A

You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 14th of July, 2026 on Monocle Radio France observes Bastille Day. Is it also a good day for Europe's collective defence? The United States running out of domestic institutions to destroy turns on a foreign one, and an outbreak of suitcase dumping in Tokyo. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello, and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests, Michael Binion and Elizabeth Bro. We'll discuss the day's big stories and we'll hear from Derek Smalls, Monty Burns, Ned Flanders, Kent Brockman, Waylon Smithers and the Reverend Lovejoy. Which is to say, we'll hear from Harry Shearer as his musical about founding FBI director J. Edgar Hoover opens in London. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily.

B

Foreign.

A

This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Michael Binion, foreign affairs specialist for the Times, and by Elizabeth Brough, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, author of the upcoming title Undersea War. Hello to you both. Hello, Michael. First of all, you, as I understand it, have been watching people on horseback jousting, which was obviously you have something you possibly enjoyed yourself as a young boy.

C

Well, yes, way back when I was 20, to go compete for my lady's favor and lance and settle myself against somebody else.

A

Yet another hilarious aside at the expense of your advanced years, Michael, for which I apologize, but no. In what context were you watching people joust?

C

I was actually taking a grandson to Hampton Court to have a look, and one of the things they put on for kids was jousting. And I thought, gosh, this would be fun. It's actually pretty rough stuff. I mean, they go at each other. Hell of a whack. They don't try and knock each other off the horse because, I mean, quite often, I suppose they would kill each other if they do that.

A

I suspect that this may have been why it has faded as a mainstream family.

C

Even for your lady's favor, you know, get a kerchief and hand it to her. But they go at each other with quite a whack. They have to hit each other's shield and there's a tremendous clash. And sometimes the jousts break and it's good fun for all. And they. All the kids love it. But, yeah, I don't think I'd fancy doing it myself.

A

Well, it'd be excellent practice for when The Russians come. Elizabeth, we have recently been in the same place, which wasn't this studio, although weirdly we did not see each other while we were there. But there were lots of other people there. This was Visby on Gotland during Al Madalen week from where we did a bunch of shows. The other week when it was happening, what were you doing?

D

I was on two panels. And it is really a phenomenal phenomenon, this island island, which is a week long political festival where, as you know, Andrew, that the political parties. I do now, yeah, the political parties organize events, but so do companies, virtually every civic organization in the country. It is phenomenal. And so you can go to events all day on every subject under the sun and it was sunny and it is done in a good natured manner. So obviously the politicians will try to score political points, especially in an election year like this. And the elections are in September. But it is really a civic festival and I am pleased that there are now similar festivals in Norway, Denmark, the Baltic states and Finland. And I just hope that that will spread to other countries as well.

A

Yeah, as I think I observed in one of our broadcasts. However, Elizabeth, I think if you tried to do something similar in the United Kingdom, still less France, you would need the riot police by about lunchtime on day one. But I did enjoy it tremendously and I hope my first visit to Al Madalen will not be my last. But we will start tonight in France, which is enjoying what will, a few hours from now, depending how things go in the semi final against Spain, be recalled as either the most exultant or anticlimactic Bastille day of modern times. Either way, listeners in bigger French conurbation still have time to move their cars somewhere safe. There has been already and as usual, a military parade and fly past in and or over Paris. The tricolor rendered in smoke trailed behind jet fighters whooshing over the Arc de Triomphe and so forth. Among the 30 or so heads of state attending at the invitation of President Emmanuel Macron was Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky. Ukrainian troops joined the parade and in two of the Mirage 2000 BS overhead were Ukrainian co pilots. Michael, first of all, do you like a parade? Do you have fond memories of the troops coming home from Waterloo? I'll stop.

C

They came in great long lines. Not as good as the Roman centurions. They were much better. But I haven't actually witnessed many real ones. Oh, I did of course go and watch the parades in Moscow in Soviet times, of course. And you had that sort of waxen figure of Brezhnev atop Lenin's tomb, gazing down at them and occasionally somebody lift up his arm to wave. But yes, I haven't watched many. I've never watched the Bastille Parade, which is all very splendid and, you know, triumphant music. But this year it seems it was a bit more serious. I mean, it was put together with Ukraine as a sort of symbol of European backing for Ukraine and unity in determination to give Ukraine the military help it needs, or at least as much as their ready to pay for. I remember Macron a few years ago, I think it was about two years ago, invited Trump to one of these things and that was quite a coup because Trump was absolutely overjoyed. He thought the parade was for him and he was extremely flattered. And of course it heralded about six months of good relations with France. But that quickly faded when he realized it wasn't just in his honor. Now I haven't been to it. I'd like to see it and let's hope it was a great success.

A

That parade did prompt Trump Elizabeth, to do one himself, which was noteworthy rubbish because I think what sort of befouled Trump's parade was the fact that, at least in my experience, the actual troops involved in performing in them absolutely hate every second of it because it is a terrific faff. Nevertheless. Are you a fan?

D

I am a fan, although I've never been to the Bastille Parade. But I think military parades, done well, showcase what a country's military can do. And that's why it was, as you say, Michael, was so important for the Soviets and all the other Warsaw Pact states to pull off these impeccable parades. Even on 7 October 1989, the GDR, so East Germany did its usual anniversary parade, did conducted its usual anniversary parade and it was flawless as usual, even as the country was crumbling.

A

But those countries were putting on their military parade surely also as a means of intimidating the domestic population. Is this really any sort of way for a democracy to behave?

D

Do we think it is? Because the armed forces are just another part of our democratic societies and that is the point. We get to see them not because they are better or worse than anybody else, but because they represent the country. Obviously what we do want on the podium are democratically elected leaders who can be held accountable.

C

By the way, we have a parade here every year. It's called Trooping the Colour. But we don't have a democratically elected leader on the podium. We have a monarch who surveys the scene and Sworn loyalty is sworn to the monarch, and I've watched that as well. And the best thing about it is the music. It's fantastic.

A

Yes, but is this where we are reminded, possibly, Michael, of the value of militaries as a unifying factor? Because. Absolutely. Astonishing figures returned by an Ipsos survey of the French 90% report a positive view of the French military. You can't get 90% of French people to agree on anything. You couldn't get 90% of French people to agree on baguettes or accordions.

C

Well, I think they realize it's just a good show, and the French like a decent show. It's also a celebration, of course, of the French Revolution. It's Bastille Day when they stormed the prison, and that was the start of the whole uprising. And the.

A

You covered it as a young reporter, et cetera.

C

I stood and counted the number at the guillotine who fell foul. But it's. Yeah, I don't think if it wasn't for the parade and you just said, what's your view of the military? I don't think you'd get quite the same approval rating in France and certainly not in Britain. I mean, everyone, if you ask, do you like Trooping Colour? They say it's wonderful, it's great fun. But they don't take it as a serious demonstration of Britain's latest weapons. I mean, if you did that, you'd have, you know, one tiny little missile being trundled along behind an armored car and that's it.

D

But. But trooping, the color is really extremely impressive for its choreography.

C

Oh, yes.

D

Marching like that is more complicated than even a sophisticated ballet performance. And you have to do it, obviously, with several. Many other soldiers. And these are the same soldiers who fight in Afghanistan. Well, not anymore in Afghanistan, but around

A

the world, Elizabeth, because we are about to pivot into a more serious discussion of recent events in Paris. Is there something more significant to this Bastille Day? Not because of the football later, but because this will be Macron's last Bastille Day as president. The next one may well be overseen by Marine Le Pen. Is he trying to make a point, especially by including the Ukrainian contingent in this?

D

Yes, he is. And this is unusual. As you say, it's not usually a day on which the French president is joined by foreign leaders, because it is a uniquely French day. And as you say, once he was joined, he invited Donald Trump. But this time it is the great and the good of European politics or European leaders. And that is a very good thing because it may beit is Macron's swan song as president, overseeing this parade and these celebrations. And it is a perilous moment, as we all know, for European cohesion, European support for the rule of law, for democracy and so forth. And yet we have all these leaders who are democratically elected, who were invited by one of their peers, and that is a wonderful thing to celebrate.

A

Well, moving along only somewhat, many of the leaders in Paris for Bastille Day today have been doing something more useful on their visit than waving at passing legionnaires and arranging their faces into expressions which they hope do not betray despondent wonderment at how much bloody more of this there can possibly be. The coalition of the willing, the informal arrangement of Ukrainian allies prepared to go above and beyond in assisting Ukraine's defence, has also met in Paris. On the upside, 10 countries, including Ukraine, agreed to establish a shared anti ballistic missile defence program. On the downside, recently elected Bulgarian Prime Minister and former President Ruman Radev declined his invitation to participate in the meeting, saying Bulgaria no longer has any place in it. Michael, first, first of all, do we think Europe's collective defense might struggle along without Bulgaria in this respect?

C

No, we don't. I didn't know that they were invited. I mean, Bulgaria is a country that has long and close ethnic and religious links with Russia. I mean, it's a Slavic nation. I mean, of course, they also have links to some extent with Bulgaria, but it's more links to Russia. I don't think they're particularly pro Putin or pro Russian at the moment, but I think they don't really want to feel that they're being included in this, what essentially West European, Western North European meeting, and they aren't particularly, they've never been a particularly big contributor to Ukraine's help. The importance of all the other ones coming together, it's partly solidarity with Ukraine, but partly a sense that Europe needs to look to its own defence more and more. And the closer they are coordinated with discussions and talks about military strategy and indeed, in possibly developing common missiles. I mean, defense, you know, the development of new weapons together. I mean, this is a fraught point because it depends on who gets the contracts and who pays. But those sort of talks will lead to much more harmony among the West European allies. And one hopes this will mean that Ukraine gets more real backing.

A

Well, Elizabeth, on that thought. I mean, there have been and well predated Russia's invasion of Ukraine, any number of conversations about greater defence cooperation among European countries, except we tend to find out at particular crunch points that it turns out that, you know, give or take the fact that the years without a all in European war flip counter now stands at 80 odd, which is, you know, a creditable run. They don't entirely trust each other, yet people are still quite jealous of their own militaries, especially the really important powers, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. How optimistic should we be that they are all going to be perfectly happy to get together on missile defence?

D

Well, the first thing to remember is that these conversations are happening and that's not to be taken for granted. And it is really important because when people talk about Europe, quote unquote, Europe doing more for its own defense, it is 27, 28, 32. However many countries you want to include in Europe, it is countries that are very different, have very different cultures, very different armed forces and it's not possible to ask Europe do more for your own defence. It involves different countries coming together and doing the really boring and tedious work that for example, involves exercising together, whether it's within NATO or within other formations or bilaterally. It involves countries coming together, as you said, Michael, to acquire weaponry. Well, if you acquire weaponry, even if you just buy off the shelf, even that is complicated. And if you commission it to be built for your two nations, then you are going to have fights about the details. And it's just so much more complicated than saying we are allocating 5% of GDP to defence. And so the fact that these conversations are happening, even though they are boring and tedious and sometimes they end in failure, like just happened with FCAs, at least they are happening.

A

Is there possibly a recognition gathering here as well, Michael, that if there is another major European war, it is going to be fought with missiles and with drones and likely from a distance and things like missile defence is likely to become possibly much more important than what we've, you know, considered the, the principal sentinels before, like masses of infantry and armor.

C

Absolutely, yes. And I think British military leaders have made that point and they've said that the much delayed and very, very underfunded new defence plan for Britain, the budget that they're putting forward, will focus particularly on drones and on missiles and on cyber warfare and all these sort of things. And I don't think the new armed forces is looking to build shiny new destroyers and cruisers and things that take forever to build and huge and very expensive and frankly, probably pretty well out of date by the time they're launched. Drones and missiles. Well, we've seen how important they are in Ukraine. In fact, the fact that Ukraine has Amazingly, very quickly and from its own resources set up a pretty effective drone missile, drone manufacturing industry. And turning out drones by the hundreds shows how they can actually turn the tide of war quite quickly that way. And I think Ukraine's weakness is it doesn't have anti ballistic missiles things to shoot down what the Russians are sending over and that's what they've been begging for for a very long time. So obviously these two are going to be crucial in any future conflict, whether it's in Ukraine or anywhere else on the European continent.

A

Also on this one, Elizabeth, unspoken obviously, but do we sense here another, I guess, recognition that the United States can no longer be trusted? Because there was probably a time where the US would have been included in conversations like this.

D

Yes, there was and there would have been, but the United States or President Trump, we don't. It's still not clear to what extent he speaks for the entire United States or even for the entire MAGA movement because he does make things up on the go. But he has made it clear that he's not particularly interested in helping Ukraine. On a good day, he will allow Ukraine to manufacture American weapons on license, which he agreed to last week. That is a good thing. But there is no path in his thinking where you can go from, well, he agreed to this, so therefore it is likely that he'll agree to this other step as well. So it's better to assume that America is not going to be part of it. And the good thing is that we have a number of European countries with

A

great potential just finally on this one. Michael, another thing that has been agreed is the United Kingdom signing up for the EU's 90 billion loan for Ukraine, which is obviously going to be good news for British defence manufacturers because that is money being lent to Ukraine on the understanding that they spend it buying more kit from their European partners. The United Kingdom is of course about to have a change of Prime Minister possibly by this time next week. In fact, how clear are we on the incoming PM's views? Is Andy Burnham likely to deviate, do you think, from Starmer's record on Ukraine in any way?

C

Not one jot, I don't think. I think foreign policy any anyway is pretty consistent whether it's a complete change of government from Conservative to Labour, whether it's a change of Prime Minister within the same party. I very much doubt if anything much will change. There may be slight different emphasis. I mean, I think Burnham is going to pursue closer relations with the eu, possibly even more vigorously than Starmer's tried to do. Which is a good thing. On defence he has promised to try to make up this huge gap in what's needed and what's been promised though goodness knows where he's going to find the money. But on Ukraine he's already said that he's fully committed to British support for Ukraine and British continued help for Ukraine and I think he will go right along with this new loan, the 90 billion which thank goodness can now go ahead because the Hungarian veto has been removed. So that can start. But as you say it means jobs for Britain if some of these defence spend, if the defence spending actually is good orders for British factories.

A

Well to the United States where what with one thing and another it might be supposed that the Secretary of State would have better means of occupying their time than attempting to dismantle an institution of which the US is not a member and over which it has no jurisdiction. Nevertheless, Marco Rubio has decided to set about the dismantling of the International Criminal Court, whining in a Wall Street Journal op ed that the ICC is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist non government organisations, smug globalists and hostile third world governments united by their enmity towards the there's also a downside, et cetera. It is understood that the US intends to lean on ICC member nations to quit and to generally make its operations difficult. Elizabeth, what is Secretary Rubio banging on about?

D

It is so regrettable to witness as we are America's retreat from the rules based international order. And it just so happens that in recent weeks I've been writing a lot about America's participation in the ANCLAS negotiations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. America was a key participant in the negotiations, then decided not to ratify it because it didn't suit America. And that was essentially maybe an early indicator of where America was about to go. Now Ankla's was signed in 1982, so that was some time adopted in 1982, so that was some time ago. But America has a history of participating, participating in multilateral negotiations and be a, let's say a forceful participant. But it didn't participate in the forming of the ICC because it viewed it unhelpful well as something that could be used against American troops. But now to make a logical leap from that to saying that it's something that's set up by other countries and induced detritus, detriment of America, it is incomprehensible. One wonders. Marco Rubio is an intelligent person. One wonders whether he believes it or whether this is an early bid for re election or for Donald Trump's favors.

A

It is always an open question, Michael, as to whether it would be worse if these people believed this stuff or didn't believe it and just said it anyway. But it has been noticeable that Rubio has been been for all that he is theoretically Secretary of State, rather frozen out of things like Ukraine and Iran because obviously that's all much better taken care of by the President's son in law and his golf buddy. Steve, is this possibly a way of Rubio just basically sucking up to Trump,

C

possibly trying to make headlines, but also I think he's responding to a new mood. Well, it's been a growing mood in America, which is isolationism. It's back in full force. Americans don't want anything to do with other countries unless they can take control of them. You know, Venezuela, fine, it's in our pocket. Cuba may be next. But you know, the wider world, no, we're not interested. They're either rivals or competitors or people we don't care about. And why should America get involved in other people's troubles? I mean, the idea of trying to dismantle the International Criminal Court, which did as best a judgment as it could have done over the whole dreadful Bosnian war and the criminals responsible for it. I think partly this is because they fear that the ICC will actually say a bit more about what's happening in Gaza. And of course that touches America.

A

Well, the ICC has of course already indicted Benjamin Netanyahu and he's a buddy

C

of Trump or at least was a buddy of Trump. And support for Israel is an absolute given for most American politicians. And the fact that it took a stance on Gaza and may take a stance on Lebanon, which in turn would take possible link to what's happening in Iran. I mean, maybe he's anticipating debating that the ICC would talk about a breach of international law over Iran. And therefore this would be something that they need to nip in the bud before it even begins. It's the idea of any international organization with supranational powers that America simply will not accept. It doesn't like things like climate change agreements because it binds other nations, it binds America to do something that it wouldn't themselves have suggested themselves and they don't like it. And that's it.

D

And I have to interrupt, since you mentioned Venezuela, Michael, it is extraordinary to see how somebody who criticizes an international institution for having some sort of power over other countries. This is the same person who today, well, on a daily basis now runs Venezuela The New York Times had a phenomenal expose of how Marco Rubio of his daily running of Venezuela, which includes daily instruction via WhatsApp to Delcy Rodriguez, who is the leader of Venezuela, not democratically elected, nevertheless, she is the leader of Venezuela and it's extraordinary to see how somebody like that first of all can agree or can want to run another country as a vassal state, but then have the temerity to tell other countries what to do when they get together to form an institution of which America doesn't want to be part.

A

Well, to Japan now apparently beset by a plague of suitcase dumping. In the last year in Toshima ward of Tokyo alone, 290 suitcases were reported abandoned either in streets or parks or hotel rooms and other rented lodgings. The culprits are apparently foreign visitors who either overdo the souvenir shopping and buy bigger baggage accordingly, or, it is whispered, arrive in Japan with tatty old portmanteaus. With the specific intention of upgrading to fancy Japanese made luggage at domestic prices, local authorities are now taking steps, including warnings on outdoor screens, leaflets cautioning against the practice and buyback schemes. One hotel, the Niwa in Tokyo, has turned the abandoned valises into rooftop planters and is serving the consequent vegetables to their guests. Michael290 dumped suitcases how is life in Tsushima going on?

C

Absurd. What are they doing? I mean, dreadful things piling up in doorways, in on roofs, you know, all over the place, great mounds of tatty baggage, even perhaps some rather smart baggage. You never know. I mean, they might have bought a very nice bijou little suitcase from somewhere and find that all their bijou goods are too much to fit in it. The stuff they buying in Japan.

A

This is apparent.

C

Well, it seems absurd, but just dumping it, I mean, why not just buy another suitcase, take it home with the one you've originally bought. You might have to pay a little bit of.

A

Or you could put the smaller suitcase inside the big one, you could do that.

C

And then you take the old one home and you grow your own vegetables in it.

A

That may cause more problems than it solves in terms of expanding your total capacity. Elizabeth, have you ever dumped a suitcase in Japan or elsewhere?

D

I have not. And if I had a tattoo suitcase, I would bring it home and use it in my garden and grow my vegetables in it. What a wonderful upcycling idea by, by that hotel.

A

And yeah, I now feel bad that I just waited till next door was doing some renovations and threw my old rucksacks into their skip. I Did ask first if that would be all right.

C

I'm not sure the vegetables would be all that tasty after being grown in a suitcase that's probably had all kinds of spilt, you know, perfumes and things over the years.

D

I think perfumes would be the least of the problems.

A

I mean. Yeah. The suitcase, Michael, is going to be full of dirt.

C

It will be. Well, yes.

A

So I think a few traces of,

C

you know, you may have some odd flavors to the vegetables, but, yeah, I mean, I suppose that's one way of doing it.

A

Have you. Have you ever dumped a suitcase, Mark?

C

Never. No. No. Never intend to.

A

Well, I mean, where do we think this ranks, Elizabeth, in. In the hierarchy of bad tourist behavior? Because bad tourist behavior does come up quite a lot. Is. I mean, this isn't as bad as, like, you know, writing your initials on the local, you know, ancient monolith.

D

Surely it's not, but one day there will be books and document radio programs and lists, remember Listicles, when they existed, about the range of unsuitable behaviour that people display as tourists that they would never countenance when not being tourists. But I think throwing suitcases, leaving suitcases may not be among the worst. But I come back to what they do in Copenhagen. They encourage tourists to participate in cleaning, cleanup, cleaning up the city in various. Various. With various cleanup tasks. And if you do that, you get free access. A free ticket to a museum of your choice or free boat ride, something like that. This is how to do it.

C

But why dump suitcases just in Japan? Has everyone else been subject to this plague of unwanted suitcases?

A

I don't know. Minutes of desultory research, Michael failed to discern whether this was a specifically Japanese problem. But one assumes the Japanese are just

D

better at documenting things.

A

One assumes it is more or less universal. So what is the large. I was thinking the largest item I have ever voluntarily dumped while traveling was probably just like an expired pair of shoes or something.

C

You haven't dumped a fridge or something.

A

Why would I be traveling?

C

Well, indeed, yes. I mean, people do travel with strange things, but. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. I mean, if you take it to a recycling center, okay, that's fine. But what if you don't know the

A

Japanese, for example, how do you know where to go?

C

You'd be finding yourself completely lost.

A

Well, maybe that's something they can work on. Michael Binion and Elizabeth Brough, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on Tonight show, the career of former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover seems one of the less explicable episodes. Long though it was in American history. Fortunately, it is now unimaginable that a vindictive, delusional, amoral maniac could ever find themselves occupying a position of serious responsibility anywhere in the government of the United States. Hoover's life is recalled in a fashion he would have found unamusing in Here Comes J. Edgar, a comedy musical now playing in London the work of Seinfeld and Cheers writer Tom Leopold, distinguished composer Peter Matz and Harry Shearer, better known as Derek Smalls, bass player with Spinal Tap and as the voice of C. Montgomery Burns, Ned Flanders, Kent Brockman and several other citizens of Springfield, hometown of the Simpsons. I spoke to Harry at Midori House earlier and began by asking, of all the figures of American history to write a musical about, why Hoover?

B

Well, he was one of the nastiest. He was second most powerful man in America for. For about 50 years, unchallenged by five consecutive presidents because he maintained files on everyone in the public arena and used them to intimidate, threaten or blackmail everyone who tried to get in his way. That seemed like a great dramatic story to make fun of.

A

This is something you, I know you've been working on for a long time. There was a version of this, I think, was performed in the mid-90s with Kelsey Grammer in the title role. And though you won't remember, I interviewed you about 20 years ago, around the time of. For your consideration, and you were talking about that project then. I understand that these things take time, but is it possible that right now the moment for this may have arrived? If we're talking about someone like J. Edgar Hoover who kept a great deal of his personal life very secret, was very thin skinned and paranoid. One of those people for whom every accusation was kind of a confession. Does he remind us of persons or people?

B

Does he ring a bell anywhere in the National Directory of Personnel? Yeah. And also this is the first moment in time when there is an FBI director as wacky and as challengeable on moral or ethical grounds as J. Edgar Hoover, referring to Cash Patel, who's there now. This is also, fortuitously, the moment in the show. Jaguar's mother tells him, at one point, sings to him, your name will be up on a building when you do this work. And this is the moment when the J. Edgar Hoover building is being closed. Closed.

A

Has the script evolved over that time or is it still essentially the same project you wrote?

B

It's essentially what we wrote. We have in rehearsals been honing and seeing places where we could cut or have funnier lines. So in the process of taking a Script from piece of paper to the three dimensional stage. Sort of what you do is massage it like that.

A

And was the idea always that this would be a musical? It wasn't at any point going to be a satirical play or film or anything of that sort?

B

No, the original idea, which is the idea to this moment is he's on his deathbed and as a very, very closeted gay man, he dreams his life as a Broadway musical.

A

Did you get the sense, though, that Hoover was in any way repentant? Because it would be nice to think that a person at that moment looks back on their life and thinks, well, maybe I should have done some of that differently.

B

No sign of that, I'm proud to say. No sign of that. No, there's no evidence that he ever. And he was allied, I should point out, with one of the other more sinister figures in 20th century America, a gentleman named Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn, you, listeners may be interested to know, is the guy who taught Donald Trump, never apologize. And if somebody hits you, hits you, hit them back 12 times. And Roy Cohn was allied with Hoover early in his, in Cohn's career.

A

Do you end up wondering, when you examine a figure like J. Edgar Hoover, and as we have discussed, he has one or two parallels in current American life. What it is about a system that was supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people, that keeps throwing up these monsters and elevating them to positions of power and leaving them there, in this case, for decades?

B

Yeah, that's a bad sign. I think the good sign, and I can't believe I'm optimistic, these next words is that in the wake of, let's say, J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI recovered, became a much more trustworthy and responsible institution until the present day. So I think what I feel about America as a very young country still compared to most of the countries in the world, is that we, we do not progress. We pendularize, we go back and forth. You can see it in almost every part of the society. Not that long ago, gambling was illegal almost everywhere. Now it's on your phone. Not so long ago, people got life sentences for possessing marijuana. Now they'll deliver it to your house. And similarly, we are going through a retrograde moment when it comes to civil rights, voting rights, all of that. We had to do that fight before. I think the country will do it again.

A

Do you think in that process, that sort of, as you put it, the pendularizing, the swinging back and forth, satire and comedy does play any particular Part because Obviously over that 250 years, America has furnished the rest of us with plenty to laugh at as well as with, it has to be said, but for all the mockery and the jeering of America's foibles and America's institutions against, again, we end up where we are. Do you start to wonder if any of this makes any difference?

B

I think it just is there for entertainment. I don't, and I don't know anybody in this field who entertains fantasies of influencing the historical flow of events. We're there to entertain. It's just a different kind of a more pointed form of entertainment. A form of entertainment that may. I know, for example, I am as bothered by some of the current antics as anybody I know on my side of the fence, but I'm not nearly as angry because I get to make fun of it every week on my radio show. So it's sort of a release valve. While you wait for the winds to

A

change, do you remain optimistic that they will?

B

Oh, yeah. I'm the most optimistic of my group of friends and. And neighbors in thinking, you know, some of what is happening may be irreparable for a period of time, but I think a lot of it will be erased and corrected the minute that this guy leaves the Golden Office.

A

He's not obviously the first occupant of that office to have caused a lot of the United States and the rest of the world a certain amount of disquiet. And you did play one of them before, that being Richard Nixon in Nixon's. The one in which you recreated the dialogue from the recordings he made in

B

the Oval Office secret White House tapes.

A

Exactly that. I was wondering because of that and because of the other work you've done, and I should reassure you right now, I'm absolutely not going to ask you to do any of the voices.

B

No, and I won't.

A

But on that subject, I did look up some recordings of J. Edgar Hoover speaking. And it did strike me that there is something of the Monty Burns about J. Edgar Hoover. So what I was wondering was much in the way that there's a lot, I think, to that George Orwell quip to the effect that by the age of 50 we tend to have the faces we deserve. Do you hear anything? Does a voice betray anything is what I guess I'm wondering.

B

I wouldn't know. I don't think so. I mean, you know, the difference between Nixon and current occupancy is that Nixon had a sense of shame. And I think what's new in America is that the leadership now is shameless, but Nixon privately is. That's why we did the show about the tapes privately. Nixon was just as awful a guy as anybody. Hateful, discriminatory. He was smarter, a little bit smarter, but. And, you know, America recovered from Nixon pretty, pretty darn fast.

A

That lack of shame, though, that you mentioned, and this is something I think we are learning from the current situation. I'm wondering if you think it applies to Hoover, whether this was something he understood. It's kind of a superpower. Like, if you.

B

It is a superpower.

A

If you simply don't care, nobody can stick anything on you.

B

That's correct. But no, Hoover was exactly the opposite. He was totally, at that time of Hoover's dominance, most of the time homosexuality was a crime in America, and he had to. He was definitely gay, and he had to use every tool at his disposal to keep his secret. And so that was shame with a

A

capital S. Is there underneath any of this any desire to kind of correct the historical record or add some weight to one side of the scales? I'm thinking many, many years ago, I interviewed Christopher Hitchens about the book he'd written about Henry Kissinger. And Hitchens said, one of the reasons for doing this is that he will know in advance that I've kind of ruined his obituaries.

B

What a great line.

A

This will be a balance to the conventional wisdom. And I know obviously Hoover is long past being around for the reckoning, but is there some hopefully. But is there some satisfaction in sort of thinking, well, this is now part of the Hoover legacy. This is in the cultural references section of his Wikipedia page.

B

Oh, yeah, I haven't thought of it that way, but, yeah, I think that. True, I didn't mention this yet, but he spent a great amount of time and energy and somebody's money glorifying himself in public radio shows, television shows, movies, that always glorified J. Edgar Hoover, the great G Man. G man, meaning government man. So he cared very deeply about being revered. And so we're taking some of the bricks off that facade again.

A

Sounds somewhat familiar. Just finally, and I know this is an annoying question to ask somebody who has labored to get something onto the stage for literally decades, but what else are you working on? What else do you have coming up?

B

Well, I have this friend, Derek Smalls, who's coming out with a series of digital singles, and he has a live show, a really big live show taped in Los Angeles with a lot of really great rock and roll stars called Luke Warmwater Live and that should be out sometime late this year.

A

That was Harry Shearer speaking to me earlier. Here Comes J Edgar. Runs until August 16th at the King's Head Theatre here in Lond. That's all for this edition of the Daily. Thanks to our panelists today, Michael Binion and Elizabeth Broh. Today's show was produced by Chris Chermack and researched by Nkayli Martin. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening,

B

Sam.