In the first of the week’s COMMENTARY podcasts--assuming the hosts can dig out of the snow cataclysm barreling down on the Northeast--Donald Trump’s detractors suffer from acute memory loss. The president’s “unprecedented” dismissal of Obama-appointed attorneys was anything but. Also, the hosts dig into racially controversial comments from Representative Steve King and how they reflect on his supporters.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
welcome to the Commentary magazine podcast, I'm John Ports, the editor, Commentary with me is always nor Rossman Associate editor of the magazine high now John and a green while our senior editor high, a high John, it's stressful times here commentary today, because we are rushing to close our April issue in advance of the giant storm Stella or as Marlon Branda would say. That was my really bad, admiral and brand. I'm actually better impressions than that, but I thought maybe with you would enjoy it. Anyway, so yeah.
We are rushing to clothes. Are, are issues so that we can get it to you in good order for April those of you who subscribe, if you Don't please go to commentary magazine dot com where we give you some free reeds, and then we ask you too subscribe for nineteen, ninety five for a digital subscription and twenty nine. Ninety five will get your beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox every month, as is true of monthly. Is I'm having a little bit of time? What was my words: they dont have the best words ape unlike our residents, what right this well. This is what happens we all we all stand in awe of his ability to speak and and and become self. Just as a result, and then, within a week we lose our ability to Newgate, A good brain, though I don't have the best brain, but you know I didn't go to Wharton. I did go diversity Chicago, but it was easy to get at them, so
You can judge me judge me all you like, but we are now going to actually do something somewhat rare in the annals of the commentary. Podcast, which is kind of defend, Donald Trump and his estranged from this week against the charge made over weaken that somehow there was something illicit, illegitimate, illegal and immoral about his dismissal of forty six. You to attorneys. Of whom had been appointed by Barack Obama before him, political appointees, who served the pleasure, the president- and this was play over social media and in our new programmes and by democratic senators and liberal columnists, as though Donald Trump had done something illicit. In doing what all presidents do, which is fill political point, judge hubs with people of their party for the most part Noah
I saw over when this occurred New York Times. Maggie Haber. Meanwhile, like very much, had noted that this unusual president's. Do this, but the usually do this in the very beginning of the administration. Well, it was day fifty when, at what point do we consider this? Not the beginning of the administration will usually you do get the its typically the first one hundred days, are believed to be the nascent period of of an early administration where there are growing pains were still in the middle of that fifty day. Culling of of attorneys is by no means These are alarm. I did it and the most can controversial episode of these was obviously George W. Bush is two thousand seven calling of of attorneys, and that was concerned. To be plucked, perhaps politically motivated. Nothing was ever done. Created that it was politically motivated. So in a way we see this to be controversial every single time it happens. It was controversial and brought a moment at it, but
I don't know if it was controversial, went over. In fact, it wasn't controversial than Obama Bomb, a dead end controversy over over the Bush firing of the eternal. General was a joined up and manufactured controversy in part, because it was odd because he was firing well, a lot of people that he himself had a point. Did. So no one really understood why why was necessary and conspiracy theories then develop that their there they were covering up for firing of a couple of the U S attorneys that they wanted to get rid of by firing them all something like that doesnt will ongoing investigations that you wanted to start. Right. But it doesn't matter because the point is that political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president and they are dismissed the pleasure, the president and if somebody one us to revisit how they are appointed and how this works and how the executive branch structured. We can do so in a constitutional convention that will write new rules for the United States, but until they have
This is how it works and nobody objects unless the person who does it is the person of the other party that the answer in here and nobody objects, including republicans, tend not to objectives. Only Democrats object when Republicans do it in the barometer thing. I think was particularly pointed because Spain, without ok so prepare our the attorney for the southern district of New York Theo S attorney a exe Ordinarily high profile job that has lead people to mayoralty, like Rudy Julia, and they or to attorney general ships like marriage, a white or so commission like running the most high exchange commission, like S attorney white, though, the most high profile of? U S, attorney jobs and he's there, and he is a very skilled mass the media and he's also somebody who has proved himself willing over the course of his tenure, to go after democratic politicians and
I Sheldon Silver, the most powerful Democrat in New York state for forty years who as convicted, as a result of a relentless efforts by barrage, to demonstrate that he was using his office for personal gain That was a kind of striking fact. He has also been investigating Andrew Cuomo, the governor your estate, when Cuomo cancelled and internal New York State Investigation of him under under the auspices of something called the Morland Commission. Barrage took up the Morland Commission's work, no ones convicted, but that that was three years ago and he has been investigating mayor, build Blasi, O four, hi jinx involving campaign contributors getting insane sweetheart deals from the from City Hall, including hundred million dollar tax break no one c
to know where it came from for a specific housing project involving the closing of a city property that was then sold to a developer, who was friendly to him. Several has investigated and gone after Democrats and in the aftermath of the, Amber election for had a meeting with trumpet term Tower and Trump apparently told him that he was going to allow burrow. To stay on and he has changed his mind and fired him along with these. Forty six other attorneys. U S attorney is the presumption now is that he may have done this, because it was Chuck Sumer these centre minority leader had the Democrats then, at New York Senator who staffer bar was and whose mentor his brows mentor may have asked Trump to keep in mind and in the early stages of the days after the administration. There were some thought that
I'm consumer might strike a grand bargain to work together on certain things and particularly infrastructure and and obviously the mood in the Democratic Party became so rich generally hostile to tramp and on the left that tumor had to become an opposition. As purely and so any arrangement the troll might have made to make nice was Sumer. Would no longer be operative by this point, how this occurred over the course of the week and was extraordinarily political. Obviously, the pre determined that he wanted to make a big stand here that you wanted to. Henry Headlines, because this wasn't controversial enough. I suppose, Oh he said now, I will not tender my resignation as I've been asked. You are have going to have to relieve me and he was relieved so now it's! No! It's not you known attorneys being asked to
leave and resign in these some the resignations. It was a firing of this now controversial figure who, people believe are going to have a political future. After this, because why else would you want to make himself the subject of this controversy? I like that, that he opened a twitter account and of ours, try again no don't week prior was on March. No wasn't it was. It was. Ours was like twenty four twenty six hours prior, some like tat, he was like. Is this thing on or whatever their first tweed every waking hours of rest stated? This is my personal account, so it's like oh guess, what he knew was coming. So no starting to bright would know people people start volume. Like me, I had no idea this was coming, but he did and we know he did because it turns out. I got a phone call from the White House saying Trump wanted to talk to him. Or are they called it is not? TAT customary, there is a rule keeping the president's
from? U S attorneys, so he called Jeff sessions? The attorney general's often spoke the sessions assistance session. Sisson said you should not speak to him. Unless you know what the topic is until he did return trumps also, we can presume that term called him in the manner of true way. Trump does things Trump called him to say all right? Look, we have conversation, I said you I'd stay on things have changed and I'm gonna have to ask for your resignation, not no hard feelings, not personal. It's only business whatever that he was gonna, do what you know: would beings or socially right. In the case of somebody who had changed his mind about promise that he had made but Bernard, didn't place. The content didn't talk to him and said the presumption in the first hours after this came out was the trumpet done something at not only had he fight
it brought, which was not good or whatever, but also that he had done something elicit an illegitimate because he had promised him that he would stay on. He didn't even do him. The courtesy, for you know somehow letting them know that he was gonna get this letter, but early, he did try to do in the courtesy, so Harry Siegel in the daily basted, the story where someone said they treat you like garbage these people. It's just horrible like this is no way to act. That's ridiculous! There, all democratic appointees, every democratic point in Washington, in the executive branch knows that there's a target, those forehead the minute that the other party wind NASA and by the way, not just
when is somebody of the other party like Hillary would have thought Hilary might have fired him too. So she could put her person in. There was an anonymous unsworth quote from the work than the White House saying these, these people and others political others, political got their net. When did they get their notice was the question and they got their notice. On November. Eighth and that was portrayed as rather callous and cruel and indifferent, and it is but that's also not inaccurate, ominous nature. How these things work by the way Bill Clinton got rid of something like ninety three. You use it, but that's how many there aren't you by the way. The other thing is this keeps coming up. It is not clear whether it's the result of ignorance on the part of the press, core or just just, standing amount of bias towards Democrats and sympathy towards Democrats that if you remember there was a whole stories sodden story about how bastards work
fired when they still had children in school in their host country. No one was trying to help them because they had to get there too, or they had property. They had. Their house was read it out and no one was giving them time yet well November. Faith. The time your political point in your out, that's the way it works. This was the most blaming. Tromp for behaving the way. All presidents behave That is when you know that there is bias if you can demonstrate the trumpet, something new and unprecedented. That raises alarm bells that is totally legitimate if Trump does what everybody else does and you raise alarm bells about it. You are buying against him or you are ignorant there are others, one, the the other. You know it's not like. Well, people should have complained when Obama didn't dinner. Oh yeah, well,
a lot of you were there at the time, and I dont remember anybody complaining and what's more, they shouldn't complain. This is why we have elections that the fact that its political is not scandalous. It's it's it's! It's supposed to be political there that that's that's what happens and also the fact that they make not not just they they attack for doing things that have been done before, but then trying to make out of every development, but that that contact with the story others. It I mean this is a cultural thing. Man perhaps not necessarily bias, I'm not sure how many these reporters actually care, whether or not democratically elected, but they certainly want their position within the industry maintained and in order to do that now, there's a break there's a lot of signalling, lotta telegraphing? What position you occupy goes on and there's a lot of rewards for people who create hyperbole around this particular Trump related crisis. I mean, if your sound the alarm at the highest possible level that it could be sounded it gets
enough social media attention and play and generates attention for you in the right people praise you was being sufficiently woke or whatever. That idea at a particular moment. Others I mean there's rewards, is a structure that, but I think it continues to redound poorly for them. I mean every every time the be huge deal is made out of something trumped does in it and it's her fault flat. Once we get for information or old or people who already understand that he didn't do anything outrageous speak up. They there the opposition to him, looks worse. They look weak, they look desperate, they look hysterical. This is the big question, do they are Dante like do they in their own precincts. Do they with our own bosses? Do they with their own audience Now that everybody is, you know in these silos world certainly solidifies his base and you never every time this happens they go. This is crazy there, but he can't do anything done it. They're not gonna, give this guy chance right,
but the question is yeah. If you're one of these people, who, like makes screams a lot, you know, does anybody object? Then you have. Deeper and more complicated questions which fascinates me. So somebody tweeted me last night that you know Trump violated a rule about talking to you S, attorneys. Ok, now It's not a law, it's a rule, the rules promulgated by the executive branch The structure of the executive branch works as follows: all afore ready in the executive branch, emanates from the person of the president there is no such thing as a rule that binds the president that he cannot change now that he cannot order, people to do unconstitutional things and they about that. That's an abuse of power and they cannot one constitutional things, that's a violation of the oath that they take to uphold the cons, douche. Having said that, if he wants to call,
pre Para, and there is a pre existing rule. He is allowed to call pre Pereira. The wool does not apply to him. He is the maker of the rule, all those rules that exist exist because the president or a previous president aid them and they exist and tropical e when pray, Then things change if they are not all voided and then Rien hate right, but but they don't have an independent existence apart from him. That is how our structure work. That's how article two of the constitution works. There are very few restraints on the president in article two. The main restraints and article to involve the office. Is for solid evolve. How is elected. How old is what happens with the salary and the now famous emoluments clause about whether or not he could accept gifts from foreign dignitary?
The other thing involves who you know the offices and jobs that are. I have to be approved. Through the process of advice and consent by the Senate and the making of treaties, which is also something that has to be approved by by car arrests, otherwise he is allowed to ask. His cabinet offices is there called reports, is he can because cavern offices to do anything and that which is not enumerated. Is you know, that's the executive branch Tat works. He appoints them and presumably he's there boss and that our coasts so there is this. The idea that he is vital leaving rules that don't that you know that part of the ignorance and bias. So David Roth,
Who is the editor president of Foreign Policy magazine and one of these guys who posits poses himself as a great foreign policy expert, tweeted, very young archly at me that evolve with these people. They do not work for the president. They work for the taxpayer and they swear an oath to the constitution yeah, they swear also constitution. They are not allowed to violate cuts, and they work for the taxpayer in the same way that everybody who works for the government works of the taxpayer they are, employees at the sufferings of the President of the United States, only. The civil service has job protections now, political parties do not have job protection, they serve the president's pleasure, their dismissal of the president's pleasure and that's because he's elected there, not he is responsive to the american people. They are not. He is
the only person in the country who was voted on by everybody, they are no one else is not Congress, not the Senate. Nobody just him. Just the president. I mean on the one hand, though, all this logically all of this, borderline hysteria on the left leads us to a place where we have a a logical foundation for the restraining contraction of executive authority, and this this administration is of many things and it's very often contradictory, and one of the weird contradictions of it is that the president is addicted to the limelight very self imported believes himself to be in authority figure and should not be constrained and on the other side of it, are these unique conservative impulses,
occasionally shine through this person. The today later today after this recording, this present is going to announce methods by which the federal government, critically the executive branch can be restructured and pretty presumably contracted, because that is what they are going to be again. We believe, according to reports, doing with the federal budget contracting much of the ways in which the federal haven't, behaves non discretionary manners, the eggs, it's it's expansive authority into fields like housing and research and health, etc, and then you have you know another example which from writing about later, is that you cannot just sort of discovered that he could use the power of the presidency in a really effective way by not using it all by simply withholding it. When it came to the White House Correspondence dinner, he wants to kill that thing, but he is killing it vibrate
I have just suffocating- by depriving it of executive power and authority, which is an interesting modifications. Quite the right way, to put it more like he's. Depriving it of oxygen by holding the oxygen, not by actually present the death knell of suffocation? Those are putting a pillow on its head and ages in identifying on chamber vacuum chamber. Where would you get in a vacuum Jane in either way makes it sound like it's a more active effort it? So it's a passive, ok. Well, I will put take that are out of my peace where talk about smothering with a pillow, but the very cool Aegean way to wield executive authority just simply withhold it, and citizens is countries, three administration, a lot of those ways, and if we have the left on board with what the right philosophically already agrees with, which is its necessary to reign the great the legislature and put some constraints on the executive I mean this could begin and end up being a pretty I dont know if epochal is the right word for it, but a real turning point
and political culture will I mean, I think, what's going on here- is that Trump very much needs conservatism too to temper his more impulsive actions, and and an sloppy ones that have it. But then I think the strange thing- and this was what upsets people's conservatism might have needed Trump. As well what to do taped to be able to wield power at all, and there sort of locked in this- you know uneasy but perhaps necessary marriage. Well. If what with what mean by consumerism. Need trump. Is that it's only tromp? Who would have this sort of the audacity to announced that he wants to cut, as we read today in the washing was in wants to cut the budget of the Commerce Department by eighteen percent of the budget of the hut of how the housing and urban development by fourteen percent that he wants to restructure the priorities of the executive branch there
money to pay for the things he wants, like a military, build up and the wall without increasing the budget deficit it is audacious and and what's more the problem is he actually has? No, power to enact any of this. That's the that's the interesting part, he does not pass the budget. He propose a hymn proposed. Whatever he wants. Congress passes the budget, the United States and appropriate money and authorizes the spending of money and the size of the departments of the federal government, a list largely the result of congressional action and not and not the executive branches desires so he can announce that he wants HUD to shrink by fourteen percent, but the thinking of the hut budget by fourteen percent has to be done by Congress, and it may well be that he can proposals some Congress will find it interesting. But if you're talking
about the elimination of a lot of block grant money to the states. It's gonna be very hard to get that through when this, when the ox as being gourd at state level, and in a similarly they're gonna, be this is where the horror story started. You know cutting the Commerce Department, which actually does the national oceanographic and atmospheric and atmospheric administration which measures global warming effect. So how's that gonna have you know, he's gonna die, the global warming studies and the- and you know that's that's what this is all gonna be like, and this is why it is our aim. There will be hysteria, there will be hysteria westward, though the established hysteria is effective now staring up, we'll see you we don't know. Any minutes have been how an ineffective and not allow an elite. Your unfocused, ok indoors, oh so he wants to fire. You are Attorneys, everybody fires? U S attorney so accusing him of doing something that is totally standards. Fine,.
It's been a long time since president proposed a fifteen percent budget cut for for a cabinet department, if its ever happen, savings Reagan ever did it. It's been a Lisbon. What's been thirty years since you ever have anybody do such a thing so that is new and I wrote the federal spending is something to which Democrats agreed was a problem in two thousand. Eleven Barack Obama froze hiring pay for federal contractors, for example, and workers and increases. Aren't different freezes are different from cuts that, by the way, something that, in a Republican said four years, which is the Democrats always accusing Republicans of supporting budget. Tat when they mostly supported slow, the sly, laying down of growth in cabinet departments, Our actually talking about literal cuts in spending and will see if there is any kind hence its on this. I
it would be very interesting. It will be epochal because it will suggest that the american public has moved in a far more radical direction. They buy things. Look. What is the debate it's been going on now. For a week, it's over the health care builds over the proposed republican healthcare bill. And what we ve seen. The is. The big question here is gonna, be a camera arm Republicans shying away from the argument. They need to make that it is not an american goal to have. You know national healthcare coverage that we believe in freedom of choice and and concern, does believe in freedom of mobility mobility and that individual adults have the right to decide whether or not they wish this common coverage or not. They're, not making. That argument and what's more, that you can do so while making cuts to certain programmes like medicate Medicare certain.
Cuts are weird because they involve just for changes and formulas of doktor compensation, not anything individual we'll scatter hospital doktor compensation, but you know, bless. You know, everyone's acting as though and we'll find out later today, what this the Congressional Budget Office says about how much coverages reduced and all that, but you know we basically have the rubble. In proposing something it may involve cuts and running away from the logic of it and trump is now going to propose actual cuts in the will government and we'll see? I just think the moon It is not right for this. I don't see any any seriousness of purpose on the part of of you, no majority of Americans at the government needs to be reduced in size You know, I'm not just added to the I've, got it
there were real. Regarding the extent of it I mean there's theirs is you know, there's one motive, analysis of Trump behaviour that that says these are these are opening bids. You know an and it's easy, but what what he's looking for the compromise somewhere in the middle of out of that a little still be effective and and and bigger than than someone else would have would have been able to achieve. I hate that logic because it is to me, is its applied posed hawk in order to make trumpet random acts of peak grand strategy. Weren't none exists, but I think that Washing the post article two, which were all referring here, spelled out the logic by which the American public will welcome this sort of thing, and that is the quote from a Moody's economist who warned of the recessionary pressures in and around Washington DC. That would result from cuts like this to discretionary programmes. Housing is going would be reduced in value economic freedoms and per
prices are going to be reduced. People are going to feel a contraction in this area of the country, has expanded ballooned in size and in wealth over the course of the Obama error to the When a lot Americans resent that I agree and maybe a resentful, I mean it may not be them the most noble sentiment, but it Nevertheless, a potent one so what he said was Marilyn and Virginia prevented. The suburbs of Maryland Virginia around Washington are going to take ahead. If the fifth federal government's Bay Thou Payroll is reduced basically and that it will, to the economy's, thereby three or four percent in size, and it will reduce housing values by two percent or three percent in size, in our new populist era, saying, though, those who believe that Washington, as the problem saying this, will contract Washington you know it was a republican line forever that there needs to be a recession. Why look I take that really guenaud people were freaked out about that Lithuania ugly, send them. As I say, we will see whether the idea
The government is too big and spend too much it, which is then followed, action that says, government is too big and spend too much. So what will be smaller and it will spend a lot less will in fact, have enough popular support in general to survive the attack on the particulars of the spending in every case, when republicans have sought to do this in the eighties, with Reagan in the nineties, with Gingrich in two thousand and eleven with them. We know with the fight over Obama over the budget. Republicans have failed to make. Case, they succeeded in getting slowdowns freezes and the like, but they have not succeeded in making the case to the people that guy how much are they have not succeeded in survive? The case to make the government's smaller violating the attacks on it by interest
those who believe in each case that the government needs to be exactly the size of this, so that it supports what they want, but India there are certain things have come to believe are lost causes I mean they may not. It may not be a lot. Maybe it's worth a fight. His interesting, I will say the difference between Trump and other people on the right. Is that because he is a bit because Yes, he is a business man, whether he is a really great, but not this. He hates regulation as a as a as a business person, What he associates of regulation is building codes stuff and then a lot of local politicians everywhere you are and we have to buy off and play games with and who use ray. Dilatory codes and zoning codes and land marking What's to sort of, stick it to you to get what they on our served somebody else without looking like they aren't, so he is very clearly very sympathetic to an anti regulatory framework. That's the deconstruction of the in a state of state still ban and talked about, but whether
or not it can be done. Is another question also trumpets, maybe better position than in the other Republican the threat this needle, because he is not proposing a hawkish budget? It's not a tiny budget, still spending over four trillion dollars and he refuses to make any cut nine discretionary, responding fur entitlements in poverty programmes and that's major wears a needle is gets threaten me. We can contract the government and non discretionary ways and you still leave two thirds of its to service debt an enchantment? That's all the fun stuff, the only people who benefit believe me: it's all regions or act, but there are two different things. So the people who benefit from Medicare medicating Social Security, the entitlements that eat up the budget, are, you know, dragon take number people right, so you can cut them because the minute and if they are patently cutting Medicare, so will see how old slates the Obama care cuts to medical right. Well, ok, so, but our there ok. So we
those service grow hundreds of millions of people, so you can cut those. So you can t you cut stuff that only services some people, except if a hysterical. You know: multi media push about climate change, the people big noise have a lot of power and a lot of authority, and they certainly have a lot of authority over the Democrats who have to vote who are in a position where they can give. Some of this stuff has to pass, need sixty votes for passage. Very you could say, trumps gonna lose and he's begging this case, and it will make him more popular with the right and maybe enshrine the idea that he in the end by default, is a serious conservative without meaning to be but no, as you say in the end two thousand and twenty five or two thousand and twenty six or two thousand and twenty seven cuts. Discretionary spending are going to make note its whatsoever, we are at some point going to have to attack the growth
entitlements and entitlement spending. That is what is going to eat up a hundred per cent of the federal budget by the you're twenty thirty two, that's the famous cliff over which the you know, which way Every single taxpayer dollar that we have will have to go to the entire moments. Unless there is entitlement reform, he is not going to touch it. No one's gonna touch it clearly- and so all of this is just serve dancing around the edges of the true problem that is facing the federal government in the future and american governments in the future. Even decorous says. You know, we're no longer is growth. Growth is what's going to save the budget. We're gonna grow at four percent for the next seventy five years. The is not going to allow that to happen, the FED somehow. We have a decent jobs. Important in February, like every February, turns out every all the proceeding to February's had of almost exactly the same job growth is this February two hundred thirty five, two hundred thirty six thousand jobs.
And J Yellin announced last week that there's gonna be a rate they'll be arrayed increased by the FED this week. Why so? We can prevent the economy from overheating. You know what that means. That means any taught em in the economy, four percent as the economy, overheating and JANET Yeltsin's terms. Now everyone's a budget hawk like everyone's gonna look at distance era is an inflation hot. This is also dangerous, so saying, don't dangers you now we will be the earn rate hike ten years and clearly This is a signal that they are going to be aggressive about this like a hold some job growth, because, because Wall Street is gone, crazy, impressed in a big recovery so some job growth is gonna is gonna, make the swine. By raising interest rates I mean. Are we really is the economy really that healthy that we need to raise interest rates? I will need interest rates to go up, This is the one place in which Trump
he's right, even though his numbers are crazy wrong, which is that the unemployment rate and stuff I doesn't really measure the condition of the working populace of the United States measures, some aspect of it, but but the fact of scourge, men tender and the fact that people don't have job mobility and the fact that so many people have to serve left the workforce in aren't coming back that that number, this foreplay Seven four point: eight percent number is nowhere near full employment, as it would have been at some point, and so maybe it's not time to do this, but it's gonna and then of course that's also interesting, because it means that his goal he's gonna have an active, liberal, democratic. Economist running the FED. Who is looking at him and saying I don't like the cut of his jib, and I don't like what he's talking about, and I don't like anything about him and I'm gonna slowing down. Maybe I don't know
The other thing I don't know about is the controversy of the day where I work I welcome Steve King one of the more controvert one of the great controversialists of american politics. Basically, Out of nowhere issuing a tweet in support of the dutch politician, geared welders? On Sunday, basically saying you know, you can't import someone else's babies to strengthen your civilization builders is right. People went crazy, it's one is talking about. Was this India and then this morning he went on CNN new day with Chris Cuomo, and he said you I know exactly what I said king said quote: you cannot, we build your civilization with somebody else's babes that keep her birth rate up and you. To teach her children your values.
In doing so, you can grow. Your population can strengthen your culture and you can strengthen your way of life. If you go down the road, a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage I'd like to see in America that just so homogeneous. Actually, a but ok that we look at the same I'm a chair, I am for western civilization, he said, but all people dont contribute equally I consider they contribute differently to our culture and civilisation. It's the culture, not the blood. And then he tried to serve make his point less muddy by sing. Look if you go anywhere in the world of adoptees little babies and put them in households that were already assimilated into America. Those babies will grow up as a working as any other baby, but obviously if those babies come with their parents, and their parents aren't assimilated is the logic than they won't become Americans, and then there a net negative to the country, so our bid,
The argument here is how bad is this not it is it bad, but how bad is it? Well, some people, some of our friends, are saying it's not bad is misunderstood. It's not white nationalist or racist. What he is saying is that you know we need people to be taught civilization and he's not array just because he wishes that there was a lot of intermarriage between the races and that in centuries we all look the same. Yeah, well ass for Dutch, that's something that you would say if you were race obsessed and trying to demonstrate your moderate bone, a few days to whom I believe to be a moderate audience, that's what you think they would want to hear nobody with a healthy relationship with race. Believes that we all have to have a model. Cultural one one shaded face in order to get along. That's it!
a unique to white. National is on the right either that something that progressives have We urge the ratio session with its welfare white nationalists on the right do not do not, ultimately, said. The more nazi they are. The clear this is, do not want their blood. What want the white blood St Shore to be polluted by other race by in fear are your races rights are. That's that's one aspect of white nationalism. Then you do have this, but let's say white racial consciousness says If we're not all the same We will never get rid of racism, This is an interesting argument to me because fish, Four years ago, in the pages of Commentary Magazine, a man named Norman POT, words wrote the most famous s ever published on commentary, my negro problem and ours, an article about personal experience with race and culture and and the hour
article argued that racism was so endemic to american life that the only way to get rid of it was the assassination was the complete elimination and disappearance of the races through you know intermarriage. This is an argument that Norman priority. Article twenty thirteen, fifty years later, explicitly disavowed grounds that in fact, enormous amounts of racial progress, was made in the fifty years after we publish the article. Obviously we elected a black president. We we, you know, you can compare the position of blacks and society in nineteen sixty three with with their position today they are more affluent. They are. They have access to every every possible good that people can have. Then the argument about the condition of race in the United States has taken entirely different form from actual explore
segregation, which was still of which was still present in nineteen sixty three in the I believe you'd still set in the follow up article that damn we are still sort of America still sick in this. The way discusses rates ride me in the way we have raised on the brain you know what he did and am I don't think anybody would deny that my think kings remarks or a species of that, and so are the remarks that suggest that you know So so anybody who who says you know that don't that any cop any encounter between a white person and a black person particularly carpet a black is in fact per se. Endemic racist and then simply reflects four hundred years of terrible experiences,
That is also a sickness. That is also a crazy, so we have craziness is on. Both sides will be about air was characterized by a heightened racial awareness from emanating from the White House and in golfing. All of us all of us had to write about and talk about race for more often than I think any of us really wanted to. Course of those eight years to get things get was what was the topic of your first article, four four commentary magazine, was I was having a convert: patient about re out the secondment fertilizers, Ferguson, okay. So you know the the house works. How need to have a serious national conversation about race with it was in fact, which is in fact code for we should. Have a serious national lecture rag which, by the way, this is the species of of dishonesty that I thinking is engaging in he's been
cagey about what he means. To the extent that he's talking about your wilder's and european problems with assimilation, they're talking about muslim immigration from North Africa and the middle and he is allowing Americans to hear what they want to hear in those remarks that could be about muslim immigration to the United States about the threat posed by refugees. Whom we assimilate very few from the conflict centres where real problems are occurring in in Europe, or it could be talking about hispanic immigration could be talking about the indian population that you have a problem with it. Talking about a variety of things in the back. There's nothing specific about it is, I think, intentional. Because to be specific it is too conflate terms. Anti bogged down in the details of your talking about muslim population, the United States, they assembly pretty well
RO the rather affluent population you're talking about the latin american population, the United States, its states, a different story, so I think he's allowing himself some freedom to be able to speak to, particularly tasteful groups in whenever man and manner they want to hear will definitely because what why do you say when you, when you throw a grenade out there, like that? Why? Why do you say we don't want other people's babies when, in fact, as his later comments will but would rush clarify he met with what we actually want their parents right, because, because you said, if you get their babies is finally not there yet. But you say you want someone's babies because his particularly nasty and end it has. It has a kind of disgusting salience that that that will that hasn't actually about his that's that's. A very good point. Is that he's doing this in order to appeal to people who want who want really rash language one right be perceived as an ongoing undertakings at an earlier. So there is
We have to be made. The argument is this: for the last forty or fifty years, the United States has ceased promoting the glow is a western civilization glories american culture to our own people and to income and emigrants, and instead our culture is focused largely on our shortcomings on our. This is on the the crimes and errors in our history is opposed to the glories of our history, and we do not. Well bred and therefore the american people do not know are not taught. The younger people are not aware of just how radical and and jumped of this entire experiment, was how it contained within it. Even when it slavery and all that caned within its constitutional right to slavery. The very tools that would be could be used to destroy slavery later and that you know it's a mess experiment, so we try to improve that's what we do and we improve it and we improve it.
Improvements. Are there not taught us and so immigrants who are not too, This are then denied the benefits of understanding. What about America is good, except for the fact that you can make a better living here that maybe you can in the country's therein Lee, but that's not the argument he may right and then that's what's really damaging, but aside from pheasants disgusting and grown and the rest of it. But it's it's sort of he's offering us from a cheap shortcut to civilization strength that won't in fact work. I mean Sensational. Strength actually requires work. You know you, it's it's about those of us we're here sort of law hundred learning and understanding the founding ideals and and and how our country works and and and and its and what's what makes a great son, if you can't you say if we just keep the right, if we just keep certain people out will be, will be good. We now have to do, and you have me somehow, if your white, you know all this, I actually, but if you're not right, you don't. That seems to be the implicit idea here, which you know
by the way. If it were true that would be nice, but I don't see that any evidence of that either that you know white people know any more about our civilizational glories than anybody else does what's more, I think if you look at If you look at what king said these talking about how you know you need to have up the birth rate is bad throughout the course american history. The and Americans have needed new people to help produce the economic goods that are necessary. Those people, I have been imported from elsewhere trays started to build railroads that you know I mean not imported necessarily where they came anyway. Irish Italians, Jews, Russians, Norwegians, no Every population, you could name twenty five percent of the of the population, the United States in the year nineteen fourteen was foreign born, so
was the time of our greatest growth right. So now we have no birth rate. We have an aging population. We don't have. Unlike Europe, we have, we are at sort of replacement rate in Europe is like dying by degrees. But you know if any, states. You're getting older in your people are having kids. The only choice you have is to import someone else's babies in order to have a workforce. That pay for your entitlements. Precisely what now? That's that's. It comes back to the to the endless entitlement state. Now, of course, you know people. This grew thus will say, with a bold they're gonna, be a burden on it right, but his that consume more than they write right in wrath if only that word, if that were true, if there were evident that that would you see that's that's a shifting argument, because it's one thing to say. They take out when they put into that's, not they're, all kinds of economic Evelyn, that is not true, but secondly also you have the thing where you know
immigrants, commit less fewer crimes than Norway, illegal, even a little commit fewer crimes, and then the answer is well illegally. Richard Corbett, no crimes so in our legal women's are already committing a crime by virtue and so therefore their criminals right, ok, fine, and that that's. That is actually a deal. That's a tough point. That's a serious point to make, but we're not even talking about illegals, verses, legal seer, retirement, a whole doc about what is american and what is not an end, the weird thing as if we are committed, as king tried to do in this new day interview for committed to the idea that America's an idea, you can teach it as luxury each you know, children that you adopt bring here, as was having their kids if it can be taught. Then it can be taught anybody, it's just that we're not teaching it and therefore the idea. What, what is inimical? What is inimical about Latin America? culture that makes it impossible for for people from
south of the border to learn. Americanism, there's nothing inimical. Can make a case that there are certain faithfully or stream faith traditions, the most extreme form of Islam, now the most article four, this form will have some difficulty might have some difficult conforming to a total american ideal. If you now, but not that, doesn't appear that so the people who are coming here to make their way up people are not coming here to make their life. That way, you touched on what I think is the biggest problem with this. These kings comment is that they Davis Ozma and betrayed the lie. That was the fact that certain members of the of the IMF, the immigration right, are uniquely hostile to illegal immigration, but their super ok with legal immigration
migration restriction is don't believe that there should be immigration, particularly from certain parts of the world, and the usual suspects have all rushed to the defence of Steve King, who is making an explicitly anti immigration argument on an anti illegal immigration argument, but an anti immigration argument. They want to have that argument. Fine, let's have that argument, but no the terms upon which we arguing on no longer about whether we're just trying to enforce the law, we're trying to show civilization now in society by virtue of of birth rates and askin tone witches, not an argument that has ever been won by the people who are obsessed with skin tone. So let's go haven't have that argument, but it certainly indefensible terrain from what I'm saying No, I agree emanated it's. This is this is that this is what The horrors of avec of the carnage we have to. We see have for this government. Nationalism is sir patriotism on the cheap. Generally, you know it's like this is this of EMU Youtube: you don't need any of the any of them
standing in any of the commitments and two to two to a common culture that actually thrives. If you just declare yourself a nationalist who wants to keep out certain people will you count. You count is an american, and anyone who came after you counts is less of an American. By definition, visits We believe that you're, an American by route and soil than the deeper your roots are the more american you are in the less american. You are, as the roots get shallower shallower is a very anti american idea, but it is clearly an idea was purchase and and and the even comparing the european experience or experiences ridiculous, because Europeans have a sense of nationhood that is different from ours. Your Dutch your Dutch, in your English of your English, your French, if your French and, if you're a, must I'm coming in you'll, never quite be french and you'll. Never quite be dutch, but it is not true as unfair as the experts Americans, whose prove you can be fully both in.
United States in the way that you can't elsewhere and the experience of american Muslims express american muzzle, have data on the american Muslims are richer than the average population. They have more non muslim friends than the average population than the average Christian. That's for sure. Yes, but of Europe. This is another way in which from his sort of imported eggs, a kind of a kind of left his style of thinking in that It were, it was always people left who had told us. We should be emulating Europeans in certain ways better protect, particularly in there have been other garcon all right, all right, but in the end now units it's funny populism has its. You know if it's Our lives have about the arguments of you again and again. This gets to the fundamental point, which is that in a trump trump brought identity, politics too, to the right- or you know, Sir solidified, the strength of right wing, identity, politics of some say, white, conscious, identity, politics and where that is
never been allowed to flourish. Organ up. Cultivate be cultivated in the way that it was before, and that is a clear effect of of the leftist embrace of identity politics over the last twenty five years that probably if you centre you're a civilization understanding on the idea that what matters is what your group gets, then the might, the majority group, or the plurality group or re weighting, holidays somewhere, gonna say well. What about me? You I'll get to be aren't of an identity. So I we're gonna have an identity to. If that's, if that's what's hot now and cool them, then we get. Just the way you get it, and you know that's why I was playing with fire when identity politics became the talk of the United States in the nineteen eighties, and it took three decades, for it to take very noxious route on the other side as well. That's what we're fighting with just the way. One would hope that a great many them
had some liberals would have fought with the identity politics of the left and they chose not to They chose to surrender to it and that, with the cost that they don't, you know that they are unable to make an argument against the trumpets and politics except a screen. Anyway join us. A commentary magazine dot com, Few free reads that we ask subscribe: shall, Get your shovels ready for the snow if we get out by Thursday will have another upon cast for aid while the nor Rossman I'm John onwards, keep the candle burning.
Transcript generated on 2020-02-26.