The Dialog has been a staple of The Occasions’s Opinion pages since 2017. However after eight years, the weekly dialogue between the liberal columnist Gail Collins and her conservative colleague Bret Stephens has come to an finish. The editor Aaron Retica joins Gail and Bret to reply reader questions and focus on how they’ve managed years of civil conversations — for the primary and final time in audio.
Beneath is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We advocate listening to it in its unique kind for the total impact. You are able to do so utilizing the participant above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been flippantly edited for size and readability.
Aaron Retica: I’m Aaron Retica, an editor at giant within the Opinion part of The New York Occasions.
On this job I work loads with various our columnists and one of many nice joys, actually delights, of my life right here is that I get to work on one thing we referred to as The Dialog, which is a weekly dialogue between two of our columnists — Gail Collins, who’s standing in for liberal America, and Bret Stephens, who’s standing in for conservative America.
It has appeared each Monday morning and is an important a part of the agenda-setting and thought world of the Opinion part.
I’m sorry to say that after eight years collectively, this explicit iteration of The Dialog is coming to an finish.
And we didn’t need to simply let it drop there, so I’ve introduced them collectively within the studio to replicate a little bit on the years they’ve been doing this, what the longer term would possibly maintain and actually simply to offer us one final dialog in audio kind.
Within the final written Dialog, we requested readers to ship of their ideas and questions for Gail and Bret. And you probably did so by the tons of. So I’m going to attempt to incorporate as lots of these questions into this episode as I probably can.
Gail and Bret, welcome. Thanks a lot for coming in to do that.
Bret Stephens: Hello there.
Gail Collins: Nice to be right here. Thanks for having us.
Retica: So for the people who find themselves listening to this who do not know what The Dialog is, let’s simply lay out what it’s that you simply guys do.
Collins: One among us begins with a basic subject and we electronic mail one another. What you’re studying within the paper is the emails that we’ve despatched forwards and backwards. I’ll say, “Bret, what about this factor Trump did?” Or if I ever get determined, I at all times say, “Properly, why can’t we’ve taxes for the rich?” after which that may distract him from no matter good factors he’s making at that cut-off date.
It’s a very enjoyable solution to have the form of conversations that I believe folks miss having lately.
Stephens: For individuals who’ve by no means encountered us, it’s a dialog in a conversational tone between liberal and a conservative columnists who, regardless of their political variations, like one another and are ready to sit down down at a metaphorical desk.
Retica: With a metaphorical glass of wine.
Stephens: With a metaphorical glass of wine and —
Retica: Typically not metaphorical.
Collins: Typically not metaphorical, no. [Laughs.]
Stephens: And we shoot the — I assume the breeze, for the higher a part of an hour. And we’ve executed it week in and week out for eight years. We’re simply bringing it to an in depth now as a result of we’ve books to write down.
It’s been form of wonderful that the best factor we do has been the most well-liked factor that we do. [Collins laughs.]
Retica: It’s sobering.
Stephens: I can’t inform you what number of instances in what number of settings somebody has approached me and mentioned, “Is Gail Collins as humorous in actual life as she is on paper?”
A narrative I advised in our final dialog was I used to be standing on a road nook in L.A., simply minding my very own enterprise — I believe I used to be ready for an Uber — and a few whole stranger comes as much as me and he appears to be like at me and says, “You’re Bret Stephens,” in this type of good means. And I assumed: huh, you realize, I’m being acknowledged.
So I mentioned, “Properly, sure I’m.” After which he laughed and he mentioned, “Gail Collins is my favourite columnist!” [Collins laughs.]
I needed to snigger. I referred to as Gail straight away. That was what The Dialog actually was about. I believe it was not simply between us, but it surely concerned so many individuals from everywhere in the nation who, of their means, participated.
Collins: Bret’s the form of one who would inform you a narrative like this. That’s why folks actually love him a lot and browse him a lot.
I’ve mentioned to him too, that strolling round in my neighborhood on the Higher West Aspect of Manhattan, which is probably the most liberal Democratic neighborhood in your complete universe, most likely, persons are at all times stopping me and saying: “Hello, how’s Bret? How’s that going?” They actually love feeling like they’re speaking to him.
Stephens: Yeah. However their following query is, “Is he lifeless but?”
Collins: [Laughs.] Not precisely. No.
Retica: We now have plenty of reader questions that I’m going to show to, however first we need to show a little bit bit about what The Dialog is.
The large story, clearly over the eight years that we’ve been doing this collectively, has been the transformation of the Republican Social gathering. It’s now not the occasion, Bret, that you simply had been an fanatic of, proper? It’s nearly completely completely different.
Stephens: Yeah.
Retica: We’re all completely different ages, however all of us grew up to some extent with Russia being the enemy and Ronald Reagan speaking concerning the evil empire. Now Russia’s our greatest buddy. That’s only one instance of so many.
Stephens: On so many topics, I consider the Republican Social gathering as Upsidedownistan. [Retica laughs.]
I grew up as a youthful believer within the virtues of free commerce. I keep in mind Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and John McCain speaking concerning the significance of complete immigration reform, worldwide relations, a powerful NATO, partnerships world wide, a tilt in opposition to the old-school isolationism that outlined the Republican Social gathering within the Thirties and early Forties.
All of that has been upended. I keep in mind my mother and father’ era would typically say, “We by no means left the Democratic Social gathering; the Democratic Social gathering left us.” That was a cliché of the time for lots of Reagan Democrats. I’m on the opposite facet of that now. My views are just about the identical as they had been 10 years in the past. It’s the Republican Social gathering that’s simply marched right into a darkish place.
Collins: It’s actually a problem making an attempt to have arguments typically, as a result of he actually does hate Donald Trump probably greater than even I do.
Retica: Can we discuss a little bit bit concerning the degradation of public discourse that’s happening? You’re speaking concerning the ideological adjustments, however there’s additionally been a sea change in the way in which folks carry out politics.
You have got folks actually in worry of mobs being unleashed on them on-line and likewise typically in actual life. How a lot of that’s due to Trump? Is he a symptom or is he a trigger?
Collins: I believe he’s a symptom.
Retica: What do we’ve to do to make that change? As a result of it looks as if we’re not going change the remainder of it if that doesn’t change.
Collins: It’s a must to get used to the concept that the most important change in American politics in our historical past, I at all times thought, was when individuals who had been residing in cities, who solely knew they belonged to a celebration however didn’t know anything apart from their little city issues, all of a sudden began getting newspapers and mail and realizing there’s a nationwide factor on the market, and we should always take note of it — and who the heck is Grover Cleveland? [Laughs.]
That was so transformative. In folks’s lifetimes, one thing that was very native and regional remodeled into this nationwide argument. And now it’s occurring for a second time, and it’s equally as thunderous.
Stephens: You’re speaking concerning the social media revolution? A media revolution?
Collins: Yeah. Yeah.
Stephens: It’s true. There is no such thing as a longer a felt want among the many political class to speak to folks on the opposite facet. The felt want is to speak to the extremists by yourself facet.
Rising up, I had the sense that politicians on the fringe realized they needed to bend to the middle with a view to acquire respectability and broader attraction. Now the politicians on the middle are at all times bending towards the perimeter. And I believe that’s particularly pronounced within the Republican Social gathering, the place so most of the senators and governors will inform you privately that some place is a lunatic place, however their public posturing is at all times for the sake of stopping a main.
Gail is true. Social media, which brings collectively these accretions of like-minded indignant folks has been an enormous driver of that. So Trump actually was a symptom of this new expertise that created this indignant, vitriolic and more and more polarized temper.
Retica: Is there a recourse? How will we get out of that? How do you push again in opposition to it?
Collins: It’s not straightforward and we received’t know in a means, as a result of extra media stuff will occur on a regular basis and issues will change. However it’s attention-grabbing to me how wildly enthusiastic persons are about the concept that Bret and I can have a dialog and never scream at one another.
Clearly there’s a starvation for that on the market.
Stephens: I used to be at all times fascinated by the truth that if you happen to seemed for The Dialog on-line, like on social media, it principally had no presence. And but our numbers when it comes to New York Occasions readership — it’s not a small quantity — had been unbelievable.
Gail, you and I’d marvel like, gosh, this piece simply rocketed northward! How is that even doable? And I believe it’s as a result of social media’s algorithms are constructed for outrage. And our algorithm, if that’s what you need to name it, was constructed for one thing totally completely different. I believe there’s a silent majority of people that desire a actually completely different tone in political dialog. They simply don’t know the place to seek out it.
Retica: Or how one can do it themselves. Proper? So let me flip to the primary reader query.
Linda Moussouris, who’s from Cambridge, Mass., asks how did you guys do that? Might you simply clarify that course of and discuss a little bit bit about the way you selected matters.
Stephens: Oh, we should always simply lie about this. [Laughs.]
Collins: We received’t inform. We’ll by no means inform.
Stephens: We’ll by no means inform. No, go forward Gail.
Collins: Really it turned out to be very straightforward. Many individuals assume we truly discuss to at least one one other, after which it will get written down, however we do it over the course of a day. Bret is such a genius traveler that he can do all this on airplanes or in kayaks or no matter.
Retica: Particularly kayaks.
Stephens: Sure, kayaking was my specialty.
Collins: I can’t do this. I’m at dwelling after I’m doing stuff like this. And because the day goes on, I write him a factor, after which he writes a factor again. As a result of we’ve been doing it for a very long time now, we form of know which issues will lead into different issues, and we guarantee that we’re not being too cranky or too glib.
Stephens: I believe it was essential that we labored arduous to maintain it mild. One of many analogies I’ve had in my thoughts as we’ve executed that is that it’s like we’re enjoying tennis, not with the aim of scoring factors, however simply preserving the ball within the air. And never being too fussy about making an attempt to win an argument, so at no level had been we spending time going to the facet and searching up some killer information level to fully refute no matter loopy factor Gail simply mentioned.
The concept was to maintain the ball within the air. We arrived at this courtroom as mates, and we’re going to depart as mates, and we’re going to do it each week. That was, I believe, the mind set that was central to the enterprise.
Retica: In order that brings us proper to the query that Wyatt Franz in Phoenix requested: “In the case of having a correct dialogue with somebody who’s coming from a special political perspective, what do you’re feeling one of the simplest ways to start out that dialog is? And to take care of it — to permit for correct discourse with out it flying off the rails?”
Gail, why don’t you begin.
Collins: We began from completely different factors on the earth and my level in most of my profession has been making an attempt to take no matter’s happening and discuss to folks about it in a means that’s amusing and humorous. And Bret’s has been explaining issues in a means that is sensible and it’s essential. And he’s the one who more often than not would convey up a critical level, after which I’ll should go and reply to it in some sane means. It’s an ideal problem.
Stephens: You see, Gail is so good. What she meant to say was: Bret’s often the one who comes up with an insane level [Collins laughs], and I’ve to go and discover a sane solution to strategy it.
However to the query from Wyatt in Arizona, I believe it’s essential that you simply not go right into a dialog with the concept that you’re going to win. It’s not a contest. It’s an effort to learn the way the opposite facet thinks.
Folks have requested me, is persuasion doable? I’ve a tough time pondering it’s. I believe what you are able to do is make an individual — an affordable individual — on the opposite facet of an argument, say: “Hmm, I can see it. I can see what you’re saying.”
That doesn’t imply I want you to agree with me or that I must form of assert my mental dominance. It simply means like, all proper, I get it. That doesn’t sound fully silly. And I’m going to return and assume a little bit bit about why that’s not totally proper or completely incorrect. However the second it turns into a contest, the second pleasure will get concerned, you’re doomed to bitterness.
That’s why humor is so essential. As Alan Simpson, the nice senator for Wyoming, as soon as mentioned, humor is the common solvent. It actually eases conversations, particularly once they come to tense moments.
Retica: You talked about persuasion, and we had been requested loads about that. And by the way in which, thanks very a lot to the tons of and tons of and tons of of readers who wrote in.
Collins: Thanks guys. Thanks.
Stephens: Yeah, I imply, we actually owe it to them.
Collins: Rattling straight.
Retica: So Lauren Brooks from Madison, Wis. — wow, we actually are doing the tour of the New York Occasions-friendly cities.
Stephens: Go, Badgers! [Collins chuckles.]
Retica: Lauren desires to know if doing this ever led you to truly change your place. Not 180-degree change, however like was there one thing the place you got here out pondering in another way on account of your dialog?
Stephens: I’d say on gun management — it was by no means one thing I considered an ideal deal, as a result of after I was at The Wall Avenue Journal, my remit was overseas coverage and it was simply a difficulty that I simply kind of thought, OK, nicely there’s so many weapons within the nation and there’s nothing you may actually do about it.
However speaking to Gail, there have been a complete sequence of moments throughout our conversations after we needed to take inventory of some recent atrocity —
Retica: Simply a tremendous slew of this stuff.
Stephens: — whether or not it was in Las Vegas or Buffalo or the horrific college killing in Uvalde, Texas. I imply, so many.
Gail positively swayed me on this. And I believe in some unspecified time in the future I wrote a column referred to as “Repeal the Second Amendment,” due to Gail’s affect.
Collins: Oh, oh.
Stephens: Aw. [Laughs.]
Retica: And promptly led to the repeal of the Second Modification. Sure. Displaying our affect nationwide. [All laugh.]
Retica: Yet one more query about this complete query of political discourse; this one comes from Ruth Wooden. She talks about how when she was youthful, she had political discourse on the eating desk each evening, dialog with mates, first form of mimicking the mother and father’ opinions, however then discovering their very own opinions over time.
However then she mentioned, now I worry that political discourse via information organizations and social media simply doesn’t exist in any respect anymore. And the query she requested, I believe, is a tricky one, which is, “How do you inform a world that doesn’t need to be told?”
Collins: It is dependent upon what it’s. Clearly there are some issues which can be so essential and so important, you merely should say, look, that is the way in which it’s and we’ve to argue. However there’s plenty of stuff within the center, and it does actually assist if you may make it appear extra pleasant. If you may make it appear to be one thing that you simply’re not going to really feel such as you’re an fool since you didn’t agree with all of it alongside.
For those who can really feel such as you’re having enjoyable, I believe that the truth that we’ve enjoyable after we argue with each other is a very massive, massive essential a part of no matter we do.
Retica: What do you consider that?
Stephens: I believe it is among the nice perils of our democracy that persons are shedding the habits of a free thoughts, that they’re so not often uncovered to a opposite perspective from a really early age, that they don’t benefit from the thought of blending it up.
I imply, I had the advantage of coming from a politically boisterous household. We cherished to speak about these things. After which in highschool, we’d like to argue about these things. I had an ideal affect in highschool, a historical past trainer named Elliott Trommald, who could also be listening to this in Portland, Ore. Hello, Elliot. He, politically, was solution to my left, however boy did he get pleasure from sparring with this aspiring William F. Buckley in his classroom, and the enjoyment he took in it was an ideal mannequin for me concerning the pleasure you may have in argument.
I gave a commencement speech a pair years in the past and I mentioned, look, at its finest a superb argument is like good intercourse: it’s frictional, it’s mutual and you realize, at finest, typically it’s generative. So have enjoyable with it. It shouldn’t be one thing you need to keep away from. I don’t understand how the graduating class took that analogy.
Retica: I don’t understand how I really feel about it both. [Collins and Retica laugh.]
Stephens: I assumed it was fairly good.
Retica: I’m going to should assume that over.
Collins: As does the viewers.
Retica: Clearly an enormous a part of The Dialog for all of us is to attempt to be humorous, or to be humorous.
David Epstein, from our very personal New York, N.Y. — and I’m glad to finish on someone from right here — raised a very attention-grabbing level. He mentioned, “Humor is useful in troublesome conversations, however typically it detracts from a critical level or turns into an escape route from the dialog itself. So how do you employ humor and nonetheless keep on level?” And clearly, Gail, I’m going to start out with you, as a result of that is your bread and butter.
Collins: Properly, sure, I imply, if you happen to’re going to be enthusiastic about one thing that you simply really, really, really consider in and that you simply assume is at risk ultimately, it’s a must to form of have one perspective towards the world.
However there’s only a ton of points on the market which can be being argued. They’ll trip and that you may get folks curious about by making them extra enticing. And typically if you happen to might be humorous, if you happen to can present the foolish facet of some of these things, it’s a giant assist.
Stephens: Lord is aware of we stay in an age the place my view hasn’t carried the day, however I in the end don’t assume that nastiness is a successful political technique. If somebody is listening to this and saying: “What are you speaking about? The nastiest man ever simply received the presidency.” [Collins laughs.] However I’d prefer to assume that in the long run, the nice politicians are additionally humorous ones.
Reagan used humor to nice impact. Churchill was humorous. Lincoln was famously humorous in his day. Humor wins over not solely your pals, however wins over folks on the opposite facet. One among my early political recollections was, “I can’t use my opponent’s youth and inexperience in opposition to him,” Reagan’s nice quip in opposition to Walter Mondale, and he received as a result of even Mondale in that debate burst right into a smile. He is aware of that Reagan’s delivered this zinger and the race was over at that second.
So I want we’d have extra humor in politics. I couldn’t have a greater associate and a mannequin than Gail. Not solely in being humorous, but additionally good humor in having a lighthearted spirit, and I believe it’s one of many explanation why our column was so widespread and enduring throughout the political aisle.
Retica: So let’s keep there for a second. Folks prefer to make enjoyable of civility, whilst a aim, proper? And on the one hand you may say that that’s ridiculous, however there’s one other means of it and lurking in Mr. Epstein’s query, which is to say, OK, look, these are critical, critical issues, proper? So if you happen to’re joking about it, you’re not truly taking it critically.
Clearly what’s occurring round us now illustrates that in a reasonably profound means. As a result of proper this minute, the Trump administration will not be doing notably nicely, however they’re nonetheless doing a zillion issues which can be inflicting plenty of injury on one million completely different fronts.
So I simply need to nearly re-ask that query: “What’s the objective of humor within the darkness?” Is it about retaining a specific amount of hope? Is it about picturing a future life? And never simply humor, however civility itself — like the upkeep of discourse. That’s a straightforward query. [Retica laughs.]
Collins: Take it away.
Stephens: Pay attention, life is one rattling factor after one other, and we’re going to should get up tomorrow to the subsequent outrage from the White Home or the subsequent disaster. I don’t assume {that a} posture of perpetual worry and rage serves anybody and most of all, these of us who desire a radically completely different course,
Collins: Yeah, completely. After I began out, I coated the state legislature in Connecticut, and it’s possible you’ll be shocked to listen to that individuals didn’t discover the tales concerning the state legislature in Connecticut that thrilling.
However then I began making enjoyable of them, simply discovering little issues that had been foolish after which bringing them out, and it acquired folks form of getting in it, and actually acquired me into the concept that you possibly can get folks curious about stuff typically by amusing them — however not in an evil, rancorous means. And that’s been probably the most enjoyable factor I’ve ever executed.
Retica: So we regularly finish The Dialog — the print model or the digital model — with a quote from poetry or an obituary that was within the paper.
Collins: All the time from Bret.
Retica: Normally coming from Bret. So plenty of the readers despatched in quotes that I assumed had been actually nice, and I need to finish on one in every of them.
That is Janet Keefer from Pittsboro, N.C., and she or he says that one of many quotes she lives by is from Lord Byron. And also you’ll see why I wished to say it in regard to what you simply mentioned: “And if I snigger at any mortal factor, ‘tis that I’ll not weep.”
Stephens: Are you aware the nice Byron poem? He was in love with a girl named Caroline Lamb, so the poem goes like this: Caroline Lamb, God rattling.
Retica: That’s good. [All laugh.]
Stephens: I used to be truly going to quote a Shakespearean sonnet, however that’s a greater solution to finish it.
Retica: I like the actually quick ones. OK, thanks each a lot for taking the time to speak to me, however extra importantly, for taking the time to speak to one another during the last eight years —
Stephens: Grasp on, I believe that is essential for our viewers to know — as a result of ours had been the names on The Dialog, however none of this may’ve been doable with out a good editor —
Collins: That is Aaron’s work.
Stephens: — Aaron Retica, bringing it collectively. And there was additionally a workforce of reality checkers, too quite a few to say, however I’m at all times conscious of the work that they did to guarantee that we didn’t screw up.
Retica: Proper. As I at all times say: all efforts at effortlessness require super effort. [Collins and Retica laugh.] All proper, thanks each a lot for coming down to speak to me about The Dialog, however actually thanks greater than that for speaking to one another for the final eight years. It’s been actually a unprecedented journey that our readers, tons of of 1000’s of them, have cherished to be part of.
Stephens: Thanks a lot. What a pleasure this has been.
Collins: This has been a lot enjoyable. Thanks.
Ideas? E-mail us at theopinions@nytimes.com.
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Derek Arthur. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Pat McCusker. Authentic music by Isaac Jones, Pat McCusker and Carole Sabouraud. Truth-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Viewers technique by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Occasions is dedicated to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you consider this or any of our articles. Listed below are some tips. And right here’s our electronic mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Observe the New York Occasions Opinion part on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
