On the second COMMENTARY podcast of the week, Abe Greenwald tells us about new legislation on immigration and what its larger meaning and political effect might be; Noah Rothman discourses on a new Justice Department investigation into unfairness in college admissions; and I just talk and and talk and talk. Give a listen.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
some guy. Well, the commentary magazine podcast, I'm John Paul towards the editor of commentary, the seventy two year old, monthly of political analysis, intellectual probity and cultural criticism from a conservative perspective join us commentary magazine dot com, where we give you a few free, reeds and then ask it subscribe. One thousand nine hundred and ninety five get to a digital subscription. Two thousand and ninety five get to an all access subscription, including a beautiful monthly magazine in Arma in your mailbox eleven times a year. We are closing or issue this weekend next and has some fantastic
stuff on it, and if you subscribe today, you'll probably get it in your mailbox by September. First. So please do that joy, with me is always a green Waller senior editor high Abe, I John and nor Rossman are associated or high. Now I John. So we are going to trip lightly pass the the era scared Muky, which ended as we know, as everybody knows, on Monday, and I do need to point out, as I pointed out on Twitter, that on the previous Friday, I had predicted that he would be out by Tuesday. So I'm only saying that, because I want you all to know that I did that so that you give me lots of credit because truth be told my pregnant Vocational skills are weak, never that's gonna win the Oscar. I always get it wrong and I like, I guess everybody Else- was wrong about twenties, team so in this case, since I got it right, I want to get full credit for that.
But we move on from a scare maturity to thee, John Kelly is White House Chief of staff era and though we were not gonna talk so much about What's going on in the White House today, I think it is worth pointing out that the press, and issued a signing statement upon signing the Russia sanctions bill that we talked about on Monday. That suggests a Gipsy The french idea has emerged now in the West wing. According to it's. There is a totally conventional signing statement expressing concern about the encroachment on executive authority, which is what a lot of signing statements for over the last forty years of and that's one of the reasons signing statements exist as to SAM signing a bill, but I got some problems with what congressional over each and we're going to test the boundaries of the bill in its implementation
that's a totally normal thing Reagan did at Bush, did Clinton, did it, Bush did Obama, did it, but Then there are. These interpretations of I ran away company and I can make better deals than Congress, and so you have the language which is a normal, serve high flown Guenaud executive its language, and then you have Trump language, and so it's a little like Gmail trumpets. Now the beast does now the crew with two had Lithuania have its right at the end like you hit the thermal climb and below that, is it? Is it Jordan, trompe in and around a great company that may billions of dollars, and I know how to make deals better than Russians. You think it's out of place, but he could not leave the statement alone. He had sort of like gibbets on his own statement, PS I'm, this guy. I'm still here, don't think I'm not here so so I do think it's like Doktor Jacqueline, Mr Hider. There he's gonna, do heads and there's gonna, be there.
Efforts, sale, Lucky's grown is different. Everything's changed its new era by them. The id is the it is still very close to the surface and will will not be will not be surprised. By the John Kelly, Superego so easy. Let's just say How are they we're gonna spend the spent most of the time his pack has talking about two different issues that are emerging outside. The White House, though endorsed by the way, has obviously, immigration and the other affirmative actions. Oh, immigration. Today, senators, Tom Cotton and they would Purdue have written. And submitted for consideration a bill on limiting legal immigration. Changing immigration policy in the United States
said the president endorsed at the White House. Abe Can you tell everybody about the bill right so the reforming american immigration for strong employment act or the already, as IE or the re raise act as the razor which, It's is better than the Brok the bee RCA, which was the Senate nationals of the Senate Healthcare, because, as I as I said, I'm pretty Clark has. Those are the genes that trigger breast cancer, so, at least in this case somebody came up with an acronym that doesn't suggest disease. The rays act top. Please could change so, as you said, it was introduced by Tom Cotonou David produce and it aims to cut legal immigration by half over a decade from the current level of more than a million green cards per year. There are a few specific sent here about how it's going to do that is going to end the division.
Firstly, lottery. That's been giving out up to fifty thousand green cards a year, mostly to areas in the world that traditional don't have that don't send a lot of immigrants, United States. It will also look to curb green cards for extended family members of U S, citizens and legal permanent residence, particularly for grown, in siblings, so that is a minor minor children and spouses would still be eligible for for green cards, and it will cap refugee levels of fifty thousand per year, and it seeks to post to to impose a merit based green card system where, where, whereby green cars we given out in accordance with things like English ability, education levels skills and the bill will not limit low skill. Temporary work right should be said that countries like, I believe Britain in Australia, have this sad, Canada. Canada have the same points system, so here's
interesting. Let the bell I think well, one of which is that the? unless you are, I mean I am about as liberal immigration as you can get, and I think in policy terms, while you can see that will lower the number of green cards. One million five hundred thousand over ten years is, I think, a bad policy. It does, I don't think it makes, makes sense, given everything we know about the contributions illegal immigrants make to the country and how they are Annette go. Each of them actually has a net producer of wealth as opposed to a taker of benefits nonetheless, of ending this fifty year, family based immigration system does not. To me to be a rational or unreasonable in any way. The notion that you know individual
Immigrants to the United States can serve essentially as a magnet for his entire extended family has no rational basis and merit. I think it is. Understand it. They became law based on nor eastern senators, who had. Substantial irish immigrants their base Teddy Kennedy. The centres from New York, sellers, Connecticut centres Pennsylvania. There was a lot of efforts being made by the irish people to get their families over, because Ireland was in such parlous condition in the sixtys and seventys and also because there was war going. Ireland between the and Northern Ireland and so there was an effort to. There is an effort to sir village families as a way of getting constituents getting their families over. So again that doesn't
that's not in the national interest per se, they're, not Refugees are not we're not looking when it's not human humanitarian service. So you don't, even though I am a big restriction. Ist anti restriction is, I would say that much of this bill seems to me to be perfectly rational and unexceptional and hasn't literally no chance of passage right now: well I mean I'm now that the wall is built, and deportation forces in full effect, and we are effectively distributing illegal immigrant population over the border, wherever they may go. Oh I'm glad we have turned our attention to high skilled immigration and oh, the irony to tonight pack, anything that would do that were unduly deprive moral logo of their seasonal labour. Can we go into because this is the thing here which is? There was a lot of sarcasm,
There is less certain when no says it has left. Lids deserved unpack this, so the Republican Party was split, wider when, after years of complicated issues relating to immigration, by the fact that Liberals on immigration, including people like me, had no our answer for the argument that what you would that? What what was being done here was and acceptance of, mass illegality that, because there were twelve million illegal limit to the United States, and all we could say was we're not going to deport twelve million people and it's not fair and what about their families? And what about the kids were born here and that trump the anti immigration forces or anti illegal immigration forces said they are illegal, they are not allowed to be here. You are by the way, not interrupt. You represented a consensus opinion among women,
Can voters that was utterly unrepresented in their elected officials entirely. That's right! Romish Vanunu had a great observation on February twenty fifteen, that the entire republican field of thirty two candidates, or whatever, was the same opinion and immigration and big vacuum in Trump filled it right. So So all I'm saying is that so that was illegal. So an and, as I say I mean I will say, is a matter of about a confession: budgets. Saying your liberal Eddie, I would say that my case, it's entirely emotional, that is to say that you know, as I do you know, and the stories of America shutting its borders after one thousand nine hundred and twenty four- and you know there are hundreds of thousands of people millions of people who might be alive today if we had if we had opened our borders you now after the anschluss- and you know and crystal marked and all that- and so I look at that- and I think I am in no position-
the jewish person to say we should. We should, in our bill we should wall ourselves off having said that, that is not an argument that is an emotional feeling about the nature of the country and all that and the simple fact of saying they are illegal. They come across the border illegally. They are here illegally, their living under the radar and Emma de because their living under the radar. It is easy for a lot of people to hire them at at at at at below. You know at it they blame they depress wages of because they'll take menial jobs at incredibly low. Wait at all that just no wait a battle, if so those Sixteen candidates, the romance talked about had to give way over time because you couldn't fight the base. Logic on illegal immigration, legal, Migration is an entirely different story. Right.
It's just a matter of what we think is best for the country in terms of what we're going to allow people who are following the rules who obeying the laws and who are you who are who wears we're trying to who are now doing what, We say we want, as a country by to fit into our immigration system, so those changes. That's a matter of debate that Suno family verses skill. You know all of that, and I think skill is a perfectly fine way to look at it, but you when we were talking before you were saying I'm saying: they want in illegal immigration, just in there a working party, I naturally when illegal immigration nationally, and that, if you actually think that the
Craddock Base. The Bernie Sanders Base is like a total open borders. Bayside that strikes me, you know, is being crazy that they also feel that you know there's pressure coming in downward pressure on wages and stuff like that by people like that by by illegal, illegal immigrants. All that. But you know what you were saying you thought. Maybe I'm looking this I'm saying: inhibit elite legal immigration who has up what legal immigration and you were saying you think people the public on time, but not activists and not. You know, intellectuals, migration, intellectuals and all that people who like make their living on this issue. People do care about legal, patient and our hostile to it. Do you wanna out? Well, why it's my it's my thoughts,
I don't have time data to support. This is just an intuition that the american public, that a suspicious of immigration is overtly hostile towards legal immigration and suspicious towards legal immigration. Particularly skill is opposed to unskilled because they are not fighting for opportunities to move the grass in the winter time. At more logo, they won t jobs in various other occupations that are being taken up by individuals who were a bit and who apply for and receive hp wonder when visas. So it would be, as my thought that appear in immigration restriction, asked urine. Immigration restriction is first and foremost on skilled immigration? Because that's, what's that's what you're competing with ok? But the question is again as a populist issue: does that mean that we have you no tens of millions of Trump voters or upset because their having to compete? For I t jobs,
I'm just look. I think it's nothing. It's rough forget trump. Voters agree also say this about democratic voters or independent vote lot, fidelity I think, I think, is relevant in the end is called import. These strong employment act, I think, is relevant. That Trump was talking it up as something that was going to help Americans. White and minority Americans get jobs? I mean this is. I think I think no was right. I think there's there's there is something he I mean. I think they're full of it. In a way I mean because I think they have theirs- is abstract idea out there that that high school, we are going to take their their jobs, but I don't think they make they make finer connections between that. I think that's! That's just the sort of overarching concept that they work. As for Democrats rank and file, EL, the Democratic Party in general. It is increasingly difficult to make a distinction between the Democratic Party and the progressive activist base their opposed to Donald,
That is their message. They have no other unifying principle and they will attack this as you would a progressive witches. As democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez attacked, as attacking limiting family reunification and not focusing on criminals, but in pushing immigrant families, a pardon rendering communities and that sort of thing you I should think were were about. Another skies falling moment over this. I think it's going to be a huge view. This, oh, my god, can you believe what what what had happened to this country and that sort of dovetail with that sort of brouhaha that we had over this week with abortion de triple features that we're going to possibly fund. To answer. Is the democratic congressional Campaign Committee which funds, which is the official arm, which is a witch maybe that funds congressional breaks we're not gonna discriminate against pro life. Democrat superlative democrats want to run in red districts and that set the progressive activists community on fire,
and there, the reality is you don't Donal said we write shorn of new part on patients, she's abandoning the party, so they and the fire in the Ellie is on the part of the progressive activists base. They provide the injury they, provide the donations they're, the ones who are interested in making sure this is a pro abortion within the programme like rats or lower lukewarm about it, ok, so this is what a mute. This is what interests me. So this is part of the transformation of american politics in general. I think you could make the case that at that, that a bill like that The proposed twenty years ago, let's say, would have had purchase with that part of the democratic base that was working class and union right because skilled Labour union job that there, whole thing about how the IMF, rotational, skilled labour is one the things that has made unionization so difficult of you know in,
industries like so it would serve the Silicon Valley and other bodies or more new tech industries that have we have not been, but that is not what the democratic world base is in the union culture and is now increasingly public sector workers, or you don't dominated by public sector workers. The dominant part of the awful ceo, is public sector workers and not now private sector, and so they are- They don't have any skill in this game. They don't have any skin in the year, taking jobs away from Americans and cause. That's not what happens? No illegal immigrants don't get jobs. In the Kentucky Department of Labour. You know like that's, that's just not the way it works so. That that's a real question here so forget the democratic base. I still think that there's Bernie Sanders that them that the analogue
between the Bernie Sanders voter in the Trump voter. Is this general sense that the super state of of banks and height and the presidency and all these people who want to take all your freedoms, away: There are also you know: they're they're importing labour because their more pliable and easier to deal with all of that and that they would be more. They might hear this better, not pressure, not enough to pressure Democrats to vote for it We can build on it, but but I dont think that prick who in cotton or anybody, believes this bill will pass. So you have to ask: why is it introduced in the first place? Well, that's with Congress supposed to do cars. Emissaries are supposed to present policy in terms of legislation and put their members on notice about how they stand on things. There's something else going on here, which is that this is an
for to create a political issue for twenty eighteen and twenty twenty by putting the Republican Party by put but putting teeth to the republican parties, move turn against open immigration right so and to draw these draw these battle lines very clear. They want Tom Press. The Democratic Party have a skies falling meltdown. That's part of this is to draw the fight so that they can say to the republic and the increasingly populist republican base. We have your back and they are trying to change this country by bringing in immigrants and having them, make them citizens wherever they whatever they want to do, and they don't care about you. So you don't care. Does this amount to culture? Warrior? Isn't there's an economical hold on culture, war itself, total element, if you look at if you take
Word: culture, not to mean products of aesthetic, popular or highbrow aesthetic, but to mean tour in them in the broadest sense, which is what what what what what our composition spiritual anymore Composition is a country; this is a huge element of the Cultural WAR and that's why Trump is so supportive of it because he want he thinks this is his bread and butter. Eight. Let me just ask you one thing so for years, for decades, people who have been arguing on these points have made the case that the immigrations in that positive even a week,
Operations in that positive that you know you take these extreme cases like the murder of cates, timely in San Francisco, and you said that stands in for this terrible crime way illegal immigration, crime way, which does not exist right. So you have the great joke about the horrors of illegal immigration, on the crime being priming them by and says that this immigration way began and ninety nine, before twelve million people came into the country from ninety my four onwards, as Mexico fell into political crisis. And it was from nineteen. Forty two thousand seventeen that we have seen this historic and unparalleled an unprecedented crime drop in the country in which the overall violent crime rate has gone down. Seventy percent so the notion immigrants causes illegal immigrants. Cause crime is disproven by the fact that illegal immigrants dont cause crime than fact crime. In fact, the moment of their greatest
Yo encroaching on the country is also the time at which crime is falling. Those I don't think that argument means, I think everybody, let's not I'm them in our interrupting aid, but it's not if its culture warrior resume its divorced from met Ex suggests decisive vote doesn't have to be the Imo Sheep, deep culture, the deep culture war is about yet so as the emotion so what you get what is the emotion that binds an argument? against illegal immigration. And an argument against illegal immigration will be it's it's a very distasteful. Nationalism is what I think it is, and this is certainly feeds internet. Well, ok. So, let's move on to the other culture war aspect of of the day or what I think will ignite a second half of of the color
or lastly, yesterday last night the New York Times reported that the Justice Department a division of civil rights is going to take a hard look in some fashion or other at the question whether or not college admissions. Are now weighted against white people and non african american and non hispanic minorities. And you can already hear. People on twitter last night were acting as though the Reichstag have lit on fire. This is a one to punch. I feel that we have immigration, that affirmative action, so so, if we could separate the wheat from the chaff here- and this is key, Let us talk about policy, and then we can talk about the culture or so the policy is that the Supreme Court in Twain-
fifteen allowed in the Fisher Verses University? Texas decision allowed public universities- and this is all about public universities- does the only place that fits these categories is public universities, dont have a right to attend the private university that public universities were allowed and should use race as a factor in deciding admissions while collecting big data that might disapprove. That race was a necessary factor in emissions and that they needed to be honest about the data I found that the data show that it wasn't wasn't good that they should then stop doing that at Bay Finally, what what did decision said? So the question is: what is it that the justice Department? two and the simple fact. The matter is, in my view that The serious element of this, the deep dark, the deepest element of this is that there is-
wholesale discrimination in this country and. Chick Fil, a in California but elsewhere in the California. Public system would also privately all over the place against Asians, I'm so bad, not to comment for a nation's. I mean the american Asian. Kids, chinese, japanese, Vietnamese, you know, and that we know from data collected by professor gross closer at you, see allay that that there is an open discrimination in the EU salad. California system against Asians and that there is essentially some have implicit quota to limit asian admission that if you were simply to use a naked blind, closed system would probably close to forty or fifty percent. Instead, it somewhere around twenty or twenty two percent.
So that is deeply worthy of study. I would say in its deeply worthy of a conservative republican administration. Blowing the whistle on in favour of this horrendous notion that individual kids should be denied access to you now with the opportunity to go to the college that they wish to add that they deserve to go to simply because the college is trying to equal lies. American fairness and the metric said that professor close used ass, close gross close tirelessly are the same metrics at the Department of Justice is going to use when doing this study, which is test, scores and graduation rates, and whether or not graduation
it's a reflective of aptitude among students for the beneficiaries of affirmative action quotas. That seems perfectly reasonable to to me, as somebody who, the suspicious of the notion that everybody needs to have a bachelor degree in a society. That is simply not the case for everybody. By the way you can, if you, if its aim, was dead, did the data shows that if it's a choice, between getting about going to college. You get a battered batteries grew from school at day you ve, gotten into by virtue of affirmative action or one that you would have gotten into on merit. But what were you would have fallen and naturally you have a better chance of obtaining the degree from the school you would have got into based on your grades and merit, in other words, the upper right you're, better chance, you gonna drop out of school. You gonna do by virtue of from vat Then have worse we're south wranglers life alarms write history fail to meet it also.
Gets this there's a larger issue here, and this is where the rubber meets the road on diversity to diverse. Uh, you know ethnic make up demands, That there is institutional discrimination to me, team, this mosaic, so it was The original idea of affirmative action was the day since there had been systemic and legal discrimination against African Americans that it was, intimate to use their the race of african American is in less of it visual as a factor in determining whether or not they should be admitted. Now there were different definitions of her interaction because the Civil Rights ACT of nineteen sixty four explicitly outlawed the use of racial cause, but that you could aggressively recruit that you could. You know
privilege scholarship money that there was all sorts of things you could do to make it as easy as possible for a worthy minority way to go to your school. That was simply a given okay. So over time,. The argument that was being made about this changed answer, oh, by by the early, thousands, we moved away from the notion that we needed to give african american kids a leg, a specific, leg up to remedy pass discrimination, because at some point that's gonna end. I mean you can't say that somebody who was born in ninety ninety was facing us discrimination that somebody born in nineteen fifty had faced. But so then you become the goal. Is diversity, so the campus, the make up of the campus the flavouring of the campus, the educational atmosphere, the campus is pretty, is made better by
Firstly, in diversity is forever diverse. The unlike several. O Connor saying in the nineteen eighty one or eighty two decision? That was her first major opinion- should only go on for another twenty five years of firm it of action to be fair, because at some point it should have an end. Diversity would never have an end diversity. Is a goal and an end in itself. Now think we moving. As I was saying to you before, I think we're moving from a diversity plain which has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in this two thousand and fifteen decision to a privilege plane which just follow this argument. So if if the problem in America is privileged and the privilege is white privilege, and every white person by dint of having white skin from of the lowliest person born of a opiate addicted fifteen year old mother in
Appalachia to veto to Donald Trump Junior very wide, kid has an essential privilege base. The color of their skin. Then There is nothing to be done, other into two. If you privilege. Black people and minorities. In any way shape or form you are simply in admissions or something or whatever. You are. Is levelling the playing field. That is your doing. At a level the playing field, and since that privilege will never end since white privilege can never end, Affirmative action quoted whenever you want to call it will never end either. Ok you're make, a political argument. I'm not actually making a philosophical argument about what the new argument that it amounts to Europe. They will amount to a political argument because the loss of his political so Walter,
the Justice Department, but logic aside. It will leave aside the fact that this is largely an effort to remove discrimination against Asian Americans. Will and that this is all about White Americans and then the argument amounts to these will say. Democrats progressive will say that republicans are being racist, that they're trying to reinforce old prescriptions on African Americans in his banish reaching their full potential in society which, by the way they can never achieve because of privilege hours. Republicans will say We are arguing against discrimination right just by virtue of their target audience demographically. They have a much bigger receptive audience to that Message and those who are less ethnically inclined to receive to receive their message will problem. Maybe a little bit more swayed by the fact that it's a very simple argument against discrimination. There are those
a progressive who will bind the privilege notion and notion that that colleges institutionally arm somehow regressive and racist against black people in hispanic people, which is completely insane, but there are people who will think that but I can't imagine they amount to a plurality of the electorate. Will where were they Are there were that Tunisia wrongness, though, of course, is on campus him in these are The interesting thing is this- is systematically looking at the institutions that also or the birthplace of these ideas, and at a moment now, when you're dealing with something like intersection reality, the Amber directional intersection. Reality argument: well, So all these things come together to mean that the Trump Justice Department. Is staging a you know, as is, is actually declaring war on the conventional?
wisdom of the academy after eight years, in which the Burma Justice Department and Department and educate Were gets, stewards and were its were basically promoting the most liberal interpretations of what colleges should be in, should do and then the most identity based there's another arm of this assault on the economy that we haven't touched on, which is Betsy bosses, education's department, effort to rein in the title: nine application of gender discrimination in the eradication of sexual assault clamour. Right so quickly in twenty ten, the Obama administration put out, was called a dear colleague letter in forming the department forming every,
Cypriot, a federal large s in the higher education system that it expected them under the provisions of the Education Rights ACT of nineteen, seventy two and its title line, To behave in a certain way on claims of you'll harassment and sexual assault, and that was a lowering of the standard of evidence, Abe Tijuana Tata rights, are they so they went from? What is? colleagues that there is a high standard, which is the. Innocent riven gaiters and bring together, but also the to prove beyond reasonable doubt, rather than that, a reasonable that the regional that the item right beyond unbelievable that Russia's, which is the standard of law in the United States Radiogram, you you, you convict when you, when you have a case, be unreasonable right, then they switch is too
a preponderance of evidence standard, which means that if you know not not these things work out so powerful, but if fifty one percent of the evidence see to favour that harassment or assault had taken place in forty nine percent of the Evidence indicates that it didn't take place the acute It is guilty private and there are a number of other way because it would be a tons of reasonable doubts during the mess by fifty. One percent is not governed by the evidence by the way does not necessarily need to be proven evidence, and simply it simply asserted evidence like that. It's not it's not a thing in itself and All of these associate things which are put at, which are hinted at in this dear colleague later, which you can read just did just Google, dear colleague, twenty ten Obama Obama, education. Are that you are to allow they not guilty verdict against some
who was accused in one of these cases, not in the courtroom, but simply in of whatever preceding the college has to deal with these things. If, if, if someone is found not guilty the the person accuser is allowed to appeal the decision. This is a This does not exist anywhere in English, common law. You know that that that double jeopardy as we have in the constitution, forbids double jeopardy? But these you know you can't try case twice on the same charges and them and There are ten thousand, others is completely kafkaesque. Then you cannot have any idea. You're not entirely.
You have any idea of what be what the accusations are against you, yet you general apply. Our lawyer is not permitted to question the acute you if you're hot, how such an accuser that's on entire, sometimes you're not allowed to have an attorney around. Neither you nor your attorney is left to question. The accused is a reason why these activists dont, want to transfer the prosecutions of these cases to the court room, because they believe that the standard of evidence which has markedly higher than it is only in the chambers in which these claims our processed is too high to achieve a conviction. They prefer to have the convictions meted out by administrators We have much lower standards of evidence and there's actually The union is a lower standards of evidence. You have in an entire proof passion inside the educational profession of a councillors- and you Know- serve sex harassment, councillors and now you're setting out the other thing and then an end, their industry is based on the
idea that the accuser is always right, not that as is true in any fair system that that you don't know what that people have. Ten thousand reasons to falsely accuse somebody else, and then this is very creepy. There were these title nine officer for scattered around the country whose job is to enforce these crazy stand right. So this creates an incentive for obviously it's kind of. I would even say this, but it creates an incentive for individuals who wants to get somebody in trouble and very big trouble to make up accusation against them because you have the growled. According to Hillary Clinton, quote right to be believed. It's very poor.
I feel are relief on the left. You can become a martyr on campus and then the other by aspect of this that is, is you have rolling stone stories in which individuals make false accusations and their fraternity is shuddered upon suspicion and their names are dragged through the mud upon suspicion alone. We have, I mean so so in both of these cases. So here you have this war in the academy right so oh, the trouble demonstrations going to investigate injustice in the admissions process toward toward majorities. And towards some minorities and is going to look at whether or not there is changing this standard that privileged, accusers of sex crime, as opposed to having a fair process. Ok one of the things that both of these do is create a cultural war. That's what I was saying
this is the sort of thing where people just Screaming their lungs out- and there is and again that there is also a profession there is- serve sexual harassment, profession in which there are thousands of people employed. Who, who are you know who any logically, commanded personally committed deeply divided devoted to the idea, it is here that are way to go bananas and create a fight. Storm and they already have started, and and secondarily you have this notion, as you already seen onto that serve liberal intelligentsia. Amendment hung about radicals. Tibet, like writers, for the Atlantic, and things like that who have greeted the news of the question, whether or not there is you- know, bias against white people and Asians in admissions. Kind of jawed, dropped, horror and and discuss and rage at D. You know at the arrival of this terrible,
monstrous. You now backward reaction. Are you administration, and all of that is why you got trouble I became let's, let's face because and by the way- and this is where we start getting into darker- Select let let's get into the dark part of this. Coming from anybody is sympathetic to the all right, no really boilerplate conservatism, satisfying I would say, NEO conservatism in one of the main issue is one of the main. Dogging issues of NEO conservatism from its outset was affirmative action. Quotas Racial bias, racial preferences- and you know the major case in in the future- of course, some racial preferences that was argued in other went from.
Eighteen, seventy eight nineteen. Eighty eight was the backing versus the University of California, which was a jewish kid who was denied admission to a medical school explicitly because he wasn't yet there teenagers it's worthy, they didn't say it that way, but you know what they were put prevail explicitly privileged you now am I a different, kind of minority over a Jew, and you know this was a big thing, and this is a big issue. Like you know, if people know my father was added her commentary magazine before me from until one thousand nine hundred and ninety five I took over in two thousand and nine, my father and Colombia in nineteen, forty six as a poor kid from Brownsville Brooklyn, under a seventeen percent quota, which is basically what the Ivy League had seventeen percent quota against Jews and, according to books, like the big test by Nick Lemon and Rome parables. The chosen.
If Jews had been allowed to be admitted in the number, according to a fair standard It would have been more like forty or fifty percent so whose head skin in the gate and the anti affirmative action game. That was a big Neil con issue from the outset. It was all about fair, so one on one that was. You know if you create a global issue of societal fairness. You are ending, we're gonna, end up, doing deepen justices to individual people who are going to be swept aside in the effort to equal society as a whole. The problem, with what happened now. I'm sorry, I'm like monologue in here, but the problem with what's happened now. Is that All of this is happening under Trump, because you, cannot say as an honest person that too
unlike the NEO cons and unlike conventional conservatives, despite the disgusting accusations of liberals and leftist over, you know three years that Trump is not dog whistling to wipe that he is not pushing race. That was not what was going on with with us. With the deal conserve, intellectuals, ink and the people who took this on as a cause. It was, bad cause in the sense of presenting a horrible cause like it, because it meant that you were being accused of being a racist meant that you were like fighting an uphill battle against YO conventional views of what was nice and what was fair and that, but that's not what's going on with Trump Tromp was a white identity, politics candidate, and so when the media, look at this civil rights, Justice Department decision and say he's looking into whether whites are being treated unfairly. Its fairness,
and that he is doing that to support his white. Base. That is now conscious, of being a kind of cohesive white group after two decades or two generations of identity. Politics among minorities. Now the plurality or the majority of the United States now feels itself to be a an ethnic group under under under threat. Right ended so mad at you before you mentioned that was. I have to wonder to what degree this might not have happened at all. In other words, could could these, salt zombies, identity based institutions, not only have happened under Trump because of his cause. He so in court
This is it these incautious or that he's or that he is simply doing constituents are anything like rain, might receive himself to have a mandate to Brussels. Something about this is why a Democrat I know you're not listening to this Democrats if you're still with us. I can imagine yours Gisela, but this is my democratic. Together so much smarter with their messaging. There is a perception among the progressive activists base which has taken control. The party that there's a wounded hurt egos sensation among among the activists class that has no interest in appealing to the White Working class base, who previously but a Democrat but a Democrat all their life and felt abandoned by the anti terrorism of the Democratic Party in the modern age and voted for four Donald Trump. If. This effort is successful, which is entirely on merit. Is that claim it
the meritorious claim that should be awarded a justice in a title. Nine investigation and not whether or not this perceived victim class should have a leg up. It is merit that should allow you admission into a school and not your the color of your skin. It is merit that should allow you entry into the United States and not the the perception that you and your family have The prison have been agreed and should have some sort of repetitive justice. Republicans are making a merit based argument, even if it the racial element to it and Democrats need to start being perceptive of the argument that Republicans are making, that is peeling, because it is frankly the winning Well, it's a very interesting put some interesting way to unite, unite all these things, and but I do think that we,
Have to be cognisant of the fact that, while I do not believe that principled arguments against quotas and affirmative action and racial bias come from Emmy route. If they are principled, then a desire for a color blind post racial society. That is not a society that is being that that the Donald Trump is in an attempt to promulgate. I mean an answer: gonna win win up of liberal Europe. After says this is all Donald Trump Suno race, this dog whistling it's a little harder to to push back on that when Some of it is Raison d, with least racial dog whistling or white identity politics dog whistling. I do think that it is in,
Just gives you a sense of the incredible whiplash political whiplash that we are suffering now that this is what's coming out of this administration. And we just last year Had an administration promulgation, identity, politics that was entirely different. We ve gone from. We ve gone from Obama, trying to make political, hey with Hispanics With the dreamer stuff right to which turned out not to work, we base avoid doing work in twenty one. A question occurred. We had a trump do with Asians. Did you did the same, the same, is happening publishing a lot better with Asians and twenty fourteen. I mean it My vision, I arrogance voted but liaison whether by the asian numbers are bad. The asian numbers are bad for about reigns there. You're still reality is unaware of no less than thirty five, forty percent, but Republicans it to your point. We didn't foresee
this kind. I can't. I think you really have to note that the alacrity of of the cultural change in the last administration going from game urges taboo in two thousand eight to gay marriage. The law of the land and twenty thirteen to transgender ism is now something that we are all supposed to accept to the point where Orange. Action, Joanie Ernst and John Mccain or going to bed for transgender military. This happened at a light, speed right, it's the sort of thing that cultural change creeps up on you and so does the backlash. So, while republicans are joining the you know the whirlwind right now We don't know, what's going to follow that, So do not join a whirlwind or not, and we don't you no until these issues come up where how there play and what the what the comfort level is gonna be of the voter, because it it may I ll not be that most american white people think that they are being discriminated against, like that. That may be something that you know, Michael
savage listener, you know or a certain type of fox viewers, something like that feels, but you know it. Seventy four percent of the country is you know, is why, then so that you know that's like two hundred and fifteen million people note of the aid, the concept of white privilege, which has become an article of faith on the left fertile soil among college, educated whites, who used to vote Republican who stopped in twenty. Sixteen who are suburban, professional, urban. Well, I say anything: you say that they do that they accept the not yet, but their accepting voting for damage That's when I don't think I dont think that any human being wants to hear I think it's fair to say unfortunate. I grew up in the great country on earth. Unfortunate, that's, wonderful parents have wonderful, you know a wonderful cultural patrimony
Todd good values. I was taught the valley importance of hard work in all of this, but to tell an entire group of hundreds of millions of people that day you have a good simply because of the color of their skin is what are you resent it? I resent it really dangerous message. I disabilities dangerous, yes, but I actually think that we will do what I tell you. I think people who it fulfils a certain kind of paternalism, but also cover a kind of religious need, a kind of guilt that you especially you. If your liberal, you don't have because you're, probably not religious, but what are we talking about the liberals and I'm not tone by liberals here, I'm talking again about the mass of people like if your time at America as a whole, I am not talking about you- know guilty Guenaud guilty. Liberals who work on work on Wall Street or Silicon Valley and who actually think they make too much money, I'm talking about like you know
and insurance salesman who lives in good at county in Georgia in our lives in the Janos off the district, the John Joseph lost, even though he one nearly fifty percent of the vote, does he think he's a privileged? Does he think that he's getting ahead bike, but you know against black people, because does he have that we don't. We don't know where this will be in eight years, as my point is that the just working its way into the national consciousness into popular culture, and it's because it was eight years down the line when we have various legislative and executive initiatives that cut against that line of thinking that it becomes counterculture in a way that is attractive. I think The thing is in the deepest possible way. Obviously there is such a thing as privileged other. Is this multi generational privilege in the United, dates that is now different in flavour and tone from what multi generational privilege has been in other called cultures forever rikers. That was just that was
purely based on you know who you're great grandfather was end, oh you're, in the cast in Europe, you stay there and you can't really move from class the class and all that that the multi generational privilege has this meritocratic basis. That is that you are you know. If you are a great grandfather went to college. It is very likely that you were going to be part of some whatever would be called. The american ruling class. Not did he was a friend of the king and nodded. He had a really good small business and none of that. But if you went to college, if you Grandfather went to college if your father went to call, you know if you know, if you are, if you are in a family that serve entered these were of thinking classes, were the white collar classes early as they developed into a mass class. You were in bed
her shape right- and I think people after two or three or four generations of that do- and people who then find themselves. You know getting to take special having the money to take especial prep course, for the tea or or you know, get pulling strings to get into colleague. Has there because but he knows somebody who's on the faculty of lesson such you can write a letter. No did there is a new game, you know and that that that and the game follows you throw light. There are things you can do things, you have access and you have to check boxes into it and then yes, the road there help me. It's hits indulgences. It is a very old demands that this really is the world. They re all just toying with religious, and it's one of the reasons that you know a lot of us who are in this class and who have been through this ourselves, assisted by the condition of the universities and sub disgusted by the condition of sort of american corporate life, and all this, because because then the whole thing the whole system is built on this not,
not entirely merit, but some giant. Nest of assumed commonalities. Let's say that yet an add on, that add up to a kind of privilege that is ultimately destructive. However, its not based on skin color. That's the mistake you know, and and and think about it based on snobbery. It's based on some element. I kind of sand and end the faint known and the interesting thing about the Bee class based argument about in terms of universities. So much of the argument about why there needs to be affirmative action still and lebanese. Reversing is because as not because owed the every on deserves a right to a good education, its they deserve access. To these social networks.
They deserve access to these circles, eggs. They think they d they should get in on on the good stuff on the system. That sort of the heart of the diversity argument isn't it is that you all benefit from the various experiences, the crude through burthen background and not right, but it is irrelevant highly different conception of what education is for, but an email, and that this general corruption higher education. They can work a little like this right. So we know that there is this legacy like people whose parents and grandparents went to school have this little bit of extra on at the school because they can give donate because the chances are they will be. Donors and generous donors, the school or their parents, or the people who went before will give extra as they get richer because there, because they have found the connections and all that that goes to the idea that a universally seeing there with the purpose of fund raising they raise razor raise all this money and then they bilbil build all these buildings, and then they have all these buildings to fill. So they need to read
is more money and they need to be fair to all right the school and they build new campuses and they raise more money and then the whole thing is sort of like it's not about education. That's about creating this giant physical planted then needs to be supported in perpetuity by this workforce that cannot be fired that kid that Vienna, that has lifetime employment and that produces this proletariat You know it's best students or its most of the people who want to commit to it to do it for, for their lifetimes, then come out and there's no way for them to work, and there is nowhere for them. It's a corrupt and corrupted system, and- and we ve Looked at it for twenty years and said something needs to happen. This is a terrible way essentially to cry eight and a ruling elite and dug, and yet nothing has collapsed. Yet, though, you know Still look at it, you think, like who's gonna spend two hundred and fifty thousand dollars on this garbage and nonsense
so, ultimately, sexuality and and semi your kid to a college where he find himself up against a star chamber, because he went to a fraternity party and made out with a girl, intersect, ideality, like dear listener, if you dont know, is a new fund concept among the campus left protesters set, which is a fundamentally a marxist ideal, which suggests that all discrimination is rooted, these same factors: similar factors at least racial discrimination, sex discrimination. All these discriminatory elements are sort of class system. Therefore, anybody is discriminated against is fighting the same fight and you to unite one giant union, proletarian, look liberalism, et Cetera and lesser Jew, and then you don't countless those anti semitism in that doesn't count because juicer oppressors and not make them right cell? sort of Marxism without Jews, well that
You know that, like Marxism, always Marxism also turns on Jews. Gray is excellent as stance as all radicals. All radicalism do so. Where we have. We ever do sets of arguments here said some of you have republic. Sorry I say making a meritorious argument with a lot of racist, whistles, and then you have Democrats who are making a repetitive argument: reparations essentially with the the gloss of egalitarian. Isn't here, and went and with digital environment and with the fundamental belief and the son of a belief that the people for whom all of these things are being done, cannot cannot do it on their own? not succeed on their own, do not have any of our do not have the social, moral or intellectual equipment and need to be
You don't need to be elevated for an elevated kind of artificially and kept their artificially because they cannot sink or swim on their own on their own merits, right near the casual These amendments, as as our ultimate right as the like, like the kids who drop out after getting in foundered form of action but yeah from actual basis to college that is too hard for them. I mean and am and would have gotten into any other college and would have had the expense and so the genius of achieving what they could achieve a what's more. What's more, that you be, through no fault of their own, because they went to a bad high school because because the public education system stinks, and so they they did well enough to get into a college and it had They had a better highschool experience. Maybe they would have been intellectually prepared. Do you know I mean here's the thing? Is it privilege. This is the ultimate question. So
oh, I went to a fancy by private school and I went to a fancy college and am I it's a private school was so fancy as New York City Private school, then I went to nourish Chicago, which was heralded at the time as may be the hardest one of the hardest colleges together with the United States, and it was indeed very difficult and one of the reasons that it was difficult was it it has this had this core, you had to take two years basically of core courses in the social science, humanity Sciences, biological Sciences, visible sciences, western civilization, non western civilization, and I got there and I had read a lot of the literature and some of the philosophy that was in this.
Our course, which was incredibly difficult for kids, who had gone to say a public school from Downstate Illinois, and so it was easier for me. Then it was for them, but they were white. My was white. Was that privilege was I privileged simply go. I went to a better school. I went to a her high school and which will bear school in New York City? Because you could not send your keys the school in New York City you could, it was very it was at the sky, were dangerous, and my I lived in a bad neighborhood in the schools were dangerous home. My parents would have, I think, but Happiness Mps your public school had to send me to Private school is that privilege, but by your definition, yes, but in the book, in the political sense, it's good fortune, its fortune, it's good fortune. It is not. I was not I'm not. My. My father was a first generation immigrant groups. Speaking English, like I think this pseudo intellectual left fancies themselves, colorblind we're just see white and say wait right, but I'm saying everything is,
very complicated, like the kids who dropped out of the you Chicago after every year, in serb AIDS re it out, they were white kids they were free Dunno spray feel ill. I and the schools too hard for them because it was actually easy to get in Chicago, then that I'd like a fifty percent acceptance right now it s like a five percent acceptance rate, but it had a fifty percent good neighbourhood was, bad. So I'm just saying like these questions about individual people and what it is, what privileges they have and what more do you know what you know? What that? What eggs up. They have it's all very complicated, like you could have a kid, but the most wonderfully privileged backgrounds. Who had a terrible mother had a drunken father? There was abuse in the house. You know cripple depression, I mean who the hell? No, that's where the privileged thing falls apart for now, I can
I can envision myself not having a failure of imagination and not seeing eight years down the roads on leaving the door open, but the privilege thing works for you. It doesnt work for your kids, you'll, never see privilege in her child you'll, never see. Somebody who needs to be cut down to size. Eyes in your kid well or the other question, is it's your kid? Do you not do for your kid? What you can do for your kid? That's the tricky part and in fact, his ways to go back to my pretentious universal Chicago education. I studied the pleasures, public with Alan Bloom, specifically the republic begin with the dismissal of the Good Bourgeois Father from the general conversation Catholics who is who serve like, leaves laughing at the absurdity of all these philosophers. Talking about how to build a good. Say why? Because the only way you build a good society and its a totalitarian society is eliminating all family feeling all connect
to any one else? It's just every one is a sore free, floating actor and society will play on it. Structuring sites that will enhance everybody, better and and and the one thing they cannot have is deep ties or connections to anything right. So that is the other part of this, which is that the village argument is saying: we need to observe him out. We need to correct for social social capital, really which is, which is something had your actual buses have aspired to announce that public morals of public order that well that's a really now now we're getting. Now that that we can't even go and look up little that, but I would just like to say in conclusion of this: You know part of the thinking about and not that it's a wonderful thing to grow up. You know as well as a poor african american kid. You know in a terrible circumstance, but there is this idea and it's not
a foolish idea that true of jewish kids, who did but with all that that that, if you inside of your circumstances excel you a form of social capital that somebody with parents who com so you and who we know clean up your every Bubu and are always there did. You know, yellow the yell at a teacher for giving you a bad grade. You have again reform of social capital than they have. You have an internal sense of your own merit and value and that What is challenged by affirmative action or racial preferences is the is the feeling or the notion that what you get you? Don't you ve gotten that you don't deserve now. If you live inside the privilege argument, the idea would be will none of those other kids are getting what they deserve? Either there just getting free stuff, but maybe you can sell people on that, but no
individual person thinks that he is prevalent, making again can think he's fortunate. He can think he's blessed. He can thank God every day for Europe, for the blessings that he has received, but he's not gonna think that he got something specials. You know unfairly. People generally don't think that very rich people think that people get impostor syndrome. Thank them but I don't think that's true of an insurance salesmen, Mgwana accounting. So now is telling the rapporteur, because its we ve been on for like two and a half hours here. This is wise. If we talk about politics, we get faster, but now we get our philosophical it takes longer and helping up or down. Let us now let us now in twitter if this was more boring or less boring. Even hear me saying this, for three hours
oh for nor Rossman, at a reward. I'm John onwards keeping.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-13.