“But let’s be honest. Our credibility is damaged—Afghanistan, January 6th, and deep polarization. To lead again, we must fix our democracy. The world sees our fractures.”

Richard Perle leans in, tone sharp.

“And yet, look around. When Ukraine needed weapons, when Taiwan seeks assurances—who do they call? Us. Not because we’re perfect, but because there’s no alternative.”

Part II: American Exceptionalism – Outdated or Essential?

Irving Kristol, via his writings, seems to echo in the room:

“Without a firm belief in our exceptional mission—to defend freedom and moral order—we are rudderless. The world needs a moral compass.”

Applebaum, visibly thoughtful:

“But moral clarity requires moral action. We can’t preach democracy while tolerating autocrats at home or abroad. Exceptionalism must evolve into integrity.”

Paul Wolfowitz speaks with conviction:

“Exceptionalism isn’t arrogance. It’s responsibility. No one else can lead the free world. We learned in Iraq that leadership without legitimacy fails—but abdication is worse.”

Part III: Leadership in a Multipolar World

Condoleezza Rice poses the question:
"Can we lead in a world that no longer centers on Washington?"

Gates answers first:

“It’s already multipolar. We need to act like it. India, Japan, the EU—they’re not junior partners anymore. We should build circles of shared leadership.”

William Kristol shakes his head:

“That’s noble, but messy. Collective leadership dilutes will. Someone has to set the tone—and historically, that’s been us.”

Applebaum, softly but firmly:

“Then let us be the voice of democratic unity, not superiority. Multipolarity doesn’t have to mean moral relativism.”

Part IV: Non-State Actors, Tech, and New Frontiers of Leadership

Rice shifts gears.
"What happens when Google, SpaceX, and OpenAI have more reach than embassies?"

Wolfowitz frowns.

“That’s a national security issue. We cannot outsource leadership to algorithms or billionaires.”

Gates disagrees slightly:

“But public-private partnerships are unavoidable. The Pentagon needs Silicon Valley more than ever. The real question is: how do we regulate them without stifling innovation?”

Applebaum nods.

“Global influence is no longer just about flags and anthems. It's culture, data, and trust. We need a diplomacy of values in cyberspace.”

Part V: America's Soft Power Crisis

Condoleezza Rice raises a poignant question.
"Is America still admired—or simply tolerated?"

Richard Perle scoffs.

“Admiration is a bonus. Respect is what matters. And respect comes from strength.”

Irving Kristol would likely have added:

“Cultural power and moral vision are inseparable. The loss of seriousness in national purpose weakens everything.”

Applebaum, again striking a warning note:

“If we can’t tell a consistent story about who we are—beyond culture wars—we can’t expect others to follow.”

Gates:

“Public diplomacy needs a reboot. Let’s show the world what American resilience really looks like—through education, science, art, and yes, governance.”

Part VI: After Iraq and Afghanistan – What Have We Learned?

Rice speaks personally now.
"As someone who made decisions in those years, I ask: what is the doctrine now? Are we still interventionists?"

Wolfowitz, introspective:

“We overestimated our power to reshape societies. But we were right that freedom matters. The mistake was execution, not principle.”

Gates, firmly:

“We must learn strategic humility. Regime change without a plan for peace creates vacuums—ones filled by chaos.”

Applebaum:

“We must support democracy without imposing it. Empower local actors, avoid neo-colonial patterns, and lead by inspiration.”

Moderator’s Closing Reflection – Condoleezza Rice

"This conversation reminds me of something I often tell my students: American leadership isn’t a birthright—it’s a choice. It must be earned every generation. Yes, the world is more complicated. But that’s exactly why principled, intelligent, flexible leadership is needed now more than ever. Whether we shape the future—or let it be shaped without us—depends on our will, our wisdom, and our unity."

China’s Global Ambitions and U.S. Containment Strategy (2025)

Moderator: Kevin Rudd – Former Prime Minister of Australia, fluent in Mandarin and seasoned China strategist

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative political analyst

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Architect of post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy

3. Richard Perle – Strategic defense expert and hawkish realist

4. Irving Kristol – Represented via his foundational ideas

5. Elbridge Colby – Co-architect of U.S. strategy for great power competition

6. Mira Rapp-Hooper – NSC Indo-Pacific director and alliance strategist

7. Kevin Rudd – Moderator

Scene: Indo-Pacific Strategic Dialogue Forum – Confidential Session, Singapore, 2025

Around a sleek conference table, old-school Cold Warriors, new-generation strategists, and policy architects from across the ideological spectrum gather. Outside, the South China Sea churns with contested activity. Inside, the question is stark: How should the U.S. respond to the rise of China—and can it do so without lighting the fuse of war?

Moderator’s Opening – Kevin Rudd

"Thank you all for joining. Let’s begin not with what China is doing—but what America should do. Is the goal containment, competition, coexistence—or something new?"

Part I: What Does China Want, and Should We Fear It?

Paul Wolfowitz, unflinching:

“They want regional hegemony—and eventually global leadership. Let’s stop pretending otherwise. The CCP's strategy is not coexistence. It’s dominance without bullets.”

Elbridge Colby leans forward.

“Exactly. The stakes are military and economic. If China takes Taiwan, it unravels the U.S. alliance system across Asia. That’s why deterrence has to be credible—now, not later.”

Mira Rapp-Hooper offers nuance:

“Yes, but deterrence is only half the story. We must offer allies something to say yes to—not just warnings. Economic integration, tech cooperation, democratic solidarity. This isn’t just military chess.”

Richard Perle counters dryly:

“Soft power means little if the enemy doesn’t fear you. The balance of power has always been hard.”

Part II: The Taiwan Flashpoint – Will It Trigger a U.S.–China War?

Kevin Rudd, carefully:
"Taiwan is a lit match in a room full of fuel. Do we have a strategy to prevent war—or have we already accepted it?"

William Kristol answers:

“We should be honest: We don’t want war, but we should be ready for it. Ambiguity can no longer serve our interests. Strategic clarity—backed by defense commitments—is the only way forward.”

Colby, nodding:

“A quick, brutal Chinese strike could succeed before Washington reacts—unless we pre-position forces and send a strong message now.”

Mira Rapp-Hooper adds a warning:

“But we must also avoid triggering the very conflict we’re trying to prevent. Let’s not corner Beijing. Let’s build resilience in Taiwan and open diplomatic backchannels.”

Wolfowitz, firm:

“The time for caution has passed. If we lose Taiwan, we lose Asia. That’s the cost of blinking.”

Part III: Containment vs. Engagement – Is There a Middle Path?

Rudd opens the floor.
"Many nations are uneasy with the framing of ‘containment.’ Does this Cold War model still apply?"

Rapp-Hooper responds quickly:

“Containment in the classic sense won’t work. China is too embedded economically. We need ‘competitive coexistence’—deter militarily, engage economically, pressure multilaterally.”

Irving Kristol, by way of his legacy:

“Ideological competition is enduring. A regime that denies freedom at home will challenge it abroad. Engagement without moral clarity is appeasement.”

Kristol (William) echoes that:

“Exactly. We can’t pretend this is just about trade or tech. It’s about values. If we cede the moral high ground, we’ve already lost.”

Perle sighs:

“We spent decades trying to reform China through engagement. They took our money, copied our tech, and built missiles aimed at our allies. Enough fantasy.”

Part IV: The Indo-Pacific Alliance System – Strength or Illusion?

Rudd poses the next challenge:
"Can the U.S. count on its partners—Japan, South Korea, Australia, India—to push back against China?"

Colby, blunt as always:

“Some are strong—Japan, Australia. But others hedge. That’s why we must lead. Not with platitudes, but with material commitments.”

Rapp-Hooper adds:

“Many partners don’t want to choose between the U.S. and China. We have to make ourselves indispensable—not just militarily, but economically and culturally.”

Wolfowitz injects realism:

“Allies follow strength. If we show weakness in the South China Sea or Taiwan, trust evaporates. Our alliances are only as strong as our resolve.”

Part V: The Role of Technology in the New Cold War

Rudd, switching tone:
"Some say TikTok, AI, and semiconductors are the real battlegrounds. Is tech leadership now strategic leadership?"

William Kristol, serious:

“It’s more than chips. It’s the future of truth, surveillance, communication. If China dominates AI, it controls not just tools, but minds.”

Colby nods:

“Military advantage increasingly depends on tech. Whoever leads in machine learning, cyberwarfare, and quantum computing controls the 21st century battlefield.”

Rapp-Hooper, hopeful:

“That’s why tech diplomacy is crucial. Partnering with democratic nations on ethical AI can counterbalance authoritarian tech models.”

Part VI: Avoiding World War III – Is There a Diplomatic Off-Ramp?

Rudd, carefully:
"Let me ask what few dare to: Can the U.S. and China avoid war—or are we on an irreversible path?"

Wolfowitz, quietly:

“It’s not inevitable. But peace requires strength. Xi Jinping respects force, not words.”

Applebaum (referenced via ideas):

“Democratic nations must act together to raise the cost of aggression—not individually, but as a bloc. Otherwise, China picks us off one by one.”

Rapp-Hooper, finally:

“There is a diplomatic path—but it must be paired with deterrence. The U.S. must talk and prepare. Both are possible. Both are necessary.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Kevin Rudd

"In the end, China’s rise forces America to rediscover its voice—not just as a superpower, but as a moral, strategic, and technological leader. There is no simple answer. There is only the responsibility of navigating this century with clarity, courage, and care. War is not inevitable. But neither is peace. The future will be shaped by what we choose to build, to defend—and to believe."

The Israel–Iran Conflict and U.S. Involvement (2025)

Moderator: Michael Doran – Middle East scholar and former National Security Council official

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Political commentator with a strong pro-Israel stance

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Neoconservative strategist with deep interest in regime dynamics

3. Richard Perle – Longtime Pentagon advisor and hawkish voice on Iran

4. Irving Kristol – Represented through his ideological writings and foundational neocon values

5. Trita Parsi – Realist critic of U.S. interventionism, expert on Iranian diplomacy

6. Tamara Cofman Wittes – Middle East policy expert focused on democracy promotion and U.S. diplomacy

7. Michael Doran – Moderator

Scene: Confidential Policy Forum – West Jerusalem, 2025

A private room within a government think tank near the Knesset. The air is thick with the weight of history and the urgency of today. Iran’s nuclear program is once again in the headlines. The Abraham Accords have cooled but held. Meanwhile, Gaza erupts, and U.S. leadership is questioned from Tel Aviv to Tehran.

Moderator’s Opening – Michael Doran

"Thank you all for being here. The Israel–Iran conflict isn’t just regional. It’s a flashpoint for global strategy, values, and alliances. Tonight we ask: Should the U.S. continue backing Israel at all costs? Is military confrontation with Iran inevitable—or is diplomacy still viable?"

Part I: Is Iran an Existential Threat, or a Containable Rival?

Richard Perle, no hesitation:

“Iran is an expansionist regime cloaked in apocalyptic ideology. Its ambition isn’t just nuclear—it’s regional domination, from Baghdad to Beirut. We ignore that at our peril.”

Trita Parsi raises an eyebrow.

“That’s the problem. We treat Iran as uniquely irrational. But they behave as any threatened regime would—seeking leverage. The nuclear program is a bargaining chip, not a suicide pact.”

William Kristol joins in:

“But the rhetoric matters. ‘Death to Israel’ isn’t just theater. Tehran arms Hezbollah, fuels terrorism, and undermines every American ally. We can’t normalize that.”

Tamara Wittes offers a more calibrated view:

“Yes, Iran is destabilizing. But treating diplomacy as weakness only leaves war on the table. Containment worked for the Soviets. It can work here, too.”

Part II: The U.S.–Israel Relationship – Strategic Ally or Moral Entanglement?

Doran, shifting gears:
"Does unconditional support for Israel serve U.S. interests—or create blind spots?"

Wolfowitz responds swiftly:

“Israel is not just an ally. It’s a democratic outpost in a hostile region. Our fates are intertwined. Abandoning it would shatter U.S. credibility—not just in the Middle East, but globally.”

Parsi, shaking his head:

“That logic has led us into endless entanglements. Being ‘pro-Israel’ doesn’t mean approving every action. Israel’s far-right policies are undermining peace and dragging us into moral compromise.”

Irving Kristol’s legacy reminds us:

“Democracy needs defending. Israel’s existence is a moral necessity. The United States must lead that defense—not because of sentiment, but because of principle.”

Wittes, cautiously:

“Support for Israel must come with honest dialogue. Friends don’t let friends slide into illiberalism. We risk losing influence if we only affirm and never challenge.”

Part III: Diplomacy vs. Preemption – What Should the U.S. Do About Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions?

Doran poses the central question:
"The JCPOA is dead. Sanctions haven’t worked. Iran enriches uranium near weapons-grade levels. Is preemptive action now back on the table?"

Perle, sharply:

“It never should’ve left the table. Iran won’t stop unless it’s forced to. Delaying action only makes the cost higher.”

Parsi, bristling:

“Preemptive strikes may delay, but they won’t stop the program—and they’ll guarantee a war. The real path is incentives for compliance, backed by realistic red lines.”

Kristol (William):

“Diplomacy without pressure is surrender. Tehran only talks when it feels pain. Sanctions must be real, and the threat of force must be credible.”

Wittes adds:

“But there’s another option: deterrence. Even if Iran gets the bomb, it can be contained, as we did with the USSR and North Korea. The question isn’t capability—it’s intent.”

Wolfowitz, quietly:

“If Iran goes nuclear, it triggers proliferation—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt. Then it’s not just Iran—it’s a nuclear Middle East. That’s why prevention still matters.”

Part IV: The Abraham Accords and Regional Realignment

Doran gestures to the group.
"The Abraham Accords changed the map—but are they durable? And can Arab-Israeli alignment contain Iran?"

Kristol (William):

“They prove the old paradigm is broken. Arab states want prosperity, not endless solidarity with Tehran or Ramallah. U.S. policy should nurture these ties.”

Parsi, skeptically:

“The Accords are transactional. They don’t reflect public sentiment. If Israel continues annexation policies or attacks Iran, these alliances will collapse under popular pressure.”

Wolfowitz:

“Even transactional peace is progress. Let’s not idealize perfection over momentum. The more Israel is seen as integrated, the more isolated Iran becomes.”

Wittes, careful as always:

“Yes, but the Palestinian issue still festers. If it explodes again, it could unravel everything. A stable regional order can’t exclude justice.”

Part V: Ethics, Strategy, and the Limits of American Power

Doran, finally:
"Are we too entangled in moral contradictions? Is it ethical to support military strikes, or regimes that repress their own people in the name of containment?"

Perle, unapologetic:

“Morality without strength is fantasy. If we walk away, Iran’s proxies fill the vacuum. That’s not peace—it’s surrender.”

Parsi pushes back:

“But if our ‘strength’ empowers occupation and repression, we lose moral ground. American leadership must mean something beyond firepower.”

Irving Kristol, echoing through his writings:

“The defense of civilization is not always clean. It is, however, necessary.”

Wittes:

“The U.S. must pursue a new realism: power with accountability. Strength, yes—but never without conscience.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Michael Doran

"Tonight we didn’t solve the conflict—but we clarified its shape. The Israel–Iran axis is no longer a binary. It’s a regional web of alliances, fears, ambitions, and unresolved history. America can’t fix everything. But what it does—or refuses to do—still shifts the balance. The question isn’t whether to lead. It’s how to lead without losing ourselves in the process."

Rebuilding the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (2025)

Moderator: Michele Flournoy – Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, respected voice in bipartisan defense strategy

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative policy advocate

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, defense doctrine strategist

3. Richard Perle – Hawkish Pentagon insider, strategic realist

4. Irving Kristol – Represented via his ideological writings

5. Sen. Tom Cotton – Arkansas Senator, military veteran, outspoken defense hawk

6. Andrew Bacevich – Retired colonel, West Point grad, critic of U.S. militarism

7. Michele Flournoy – Moderator

Scene: Pentagon Briefing Room, Washington D.C., 2025

The climate feels tense. Russia remains aggressive, China is expanding its reach, Iran flirts with nuclear thresholds, and the American defense apparatus is being questioned—bloated in budget, but arguably brittle in readiness. Around a polished table sit the architects, critics, and defenders of U.S. military power. The question today: Does America need a stronger military industrial complex—or a smarter one?

Moderator’s Opening – Michele Flournoy

"Welcome. Defense budgets have ballooned, yet recruitment is down, weapons programs are behind schedule, and trust in long-term strategy is eroding. Let’s begin with the fundamental question: Is our current military system broken—and what must we rebuild to ensure national security in 2025 and beyond?"

Part I: Is the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex Fit for Modern War?

Paul Wolfowitz, tapping a pen thoughtfully:

“We’re facing a multi-front challenge—China, Russia, Iran, cyberwarfare, space. The defense complex isn’t too big. It’s just not agile enough.”

Sen. Tom Cotton jumps in, sharp and assertive:

“We’ve allowed the woke left to infiltrate the military. Recruiting suffers. Morale suffers. We need to restore a warrior ethos—and expand force readiness.”

Andrew Bacevich, voice calm but firm:

“That’s missing the forest for the trees. We’re stuck in Cold War procurement and global policing. We need fewer weapon systems and more restraint. Strategy, not saturation.”

William Kristol, measured:

“There’s a kernel of truth in both sides. We do need leaner systems—but cutting the military in a world this volatile would be suicidal.”

Part II: The Threat Landscape – Justifying Military Expansion

Flournoy, pressing:
"Let’s be concrete. Do today’s threats justify a further expansion of the defense industry? Or is reform more urgent than growth?"

Richard Perle responds with a classic hawkish tone:

“We are behind. China has more naval ships. Russia innovates in hybrid warfare. Iran and North Korea test us daily. Expansion isn’t optional—it’s overdue.”

Bacevich, shaking his head:

“We’ve spent $8 trillion since 9/11. What did we get? A weakened Middle East, PTSD-ridden troops, and contractors living like kings. America’s threat isn’t from lack of tanks—it’s from poor doctrine.”

Cotton shoots back:

“Tell that to Taiwan. Or Kyiv. Strength deters war. Appeasement encourages it.”

Irving Kristol’s legacy whispers through:

“The preservation of order requires force—but force must be informed by vision.”

Part III: The Contractor Dilemma – Innovation or Corruption?

Flournoy, with a raised eyebrow:
"Is the military-industrial complex too cozy with defense contractors? Or is private-sector innovation still our best edge?"

Wolfowitz, pragmatic:

“Without contractors, we don’t modernize. But we must end cost overruns and 15-year weapons pipelines. Speed and accountability must go hand in hand.”

Bacevich offers a scathing counterpoint:

“We’ve privatized war. CEOs profit from endless conflict while troops bear the cost. That’s not defense—it’s a racket.”

Kristol (William) tries to mediate:

“We can’t demonize contractors, but we need reform. Congress, not just corporations, must take responsibility for bloat.”

Cotton, firmly:

“We need them—but with teeth in the contracts. Deliver results or lose funding. Period.”

Part IV: Military Culture – Readiness or Identity Crisis?

Flournoy, shifting tone:
"Let’s talk about culture. Recruitment is down. Trust is wavering. Is this a readiness crisis—or a societal one?"

Cotton, instantly:

“The military shouldn’t be a lab for social experiments. Focus on warfighting—not pronouns or critical race theory.”

Bacevich, visibly displeased:

“That’s a deflection. Young Americans aren’t enlisting because they see a military stretched thin, underpaid, and used carelessly—not because of gender policy.”

Wolfowitz, steady:

“We need to make service noble again. That’s cultural—and strategic. Civilians must believe in the mission to support it.”

Irving Kristol’s legacy echoes again:

“A nation without shared purpose will falter—even if its arsenals overflow.”

Part V: Future Tech and Cyberwar – Are We Ready for 21st Century Threats?

Flournoy, with intensity:
"AI, quantum computing, hypersonics, cyberattacks. Are we prepared for war in this century—not the last one?"

Perle, nodding:

“We’ve got fragments. A hypersonic here, a drone there. But no cohesive doctrine. China is integrating tech into strategy. We’re lagging.”

Kristol (William):

“This is our moonshot moment. AI warfare is coming—and if the Pentagon can’t innovate faster, we lose the next war before it starts.”

Bacevich, with a sigh:

“But the more advanced the tech, the higher the risk of overreach. Cyber and drones don’t solve the problem of unclear missions. Tools aren’t strategy.”

Part VI: Moral Responsibility – Is Endless Expansion Sustainable?

Flournoy, final pivot:
"Is there a moral ceiling to this? Can a democratic society sustain a forever-growing military apparatus without eroding its soul?"

Cotton, dryly:

“We’re not Sweden. We’re the world's last line of defense. That takes investment. Freedom isn’t free.”

Bacevich answers firmly:

“And neither is empire. If we militarize every problem, we’ll bankrupt ourselves spiritually and financially.”

Wolfowitz, reflective:

“We need a new doctrine: smart force. Not just more troops—but more trust in why they serve. Our strength must mean something beyond power.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Michele Flournoy

"What we’ve heard tonight is what makes America strong—not just steel and satellites, but spirited dissent and shared responsibility. The challenge ahead is not simply to spend more—but to think better. The military of the future must be lethal and ethical, agile and principled, feared and respected. Rebuilding isn’t just hardware—it’s trust, vision, and purpose."

The Rise of Authoritarianism Globally (2025)

Moderator: Francis Fukuyama – Political philosopher and democracy theorist, author of The End of History and the Last Man

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative voice with a global democracy outlook

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Foreign policy architect with experience in democratization efforts

3. Richard Perle – National security strategist and hawkish realist

4. Irving Kristol – Represented via his ideological writings

5. Maria Ressa – Nobel Prize-winning journalist and defender of press freedom

6. Natan Sharansky – Soviet-era dissident, human rights advocate, Israeli politician

7. Francis Fukuyama – Moderator

Scene: Columbia University Global Democracy Forum – Private Session, 2025

Tensions rise worldwide. Leaders in Russia, China, Turkey, and even parts of Europe tighten their grip. Illiberal democracies thrive. Even in the U.S., democratic norms are under pressure. The participants gather in a quiet seminar room, surrounded by books and portraits of civil rights champions. The mood is serious. The mission: to determine whether the democratic experiment is fading—and if so, how to revive it.

Moderator’s Opening – Francis Fukuyama

"Thank you for being here. Thirty years ago, we spoke of democracy’s inevitable triumph. Today, we see strongmen rising, freedom shrinking, and citizens retreating from truth. What’s driving this—and can the tide still be turned?"

Part I: The Authoritarian Resurgence – What’s Behind It?

Maria Ressa, firmly:

“Authoritarianism isn’t rising by force—it’s rising through algorithms, fear, and lies. Disinformation has made citizens complicit in their own oppression. And the platforms profiting from it won’t save us.”

Wolfowitz, contemplative:

“Disinformation matters, but we must also ask: why do people lose faith in freedom? When democracy fails to deliver stability, prosperity, or security, people seek order—even in the hands of autocrats.”

Kristol (William) adds:

“Exactly. Authoritarianism thrives where liberal institutions grow weak, bureaucratic, or disconnected. We must restore purpose and urgency to democratic governance.”

Sharansky, voice quiet but intense:

“Authoritarianism rises when people are afraid—of chaos, of each other, of change. Fear is the dictator’s currency. Only truth and courage can break that economy.”

Part II: The Role of Western Hypocrisy

Fukuyama, pressing the issue:
"Have we, in the democratic world, undermined our cause by being inconsistent—supporting autocrats when convenient, ignoring abuses when profitable?"

Perle, candid:

“Sometimes yes. But idealism must be tempered by interests. We live in a dangerous world. Not every trade deal or military alliance can pass a purity test.”

Ressa, staring hard:

“But every compromise chips away at our credibility. You can’t preach democracy abroad while jailing whistleblowers or letting billionaires own truth.”

Sharansky, nodding:

“I spent nine years in a Soviet prison. The words that gave me hope came from the West—when they were spoken clearly. Every time the West went silent, we suffered more.”

Wolfowitz, balancing:

“Moral clarity and realism can coexist. We must be principled without being paralyzed.”

Part III: Technology and the Authoritarian Toolkit

Fukuyama, now looking to the future:
"Today’s dictators don’t just censor—they surveil, manipulate, and automate oppression. Are democracies losing the tech war?"

Ressa, instantly:

“We already lost Round One. AI, bot networks, deepfakes—authoritarians use them faster and with fewer ethical barriers. Democracies hesitate while tyrants adapt.”

Perle:

“That’s why national security must include digital infrastructure. We need a NATO for cyber defense—and fast.”

Kristol (William) adds:

“And we need narrative infrastructure too. Tech without truth becomes a weapon.”

Sharansky:

“Technology has no soul. The question is who controls it—and for what purpose.”

Part IV: Illiberal Democracies and the Crisis Within

Fukuyama, turning inward:
"Hungary, India, even parts of the U.S.—we see democratically elected leaders dismantling institutions from within. Is democracy failing at home?"

Wolfowitz, uneasy:

“It’s being tested, certainly. But we can’t equate imperfections with collapse. The American system, though strained, still holds. That’s more than can be said for many others.”

Kristol (William), more urgent:

“We need to defend liberal democracy not just from the outside—but from within our own coalitions. We’ve tolerated populist flirtations with strongman envy for too long.”

Ressa, fiercely:

“If democracies don’t fix themselves, autocrats don’t need to lift a finger. Division, apathy, inequality—they’re the termites in the democratic foundation.”

Part V: Can We Reclaim the Momentum for Freedom?

Fukuyama, final question:
"We’ve diagnosed the disease. Can we still engineer a cure? Can liberal democracy regain its vitality?"

Sharansky, with deep resolve:

“Yes. Always. Because in every prison, in every censored nation, someone still hopes for freedom. But they need our voices. And our courage.”

Ressa:

“Start with the truth. Fund real journalism. Regulate tech. Rebuild trust. Freedom needs infrastructure.”

Wolfowitz:

“And education. Teach civics. Teach history. We’ve raised a generation fluent in platforms but not principles.”

Kristol (William):

“Reclaim patriotism from partisanship. Democracy isn’t a party—it's a project.”

Perle:

“And defend it fiercely. Abroad and at home. With laws, with strength, and with allies.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Francis Fukuyama

"Democracy was never inevitable. It was always a choice—repeated each generation, sometimes each election. We are living through a stress test of the global system. The autocrats are watching, waiting. But so are the dissidents, the students, the citizens who still believe. This conversation is just a beginning. The next move belongs to all of us."

The Retreat of Liberal Democracy (2025)

Moderator: Larry Diamond – Senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, specialist in democratic resilience and reform

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative strategist concerned with democratic decline within the U.S.

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Focused on global democracy promotion and U.S. credibility

3. Richard Perle – Realist voice wary of excessive liberal introspection

4. Irving Kristol – Represented through his essays warning about liberal overreach and moral relativism

5. Yuval Levin – Conservative thinker and institutional reform advocate

6. Ruth Ben-Ghiat – Historian of fascism and modern authoritarianism

7. Larry Diamond – Moderator

Scene: London Democracy Summit, Private Roundtable – 2025

In a quiet conference room with views over Westminster, the tone is more introspective than confrontational. There's no urgent foreign threat to point to—only the growing cracks in the foundation. The participants gather to ask a painful question: Is liberal democracy retreating from within?

Moderator’s Opening – Larry Diamond

"For decades, we thought democracy was self-correcting. That institutions would protect themselves. That citizens would reject authoritarianism. But across the democratic world—especially in the U.S.—we see erosion: of trust, of norms, of participation. Is liberal democracy still viable? Or have we hollowed it out from the inside?"

Part I: Defining the Crisis – What Does 'Retreat' Actually Mean?

Yuval Levin, thoughtful:

“Democracy is retreating not because of coups, but because of cynicism. Citizens don’t trust institutions—and institutions stopped deserving their trust. We must rebuild, not romanticize.”

Kristol (William) nods:

“We once thought the problem was apathy. Now it’s rage. People feel betrayed—by elites, by culture, by outcomes. The liberal consensus frayed, and no one replaced it.”

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, sharper:

“It’s also about leadership. Democracies produce demagogues when they stop producing hope. The tools of repression are now legal—packed courts, electoral manipulation, culture wars. It’s a slow-motion collapse.”

Perle, skeptical:

“Let’s not exaggerate. Democratic institutions are imperfect, yes—but the system still functions. Our enemies want us to believe we’re crumbling when we’re adapting.”

Part II: The Role of Elites and Technocracy

Diamond, steering deeper:
"Is liberal democracy suffering because it became too technocratic, too elite-driven, too distant from real life?"

Levin, firmly:

“Absolutely. Institutions became procedural machines disconnected from moral authority. We have rules—but people don’t believe in them anymore. Restoration starts with re-earning trust.”

Kristol (William) adds:

“We spent decades mocking patriotism, religion, tradition—then wondered why citizens turned to populists who promised to give those things back. Liberalism without roots collapses.”

Ben-Ghiat interjects:

“But let’s be honest—many so-called elites turned democracy into a transaction. Corruption, lobbying, corporate capture—these feed the populist backlash.”

Perle, shrugging:

“That’s a universal problem, not just democratic. Authoritarian regimes are no cleaner. We need reform—not self-flagellation.”

Part III: The Weaponization of Free Speech and Institutions

Diamond, leaning in:
"Free speech is foundational—but also now weaponized. Institutions are flooded with disinformation, polarization, and performative outrage. How do we protect openness without inviting collapse?"

Levin:

“The First Amendment isn’t a suicide pact. Democratic cultures must teach responsibility along with rights. That’s an educational problem as much as a legal one.”

Ben-Ghiat, sharply:

“Authoritarians don’t kill democracy outright—they hijack it. They use the courts to destroy justice, elections to claim mandates, and media freedom to spread lies. Liberal democracies must defend themselves, actively.”

Wolfowitz, agreeing:

“And that’s true abroad as well. We saw this in Iraq and Eastern Europe. A constitution means nothing without civic culture. Laws don’t defend themselves.”

Kristol (William):

“We need a cultural counteroffensive. A revival of democratic virtues—honesty, courage, sacrifice, truth. Rights alone aren’t enough.”

Part IV: Polarization, Identity, and the Collapse of Shared Reality

Diamond, now urgent:
"Can liberal democracy survive when citizens don’t agree on facts, identity, or national purpose?"

Levin, quietly:

“Without a common story, there is no common future. We must reweave the civic fabric—through schools, through media, through community.”

Kristol (Irving), through his writings:

“Liberalism must be tempered by tradition. When all norms are negotiable, identity becomes weaponized.”

Ben-Ghiat:

“Populists thrive in this void. They offer clarity—even if it’s false. If democracies can’t offer purpose, they’ll lose to lies that feel like destiny.”

Perle, with caution:

“Let’s not confuse pluralism with fracture. Americans have always argued. The danger is when we stop listening—or when only extremes are heard.”

Part V: Restoring Liberal Democracy – Is Reform Still Possible?

Diamond, final pivot:
"Can we restore liberal democracy—before something worse replaces it? And what would that restoration look like?"

Levin:

“Reform must start small—local institutions, school boards, community trust. Democracy doesn’t just live in Washington or Brussels. It lives in neighborhoods.”

Wolfowitz:

“We need to teach civic pride again. Patriotism that isn’t blind, but loyal. If democracy is to be defended abroad, it must be modeled at home.”

Kristol (William):

“And we need leadership—moral, not just managerial. Statesmen who inspire, not just govern.”

Ben-Ghiat:

“And we need to prosecute corruption—fearlessly. If the rule of law fails, democracy is already gone.”

Perle, more hopeful:

“Democracy is fragile—but also resilient. We’ve bounced back before. But the window for renewal won’t stay open forever.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Larry Diamond

"Liberal democracy is not a machine—it is a living system, one that must be renewed constantly through trust, responsibility, and vision. The challenge is not just political, but cultural and moral. If we want to preserve democracy for future generations, we must not only vote—but build, speak, and lead with integrity. The retreat can be reversed—but only if we choose to advance."

Ukraine and the New Cold War (2025)

Moderator: Fiona Hill – Russia expert, former National Security Council advisor, known for candid, deeply informed analysis

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative commentator supporting U.S. engagement abroad

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Defense strategist and advocate for strong democratic alliances

3. Richard Perle – Veteran national security advisor and hawk on Russia

4. Irving Kristol – Represented through his legacy writings emphasizing moral clarity

5. Gen. David Petraeus – Former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

6. Andriy Yermak – Chief of Staff to the President of Ukraine (fictionalized version for this setting)

7. Fiona Hill – Moderator

Scene: NATO Strategy Roundtable – Brussels, 2025

The air is crisp, and the atmosphere charged. It’s been over three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war continues in grinding fashion, with new offensives and unexpected alliances. NATO is unified but strained. In this off-the-record summit, key thinkers and leaders gather to ask the hard questions: Is this the dawn of a new Cold War—and if so, who’s winning?

Moderator’s Opening – Fiona Hill

"Thank you for being here. The war in Ukraine has reshaped the global order, redrawn borders of alliance and fear, and reignited fundamental debates. Is Russia back to being America’s great adversary? Are we entering Cold War 2.0—or something even more dangerous?"

Part I: What Is the Ukraine War Really About?

William Kristol, opening the discussion:

“This is about more than Ukraine. It’s about whether the post-World War II order survives. If Putin succeeds, it tells every dictator that borders are negotiable and democracies are disposable.”

Wolfowitz, nodding:

“And it’s also about memory. Russia believes the Cold War never ended—it just paused. We’re not in a new conflict. We’re in the continuation of the last one.”

Yermak, speaking from the front:

“For us, this isn’t theory. It’s life and death. Ukraine stands alone in the trench, but we fight for everyone who believes in sovereignty and freedom.”

Perle, grave:

“We underestimated Russia’s resilience—and overestimated our own deterrence. We let Putin believe the West was soft. That mistake is now being paid for in Ukrainian blood.”

Part II: NATO's Role – United or Hollow?

Hill, asking bluntly:
"NATO has held together remarkably well—but is that unity sustainable? Or is fatigue setting in?"

Petraeus, leaning in:

“Unity was real—at first. Weapons flowed, sanctions hit hard. But wars of attrition test more than tanks. They test stamina. And Russia is betting the West will get tired.”

Kristol (William):

“Which is why U.S. leadership is irreplaceable. Europe alone can’t hold the line. If America wavers, NATO fractures. That’s what Putin is counting on.”

Yermak, quietly:

“We’re grateful—but promises don’t stop missiles. We need long-term commitment, not symbolic visits. Ukraine isn’t just a buffer. We’re the frontline of your values.”

Wolfowitz:

“Exactly. This war is a chance to remind the world what NATO stands for—or watch it fade into irrelevance.”

Part III: Diplomacy vs. Victory – Is There a Negotiated End?

Hill, shifting tone:
"Is total Ukrainian victory possible—or should we prepare for an imperfect diplomatic solution?"

Perle, shaking his head:

“Putin only understands force. Every ceasefire has been a prelude to more war. If we negotiate now, we reward aggression and embolden others.”

Petraeus, strategic:

“Every war ends—sometimes by victory, sometimes by exhaustion. But any negotiation must be from a position of strength. Right now, that means continuing support.”

Yermak, resolute:

“Ukraine will not trade land for peace. We’ve buried too many to pretend this is just politics. We fight because if we stop, we cease to exist.”

Kristol (William), cautiously:

“Diplomacy may come, but not before Ukraine reclaims the moral and territorial high ground. Otherwise, we teach the world that might makes right.”

Part IV: The New Cold War – What Makes This One Different?

Hill, asking:
"Are we truly in a new Cold War—and how is this one different from the last?"

Wolfowitz:

“This Cold War is messier. The old one had clear lines. Now we’re fighting proxy wars with drones, misinformation, and cyber sabotage. It’s everywhere and nowhere.”

Kristol (Irving), through his ideas:

“The Cold War was not just military. It was moral. The real battle was over the soul of modernity—freedom versus control. That battle continues.”

Petraeus:

“In this version, economics and tech matter more than nukes. Sanctions, chips, and infrastructure define power as much as missiles do.”

Yermak:

“And unlike the old Cold War, civilians are no longer spectators. Every phone, every post, every drone—ordinary people are part of the battlefield.”

Part V: America’s Role – Leader or Bystander?

Hill, driving the core dilemma:
"Does America have the will to lead this fight for the long haul—or are we already turning inward?"

Kristol (William):

“There’s a real danger of retreat. Isolationism is rising. Populism whispers that Ukraine isn’t our problem. But if we abandon this fight, we abandon the future.”

Wolfowitz:

“This is a test of American identity. We said ‘never again’ after World War II. Well—‘again’ is here. And the world is watching whether we meant it.”

Perle, severe:

“If America doesn’t lead, no one else will. And then the next war won’t be in Donetsk—it’ll be in Tallinn, or Warsaw, or worse.”

Petraeus:

“Leadership means showing up—consistently. Not just when the headlines spike. The U.S. must fund, train, support—not just symbolically, but structurally.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Fiona Hill

"Ukraine is not just a war. It’s a reckoning—with our assumptions, our alliances, our courage. This may be a new Cold War, but it asks an old question: who will stand for freedom when it is most at risk? What happens in Ukraine won’t stay in Ukraine. The battlefield may be theirs—but the verdict will belong to all of us."

The Role of AI in Warfare and Defense Strategy (2025)

Restoring American Exceptionalism (2025)

Moderator: Robert Kagan – Historian, political theorist, and advocate for U.S. global leadership grounded in moral vision

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Political strategist, neoconservative voice for American purpose

2. Paul Wolfowitz – Defense policy architect and democracy promoter

3. Richard Perle – Strategic hawk emphasizing power as moral clarity

4. Irving Kristol – Represented through his foundational writings on virtue and patriotism

5. Arthur Brooks – Author and public intellectual focusing on purpose, dignity, and national renewal

6. Cornel West – Progressive philosopher and moral critic of America’s broken promises

7. Robert Kagan – Moderator

Scene: National Constitution Center – Philadelphia, 2025

A marble room beneath the shadows of the Founding Fathers. Flags hang still, and the weight of history is palpable. The debate is not about America’s enemies—but about America’s soul. Can the U.S. once again stand for something the world respects, or is "exceptionalism" now a relic of arrogance?

Moderator’s Opening – Robert Kagan

"Thank you all for gathering. 'American exceptionalism' once meant more than power—it meant purpose. But today, that word triggers eye-rolls as much as pride. The world doubts us. Many at home do too. What does it mean now, in 2025, to say America is exceptional—and should we even try to restore it?"

Part I: What Does 'Exceptionalism' Mean Today?

William Kristol, opening:

“Exceptionalism means responsibility. We’re not chosen by God, but by history—because no one else can lead with the same mix of might and ideals. When we step back, the world darkens.”

Arthur Brooks, smiling:

“It’s not about superiority. It’s about service. We were exceptional when we invited the world to dream with us—when we were the land of second chances, not first strikes.”

Cornel West, folding his hands:

“But let’s be real. You can’t speak of exceptionalism while ignoring mass incarceration, inequality, and militarism. We’re exceptional at producing billionaires—but also despair.”

Wolfowitz, calm but clear:

“That critique matters. But it doesn’t erase the good. We liberated Europe. We rebuilt Japan. We sent aid to every continent. That’s not imperialism. That’s leadership.”

Part II: Is American Exceptionalism Dead?

Kagan, leaning forward:
"Critics say exceptionalism has become cover for mistakes—Vietnam, Iraq, polarization, racism. Have we lost the right to that label?"

Perle, direct:

“No. We’ve stumbled, yes—but so has every great nation. The difference is: we fix our flaws in public. That’s exceptional. Our openness is our strength.”

Cornel West:

“But what about hypocrisy? We speak of freedom while backing dictators. Of equality while redlining communities. Until we close the gap between our promise and our practice, exceptionalism rings hollow.”

Arthur Brooks, offering balance:

“Yet the gap itself proves something special—that we know what we should be. Most regimes don’t even pretend to care about justice. The American project is aspirational. That’s worth saving.”

Irving Kristol, through his work:

“A nation without belief in its moral mission dissolves into self-interest. Exceptionalism is not pride—it is burden.”

Part III: How Can America Regain Moral Leadership?

Kagan, turning practical:
"So if we’ve lost our way—how do we find it again? What must we do to be worthy of exceptionalism?"

Kristol (William):

“We need a civic revival. Schools should teach the Constitution and the civil rights movement. Pride doesn’t mean propaganda—it means complexity.”

Brooks:

“And we need a purpose beyond politics. Service, community, shared sacrifice. National greatness starts with neighbors who look out for each other.”

Wolfowitz:

“Abroad, we must stand up for allies, for human rights, for liberty. Not just because it’s moral—but because when we don’t, the world breaks.”

Cornel West, fire in his tone:

“Then start at home. Justice is the best foreign policy. Heal the wounds of slavery, inequality, and exclusion. Then maybe we can speak of leading.”

Perle, acknowledging:

“We can do both. Fix our house and still defend freedom. They are not opposites—they are intertwined.”

Part IV: Global Perception – Does the World Still Believe in America?

Kagan, skeptical:
"Let’s talk perception. After Afghanistan, January 6th, and deep partisanship—do we still have global moral authority?"

Wolfowitz:

“Yes. Because despite our flaws, people still risk their lives to get here. That means something. Our enemies don’t inspire dreams—they build walls.”

Kristol (William):

“Our greatest asset isn’t power. It’s hope. If we lose that, we lose everything.”

Cornel West, sharply:

“Hope without accountability becomes illusion. The world sees George Floyd and Joe Biden. They wait to see which America wins.”

Arthur Brooks:

“That’s our challenge. To prove—through action—that liberty and dignity can coexist. That we’re not done growing.”

Part V: Can Exceptionalism Survive the Culture War?

Kagan, now with urgency:
"At home, we are more divided than ever. Can a fractured America offer a unified vision to the world?"

Brooks:

“Yes—but only if we move from contempt to curiosity. The left and right both love this country—but differently. We must speak each other’s language again.”

Cornel West:

“Love demands truth. Until we name the pain, we can’t write a new anthem. Unity begins with justice.”

Perle:

“And with courage. We need leaders who don’t fear backlash—who can say, ‘This is who we are, and this is who we aim to be.’”

Kristol (William):

“Exceptionalism isn’t nostalgia. It’s renewal. And renewal requires risk.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Robert Kagan

"American exceptionalism is not a myth—it’s a mirror. We see in it both our highest virtues and our deepest failures. It is a project, not a trophy. It cannot be claimed—it must be earned, every generation. And though the path is hard, the alternative is harder. A world without American leadership is a world in search of light."

Critique of U.S. Isolationism and Populism (2025)

Moderator: Bret Stephens – New York Times columnist and conservative internationalist with a strong stance against populist nationalism and retreat from global leadership

Participants:

1. William Kristol – Neoconservative strategist, vocal critic of isolationism
2. Paul Wolfowitz – Former defense official, believes American leadership is essential for world order
3. Richard Perle – Realist hawk, defender of U.S. global posture
4. Irving Kristol – Represented via his writings, which cautioned against both utopianism and withdrawal
5. Danielle Pletka – Foreign policy scholar, critic of populist disengagement from international affairs
6. Tucker Carlson – Representing the populist right’s challenge to globalism (fictionalized for balance)
7. Bret Stephens – Moderator

Scene: Aspen Security Forum – Private Night Session, 2025

The fire crackles in the hearth of a dimly lit salon. Outside, snow drifts quietly through Colorado pines. Inside, ideological sparks fly. The stakes? Whether America turns inward permanently—or reclaims its outward gaze. The question: Has populism made America stronger, or dangerously withdrawn from its role in the world?

Moderator’s Opening – Bret Stephens

"Welcome. We’re here to ask a question few want to answer honestly: has U.S. populism, once a voice of the forgotten, now become a threat to America’s global leadership? Can we afford to isolate ourselves—and what are the consequences if we do?"

Part I: What Drives Modern Isolationism?

Danielle Pletka, opening firmly:

“Isolationism is rooted in exhaustion. Two decades of war, broken trust in elites, and economic anxiety created a perfect storm. But retreating doesn’t solve any of those problems—it makes them worse.”

Tucker Carlson, folding his arms:

“What makes it worse is sending billions to Ukraine while Americans live in tent cities. Isolationism? No—we’re just asking: what’s in it for us? And nobody’s answered that.”

Wolfowitz, sharply:

“We tried that in the 1930s. It didn’t go well. The world doesn’t stop needing leadership because we’re tired. If we retreat, others rush in—and they won’t play by our rules.”

Kristol (William):

“Populism is right to call out corruption and failure. But isolationism is the wrong response. The challenge isn’t America doing too much—it’s doing the wrong things without purpose.”

Part II: Is Populism a Threat to Liberal Democracy?

Stephens, pointedly:
"Is this just about foreign policy—or is populism threatening democracy itself?"

Perle, cautious:

“Populism becomes dangerous when it rejects norms. When it’s grievance without guardrails. Not all populism is bad—but when it scapegoats institutions, it weakens democracy.”

Pletka:

“We’ve seen populists attack the courts, the media, the military—all while claiming to defend ‘the people.’ That’s not patriotism. That’s power hunger dressed as rebellion.”

Tucker Carlson, smiling thinly:

“Maybe people are sick of being told that dissent is dangerous. Maybe they don’t trust the ‘norms’ that gave us endless wars and crumbling cities. That’s not a threat—it’s a correction.”

Irving Kristol, via legacy:

“Democracy depends not just on institutions, but on virtue. When citizens lose a shared moral horizon, freedom becomes chaos—or control.”

Part III: America First – Slogan or Strategy?

Stephens, asking directly:
"Does ‘America First’ make America stronger—or just lonelier?"

Wolfowitz:

“America First becomes America Last when it means abandoning allies, breaking treaties, and ignoring atrocities. It’s not strategy—it’s sloganism.”

Kristol (William):

“We should defend American interests—but our interests include a stable world order. ‘America First’ makes sense only if it understands that leadership is an investment, not a handout.”

Tucker Carlson, raising an eyebrow:

“And yet, we’ve ‘led’ the world into disaster: Iraq, Libya, global financial crashes. Maybe sitting one out isn’t cowardice. Maybe it’s wisdom.”

Pletka:

“And maybe you confuse caution with retreat. We don’t need another Iraq—but we do need to stand with allies, uphold trade rules, and stop dictators.”

Part IV: Populism and the Culture of Resentment

Stephens, pressing the cultural front:
"Has populism become a politics of resentment? Or does it still offer real reform?"

Perle:

“Populism gave voice to the unheard—but now it’s become a grievance industry. Rage without solutions. That’s dangerous—because anger is easy to sell, but hard to govern.”

Kristol (William):

“Populism must evolve. Otherwise, it will implode—or be hijacked by authoritarian impulses. Reform is noble. Resentment alone is toxic.”

Tucker Carlson, calmly:

“Resentment? Maybe. But earned. The system failed the people. Elites mocked their values, exported their jobs, and then blamed them for being angry. That anger is real—and justified.”

Pletka:

“Fine—but let’s turn that anger into rebuilding, not retreat. American greatness doesn’t come from sulking. It comes from rising.”

Part V: What Happens If America Truly Retreats?

Stephens, final challenge:
"What’s the world look like if America continues pulling back?"

Wolfowitz:

“It’s a world where China dictates trade, Russia redraws borders, and Iran dominates the Middle East. It’s a world where our allies hedge—or defect.”

Kristol (William):

“It’s a world without a moral compass. American imperfection is real—but our absence creates a vacuum no one fills with freedom.”

Pletka:

“And the next generation of leaders—India, Brazil, Africa’s rising stars—they’re watching. If we abandon them, why should they believe in democracy?”

Tucker Carlson, unshaken:

“Or maybe it’s a world where Americans finally fix their own house. Fewer foreign entanglements. More strength at home. That doesn’t sound like failure. That sounds like focus.”

Perle, staring hard:

“It’s not either-or. It never was. Great nations do both—secure their home and shape the world. The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we still want to.”

Moderator’s Final Reflection – Bret Stephens

"Populism gave America a wake-up call—but isolation is not the answer. The world doesn’t stop needing leadership just because we’re disillusioned. If we retreat, others won’t pause—they’ll replace us. The future of democracy, prosperity, and freedom depends on what we choose next: withdrawal, or renewal. The mirror is in front of us. Let’s not look away."

Final Thoughts by Tucker Carlson

Well, there you have it. Ten full chapters of what our ruling class really thinks—delivered with polish, conviction, and not a shred of self-awareness.

According to these people, America’s destiny is to police the world, lecture it endlessly about ‘values,’ and intervene wherever possible—preferably with drones, sanctions, or troops someone else’s kid will be sent to deploy.

They talked about freedom. But not yours. They talked about democracy. But not accountability. They talked about leadership. But never once did they talk about staying home and fixing the disaster they helped create here.

You probably noticed what was missing: no mention of fentanyl overdoses, open borders, destroyed manufacturing towns, rising crime, or the basic dignity of Americans who just want their country back. That’s not their war.

So as you finish this series, ask yourself: Do you want the future they’re planning? Or do you think maybe it’s time to stop saving the world—and start saving America?

Because if you leave your future in their hands, don’t be surprised when you find yourself fighting another war you never voted for, in a country you’ve never heard of, while your own falls apart.

Short Bios:

William Kristol
Political commentator and co-founder of The Weekly Standard, Kristol is a leading neoconservative voice advocating for U.S. leadership and moral clarity in global affairs.

Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank, known for shaping post–Cold War U.S. foreign policy and promoting democracy abroad.

Richard Perle
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and longtime national security advisor, Perle is known for his hawkish stance on military strategy and foreign threats.

Irving Kristol (represented via writings)
Regarded as the “godfather of neoconservatism,” Kristol championed the defense of Western values and moral purpose in U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Robert Kagan
Historian and foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, Kagan writes extensively on America’s global role and the fragility of the liberal world order.

Condoleezza Rice
Former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Rice is a seasoned diplomat known for her work in promoting American interests and values abroad.

Robert Gates
Former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Bush and Obama, Gates is a pragmatist who emphasizes diplomacy, alliances, and strategic balance.

Anne Applebaum
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and journalist, Applebaum writes on authoritarianism, democracy, and post-Soviet Europe.

Kevin Rudd
Former Prime Minister of Australia and China expert, Rudd brings deep insight into Indo-Pacific diplomacy and great-power competition.

Elbridge Colby
Defense strategist and co-author of the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy, Colby advocates for a realist, deterrence-based U.S. approach to China.

Mira Rapp-Hooper
Director for Indo-Pacific Strategy at the U.S. National Security Council, expert on alliances and Asia-Pacific security.

Michael Doran
Middle East policy analyst and former NSC official, known for his strong support of Israel and critiques of Iranian influence.

Trita Parsi
Executive VP of the Quincy Institute, Parsi is a prominent critic of U.S. military intervention and advocate for diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Tamara Cofman Wittes
Brookings Institution senior fellow and democracy promotion expert, focusing on the Middle East and U.S. foreign aid.

Michele Flournoy
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, Flournoy is a leading voice on defense modernization.

Tom Cotton
U.S. Senator from Arkansas and Army veteran, Cotton is a vocal defense hawk and critic of military “wokeness.”

Andrew Bacevich
Retired U.S. Army colonel and historian, Bacevich critiques militarism and champions restraint in U.S. foreign policy.

Francis Fukuyama
Political theorist and author of The End of History, Fukuyama studies democratic decay and authoritarian resurgence.

Maria Ressa
Nobel Peace Prize–winning journalist and CEO of Rappler, Ressa is a global advocate for press freedom and against authoritarian media manipulation.

Natan Sharansky
Former Soviet dissident and Israeli politician, Sharansky is a global symbol of freedom and moral resistance to tyranny.

Larry Diamond
Stanford University political scientist focused on democratic resilience, civic renewal, and authoritarian pushback.

Yuval Levin
Political theorist and AEI fellow, Levin advocates for institutional reform and civic trust-building in liberal democracies.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat
Historian of authoritarian regimes and propaganda, Ben-Ghiat is a frequent commentator on global democratic backsliding.

Fiona Hill
Russia expert and former White House advisor, Hill brings deep insight into Russian strategy and U.S.–Russia relations.

Gen. David Petraeus
Retired four-star general and former CIA Director, Petraeus led coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan with a focus on counterinsurgency and strategic leadership.

Andriy Yermak
Chief of Staff to the President of Ukraine, Yermak plays a central role in Ukraine’s diplomacy and wartime strategy.

Eric Schmidt
Former CEO of Google and Chair of the U.S. National Security Commission on AI, Schmidt leads thought on tech and defense integration.

Dr. Fei-Fei Li
Stanford AI expert and ethicist, Dr. Li is known for her work on responsible AI and human-centered innovation.

Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan
Former director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center at the Department of Defense, Shanahan focuses on AI applications in military strategy.

Arthur Brooks
Author and professor at Harvard, Brooks writes about human dignity, purpose, and rebuilding American unity through moral leadership.

Cornel West
Public intellectual and civil rights activist, West critiques systemic injustice and calls for moral consistency in U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Danielle Pletka
Senior fellow at AEI and foreign policy analyst, Pletka is a vocal critic of populism’s impact on global engagement.

Tucker Carlson (fictionalized for balance)
Media figure representing the populist right’s challenge to U.S. interventionism and globalism, advocating for “America First” realignment.

Bret Stephens
New York Times columnist known for his eloquent defense of liberal democracy and criticism of isolationism and populism.