• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

A debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro about Harris vs. Trump

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4o

Sam Harris	Ben Shapiro

Me to ChatGPT:

• Stage a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro about the election candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump as being qualified for this office.
• Bring in January 6 and the question of peaceful transition of power.
• And what about Trump's documented track record of speaking tens of thousands of lies?
• Now, what about their ability to act in the arena of global politics, in these times of war?
• How would they handle the current conflict in Gaza and the wider Middle East differently?
• Since both Harris and Shapiro are American Jews, doesn't that create a bias towards a balanced solution of the Gaza conflict?
• Many former coworkers of Trump, both political and military, have disavowed him and see him as a dangerous, even fascist person.
• What would happen, in their view, if Trump wins, and if he loses the election, to the stability of this divided country?
• Finally, let them reflect on the cult of personality around Trump, which has persisted even during Bidens term.

Stage a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro about the election candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump as being qualified for this office.

Certainly, here's a hypothetical debate on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump as candidates for the office of president, with Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro offering their perspectives. Let's say Sam Harris, a liberal thinker, assesses both candidates from a secular, philosophical, and moral standpoint, while Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator, considers both from a policy-driven and ideological angle.

Moderator: "Thank you both for joining. Let's start with Kamala Harris. Is she qualified to be president? Sam, your thoughts?"

Sam Harris: "Thank you. When we consider Kamala Harris's qualifications, it's critical to look beyond party lines to her record and capacity for governance. Harris has experience as a prosecutor, Attorney General of California, and now as Vice President, which has provided her substantial exposure to the mechanisms of government and lawmaking. These roles equip her with a necessary understanding of domestic issues, like criminal justice reform, which she's had to navigate closely. While some critiques of her prosecutorial record are valid, she's also shown a willingness to adapt, supporting more progressive policies over time. What qualifies her, in my view, isn't just experience but a demonstrated commitment to progressive issues that have real-world impact. It's far from perfect, but it's substantive."

Ben Shapiro: "Experience, yes, but not the right kind. Kamala Harris's political record isn't about delivering strong, decisive results; it's about advancing a career rather than principles. Her time as a prosecutor is, ironically, what many on the left criticize, and her transition to Vice President hasn't demonstrated leadership as much as alignment with what's politically expedient for her image. There's no clear ideological backbone guiding her decision-making—her positions shift based on political pressure. A good leader has firm principles, a clear vision, and can stand on their record. Harris lacks this because her leadership has been more reactive than proactive. I don't think that qualifies her to be president."

Moderator: "Sam, Ben, now let's consider Donald Trump. Is he qualified to hold the office again? Ben, you first."

Ben Shapiro: "Trump's qualifications, in my view, come from his results rather than traditional experience. Say what you will about his personal style or his controversial rhetoric—Trump's policies had a tangible impact. He prioritized economic growth, deregulation, and conservative judicial appointments, and he delivered on those. For conservatives, this wasn't just symbolism; it was a real shift toward a more constitutionally conservative governance, something rare in modern politics. Trump disrupted the complacency in Washington, which resonated with voters tired of the 'establishment' status quo. My concerns are more with his temperament and respect for democratic norms, but if we're evaluating qualifications in terms of policy impact, he certainly demonstrated capability."

Sam Harris: "I profoundly disagree. Trump's presidency revealed that mere policy outcomes aren't enough to qualify someone for office. He demonstrated a persistent disregard for democratic norms, ethical boundaries, and often basic facts. His administration sowed profound division, not just politically but socially and morally, which in my view, disqualifies him from holding office. Policies like deregulation or conservative judicial appointments are not, on their own, a measure of qualification if the person behind them fundamentally disrespects the institutions they're meant to serve. A president's duty is to safeguard democratic principles, not exploit or undermine them. Trump's impact on these fronts should disqualify him outright."

Moderator: "To wrap up, can each of you address how you weigh the criteria of 'experience' versus 'values' in qualifying a candidate?"

Sam Harris: "Experience provides a foundation, but values anchor a candidate's true fitness for office. No experience compensates for a disregard for democratic norms or ethical integrity. A president must be a guardian of democracy, not just a transactional manager of policy. With someone like Trump, we have evidence that experience alone—if not aligned with values that respect democratic systems—is dangerous. Harris, while imperfect, shows adaptability and a commitment to government functioning in ways that Trump simply has not."

Ben Shapiro: "Experience is necessary, but results speak louder. For Trump, his experience is marked by policy results that are, for many, directly aligned with the nation's interests—security, economy, judicial appointments. Yes, I have concerns about Trump's behavior, but a president's main role is to enact policies that reflect their voters' interests. Harris's record is too shallow and inconsistent on both results and convictions. Values matter, but so does a leader's actual impact on issues affecting Americans daily."

Bring in January 6 and the question of peaceful transition of power.

Certainly, let's continue this debate by introducing the topic of the January 6 Capitol attack and the importance of the peaceful transition of power. This would bring out deeper aspects of both Sam Harris's and Ben Shapiro's views on democratic norms and leadership. Let's reimagine how the discussion might unfold.

Moderator: "Let's move to an issue of fundamental importance to our democracy: the peaceful transition of power. How does the January 6th attack on the Capitol affect your views on each candidate's qualifications, especially concerning respect for democratic processes? Sam, let's begin with you."

Sam Harris: "January 6th was a watershed moment, and it cannot be downplayed. Donald Trump's actions leading up to that day, as well as his refusal to concede and acknowledge a legitimate election outcome, showed a complete disregard for one of the bedrock principles of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. His rhetoric stirred deep divisions and encouraged supporters to question the legitimacy of the electoral process without evidence. This was more than poor judgment; it was a moral failure and, frankly, a threat to democratic stability. In my view, a president who can't respect the will of the people and who actively undermines democratic norms is fundamentally unqualified for the office. If we allow this behavior to go unchecked, we risk setting a dangerous precedent for future leaders who might see democracy as something to bend to their own will."

Ben Shapiro: "Let me be clear—I absolutely condemned the events of January 6th, and I believe it's a day that cast a dark shadow over the country. Trump's handling of that moment was deeply irresponsible. But, I don't think it defines his entire presidency or disqualifies him outright. Presidents can—and often do—make grave mistakes, but we have to weigh that alongside what they accomplish in office. Trump did not handle the transition of power well, and that's a serious issue, but that doesn't mean his entire presidency was illegitimate or that he didn't have legitimate policy wins. I believe he should have respected the democratic process more explicitly, but we shouldn't lose sight of the actual policies he enacted, which delivered real benefits. Leaders, however flawed, must be assessed on both their achievements and their failures."

Moderator: "Sam, Ben raised the idea of 'assessing achievements alongside failures.' How do you see that balance when it comes to Trump and the peaceful transition issue?"

Sam Harris: "I understand the impulse to compartmentalize a leader's accomplishments from their failures, but the stakes here are too high. This is not just a policy disagreement; it's about whether the individual respects the basic principles of democracy. Trump's refusal to accept the election outcome and his actions on January 6th struck at the heart of our political stability. Every policy success pales in comparison to the threat posed by undermining the system that ensures fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. When a president disregards those principles, it erodes the trust in democratic governance itself. Kamala Harris, for all the critiques about her record, has shown no indication that she would reject election results or undermine democratic processes. This respect for democracy should be a non-negotiable qualification."

Ben Shapiro: "I agree that respect for the democratic process is critical, but let's not forget that distrust in our institutions is a bipartisan issue. Many on the left spent four years questioning Trump's legitimacy and fanning fears about Russian interference. There's a climate of distrust that both parties have contributed to, and Trump is far from the only factor in that. Kamala Harris, too, has been part of an administration that has at times fueled this polarization. We shouldn't single out one side or one figure and ignore the wider dysfunction. Furthermore, if we start disqualifying leaders based solely on behavior that undermines democratic norms, then I think we need to address this issue broadly, not just in the context of January 6th or Trump."

Moderator: "Ben, how does that climate of distrust play into your view of Kamala Harris's qualifications, if at all?"

Ben Shapiro: "It's significant because, to me, Kamala Harris represents a political establishment that frequently undermines public trust by overplaying the 'threat to democracy' narrative. While she hasn't openly challenged election results, she has taken part in an administration that has, in my view, been selective in how it views threats to democracy—highlighting them when politically convenient. Take her stance on police reform, for instance; there was language in her rhetoric that questioned the legitimacy of our justice system. By perpetuating distrust in our own institutions, she's contributing to the same issue from a different angle. A truly qualified leader should be focused on restoring trust, not furthering divisive narratives."

Sam Harris: "Ben, I think there's a false equivalence here. Critiquing our systems and acknowledging flaws, as Harris has done, is not the same as rejecting the results of a legitimate election. Political leaders have a responsibility to hold systems accountable, especially when they're flawed, as in criminal justice. But questioning an election without credible evidence—as Trump did—invites chaos and disorder. There's no comparison between acknowledging societal injustices and undermining the very mechanics of our democracy. Kamala Harris's criticisms of systemic issues don't suggest a willingness to overturn democratic norms; Trump's actions on January 6th do. We can't afford to ignore that distinction."

Moderator: "Let's bring it to a close. How does this issue ultimately shape your view of each candidate's fitness for the office of president?"

Sam Harris: "For me, January 6th is definitive in evaluating Trump's qualifications for office. We simply cannot have a president who is unwilling to uphold one of the most essential democratic processes—the peaceful transition of power. Kamala Harris, regardless of where one stands on her policies, has not crossed that line. To my mind, a commitment to democracy should be the minimum standard, and she meets it. Trump, quite clearly, does not."

Ben Shapiro: "I'm not defending Trump's actions on January 6th, but I do believe we must view the entirety of his presidency to assess his qualification fairly. While I deeply disapprove of how he handled that day, I'm not convinced it outweighs the practical results he achieved that conservatives feel were critical. Harris's ideological inconsistency and the administration's divisive rhetoric also matter here, and I don't think she represents a cohesive or unifying alternative. I remain wary of the failings on both sides."

And what about Trump's documented track record of speaking tens of thousands of lies?

Let's dive deeper into the question of honesty and factual integrity as a qualification for leadership, particularly focusing on Donald Trump's documented track record of falsehoods, often termed "lies" by fact-checkers. This aspect would bring out different arguments from Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, exploring whether honesty is a central criterion for the office of the presidency.

Moderator: "The topic of honesty is also relevant in assessing a candidate's qualifications. Donald Trump has a documented record of thousands of false or misleading statements during his presidency. How does this affect your view of his fitness for office? Sam, let's start with you."

Sam Harris: "To me, this is another critical issue when considering Trump's qualifications. The sheer scale of Trump's dishonesty is unprecedented—tens of thousands of falsehoods on record. This goes beyond the usual political spin we see from most candidates; it's a consistent pattern of distorting facts and spreading misinformation. Honesty is a foundational qualification for leadership, especially in a role as powerful as the presidency, because the public relies on their leaders to make informed, fact-based decisions. When a president distorts reality, it corrodes public trust, blurs the line between truth and falsehood, and, as we saw during the pandemic, can even cost lives. Trump's track record on this front isn't just a minor flaw—it fundamentally disqualifies him as a leader."

Ben Shapiro: "I agree that Trump's habit of exaggeration and, yes, dishonesty, is troubling. And, to be clear, I think it's a serious flaw. Trump often spins reality to suit his agenda, and that can be dangerous—especially when it undermines public trust in our institutions. However, we have to remember that political dishonesty isn't exclusive to him. Many politicians engage in spin, misrepresentation, and even outright falsehoods. Look at the selective narratives that come out of both sides of the aisle, including the current administration. That doesn't excuse Trump, but it does put his behavior into context. I don't condone it, but I weigh his policy outcomes—things like deregulation, economic growth, and judicial appointments—alongside these flaws. For many Americans, those tangible results still matter."

Moderator: "Sam, Ben suggests that this dishonesty should be contextualized within the broader political environment. How would you respond?"

Sam Harris: "Ben, I think there's a crucial difference between political spin and the sheer scale of Trump's dishonesty. Yes, most politicians stretch the truth to some degree, but with Trump, it's not occasional exaggeration—it's a central part of how he operates. When a president consistently lies, it erodes the public's grip on reality. Look at how this affected perceptions around COVID-19, the economy, and even the 2020 election. The problem with Trump's falsehoods is that they've gone far beyond typical political rhetoric and have ventured into outright disinformation campaigns. Leaders set the tone for public discourse, and when the truth becomes a casualty, it opens the door to extreme partisanship, distrust, and even violence. This pattern is corrosive to a functioning democracy and deeply disqualifies him in my view."

Ben Shapiro: "Sam, I don't disagree with the severity of the problem, but again, we're living in an era where both sides have contributed to widespread distrust in institutions and information. For instance, Democrats have at times exaggerated or misrepresented issues around election integrity or law enforcement, fostering their own kind of distrust. Trump's dishonesty is part of a larger problem, not the sole cause. His supporters have viewed him as a fighter willing to take on the media, which many believe is also frequently misleading. That perspective doesn't excuse his dishonesty, but it does explain why it hasn't disqualified him outright in the eyes of many Americans. To them, the policies and the willingness to confront elite institutions still outweigh his faults."

Moderator: "Ben, would you say that factual integrity matters less than political outcomes for you?"

Ben Shapiro: "No, I wouldn't go that far. Honesty and transparency do matter, especially from a president. But I'd argue we need to assess honesty within a broader framework of leadership qualities. For Trump supporters, many feel they're getting something real, if imperfect—a president who actually attempts to deliver on his promises and shake up the political system. I'm not dismissing the issues with his statements, but I am saying that some of the mistrust in media and other institutions has created a context where people prioritize what they see as tangible outcomes over factual purity. I would like a leader who is both honest and effective, but in the world we live in, people sometimes prioritize other qualities in pursuit of their political goals."

Sam Harris: "I think this mindset—prioritizing political outcomes over factual integrity—is precisely what allows deception to take root and erode democratic principles. When we begin to justify dishonesty because it 'delivers results,' we open the door to a leader who can manipulate reality to consolidate power, while supporters overlook or even defend lies in pursuit of outcomes they like. The consequence is that we end up with a public that can't even agree on basic facts. This isn't a hypothetical concern; we saw it happen. Trump's pattern of dishonesty undermined trust not only in media but in government institutions, science, and even the electoral process. A democracy functions on trust, on shared facts, and when that erodes, it paves the way to authoritarianism. For me, honesty is non-negotiable, because if a leader can't be trusted to tell the truth, how can they be trusted with power?"

Ben Shapiro: "I agree that truth matters, Sam, but let's not ignore that the lack of trust in government and media didn't start with Trump. There's a reason people resonated with his outsider appeal—many Americans felt they were being lied to by the establishment long before he came along. Take issues like the Iraq War, the financial crisis, or misleading reports from major institutions; these all left people feeling like they couldn't trust anyone in power. Trump's style certainly exacerbated that problem, but he didn't create it. Many of his supporters see his exaggerations and spin as a counterattack on what they feel is an equally dishonest establishment. I'm not defending his lies, but I do think that broader distrust shapes how people view his statements. For them, he's imperfect, but still a break from a system they see as fundamentally deceptive."

Moderator: "How do you both think this emphasis on truth and honesty affects the way we view Kamala Harris's qualifications for the office?"

Sam Harris: "Good question. I think Kamala Harris's record, though imperfect, doesn't reflect a pattern of blatant falsehoods or attempts to undermine truth to the same extreme. Her background in law enforcement and government might even make her overly cautious at times, but it shows that she operates within the bounds of institutional norms and respect for truth. I don't think she's above political spin, of course, but I don't see the same reckless disregard for facts that we see with Trump. In my view, she is far less likely to manipulate truth in ways that are destabilizing. At a time when our democracy is fragile, having a leader who respects facts, even if they're not always politically convenient, is a step in the right direction."

Ben Shapiro: "I agree that Kamala Harris hasn't engaged in dishonesty on the same scale as Trump, but I think she's part of a broader political class that often uses selective narratives to push an agenda. Her shift on certain issues, like criminal justice, seems driven more by political expediency than genuine belief. This raises questions about her consistency and integrity, even if her statements are technically factual. And the way she and other leaders on the left frame issues can sometimes fuel public distrust in their own way. For instance, broad claims about institutional injustice, if not qualified, can lead to a public perception that the entire system is illegitimate. So while Harris may avoid outright falsehoods, I think she's still part of a culture of selective storytelling that contributes to polarization. In short, I don't think her relationship with truth is flawless just because it's subtler."

Moderator: "Let's wrap up with one final question. Given the issues of factual integrity and respect for democratic norms, who do you both think is more qualified, in terms of character, to hold the office?"

Sam Harris: "To me, character is inseparable from respect for truth and for democratic principles. Kamala Harris, despite her imperfections, shows a respect for institutional processes and for the basic norms that keep a democracy functioning. She may be politically cautious, even overly so, but that's preferable to someone who actively spreads misinformation and undermines democratic systems to serve their own interests. Trump's pattern of dishonesty and his role in fostering division show a disregard for the very foundations of democracy. Given these factors, I believe Harris is more qualified in terms of character to hold the office."

Ben Shapiro: "I respect Sam's perspective, but I think we need to weigh character alongside the broader impact each leader has on the country. Trump has significant flaws, including his relationship with truth and his lack of restraint at times. But he also represented a bold break from establishment politics, which is why many felt he would actually fulfill campaign promises rather than just pay lip service. With Harris, my concern is that her cautious, often politically calculated approach doesn't necessarily translate to bold leadership. For me, the answer isn't as clear-cut. I'd prefer a candidate who could combine Trump's willingness to disrupt the status quo with Harris's respect for democratic norms."

Now, what about their ability to act in the arena of global politics, in these times of war?

Certainly. Let's explore how Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro might debate the candidates' qualifications in the context of global politics, particularly in a time of increased geopolitical instability and conflict. This discussion would highlight differences in approach to diplomacy, national security, and military decision-making.

Moderator: "Given the current landscape of global conflict and instability, let's discuss Donald Trump and Kamala Harris's qualifications to act as effective leaders on the world stage. Sam, let's start with you."

Sam Harris: "Thank you. In an era where global tensions are on the rise—whether we're talking about Russian aggression, Chinese expansionism, or the complexities in the Middle East—having a president who can navigate these challenges with intelligence, respect for diplomacy, and a strong ethical compass is crucial. Kamala Harris, though not heavily experienced in foreign policy, is part of an administration that has consistently prioritized diplomatic solutions, multilateral alliances, and a careful approach to military engagement. While she might not be the 'strongman' type, her approach would likely align with those who value stability over spectacle, and who are committed to working within established alliances. I think we've learned that the unpredictability Trump brought to the international arena might make for dramatic headlines, but it also creates mistrust among allies and emboldens adversaries who see chaos as opportunity."

Ben Shapiro: "I'd argue the opposite. Trump's foreign policy was far more effective than many would have expected from an 'outsider' candidate. His willingness to shake up conventional diplomacy actually led to some tangible successes. For instance, his tough stance on NATO spending commitments forced allies to contribute more, reducing the burden on the U.S. taxpayer. His administration also brokered the Abraham Accords in the Middle East, a historic step toward cooperation between Israel and several Arab nations. Trump's unpredictability actually served as a deterrent to some adversaries—countries like Iran and North Korea knew there was a real risk if they crossed certain lines. Kamala Harris, in my view, represents a more traditional and cautious foreign policy approach, but sometimes diplomacy requires a willingness to break the mold. And while her administration speaks about working with allies, it's not clear that she would bring the strength or clarity that Trump has shown."

Moderator: "Sam, Ben argues that Trump's unpredictability served as a deterrent and created leverage in foreign policy. Do you agree with this assessment?"

Sam Harris: "Not at all. Trump's 'unpredictability' on the world stage, in my view, was more often destabilizing than strategic. Yes, he made bold moves, but these frequently undermined our allies' confidence and emboldened adversaries who interpreted this unpredictability as inconsistency or, frankly, a lack of coherence. Take his relationship with NATO: while he did push allies to increase their spending, he also alienated many of them by publicly questioning the alliance's value. That kind of mixed messaging makes our allies hesitant to fully trust the U.S., and it emboldens nations like Russia, which seeks to weaken NATO from within. Kamala Harris may not bring the same 'shock factor' to diplomacy, but she's likely to act in a way that's predictable, reliable, and stabilizing—all essential in a time of war. Her approach to strengthening alliances would be crucial for global security, especially if she emphasizes diplomacy and shared responsibility."

Ben Shapiro: "Sam, I think you're underestimating the advantages that come with a more aggressive approach. Trump's foreign policy stance signaled that the U.S. wouldn't simply maintain the status quo if it wasn't in our interest. Yes, he pushed NATO members to contribute more, but he also showed the strength to engage directly with North Korea, something previous administrations were unwilling to do. And while his approach with Russia is controversial, it's worth noting that his administration took significant steps against Russian aggression, such as providing lethal aid to Ukraine. Harris, by contrast, would likely lean too heavily on multilateral diplomacy and might struggle to act decisively when the situation demands it. Strong leadership on the world stage sometimes means breaking from diplomatic tradition to make a point. Trump had that strength; it's unclear if Harris does."

Moderator: "Given that both of you emphasize alliances, how do you each think these candidates would manage relations with key allies in Europe and Asia?"

Sam Harris: "I think Harris would prioritize restoring trust with allies, particularly in Europe and Asia, which is critical for counterbalancing powers like China and Russia. A strong, united alliance is essential not just in times of peace, but especially in moments of tension. The Biden administration, of which Harris is a part, has been working to restore those relationships, emphasizing NATO's importance and reinforcing partnerships in the Indo-Pacific. Trump's America-first rhetoric often alienated these allies, causing them to question America's reliability. In a high-stakes situation, unpredictability isn't always an asset; it can make our allies reluctant to fully commit. Harris, I believe, would bring a more reliable, stable approach that values our alliances as central to maintaining global stability."

Ben Shapiro: "I see it differently. Trump's 'America First' stance was a recalibration of what it means to be an ally to the United States, not an abandonment of our alliances. He made it clear that America expects fairness and responsibility-sharing, which, in my opinion, is exactly what we should be doing. In Asia, his administration built stronger ties with Japan and India as part of a strategy to contain China. Trump's direct approach in dealing with allies reinforced a sense of accountability—one that may not be as strongly emphasized under a leader like Harris. I think she'd pursue more symbolic gestures of unity rather than substantive changes that actually address imbalances in these relationships. In times of war or conflict, America needs allies who understand that we mean business and that we're ready to lead, not merely negotiate endlessly."

Moderator: "Finally, let's talk about each candidate's approach to crisis decision-making, such as in situations requiring rapid military or diplomatic responses."

Sam Harris: "Kamala Harris, as part of the current administration, has shown a preference for careful, measured responses, which I think is exactly what's needed in times of crisis. When decisions can mean life or death, rash action can lead to unintended and disastrous consequences. This administration has demonstrated a commitment to seeking intelligence, consulting experts, and avoiding unnecessary escalations. Trump's impulsive style, on the other hand, was risky and often left us on the brink of conflict without a clear plan for follow-through. In a situation where careful, informed decision-making is required—say, in response to a sudden act of aggression—Harris's methodical approach would be far less likely to put American lives and global stability at risk."

Ben Shapiro: "Trump's approach, while not perfect, did show a willingness to act decisively when necessary. For example, he wasn't afraid to authorize the strike on Qasem Soleimani, which, while controversial, sent a clear message to Iran about the consequences of their actions against Americans. Quick decision-making can be essential in high-stakes situations, where showing strength may prevent further escalation. While Harris's measured approach sounds good in theory, it can also lead to a kind of analysis paralysis, where caution is prioritized at the expense of taking timely action. In times of war, a leader needs to be able to respond immediately, not simply deliberate. Trump had that responsiveness, and while it was sometimes unpredictable, it also commanded respect on the global stage."

How would they handle the current conflict in Gaza and the wider Middle East differently?

In discussing how Kamala Harris and Donald Trump might handle the current Gaza conflict and broader Middle East tensions differently, Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro would likely examine their contrasting approaches to Israel, Palestinian issues, alliances with other regional actors, and overall U.S. policy in the region. Here's how a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro on this topic might unfold:

Moderator: "Given the ongoing conflict in Gaza and its wider implications for the Middle East, how do you both think Kamala Harris and Donald Trump would handle this situation differently? Sam, let's start with you."

Sam Harris: "Thanks. I think Kamala Harris, much like the broader Biden administration, would prioritize a diplomatic approach aimed at both de-escalating the current violence and laying the groundwork for a sustainable solution. This means strong support for Israel's right to defend itself against terror groups like Hamas, but also a commitment to minimizing civilian casualties and encouraging ceasefire negotiations. Harris and this administration seem to recognize that a one-sided approach won't create long-term peace. Instead, they'd likely work to secure humanitarian aid, ensure safe passage for civilians, and engage regional actors like Egypt and Qatar to bring Hamas to the table. Her approach would focus on balance, both supporting Israel and addressing the humanitarian needs of Palestinians—a stance that aligns with her broader emphasis on diplomacy and coalition-building."

Ben Shapiro: "I see it very differently. Trump, in contrast, brought a fundamentally new approach to the Middle East that broke from the past by clearly siding with Israel and focusing on isolating groups like Hamas and their supporters. The Abraham Accords were an example of how he managed to align key Arab nations with Israel in a way that reduced the influence of terrorist groups and destabilizing actors like Iran. Trump's policy towards the current crisis would likely be tougher on Hamas and less concerned with appeasing international or Palestinian complaints about Israeli actions. He'd be focused on ensuring that Hamas faces significant consequences to deter future aggression. Trump's approach would prioritize strength and clarity over the diplomatic balancing act that Harris would favor."

Moderator: "Sam, Ben makes the point that Trump's approach through the Abraham Accords created alliances that strengthened Israel's position. Do you agree that Harris's approach might lack that level of decisive impact?"

Sam Harris: "I think the Abraham Accords were indeed a significant diplomatic achievement, and Harris, like the Biden administration, would likely build on those agreements. But I would argue that Trump's approach, while symbolically powerful, didn't address the core issues between Israel and the Palestinians, which remain a critical factor in regional stability. Kamala Harris would likely take a different stance, one that maintains support for Israel but also seeks to address humanitarian and political grievances in Gaza and the West Bank. Her approach might seem slower or more cautious, but it would aim at creating conditions for a lasting peace rather than simply securing diplomatic wins. To me, that's not weakness—it's pragmatism in a region that desperately needs a sustainable path forward."

Ben Shapiro: "That's where I disagree, Sam. A 'balanced' approach, like the one you're describing, often means prioritizing international consensus at the expense of Israel's security. Trump's clear support for Israel strengthened its position by showing that the U.S. wouldn't engage in moral equivalency between a democratic ally and a terrorist organization like Hamas. The Abraham Accords didn't just improve relations between Israel and certain Arab states; they isolated groups like Hamas and strengthened regional stability by creating new economic and security partnerships. I think Harris's approach would ultimately embolden Israel's enemies by creating ambiguity about the U.S. stance. In times of conflict, clarity is essential, and Trump's stance offered that. Harris might mean well, but a softer approach could risk emboldening groups that are dedicated to Israel's destruction."

Moderator: "How would each candidate approach the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, especially given the escalating civilian casualties?"

Sam Harris: "Kamala Harris would prioritize addressing the humanitarian crisis. Her approach would likely involve advocating for protected corridors to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, while working with Israel and Egypt to ensure civilians are not caught in the crossfire. I think she'd push for targeted strikes against Hamas infrastructure, minimizing harm to civilians, and use the leverage of U.S. aid to pressure all parties to negotiate ceasefires. To Harris, the humanitarian component is inseparable from achieving peace; the U.S. must both support Israel's security and address the human cost of the conflict, or we risk fueling resentment and further violence. This more nuanced approach would focus on creating conditions for dialogue and a peaceful resolution, not just military action."

Ben Shapiro: "From Trump's perspective, humanitarian concerns should not be an excuse to weaken Israel's position or allow Hamas to rearm. Trump would likely work to secure safe passage for civilians, but his priority would remain squarely on neutralizing Hamas's capabilities. During his administration, Trump cut funding to the Palestinian Authority, arguing that U.S. aid should not go to governments or territories that support terror. He'd likely apply a similar logic here, focusing on dismantling Hamas's power structure and avoiding actions that might inadvertently strengthen them. Trump's approach would emphasize that the humanitarian crisis, though tragic, is ultimately the result of Hamas's tactics—using civilians as shields and embedding operations in residential areas. His stance would be clear: eliminate the threat first, then address humanitarian issues once Hamas's power is neutralized."

Moderator: "Let's turn to the role of Iran and other external actors. How would each candidate's stance differ in dealing with Iran's involvement in the conflict?"

Sam Harris: "Harris, as part of the Biden administration, supports a policy of strategic pressure and diplomatic engagement with Iran, aiming to curb their nuclear ambitions while containing their influence in the region. While this approach has its critics, the idea is to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capabilities through diplomacy, thus reducing their leverage over groups like Hamas. Harris's approach would likely include reinforcing alliances with European and Gulf states to apply pressure on Iran and prevent further destabilization. She understands that containing Iran's influence is crucial, but also recognizes that isolating them entirely could push them toward more aggressive actions. Harris would balance sanctions with negotiations to manage Iran's influence, including any support they provide to Hamas."

Ben Shapiro: "Trump had a clear stance on Iran: maximum pressure, zero tolerance. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal sent a message that the U.S. wouldn't tolerate Iranian expansionism or nuclear ambitions. Under Trump, the U.S. reinstated severe sanctions that limited Iran's economic ability to fund groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. In today's situation, Trump would likely double down on these tactics, cutting off Iran's ability to support terror groups through economic pressure and possibly even military deterrence if necessary. For Trump, dealing with Hamas and Gaza is inseparable from dealing with Iran's influence in the region. Unlike Harris, he wouldn't waste time trying to engage with Tehran; he'd see them as a key sponsor of regional instability that must be confronted head-on. This approach might be more confrontational, but Trump believed that peace comes through strength, not concession."

Moderator: "Lastly, let's discuss the candidates' endgame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you think either candidate has a viable vision for long-term peace in the region?"

Sam Harris: "Harris and the Biden administration would likely support a two-state solution as the most viable long-term framework for peace. While achieving it is complex, Harris would likely advocate for resuming direct dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, backed by international support. The U.S. would encourage moderate Palestinian leaders while working to isolate extremists. This vision may seem idealistic, but it's the only approach that recognizes the rights and security of both Israelis and Palestinians. A Harris administration would aim to create a balanced approach that stabilizes the region, addressing both security and humanitarian concerns with the goal of peace, however distant it may seem."

Ben Shapiro: "I'd argue that Trump's approach demonstrated more pragmatism. He moved away from the decades-old two-state solution rhetoric, recognizing that peace deals can happen between Israel and other Arab nations without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first. The Abraham Accords shifted the paradigm, showing that peace could be achieved by isolating Palestinian extremists rather than making endless concessions to them. Trump's vision was to stabilize the region by creating new alliances and isolating actors like Hamas, essentially working around the Palestinian leadership. His approach reframes peace as something achieved through strength and security first, rather than endless negotiations. Whether you agree with it or not, Trump's approach took bold steps forward, while Harris's would revert to the status quo."

Since both Harris and Shapiro are American Jews, doesn't that create a bias towards a balanced solution of the Gaza conflict?

Moderator: "Given that you're both American Jews, would you say this creates a bias toward advocating for a balanced solution in the Gaza conflict?"

Sam Harris: "That's an interesting question, and I understand why it might look that way from the outside. But personally, my views on Israel and Gaza come from a more secular, humanitarian standpoint. I think of myself less as someone who's 'pro-Israel' or 'pro-Palestine' and more as someone concerned with reducing suffering on both sides. I believe Israel has a right to defend itself, but I also think it has a moral duty to consider the impacts of its actions on Palestinian civilians and to seek solutions that can eventually lead to a peaceful coexistence.

"As an atheist and a critic of religious extremism, I see dangerous ideologies at play on both sides, but I don't think my being Jewish creates a bias here. In fact, I'd argue it's more my commitment to human rights and preventing needless suffering that informs my perspective. A lasting solution will ultimately require Israel to take difficult but necessary steps, even if they're not popular. I'm not advocating for a 'balanced' outcome just because I'm Jewish; I'm advocating it because, philosophically, I believe it's the only way to break this cycle of violence and foster any kind of sustainable peace."

Ben Shapiro: "I understand the question, but I'd argue that my being Jewish doesn't bias me toward any kind of 'balanced' outcome in Gaza. My stance on Israel comes from a deep-seated belief in national sovereignty, the right of democracies to defend themselves, and the broader security issues at play. Israel is in a hostile region, surrounded by actors who often openly call for its destruction. I don't think it's helpful to push for balance if it means compromising Israel's right to protect its citizens or its existence as a state. For me, it's a matter of supporting democratic values, the Western alliance, and self-defense.

"My Jewish background may give me a greater understanding of Israel's significance culturally and historically, but my support for Israel's right to defend itself is based on more than that. It's about security, shared values, and a realistic view of what's needed to prevent groups like Hamas from threatening innocent lives. So no, I wouldn't say I'm biased toward a balanced solution, but rather a just one that protects Israel's right to exist safely in its own land."

Many former coworkers of Trump, both political and military, have disavowed him and see him as a dangerous, even fascist person.

Absolutely, this is a critical point in any debate over Trump's qualifications and character. Many high-profile former members of Trump's administration, including individuals with extensive military and political experience, have indeed spoken out against him, labeling his behavior and style of leadership as dangerous and even authoritarian. Let's explore how Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro might discuss this dimension, particularly given the weight it holds in assessing Trump's fitness for office and his handling of global politics.

Moderator: "Several former members of Trump's own administration—both political and military leaders—have publicly condemned him, with some describing him as a dangerous, even authoritarian figure. How do you both view this, and what weight should we give to these criticisms when considering Trump's qualifications to lead, especially in a time of global conflict?"

Sam Harris: "This is, in my view, one of the most serious aspects of Trump's legacy. When former high-ranking officials, including respected generals, diplomats, and intelligence officials, step forward to warn that a former president poses a unique danger, we should take those warnings very seriously. These aren't partisan politicians—they're people with firsthand experience, often career professionals who served under multiple administrations. When they describe Trump as erratic, as lacking respect for democratic norms, and as exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, that's not rhetoric; it's a firsthand account of how he disregarded processes designed to ensure stability and accountability in government. Leaders like General Mattis, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and John Bolton have expressed real concerns about Trump's judgment and approach to power. In my mind, that tells us that Trump's leadership style is less about conservative values and more about a fundamental disregard for the democratic checks and balances that protect us from authoritarianism."

Ben Shapiro: "I see where you're coming from, Sam, but I'd argue that many of these criticisms reflect a clash between Trump's unconventional style and an establishment resistant to disruption. Trump's approach was confrontational, but he was elected precisely because many Americans felt the existing system was broken. It's natural that career bureaucrats and officials who were part of that system would feel uncomfortable with a leader who came in to shake things up. A lot of these former officials also disagree with Trump's populist style and his outsider status, and their criticisms sometimes come off as ideologically motivated rather than purely objective assessments. Sure, Trump's style is unorthodox, even brash, but I don't see that as inherently dangerous. Rather, it's a departure from the polished but often ineffective approaches we've seen in the past. To me, calling Trump 'authoritarian' overlooks that he was fundamentally constrained by our democratic institutions, despite his personality."

Moderator: "Sam, do you think there's more to these critiques than just a disagreement over style or approach?"

Sam Harris: "Absolutely. This isn't just about style. It's about temperament, respect for norms, and the capacity to handle the responsibilities of office in a way that prioritizes the country's welfare over personal ambition. Many of Trump's former associates have raised concerns about his impulse control, his fixation on loyalty over competence, and his willingness to ignore advisors who disagreed with him—even on matters of national security. These are not minor concerns when we're talking about someone with access to nuclear codes, diplomatic levers, and command over the military. High-ranking officials who have served both Republican and Democratic administrations came forward specifically because they saw Trump as uniquely dangerous, not just a tough boss. The fact that military leaders, who generally remain apolitical, felt the need to speak out should alarm us all. Leaders like General Kelly and General Milley didn't issue warnings because Trump was 'unorthodox'; they did so because they believed he represented a threat to our democratic values."

Ben Shapiro: "I think we need to be cautious about taking every criticism at face value, especially in a political climate where Trump has been an extraordinarily polarizing figure. Some of the officials who've spoken out were, frankly, people who clashed with Trump over policy or style, and they left on less-than-amicable terms. Let's not forget that many politicians have experienced similar pushback from former colleagues or subordinates, especially those with a strong, outsider approach. Trump's critics say he's dangerous, but during his presidency, he didn't launch wars or dismantle democratic structures. In fact, he often showed a reluctance to commit American forces abroad, reflecting a more restrained approach to military intervention. While I understand the unease that some officials had, I think it's important to remember that Trump's disruptive style was largely a reflection of his commitment to break from what he saw as a complacent and ineffective establishment."

Moderator: "Sam, what about Trump's approach to military and intelligence advisors? Does this dynamic factor into your assessment of his foreign policy and leadership?"

Sam Harris: "Very much so. Leaders don't have to agree with their advisors all the time, but a president needs to value expertise and listen carefully to those with deep knowledge of military and intelligence matters. Time and again, we saw Trump sidelining, ignoring, or even firing advisors who offered views he didn't want to hear—often in ways that seemed driven more by ego than by strategic reasoning. This is troubling, because foreign policy, especially in times of conflict, demands a clear-headed approach and a willingness to consider complex, sometimes uncomfortable realities. Trump's disdain for expert advice, coupled with a preference for impulsive decision-making, created an environment where serious strategic questions took a backseat to personal loyalty and his own instincts. In matters of global conflict, that kind of approach is extremely risky and could lead us into dangerous territory."

Ben Shapiro: "I think Trump's willingness to challenge his advisors, while unconventional, wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes leaders need to push back on entrenched perspectives that may not align with the public's priorities. Trump's critics often portray this as a refusal to listen to experts, but we should remember that he was elected by people who wanted an outsider, someone who wouldn't just take the advice of the same people who led us into costly conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump's skepticism toward the intelligence and military establishment reflected a broader public sentiment that America's foreign policy hadn't been working for ordinary citizens. While his approach could be chaotic, it was also refreshing to see a leader who wasn't afraid to question the conventional wisdom. To me, it was a sign of his independence, not a sign of recklessness."

Moderator: "So, in sum, do you each believe these public condemnations by former officials reflect valid concerns about Trump's ability to lead, particularly on the international stage?"

Sam Harris: "Yes, absolutely. When former military generals and high-ranking officials break the norm of silence and actively warn the public about a former president, we should pay attention. These are individuals who have served in high-stakes environments, often under presidents from both parties. They understand the demands of leadership and the weight of decisions that affect national security. Their public warnings about Trump's character, decision-making, and lack of regard for democratic norms point to a very real danger. It suggests that he lacks the stability, discipline, and integrity needed to lead, especially on the world stage. At a time when authoritarianism is on the rise globally, having a president with authoritarian tendencies only weakens the U.S. stance against these forces."

Ben Shapiro: "I understand why these statements are concerning to some, but I also think we need to consider that Trump was a highly polarizing figure whose critics are often motivated by ideological disagreements. The former officials speaking out against him are certainly experienced, but that doesn't mean they're immune to bias or political pressure. Trump's approach was admittedly confrontational and sometimes divisive, but he managed to achieve several foreign policy successes, like the Abraham Accords and pushing NATO allies to meet their commitments. Many Americans felt he brought a needed shake-up to a stagnant political system. The warnings from his critics might reflect genuine concerns, but they also reflect an establishment unease with a populist leader who challenged their norms."

What would happen, in their view, if Trump wins, and if he loses the election, to the stability of this divided country?

If Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro were to discuss what could happen to U.S. stability and division if Trump wins or loses the next election, their views would likely reflect deep concerns about polarization, though they'd approach the issue from different angles.

Moderator: "If Trump wins or loses the election, what do you each think the impact would be on the stability of this already divided country?"

Sam Harris: "Either outcome, I'm afraid, is likely to deepen the divisions that are already severe in this country, though in different ways. If Trump wins, it could embolden the far-right factions that have become increasingly extreme in their support for him. This might signal to them that Trump's approach to governance—disregarding norms, challenging the legitimacy of his critics, and stoking fears—has been validated. It could lead to an erosion of trust in institutions and democratic processes, especially if Trump pursues policies that further dismantle checks and balances. He has repeatedly hinted at a desire to wield power with fewer constraints, and a second term might be even more chaotic and polarizing. The fear, then, is that a Trump win could heighten authoritarian tendencies and cement an 'us vs. them' mentality that divides us as citizens, not just as voters.

"On the other hand, if Trump loses, we may also face serious instability, particularly if he refuses to accept the outcome. Given what we saw after the last election, his refusal could lead to unrest among his supporters who believe his claims of election fraud. Trump has cultivated a narrative that the system is rigged against him, and if he loses again, some of his most fervent supporters may see the result as illegitimate. This could deepen mistrust in the electoral process and even provoke violence, as we saw on January 6. In either scenario, we're looking at serious consequences for stability, though they'd manifest differently depending on whether he wins or loses."

Ben Shapiro: "I see the potential risks differently. If Trump wins, there's no doubt that it will spark intense backlash from the left and could provoke protests or civil unrest, particularly in cities where anti-Trump sentiment is strong. But I don't believe that a Trump victory would necessarily lead to authoritarianism or destabilization of our system. Trump's policies may be divisive, but they're largely a reflection of the populist discontent that's been simmering for years—discontent with the political establishment, with media bias, and with policies that haven't served middle America well. A Trump win would validate those concerns and offer his supporters a sense of representation. It could create tension, but it could also force our institutions to engage more seriously with this segment of the population rather than dismissing them as deplorables or extremists.

"If he loses, however, I'm concerned about the loss of trust in the electoral system among millions of Trump supporters. Many of these people already feel that the media, political elites, and tech giants are aligned against them. If Trump loses again, especially narrowly, it's likely that they will question the legitimacy of the process, not just out of loyalty to Trump, but because they already feel the system is biased. I think we need to recognize that this isn't simply Trump's rhetoric—it's a sentiment that reflects a lot of people's real-life frustrations with being ignored or looked down upon. Stability in that case might depend on how well political leaders on both sides address this dissatisfaction instead of merely condemning it."

Moderator: "So, you both seem to think that either outcome will have significant consequences for stability. Do you see any path to mitigating these divisions?"

Sam Harris: "I think the path to healing these divisions lies in reinforcing our democratic norms, holding leaders accountable, and fostering a shared understanding of truth and evidence. What's tearing us apart isn't just policy differences but an information environment in which facts are fluid, and tribal loyalty often outweighs truth. If Trump loses, leaders on both sides need to publicly affirm the legitimacy of the process. And if he wins, then checks and balances should be enforced to ensure that his power remains constrained. Ultimately, we need to reject leaders—on either side—who exploit divisions for personal gain. It's going to take time and a concerted effort to rebuild trust, and I believe the media and political institutions need to play a more constructive role in that process."

Ben Shapiro: "Sam and I agree on the need for some kind of reconciliation, though I would emphasize that real unity will only come when political and media elites stop dismissing or vilifying large segments of the population. Part of the reason we're so divided is that many people feel that their values are belittled by the media, by academic institutions, and by political leaders who label them as backward or dangerous. To restore stability, leaders need to address this directly by listening to people's concerns and treating them with respect. I think we need a renewed commitment to civil debate, where issues can be discussed openly without dismissing or canceling opposing views. Whether Trump wins or loses, the country would benefit from a cultural shift back toward that kind of open discourse, where ideas can compete on their merits."

Moderator: "Thank you both for outlining these perspectives on the potential outcomes of the election and their implications for the future of American unity." In this discussion, Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro both seem to acknowledge the likelihood of continued division, though they propose different solutions to address the underlying issues that fuel polarization. For Harris, the emphasis is on restoring democratic norms and a shared truth, while Shapiro advocates for greater respect and open discourse to bridge ideological divides.

Finally, let them reflect on the cult of personality around Trump, which has persisted even during Bidens term.

Certainly, the cult of personality surrounding Trump—his magnetic pull on his base and his unique position in American politics—would be a rich topic for Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro to explore. Here's how they might discuss this phenomenon, particularly in the context of Biden's term and what it means for the future of American politics.

Moderator: "Let's turn now to the issue of Trump's enduring popularity and the almost cult-like loyalty of his supporters, which has persisted through Biden's term. How do you each interpret this phenomenon, and what does it mean for American politics going forward?"

Sam Harris: "I think the continued devotion to Trump, even when he's out of office, reflects something more fundamental about the state of American identity and disillusionment. Trump has managed to convince a large number of people that he alone represents 'real America' and that everyone else—the media, academia, coastal elites, even traditional Republican politicians—are somehow alien to the country's core values. This is a profound shift. In Trump, many of his supporters see not just a leader, but almost a savior figure who stands outside and against a corrupt system. This idea that 'Trump is one of us' and 'only Trump tells the truth' is almost impervious to any contradictory information, which is why his cult of personality has persisted even during Biden's presidency.

"What makes this dangerous is that it's based on a personal allegiance rather than to any set of values or policies. This is classic cult of personality behavior: Trump is celebrated not because of his achievements or policies alone, but because of who he is perceived to be—a symbol of resistance against a supposedly corrupt and unrepresentative establishment. This kind of allegiance can warp democratic processes, as it often disregards legitimate criticism and reinforces tribalism over reason. If the allegiance to Trump continues to grow stronger, we're looking at a long-term destabilization, where one individual—regardless of qualifications, policies, or even actions—can galvanize people simply by being who they are. In the context of a democracy, that's incredibly volatile."

Ben Shapiro: "I agree that the level of loyalty to Trump is unusual, even by the standards of past popular presidents. But I think we need to look at why people feel this way about him. Trump represents a reaction to decades of disenfranchisement that millions of Americans have felt—especially those in working-class or rural communities who believe their values and interests have been neglected by the political and cultural elites. This isn't just blind loyalty; it's rooted in a sense of shared experience and frustration. Trump speaks to the values of people who feel they've been cast aside, and, unlike many politicians, he doesn't speak in a polished, detached way. For them, he's authentic because he doesn't pretend to be anything other than who he is.

"I wouldn't call it a 'cult of personality' in the sense that he has hypnotized people. Rather, Trump is the first political figure in a long time who has been willing to go toe-to-toe with the forces that many of his supporters believe are fundamentally against them—the media, the D.C. bureaucracy, and cultural elites. His popularity has persisted because he's seen as someone who will stand up against those forces, not back down. Yes, there are risks to this loyalty when it overrides rational critique, but it's not something Trump created alone. It's a product of a country divided not just by political ideology but by a much deeper cultural and socioeconomic rift. If the establishment continues to dismiss or demonize Trump's supporters, this loyalty is only going to grow stronger."

Moderator: "Sam, do you think there's any positive aspect to Trump's appeal to his supporters, especially in terms of shaking up an entrenched system?"

Sam Harris: "I understand that many of his supporters feel he's giving voice to their frustrations, and I don't dismiss the legitimacy of those frustrations. But the solution to that disillusionment can't be blind loyalty to a single figure who encourages them to distrust almost everyone else. A functioning democracy relies on a balance between critical support for leaders and accountability when they cross lines. Trump encourages his supporters to reject all criticism as 'fake news' or 'deep state conspiracy,' which is profoundly unhealthy for democracy. A leader with a genuine interest in unifying the country would work to channel that frustration constructively, not fan the flames of division.

"I do worry that this cult of personality around Trump has created an echo chamber, where criticism of him is met not with a healthy skepticism, but with outright hostility. This is why even during Biden's presidency, Trump remains the defining figure for so many people. It's no longer about policies or governance; it's about loyalty to a person, and when that happens, the ability to critically engage with reality diminishes. If Trump's approach is normalized, we could see this happen on both sides of the aisle, leading to an era of personality-driven politics that makes it almost impossible to have honest debates about policies and principles."

Ben Shapiro: "Look, I agree that personality-driven politics has its risks, but I think it's too easy to dismiss Trump's support as a 'cult of personality' rather than examining why that support exists in the first place. The American political system has, in many ways, become so inaccessible to average citizens that they feel it no longer serves them. Trump's appeal is a reaction to that disconnect. While it's easy to criticize Trump as a polarizing figure, he's also exposed deep issues within our institutions that people feel need reform. Many of his supporters believe the political system ignored their needs for decades, and Trump was the first leader in a long time who seemed willing to stand up for them, not just represent an elite class.

"Now, if we are serious about reducing this division, the answer isn't to vilify Trump's supporters but to create a political environment where people don't feel they need a Trump-like figure to protect them from a hostile establishment. We need a system that respects the voices of those who feel left out. Dismissing Trump's base as a 'cult' doesn't help, and it risks further alienating people who already feel betrayed by those in power. For many, Trump isn't just a personality; he's a sign that they finally have a voice, and that voice won't easily go away, even if Trump is out of the picture."

Moderator: "So both of you see real challenges here—Sam, you're concerned about the dangers of a personality-driven politics, and Ben, you believe the solution is addressing the underlying disconnection many Americans feel. Any final thoughts?" Sam Harris: "I think the reality is that our political climate will remain volatile as long as we're relying on personalities rather than policies to lead us. Trump's cult of personality is a symptom of a deeper crisis in American political life: a breakdown in trust, a rejection of facts, and an unwillingness to engage with those who disagree. Moving forward, we need leaders who can bridge divides, not exploit them, and who prioritize truth over loyalty. Until that happens, Trump or someone like him will continue to thrive, and our democracy will remain at risk."

Ben Shapiro: "Sam's right that our politics can't just be about personalities, but I'd argue that Trump's popularity is more than that—it's a demand for real change. People are tired of being told what's in their best interests by elites who never seem to deliver on those promises. Trump has become a symbol of pushing back, and that's a message the establishment would do well to listen to. The solution isn't rejecting Trump's supporters as misguided; it's finding ways to integrate their concerns into the political conversation. If we don't do that, the demand for a figure like Trump will only grow."

In this reflection, both Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro agree that Trump's enduring popularity highlights serious underlying tensions within the U.S., but they propose different solutions. Harris focuses on the need for accountability and unity, cautioning against personality-driven politics, while Shapiro emphasizes understanding the frustrations fueling Trump's support and addressing systemic issues to restore trust in institutions.

THE REAL LIFE DEBATE