Ruminating with Marvin Kalb
The legendary newsman on democracy, anti-Semitism, the Middle East, Ukraine and meeting Nikita Khrushchev
I started following Marvin Kalb when I was a kid and he was a top correspondent at CBS News (where he was one of Edward R. Murrow’s last proteges) and later NBC News, where for years he offered the best coverage of foreign affairs of anyone in the business. He then became a Harvard professor and founding director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and and Public Policy. Marvin is the author of 17 books with a memoir on the way and he hasn't lost a step at 93.
JONATHAN ALTER:
Is democracy in serious danger?
MARVIN KALB:
I remember the day before the election [2016], I was in a heated conversation with my brother and a lot of veteran journalists. Every single one of us was certain that, in the final analysis, Trump would lose. But he won. And for a couple of weeks, I could not even get the words “President Trump” out of my mouth. The words didn’t sound right.
I was totally shocked when he began to speak of the press as “an enemy of the people.” It was so foreign, so odd, so strange, so totally Un-American. In my mind were stories that Edward Murrow had told me about bad experiences that he had in Germany in the mid-1930s and about how rapidly a modern industrialized society can turn on its head. 2016 was not really that long ago. And yet, we think of American society and the dangers to American democracy in a different way. We think that democracy in this country is in serious danger. I agree. But would I have said that seven or eight years ago? No.
So what’s happened? Yes, there is this unhappy group of Americans feeling that they’ve been bypassed and they’re ignored. Forgive me — I read a lot of American history — we’ve been there before. There have been many times when we’ve been unhappy before. But that doesn’t mean you will immediately jump from democracy to the fear that you’re losing democracy.
I go back to the power of an individual to change the American political system. Trump has certainly managed to change the Republican Party. The party is unrecognizable. And I don’t know that there was someone in that party, even Trump, saying: We are now making this transition.
Trump is a remarkable figure in so many ways. He actually tells you what he is going to do.
JON:
Well, so did Hitler, by the way. In Mein Kampf, he said exactly what he was going to do.
MARVIN KALB:
But Trump didn’t do it in a written-down way. He talks it, and every day he spits out a formula that he’s going to follow the minute he retakes power. The system is being used by a person to undermine the system. Is he doing this wittingly? He’s just doing it. It’s like political jazz.
JON:
Well, he is very improvisational. In the fall of 2016, I was writing a profile of Joe Biden for The New York Times Magazine (and another for Politico), and I was flying around with him. I remember we were coming back from Colombia, where he had been on a quick visit. It was the night of one of the Trump-Clinton debates. And on Air Force Two we got into a conversation about Trump. Biden’s whole focus was on his instinctive, improvisational abilities. Even though he loathed Trump and actually got annoyed at me when I put that in the Times Magazine, he nonetheless appreciated his jazz skills, which can’t be taught.
As you indicated, he says exactly what he would do. So, he would weaponize the Department of Justice. He would try to put General Milley on trial for treason. He would use every tool at his disposal for what he describes as “retribution” against his political enemies.
If he gets back in, will our institutions, which have stood up pretty well in some ways — our courts, for instance — be strong enough to stymie his autocratic ambitions? How strong is the rest of the system, based on your historical experience covering autocracies? Or will it be the end of the road of our 230-year experiment?
MARVIN KALB:
It might be. It depends on two structures in the democratic system. One relates to our system of justice, and the other relates to the press. If we imagine democracy as a structure — the press is one pillar, and the justice system is another pillar—are these two pillars today capable of holding up the structure of democracy? Is there a real danger to either one? And the answer to the latter question is yes.
The system of journalism today, the psyche of journalism, is that we’re no longer up above looking down at a story, seeing the participants, talking to them, judging it, getting perspective, and writing it as clean and quickly as we can. I don’t see that anymore. I see the structure of journalism as divided into two parts: one, Fox-led and agenda-driven. The rest of the press — the Times, the Post, CBS — continue to try to do it as fairly as they can, but they are also under huge economic pressures today. The press is divided and at war within itself.
As far as the judicial system is concerned, that scares me more every day. It’s part of the battle. These two pillars are infected by modern mores, modern impulses, and modern pressures that have weakened both considerably. The whole system has been weakened. Were Trump to regain power, I think we have a less than 50 percent chance of retaining the structures of American democracy.
“Were Trump to regain power, I think we have a less than 50 percent chance of retaining the structures of American democracy.”
JON:
You've seen a lot of bad things happen in your time — setbacks to peace in the Middle East and events that change the trajectory of global politics. Where does the Israel-Hamas War rate?
MARVIN KALB:
I think it rates very high, and that is because it has had a profound emotional and historic impact on the state of Israel and on the Israeli people and, by extension, on Jewish people in many parts of the world. It was totally unexpected. It demonstrated the failure of the Netanyahu government to take proper precautions. They had misread their own strength.
JON:
The Israeli retaliation has been criticized by a lot of people as being disproportionate. Do you think that that's a relevant criterion, and do you think that they reacted in a proper fashion?
MARVIN KALB:
They reacted understandably. Given the realization of what had happened on October 7th, they had to respond massively. If one thinks in terms of numbers, you can come up with explanations like "disproportionate response," but thinking in terms of numbers when you're dealing with Israeli-Arab wars is foolish. It's unproductive, and it doesn't get you closer to reality. [Given the much greater number of Arabs], if Israel suffered as many casualties as Israel causes on the other side of a war, there would not be an Israel today. So, I don't go for the disproportionate explanation.
JON:
I don't either. And I also think that people are neglecting the deterrent effect. Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, has said that if he had known how large and overwhelmingly the Israeli response would be in the early 1980s, he would never have messed with Israel as extensively as he did. So even if one thinks the bombing has become counter-productive, part of this is about sending a message of deterrence. It's not just an emotionally understandable response, right?
MARVIN KALB:
I totally agree with you on that. And in that part of the world, power has to be demonstrative. It is not an academic theoretical exercise. You have to see the exercise of power. And when you see that, you make political and social decisions, but you've got to see it first. And that's why part of what Israel is doing is understandable. The question now is whether the strategy is correct. And there's a good argument that after a while, within about a month of nightly television pictures of children's bodies in hospitals, it needed to [be reassessed]. By the way, it would appear that the only story an American television journalist could find in Gaza was a hospital. It was the emotional story that would get you on the news, no doubt. But it was not the only story.
To this day, it seems as if nobody pays any attention to the political, economic, and social effects of the war and whether there is anyone living in Gaza today who has a negative word to say about Hamas and its leadership and would ask a question like, "God, would I be in this mess were it not for the fact that I've been governed by Hamas for the last 18 years?”
JON:
We know from polls that were done in Gaza in September that at that time, a very large number of Gazans bravely told pollsters that they opposed the government. So, we know that that sentiment exists. I understand why it's hard to get the story. Combat reporting is very tough, especially when you can’t get into the war zone. But that doesn’t excuse colossal contextual failures in the coverage. My problem with the coverage of the hospitals is that every day the press completely misses the story that Hamas is routinely using the hospitals as military bases. How often do you even hear the words "human shields"? How often would you hear any skepticism when the Hamas-backed head of the hospital was saying, "Oh, no, we have no Hamas here." That was a total lie, and you didn't learn any of that from any of the coverage.
MARVIN KALB:
I agree that coverage was a failure. It was unimaginative, and it went with the obvious story. It left you asking questions that should have been answered. There was a strong tendency, even with excellent news programs like the NewsHour on PBS, to go with emotion and to go with the same televised image night after night. I know those people, and I don't understand why they did it. Honestly, I don't. But, well, maybe I do. But I don't want to believe it.
“I agree that coverage was a failure. It was unimaginative, and it went with the obvious story. It left you asking questions that should have been answered.”
JON:
And how about even The New York Times not saying "the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry announced today...."? They just assumed that their casualty figures were all accurate. We have no reconnaissance of mass graves. It could actually be more than 25,000 dead. Maybe there are more buried under the rubble. Maybe more of them were Hamas fighters, most of whom don;t wear uniforms. We just don’t know. Phony certitude about casualty figures is just bad journalism.
So, do you favor a ceasefire now?
MARVIN KALB:
A ceasefire with certain conditions. A ceasefire would be great if both sides put down their arms and sat down and talked like sensible people, but that is not what is happening. If Israel is to stop all military activity against Gaza, Hamas has to produce an action of similar importance. That could be the total release of all hostages or the opening up of the area to some form of international authority — something that says a group of respected international folks are coming in to begin to turn Gaza around and begin some mass form of rehabilitation and reconstruction.
JON:
What kind of marks would you give Biden and Tony Blinken so far?
MARVIN KALB:
I give Biden very high marks. When one considers the incredible complexity of the situation, what he did was very wise. He went there at a time when Israel was dramatically and emotionally shaken, and no one knew what it would do. People don't talk about this, but there is a nuclear force there. And if Israel felt it was going under — and I know this because I have heard this from Israeli leaders — they would think about using nuclear weapons. I'm not saying that Biden necessarily had that in mind. But what he did have in mind was the shakiness of Israel. Going there took courage and wisdom.
JON:
How about his saying that they should not engage in what he called indiscriminate bombing?
MARVIN KALB:
Also right. That is very much under the category of tough love. The US is now working very quietly with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to try to create an Arab-run political, economic, and sociological vision of a new Gaza that has to be tied in with the West Bank, of course. And that means some kind of unified Palestinian Authority, some force sitting on top of both regions, with American, Western European, Gulf state, and Saudi support.
JON:
Bibi seems desperate. To cling to power, it now looks like he’s positioning himself as the only one who can stand up against Biden and the Americans. So cynical. On the brighter side, the Saudis, while critical in a pro forma way of the bombing of Gaza, are not shutting the door at all to peace with Israel.
MARVIN KALB:
And there is still extensive trade between the Gulf states and Israel. That part of the world is just not negative toward Israel, which offers an opportunity for the United States to show its political and philosophical strength. It doesn’t have to show its military strength at this point.
JON:
Were you alarmed — or not particularly surprised — by the upsurge in anti-Semitism that we're seeing?
MARVIN KALB:
I am terrified by the swiftness and the depth of anti-Semitism in this country. Some of what I read frightens me. What I hear from former students of mine up at Harvard, students of mine at GW. It's almost a new world. I don't understand how, on October 8 [before any Israeli bombing], it seemed as if the American college campus came alive with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Both linked. It's almost as if it was organized, but it really wasn't.
It had been there. I knew as a kid, having to walk past Catholic churches on the other side of the street because they would throw snowballs at me — I know all of that, but what kids are experiencing today is historic. Its roots are very deep. And it’s frightening.
“I am terrified by the swiftness and the depth of anti-Semitism in this country. Some of what I read frightens me.“
JON:
If Trump wins, what happens in Ukraine?
MARVIN KALB:
It is a building catastrophe. Can you imagine if you were sitting in Kyiv today, what you are thinking? You are afraid, and you have every right to be afraid. You are depending now on the United States of America, which is changing right in front of your eyes.
JON:
Or it might not be. If Biden wins, he’ll figure out some way to continue to lead the Alliance. If Trump wins, you might as well make preparations to evacuate Kyiv because he will, within a relatively short period of time, give Putin the green light to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, notwithstanding this group in the Republican House of Representatives, Biden is very committed and will do whatever he can to provide support and leadership, right?
MARVIN KALB:
I think there is a major shift already taking place in this country about aid to Ukraine, and we see it in the latest poll numbers. We’re not where we were nine months ago in terms of even Democratic Party support. The numbers keep slipping — with the Republicans already under 50 percent and the Democrats slipping toward 50 percent. Where is it going to be in six months? Probably even less. Americans like to be drawn to something that works. Whether it’s a piece of machinery or a system, it has to work. It must demonstrate progress, and ultimately, you have to win. The US government today believes, without saying so, that it is very unlikely that Russia can come storming in and take over Ukraine, any more than it is likely that Ukrainian forces could beat back the Russians and reoccupy those parts of Ukraine already taken by the Russians. And so, through 2024, they envisage a continuation of the stalemate we have today.
If everything is locked in on the battlefield this year, two things are very important: what happens in Washington, D.C. and what happens in Moscow. We are undervaluing the unhappiness and the turmoil that I believe is growing in Russian society. Can Putin retain power? Of course. Is he likely to retain power? Not in my judgment. Perhaps I’m being optimistic here. Not the military, but the elite—the people who make Russia happen, who run the industries, who run the underground — work on the basis of “What’s good for me?” And what is good for them is diminishing.
And, when it diminishes, their faith in the number-one guy diminishes as well. Especially with families who are finding out that the son of the neighbor is dead and wondering what’s gonna happen to their boy, and that spreads anxiety through the entire system. Russians know very well they’re being lied to — they’re used to that. But this time, the lies have to do with their own family.
JON:
On July 4, 1956, you were a 26-year-old foreign service officer, and at a reception at Spasso House [the U.S. embassy in Moscow], you talked about basketball with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, who dubbed you “Peter the Great” because of your height, which nearly rivaled that of the great czar. And you had a drink — sort of — with Marshal Georgy Zhukov. He was drinking vodka, and you pretended to, but filled your glass with water. This is the general who commanded Soviet forces at both Leningrad and Stalingrad and personally accepted the Nazi surrender. Did he talk about any of that with you?
MARVIN KALB:
We did talk about Stalingrad, but he didn’t talk in specifics. He talked in broad terms, linking the awfulness of the battle with the capacity of the Russian people to withstand pressure, death, and fear [when the fate of the country is truly at stake]. I was one of four people at the Embassy who spoke Russian, and I was struck by the importance of this responsibility. And so I set this up with the water and the vodka and tried to find a subject that I could talk to him about that was not confrontational. I hit upon Stalingrad.
He grew solemn, and he spoke about the horror of the battle — how the German soldiers were fighting like tigers, and neither side wanted to give up. But the Russian people went over the top, and they succeeded. No matter the cost, no matter the horror, they succeeded because they had to, and that is what Russians do. That was the general theme about the Russian people and their strength under pressure, how they don’t give in, and even when they die, it is for the cause of Mother Russia. Now some of this was in the spirit of Communist propaganda, but very little. Most of it was the reminiscence of a soldier and of a man who had a remarkable history and who got into trouble with Khrushchev a year or so later.
JON:
Much later, you were on Nixon’s enemies list. How did that happen?
MARVIN KALB:
I believe it happened because Nixon, who watched television, did not appreciate my analysis of his Vietnam policy. Now, I wasn’t doing what Eric Sevareid was doing. I was not doing analysis per se, but in the presentation of information, there is an attitude that can be struck. If you could have Bernard Kalb doing a piece on an unsuccessful American operation in Vietnam, and then Marvin Kalb pointing out the differences between the State Department and the White House and the divisions in the White House itself, and the confusion in Washington — that was not what Nixon wanted to hear.
JON:
So, was Bernie on the enemies list also?
MARVIN KALB:
No, he was not. The Cronkite group represented a threat. When Walter said, “That’s the way it is,” [Cronkite’s famous closer] for many Americans, that was the way it was.
JON:
Bob Woodward says he carries around a quote from a December 14, 1972, White House tape where Nixon says, “The press is the enemy” three times. Then he says, “The professors are the enemy.” You were a twofer because you’re an intellectual member of the press. At the same time, you were pretty friendly with Kissinger, and I assume you remained at least somewhat friendly with him. I’m just wondering if, on the 50th anniversary of the Allende coup in Chile, you think, in retrospect, you could have been tougher on Kissinger at the time? Or are you comfortable with your reporting on him through that whole period?
MARVIN KALB:
Your question brings a smile to my face. I would simply invite you to read my scripts at the time. If you think that is a friendly reporter, well...I covered Kissinger fairly.
Somebody asked me just the other day, “What was one of the principal differences between journalism in your time from journalism today?” I said journalists at that time were much more serious about the dangers that we all lived in. A story was not just a story — nuclear war was a threat for a long period of time. The current crop of journalists was raised during a period when nobody even thought about nuclear weapons, but back then, it was — maybe not an obsession, but a daily concern. An awful lot of parents at that age were building special cellars, and kids in school had to get underneath their desks. It was a different line of work.
To get to where I suspect you’re going, I understood his language, and I tried to put it into context. I understood Kissinger as being a figure determined to the best of his ability to hold off a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, and he would structure his policies to achieve that aim. That was central in his mind.
JON:
Let me ask you one more question. What advice would you give or do you give to a young person thinking about going into journalism?
MARVIN KALB:
Keep it up. Without a virile, unafraid press, democracy is in danger. Courage, honesty, and humility—if properly packaged—can produce superb journalism, which is essential today. I draw a strong link between virile, unafraid journalism and a strong, functioning democratic system. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I am optimistic about the capacity of a free press to ensure the continuation of our democracy. But on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday — and it is a Saturday — I am less than optimistic and actually fearful.
JON:
What are you working on?
MARVIN KALB:
I am finishing the third volume of an autobiography on what it was like being a reporter covering the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. I hope it will help people understand what journalism was and what it was like for an individual.
JON:
I’m looking forward to it. Thanks, Marvin.
Canada,Mexico, Argentina and many more countries have very limited campaign "seasons" and some prevent any advertising too. We run a popularity game which is why Trump succeeds because he is a performer.
I very much enjoyed this exchange, learned a lot, and so did you probably, so there's no reason to discuss that; but what hit me forcefully was that Mr. Kalb is saying that one Jew's life is worth more than one Arab's life: "Don't just look at the numbers."
That's debatable, to say the least. Much could be said, but the final conclusion can only be that one person is as good as another, that is, of equal value, in a general sense. If one argues that one Jew is equal to ten Arabs, that's a difficult claim to support. Yes, there are many more Arabs than Jews, but to me, one Arabic baby is fully equal to one Jewish baby. A person is not a statistic, a digit, or a means to an end. Each one has infinite value, at least it should, to other humans anyway (Martians may discount, disdain, and destroy us all with no guilt feelings, if they see us as no more than violent, evolved apes).