Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

S. Fertility Rate Hovers Near Record Low. Admiral McRaven Discusses His New Book, "Conquering Crisis"; Role Of The Conclave In Choosing Pope Francis' Successor; Breaking Down The Process Of Selecting The Next Pope. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired April 26, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:49]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Festivus comes for two comedic icons. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. Yes, it's a time for an airing of grievances between Bill Maher and Larry David, and it's a pretty, pretty, pretty good fight. Still, one in which I hate to pick sides. I have always been a Larry David fan.

Truth be told, his portrait hangs in my radio studio for inspiration. There it is. It's personally inscribed. Michael, are you my Caucasian? A reference to one of my favorite "Curb" episodes ever, Krazee-Eyez- Killa, if you remember. I've only met him once, but I've long admired his comedic genius as evidenced in both "Curb" and in "Seinfeld."

My relationship with Bill Maher? That's a bit more fraught and complicated. The first time that I was a guest on "Real Time," it was a total disaster. Look at that expression that he's giving to me. Bill took me for an evangelical Christian. It didn't end well. Please don't Google it. You'll only add to the count.

At the post show meet and greet that night, he came up to me and he said, you look to me like a guy doing a slow burn. I love that expression. I hadn't heard it in years, but he was absolutely right. I was pissed. Two weeks later, however, he gratuitously complimented me when I wasn't even a guest on the program.

Eventually, I returned to the show several times and have come to respect his independence. Bill is no ideologue. He's a free thinker without any allegiance. The last time that I was on, he approached me post show and he said, you don't have a team. I like that. I don't have a team.

And he's right. We have that in common. So it pained me to see two men that I respect greatly square off about Hitler, of all things. But I have to take sides. It all started with a dinner at the White House and Bill explained as this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, AMERICAN COMEDIAN AND WRITER: As you know, 12 days ago, I had dinner with President Trump, a dinner that was set up by my friend Kid Rock because we share a belief that there's got to be something better than hurling insults from 3,000 miles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Bill Maher anticipated there was going to be criticism of his recap. And there was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER: What I'm going to do is report exactly what happened. You decide what you think about it. And if that's not enough pure Trump hate for you, I don't give a fuck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Despite the fact that Maher made clear his areas of disagreement with President Trump, many were offended that he complimented him as a gracious dinner host. And he expressed an appreciation for not having to walk on eggshells around Trump, something that he said he probably would have had to have done with President Clinton or Obama, both of whom he voted for. Maher went on to say that the man he met wasn't the man who seemed unhinged in public. He said that Trump laughed. He listened to criticism.

He was more self-aware. And then Bill Maher said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER: A crazy person doesn't live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on T.V. a lot lives there, which I know is fucked up. It's just not as fucked up as I thought it was.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: OK. That's when the left exploded. There was widespread condemnation. Maher was called an easy mark. He was thought to be a shameless opportunist.

A common feeling was that he got played by Trump. Larry David, a self- described social assassin. You remember that episode. He decided to step in. According to Patrick Healy, deputy opinion editor at "The New York Times," David contacted the newspaper, said that he had a guest essay submission.

The first line read as follows, "Imagine my surprise when in the spring of 1939 a letter arrived at my house inviting me to dinner at the old Chancellery with the world's most reviled man, Adolf Hitler." Well, this gave "The New York Times" pause, explained Healy. "Times Opinion has a high bar for satire. Our mission is geared toward idea driven, fact-based arguments, and we have a really, really high bar for commenting on today's world by invoking Hitler. As a general rule, we seek to avoid Nazi references, unless that is the literal subject matter, callbacks to history can be offensive, imprecise, or in terrible taste when you are leveraging genocidal dictators to make a point." But the "Times" ran Larry David's essay. They did so under the headline My Dinner with Adolf. It's about a visit with Hitler, who turns out to be far more charming and funny than the narrator expected.

[09:05:08]

Many of David's lines expressly echo Bill Maher's monologue. Quote, "I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, but eventually I concluded that hate gets us nowhere. Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler, the one I'd seen and heard, the public Hitler, but the private Hitler was a completely different animal. And oddly enough, this one seemed more authentic, like this was the real Hitler. It wasn't just a one way street with the furor dominating the conversation.

He was quite inquisitive and asked me a lot of questions about myself." And then when the visitor in this piece takes his leave of Hitler, he notes, quote, "Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn't mean we have to hate each other."

In an interview with Piers Morgan, Bill Maher fired back, noting that while he's never been soft on Trump, it's dumb to compare modern day politicians to Hitler. And he added that the piece was "kind of insulting to 6 million dead Jews," which was exactly what I thought. If Larry David had used another figure from history, I might be taking his side, but he didn't. He picked Hitler, for whom there are no equals and for whom there should never be a comparison.

As I said on radio when David's piece was published, when references to Hitler or Nazis become too frequent, they water down the horror of the Holocaust. Jonathan Tobin, writing for the Jewish News Syndicate, made exactly the same point, quote, "The way the discussion about the president always seems to circle back to Germany in the 30s and 40s is a glaring sign that efforts to educate Americans about the Holocaust have utterly failed. Those comparing Trump to Hitler aren't just guilty of hyper partisanship and bad history. They're essentially reducing the worst crime in history of humanity to just another bitter political dispute that has nothing to do with the Nazis totalitarianism and mass murder."

And lo and behold, the same day that Larry David's piece was published, former Vice President Al Gore made his own Trump-Nazi comparison, this time in the context of climate change. Gore's comments coincided with the annual observance of Yom HaShoah, the day set aside in the Hebrew calendar for remembrance of the Holocaust, which this year started the evening of April 23rd and continued through April 24th.

I took note of the fact that there was no outcry about Gore's invocation. Instead, it was just another day in Trumpland. Not that Trump was the first to hear such a thing, George W. Bush was regularly compared to Hitler. Same for Reagan. And don't get me wrong, Biden, Obama, Clinton, they all got the Hitler treatment at different times, although the right tends to prefer calling Democrats communists or socialists. Indeed, the Hitler comparison goes all the way back to, well, Hitler. It makes you wonder who people utilized to represent evil before World War II. You can just imagine Larry David 100 years ago comparing President Coolidge to the Kaiser. The sort of attack has become so common it has a name, argumentum ad Hitlerum. It's a type of ad hominem attack. Rather than discussing issues, you try to discredit your opponent by associating them with someone who's reviled.

Indeed, fascist analogies have become so ubiquitous that attorney and author Mike Godwin came up with his famous law, if an online discussion goes on long enough, eventually someone will bring up a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. Alas, even Godwin fell prey to that kind of thinking in the last election when he said it might be OK to compare Trump to Hitler. Sure, if you don't like a politician, you can always find some way they or their rhetoric is reminiscent of fascism. But you should show some sense of proportion. Perhaps we need a new law, something like people always think the last politician they don't like is worse than any that came before, when in truth, anyone with the slightest understanding of history knows the comparison is dumb and it's ugly and it's potentially dangerous.

Gerald Posner wrote "Case Closed," what many of us consider to be the definitive book on the assassination of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Writing for the Wall Street Journal just last year, he noted this, "It is a shame that those who repeatedly talked about Mr. Trump as an existential threat hadn't studied how the volatile atmosphere in 1963 in Dallas and 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee embolden Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray to assassinate John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. There's a price to reckless speech that portrays public figures as threats to the American way of life. It can be the spark that helps to push an assassin to act.

It is impossible to separate the violence of political assassinations in modern American history from the temperature of the times. It takes only a little fuel to push someone into the history books as an assassin."

Bill Maher's points were well taken, in my view. As noted, it doesn't make the present day politician look bad. Rather, it weakens Hitler and his status as being uniquely evil.

[09:10:10]

Perhaps this is why Patrick Healy, the deputy opinion editor of "The New York Times," claimed that Larry David was not actually equating Trump with Hitler, which I find hard to buy. If Trump isn't comparing to Hitler, then the comedy loses its bite in Larry David's piece and the piece loses its point. And it's actually not a bad piece if you get beyond the misuse of Hitler. It makes its point humorously, we'd expect nothing less and elegantly.

And it's definitely worth noting that people can be taken in by charismatic figures. So why not try a different dictator for once? You've got Stalin and Mussolini and Mao, and that's just the 20th century. You could go old school and pick Caligula. Although Trump might like that, based on the movie, of course. Yes, those names don't have the same bite, but if the piece doesn't work without Adolf, then it's clear you're letting the Hitler name do all the heavy lifting. So let me say to Larry David, soup Nazi, funny, real Nazi, not so funny. In fact, here's a helpful flowchart that all can use to know when it's acceptable to compare a modern day politician to Hitler. Should I compare this person to Hitler? No.

Though Larry David has his point to make, so does Bill Maher. And it's probably more important. The left can oppose Trump as much as they want, but they shouldn't see -- be afraid to see him as human. We need to learn it's possible to fight as hard as you can against someone's politics without dehumanizing them. You know who was famous for dehumanizing people?

Well, I won't even give his name, but you can see how easy it is to fall into cheap comparisons. I'm sure Larry David will continue to do great work. Nobody is better at getting at the small things and getting them right. As a matter of fact, in this way, he reminds me of Donald Trump. Their politics couldn't be more different.

But Trump's strength is putting his finger on those little issues that annoy people and yet tend to escape the notice of most politicians. Bill Maher said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHER: I'm not the leader of anything, except maybe a contingent of centrist minded people who think there's got to be a better way of running this country than hating each other every minute. So --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Maybe Bill Maher, maybe Bill Maher and Larry David will now have dinner. And if they do, I want Kid Rock's seat at the table.

It all brings me today's poll question at smerconish.com are Hitler comparisons to modern politicians ever appropriate? Go vote. I'll give you results at the end of the program.

You should have more kids. No, that's not me talking. It's the pronatalist movement. They're pushing for higher birth rates to save the economy. But is it common sense?

Is it social engineering, or just Elon Musk doing math in the bedroom? Stay tuned for that.

And Pope Francis is gone. The church is now in transition at a global audience captivated by a process that mixes faith, politics and power behind locked doors. So what will happen when 135 cardinals disappear to elect a new pope? Please don't forget to sign up for my newsletter when you're voting at smerconish.com. Jack Ohman drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:30] SMERCONISH: The pronatalist movement represents a growing trend that wants a growing society. They believe that higher birth rates would alleviate certain social and economic problems. To some, the pronatalist movement represents a frightening specter conjuring up images of the Handmaid's Tale, you know, with a paternalistic society taking over women's bodies and turning them into baby making machines. So let's take the movement out of it and talk about the data, 1.6. What's that?

The golden ratio. Close, but not quite. It's America's fertility rate. That's significant because the replacement rate, the rate where we don't lose or gain population is 2.1. So what does this discrepancy really mean for America's bottom line and our workforce?

Joining me now to discuss is Darrell Bricker. He's the chief executive officer of Ipsos Public Affairs, a leading social and opinion research firm. He's also the co-author of "Empty Planet, The Shock of Global Population Decline.

Darrell, nice to see you. So we're living longer and we're not reproducing at the same rate. That's a legitimate area of concern, independent of a particular movement, right?

DARRELL BRICKER, CO-AUTHOR, "EMPTY PLANETT: THE SHOCK OF GLOBAL POPULATION DECLINE: Yes. When John Ibbitson and I were writing this book a few years ago, it was something nobody was talking about. But now you're hearing a lot about it. And I mean, I'll just give-- one population in China is going to decline by 50 percent this century. Discuss. It's obviously an important issue.

SMERCONISH: What else -- so what -- give me some other global perspectives. In terms of Japan gets a lot of attention. The Third World gets a lot of attention. What are some of the other glaring signs to you?

BRICKER: Well, Western and Eastern Europe are all in negative territory. So if the United States is at 1.6, places like the U.K. are at 1.4. Canada, where I'm sitting today, is probably going to be at 1.2 this year. So the United States is half a kid short to just replace its population. Canada, where I am, is almost a full kid short.

And most of Asia and most of Western Europe are in the same place. So some of them have already --

SMERCONISH: What does that mean --

BRICKER: Well, they've tipped in the population --

SMERCONISH: What does that mean practically? So what will be -- what will be some of the ramifications?

BRICKER: Well, not only is the population starting to shrink, the population is also aging very rapidly too. So what's left in the population is not a consumptive population. It's not a population that's working. It's an elderly population. SMERCONISH: What might we see in terms of health? Dementia comes to mind.

[09:20:02]

BRICKER: Well, I can tell you in Canada it's diagnosed that there's going to be a million people here in the 20 and 30s who are going to be diagnosed with dementia. Multiply that by 10 times, which is the United States, it could be 10 million people. And we're not set up to deal with that. In fact, nobody's really talking about this. So it's not just population shrinking, it's population aging.

SMERCONISH: Is there anything that government can do about it? There's a question here as to whether government should try and get involved. President Trump just this week talked about $5,000 as a kicker, a bonus for families that have kids.

BRICKER: Yes, well, there is a gap between the number of kids that people want to have in the United States and there's -- and the number that they are having. So it could help to a certain extent, but it's going to be fairly marginal. And the reason is because those incentives aren't why people aren't having kids. Yes, there are people not having kids because they can't afford them, but mostly they're not having them because they just don't want them.

SMERCONISH: Darrell, I think that some people hear of the pronatalist movement, they know that J.D. Vance speaks for it. They know that Elon Musk speaks for it. And people tend to suit up in their usual partisan jerseys, either for or against, based on who those leaders are. I was eager to have you on the program today because put aside personalities and look solely at mathematics and think about the trajectory of this, it's a real issue.

BRICKER: Yes, it certainly is. The global population is probably going to peak around 2040 and start to decline. And how far it goes down, nobody knows. And what's left is going to be very old. Think about that world.

SMERCONISH: So what role might immigration play in all of this?

BRICKER: Well, in the short term, it's the easiest thing to do. But unfortunately, when we have a conversation about immigration and population, it turns into just about numbers. But the truth is, the politics around this topic are very, very divisive, and it has to be very carefully managed. Even countries like the one that I'm in now are having issues with immigration, and we've never seen that before. So it's not just a matter of replacement with other populations from other places.

They have to be able to integrate and make a difference pretty quickly.

SMERCONISH: A final question and something I want to circle back to. So is there anything that government can do if a $5,000 bonus isn't the answer, what might be? BRICKER: Well, I think trying to find all of the trigger points that cause people to not have kids that are materially related. So maybe it's a baby bonus, maybe it's making childcare cheaper, maybe it's offering more community supports to parents. But all of the things that will close the gap between the number of children that people want to have and the number of children that people are having will help. But all it's going to do is slow down what's going on. It's not going to reverse it.

SMERCONISH: Darrell Bricker, thanks for all the insight. We appreciate it.

BRICKER: Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Some social media reaction from the world of X, formerly Twitter. What do we have? I can understand not wanting kids right now. The money to raise them is outrageous and scary to think of, says Ryan.

Ryan, I agree with you. I was -- I was thinking recently about my own upbringing and my father, a schoolteacher turned guidance counselor, mom at that point, not yet working outside the home and yet somehow able to afford a house, very modest, three bedroom, one bath, 20ft to the next house away and a car in the driveway. Today that's just not possible, you know, on a schoolteacher, guidance counselor salary to be able to afford these things. And I know that's a huge factor for many.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my opening commentary and insights on how to conquer a crisis from the former commander of the U.S. Special Operations who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Yes, Admiral William McRaven, as in "Make Your Bed" is here. Plus the final farewell to Pope Francis and the secretive ancient ritual that begins shortly after. Who will the conclave choose as the new leader of the world's 1.4 billion Catholics?

I also want to remind you to go to the website smerconish.com, kind of a unique poll question today. Are Hitler comparisons to modern politicians appropriate? Be sure to sign up for my daily newsletter when you're there. It costs nothing. Scott Stantis drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:28:46]

SMERCONISH: In my opening commentary today, I noted that Bill Maher and Larry David are celebrating Festivus, an airing of grievances. That is it for me at Smerconish. He just ran a 10 minute ad pro Trump. He's lecturing anti-Trumpers. By the way, I noticed that the people who always say that's it for me, I'll never watch again.

Like a couple of months later, we tend to see them responding again in social media. So you'll come back. You'll probably never even leave. That was a 10 minute pro Trump commercial. That was a discussion of Bill Maher's civil visit with Donald Trump at the White House, which drew blowback from, among others, Larry David and I ran through the merits of each of it -- of each of those arguments.

But Maher never gave up his criticism of Trump in relating what happened at the White House, and nor did I in relating this whole brouhaha.

Next. Let's see. He is arresting judges that don't agree. Deporting people without due process to a foreign prison. Detaining U.S. citizens and searching homes without a warrant.

If it looks and acts like a fascist, it probably is.

But D. Vandenberg, are you really then going to go there and equate him with someone responsible for the extermination of 6 million Jews? I hope not, because that will diminish what truly happened in the Holocaust.

Bill Maher has lost none of his antagonism toward Trump. He treated him civilly when he was in his home, our home, the White House.

But have you watched the show since then? Nothing has changed. He's still a critic of Donald Trump, next.

Larry David's comparison is purposely exaggerated to make a point. The only way to make fun of Maher's absurd dinner a would-be dictator is to out absurd it. Nobody takes a joke of criticism worse than Maher. I'm a fan of his.

No. But Brad, I don't think that he needed to -- if he had used -- I don't know if he'd used Mao, if he had used Pol Pot, if he'd used somebody else, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a very simple premise, and that is that Hitler is deserving of a very unique place in history, in world history. And therefore, nothing should be equated to his behavior.

One more that I've got time for, I think. What do we have?

Larry David was not funny, not a satire, just in poor taste, says Nancy Lawrence.

I agree. And I think that the "Times" -- you know, the Patrick Healy explanation, which I quoted from, suggested that the "Times" had some real qualms when it first came in deciding whether they should have published it. They made the wrong call, and so too did Larry David. And I still love his humor and that of Bill Maher.

OK. So still to come, as the world mourns Pope Francis, the focus now turns to who his successor will be at a process shrouded in secrecy. We shed light on what happens inside the Sistine Chapel with the author of "Conclave," the book that became the Oscar winning movie. And retired four-star admiral William McRaven takes lessons from the battlefield to his new book, "Conquering Crisis," and insights into how we can all overcome hardship.

Don't forget make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Are those Hitler comparisons to modern politicians ever appropriate? While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free. It's worthy. And you'll get editorial content like this from Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:36:09]

SMERCONISH: When it comes to crisis, we'd all want my next guest in a fox hole with us. Retired four-star admiral William McRaven, the former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, served 37 years as a Navy SEAL.

The bestselling author of "Make Your Bed" and many others. And now adding a new one to the list, "Conquering Crisis: Ten Lessons to Learn Before You Need Them.

Admiral McRaven, good to see you. I made my bed this morning. Thought of you when I did it.

You are known for your successes. I just noted one of them in your introduction. But in the book, you talk about having your fair share of crisis. You know, raids that went bad, hostage rescues that went sideways, airstrikes that went wrong. So, is the new book "Conquering Crisis" is it more reflective of your successes or your fails?

ADMIRAL WILLIAM MCRAVEN (RET.), AUTHOR, "CONQUERING CRISIS": Yes. Well, one. Great to be with you, Michael. You know, the fact of the matter is, crises are generally generated when things don't go well.

And the point I make in the book is crisis leadership is kind of fundamentally different than day to day leadership. It's not that you don't need the same sort of qualities. You need to be a man or woman of great character. You've got to work hard. But with crisis leadership, you find you're in a situation where your time is constrained, your resources are constrained, lives are on the line, people are watching.

So, crisis leadership requires a different set of tools than day to day leadership. And I learned a lot of that through bad experiences. As you point out on the battlefield, running the University of Texas system. Yes, I lay out a lot of the problems I've had and how I got through them. And again, how I got through them, I think, at the end of the day with my reputation intact and the organization intact.

SMERCONISH: I find myself with a dilemma many times on radio where there's breaking news. And I'm sitting there in my studio and I'm monitoring CNN and other channels, and there's a story that breaks. And now I have a decision to make as to whether I'm going to run with it. Should I report the initial information?

MCRAVEN: Yes.

SMERCONISH: You have a whole chapter on that. What's your advice?

MCRAVEN: Well, of course, Napoleon Bonaparte once said that first reports are always wrong. I'm not sure they're always wrong, but they're wrong a lot of the times. So, I would -- I would offer you, don't make any declarative statements.

You know, always make sure you caveat your remarks when you're standing in front of the camera. Because invariably, in a crisis, the situation continues to develop, the information continues to come in, and the landscape changes very quickly.

So, there were a lot of times in combat where I would get a report from the field, and it would initially be a good report. And then you had to wait, wait. And then you began to find out that things didn't go quite as planned, and the report gets uglier and uglier.

So, you know, first, reports are generally wrong. Be careful about making declarative statements. Wait until you have all the facts. But again, in the news world, you've got to be able to balance all the facts with the speed of getting the report out to your audience.

SMERCONISH: There are about a dozen chapters in the book. Each has a different lesson. I'm going to put up on the screen, as a matter of fact, all the chapter headings for people.

They will see that one of the chapters is "Have a Council of Colonels." I'm not in the military. Do I still need a council of colonels?

MCRAVEN: Yes, I think everybody needs a council of colonels. And the story behind the council of colonels is, you know, in the military, generals and admirals always had this kind of council of colonels. They were men or women that weren't afraid to speak truth to power.

And so, I tell every leader, whether you're the CEO of an international organization or whether you're just somebody running a Starbucks or running your family, make sure you have people surrounding you that are going to speak truthfully to you.

Because if you don't, you're going to find yourself in a minefield somewhere and you're not going to be able to get out of it because people didn't tell you that you were about to make a bad decision or a bad choice in life. Have a council of colonels wherever you are.

SMERCONISH: Admiral McRaven, you've reduced some of your thinking to a chart that's in the book.

[09:40:03]

We'll put that up on the screen and I will ask you to explain the strategic decision curve. What's going on there?

MCRAVEN: Yes. The bottom line is, you know, in a crisis, there is a process. And the process as is laid out in this curve is, look, you know, initially, as you point out, you've got to assess it. You've got to make sure you report it up and down the chain. Then you've got to be able to contain it, shape it and then manage it over the long haul.

And if you do these, if you take these steps, eventually the degree of the crisis will get less and less and less. You'll be able to manage it and come out on the other end in a much better position. SMERCONISH: I admit to being starstruck on the one occasion that I had the opportunity to spend time with you. You admit to having been starstruck in the company of Jim Lovell. Who is he and why?

MCRAVEN: Yes, this was a couple of years ago. I had the opportunity to meet Captain Jim Lovell in Houston, Texas. And Jim Lovell, then Commander Jim Lovell, was the commander of Apollo 13.

And I grew up in the -- in the 60s and the 70s when the astronauts, you know, were the most important and our biggest heroes in America. And of course, Apollo 13 happens in April of 1970. And I'm in high school and watching how NASA handled this incredible crisis and how Jim Lovell and the crew of Apollo 13 managed to get back to earth safely is kind of the fundamentals of, you know, how you respond well in a crisis.

And, of course, he uttered the famous words, Houston, we have a problem. And that has stuck with, you know, America and all of those in a crisis, I think, since 1970.

SMERCONISH: It's not only Jim Lovell, Captain Jim Lovell, but I also learned just how much Admiral William McRaven learned from the late, great John Wooden, the legendary UCLA basketball coach.

The book is terrific. I would expect nothing less. Thanks for coming back to the show.

MCRAVEN: My pleasure. Michael. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, admiral. Don't forget to answer today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Those Hitler comparisons to modern politicians, are they ever appropriate? I'm a hard no.

Up ahead, as we look back on the life of Pope Francis, we look ahead to the conclave and how the cardinals will decide who will become the new pontiff. Who better to help us understand that than the man who wrote the book on which this Oscar nominated film was based. Author Robert Harris of "Conclave" fame, is here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:46:42]

SMERCONISH: So, that's a live look at Saint Peter's Square, where thousands of the faithful gathered to pay their final respects to Pope Francis earlier today. A funeral marked by global unity. World leaders from every corner of the globe in attendance, from President Trump to President Zelenskyy, President Macron echoing praise for a pontiff who spent his life pushing for a more compassionate, more inclusive church.

In the coming weeks, the focus will shift to a single chimney at the Sistine Chapel, where the world will wait for a puff of white smoke, the ancient signal that a new pope has been selected. During the conclave, which is a centuries old tradition, cardinals under the age of 80 are locked inside the Sistine Chapel, cut off from the world, casting ballots in total secrecy until one man receives a two thirds majority vote.

And in a testament to the Pope's reach beyond religion, viewers have been streaming "Conclave," the film, based on the bestselling novel by Robert Harris. They've been doing so in record numbers, a stunning 3,200 percent spike in viewership since Francis' death.

And joining us now is the author himself, Robert Harris. His book, "Conclave," was the blueprint for the Oscar nominated film starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci. He knows the process and its drama better than most.

Robert, thank you for being here. So, the movie was loyal to your book. How loyal was the book to the actual process?

ROBERT HARRIS, AUTHOR, "CONCLAVE": Well, I did my best to make it as accurate as I could. I read everything I could lay my hands on about conclaves.

The Vatican very kindly allowed me to visit all the behind-the-scenes locations where the conclave takes place. Where the cardinals are sequestered in the Casa Santa Marta, the Sistine Chapel, the roving room, which is called the Room of Tears where the new pope is put -- he puts on the costume before he goes to show himself to the faithful for the first time.

So, they gave me a lot of insight. And I also talked to a cardinal who've taken part in a conclave. I made it as accurate as I could. I was a journalist before I became a novelist so I try to get the facts straight.

SMERCONISH: And it was the elevation of Bergoglio, Pope Francis, that actually was your inspiration, as I understand it, taking in that scene. How so?

HARRIS: Yes, I watched the appearance of the new Pope Francis on the balcony overlooking Saint Peter's Square. And just before the new pope appears, all the windows, the high windows on either side fill up with the faces of the cardinal electors who've just chosen him.

And the camera panned along -- I was probably watching CNN. The camera panned along those faces. And you saw these men, elderly men, some looking rather crafty, others benign, some stern, some happy. And I thought that must be what the Roman Senate looked like in ancient Rome.

I wrote a trilogy of novels about Cicero, and I thought, you know, there's -- something has gone on here. An election. How did they arrive at this guy? And I thought, I'll try and write about this because I was a political journalist, and I thought, this is the ultimate election.

[09:50:05]

This is the World Cup final of elections. Let me see if I can try and reconstruct what happened. SMERCONISH: So, let me ask you to draw on your background, as a political journalist I won't ask you to handicap how it all turns out. But I'm intrigued by the constituencies.

Here in the United States, the constituencies are conservatives and progressives, Republicans and Democrats. The constituencies here by nation, I guess, by ideology to some extent as well. What are those different constituencies that will have to coalesce and make this selection?

HARRIS: Well, you're right. I mean, inevitably in any organization there tends to be a division between what one might call reformists and traditionalists, and that happens in the Roman Catholic Church. There are also regional differences. Yet again, there's a strong move this time to elect an Italian Pope.

At one time, the Italians had a lock on the papacy. But it's many years since they last had a pope. I think 1978 was the last time there was an Italian elected. So, you know, those are -- those are two of the ways in which the, you know, the electors might divide.

There's a move to have an African pope, a black African Pope. A lot of people think that that would be a good idea. Others think that -- the far east, the Philippines area where there's been huge growth in the Catholic church, it's their turn. So, all these factors will play their part.

SMERCONISH: Robert, we have just 30 seconds remaining. The library, that is awesome. I can see how you would draw inspiration from being in the room from which you are speaking to me. So, I'm envious and appreciative. Thank you so much for your time.

HARRIS: My pleasure. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Thank you. OK. Let's see what you're all saying via social media. You've still got time to vote, by the way, on the poll question. So, make sure you're doing that.

Stanley -- John Lithgow isn't ready. Stanley Tucci should be the pope.

The movie is great. The movie is great. Don't worry. I won't spoil the ending but I thought it was terrific. And I intend to be part of that 3,200 percent spike of people going back and watching "Conclave," in my case, for a second time.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. The Hitler comparisons to the modern politicians, are they ever appropriate? I have no idea how this one is going to turn out, but I'm a hard no. I am a no. They are never appropriate.

Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there and you'll get exclusive editorial cartoons the likes of this from Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:57:28] SMERCONISH: OK. So, there is the result, 41,683. Wow. I'm surprised. Although, I didn't know how it will turn out.

Are Hitler comparisons to modern politicians ever appropriate? Sixty- nine percent say yes. I'm a hard no. I'm in the 31 percent.

We'll get to some social media reaction. Actually, put that camera on me for just a moment. I have the first -- Catherine. Here comes the first social media reaction, you don't even know this yet, of the day.

It's from a friend of mine who has been a guest on this program. Veteran criminal defense attorney William J. Brennan asks, how in the world was I able to secure Jackie Mason's blazer to deliver today's program? Really? That kind of a reaction? I kind of dig it.

All right. Social media reaction now from the rest of you. What do we have?

Your weekly defence -- is that what that word is supposed to be? And protection of Trump is disgusting. He's a wannabe dictator, period.

Geez, I can only imagine what you think, then, of Bill Maher having treated Trump civilly at a dinner at the White House. It's not a defense. I'm sitting here and I'm calling balls and strikes. I've been plenty critical of him, and I will continue to do exactly that.

All right. More social media reaction. What do we have?

There is an old adage that the first person to invoke the name Hitler in an argument automatically loses the argument.

Well, Mark, I talked about that during the course of my commentary because the -- what's his name? Godwin, actually, makes that observation that if the conversation and debate goes on long enough, invariably somebody is going to invoke it. That doesn't make it right. It just means that it demeans, as I said previously, what really transpired.

One more social media reaction, if we have time. Michael, two obvious reasons. Women can't find men to marry.

Oh, this is on birth rates. OK. Wow. Something different. OK.

Let me just reset and tell everybody that our replacement rate in the United States is 2.1 births per female, and we're at 1.6. And consequently, some see crisis in all of this.

OK, with that in mind -- wait, put it back up. With that in mind, here's the social media reaction. I was setting the table.

You have to show it to me again, gang. I'm not smart enough to have remembered it. Oh my God, come on.

Michael, two obvious reasons. Women can't find men to marry. And women would rather have careers than produce babies. It's obvious.

OK, what I want to say is this whole conversation about birth rates gets cast as pro-natalist. Hey, that's J.D. Vance.

[10:00:00]

Hey, that's Elon Musk. That's Tucker Carlson. And then people suit up in their partisan jerseys and decide whether they think this is a real crisis or it's some invented circumstance.

I think there's a legitimate concern. It will have significant impact for not the least of which reason is we're living longer. So, you've fewer of the young able to take care of those who are growing old. And the societal safety net is in jeopardy.

If you missed any of today's program you can always listen anywhere you get your podcast. Thank you for watching. See you next week.