John Podhoretz is out for this episode of the Commentary Podcast, but he’s with us in spirit as we dive into the controversies of the week, many of which involve ethnicity and orientation. In this episode, the podcast explores the scuttling of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s trips to Israel, the Democratic 2020 field’s attacks on America’s foundational traditions and institutions, and the New York Times’ 1619 Project.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the commentary magazine podcast for today August. Nineteen, twenty nineteen- I am no Rothman Associaton of Commentary magazine with me- is senior editor a green wall now and on the road at an undisclosed location. Christine wrote I know John Burt is out today Momentary magazine is the seventy year old, monthly of intellectual opinion erudition and general perspectives on philosophy that you must be reading. A all access subscription is twenty nine nineteen
dollars. But how much is one of the twenty five digital subscription? Nineteen? Ninety five, we just had the September issue come out and it's really fantastic. One of the articles is actually going a little viral. So on the article by Abraham Sorter, reviewing the the episode that happened to overland college when there was an effort to intimidate a local bakery, I suppose it was and the politics behind it and behind the scenes, stuff? It is a really fascinating. Article is doing very well and it merits that you should go check it out. Also in that issue, eg a lead article by Naomi Shape, Riley about the trouble in which feminism today finds itself are on Christine Rosen, with a review of the good fight, not special
favourable review right, Christine implants right putting words your mouth, its main, its meet me ass, a mean stuff. I have a review of the book American Carnage, which is right, think pretty interesting. You might like it. It's generally very good issue, so go check it out, but we're not just go talking about is all they were also going to be talking about some of the news of the day, including wild controversy that erupted late. Last week, when congresswoman and Bds supporters themselves in wildomar and rated to leave, sought to try to gain access to Israel and were denied on the grounds of this law that prohibits bds supporters from entering the country to propagandize against Israels exist.
But it occurred on the heels of a trump tweet, resulting in an outcry from all circles. Even Israel, supporters in the United States suggesting that Israel had been bending to the will of a president and rendering this relationship between the United States and Israel, partisan and therefore endangering it in the event that a Republican doesnt have the White House forever. It seems a pretty prudent objection to Israel's policies, but in the interim we begin to look a little bit more critically upon the efforts The group that was sponsoring rotated to leave in more and also their intentions and whether or not Israel had had a point. That was that, really matter? Whether Donald Trump was involved at all at all? The president was irrelevant, in fact, so yeah. I I think that of people actually all long for a supporters of Israel some who were fine with this last
The seemingly last minute decision to bar Omar and to lead from entering the country I don't forget this happened after one. To go in advance of this true There was a Israel had said that they would in fact let them in and now had said they wouldn't there were some people who support this had supported this decision from the start. Im not entirely while I do think it was Generally, a mistake for Israel, not let them in. I think that, contrary to what the President tweeted, a strong democracy can show strength by sort of let letting people like that kind of roll of. And not making too big a deal out of them. At the same time, I dont think its anywhere near the debacle that some people are making it out
to be I there there's some good arguments and there are some bad arguments and I think, for example, the idea that that either to or Elanor Omar might have been their minds changed or influenced by having, by seeing being exposed to the real, beauty in wonder and majesty of Israel. That was never going to happen. I think the idea that Israel ultimately takes a pr hit here is true, but I think that also has to be weighed against the potential for the pr hit that they would have taken had to leave and Omar gone around on this propaganda tour with this antisemitic group that organized it mitta This is when that little bit of Agita group that promotes body Bill charges against Jews promotes
Nazi literature celebrates blunt the terrorism against Jews and so on, but all, that said, yes, I think I think there would have been a sort of certain benefit in Israel's just kind of stoically going the flow here till her made a mistake? I'm sorry Christine briefly ices Diana Guide. I just wanted to restate the objection from a domestic policy perspective of open the point of an American with it which supports Israel, but also as Leary of the relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, which has come to typify american israeli relations that the objective direction, yet that I saw that I find compelling is that Donald Trump doesn't care about media s. I dont think I don't really think that he has any disease is interested in is really sovereignty here. His interest was in
highlighting to people who he finds to be a sound foil for him politically. The member the two members of the four member squad and isolating them and having exerting the power of the presidency now to make them a foil for him politically, which is in keeping with some of the stuff that he does as far as using the powers of the presidency to execute vengeance, notably at the top. My head, this episode, where he denied Nancy Pelosi the use of a military plan to visit Afghanistan just because she was having a fight with see, philosophy at that that the moment it is nothing less than an abuse of power and one that could be in the long run detrimental for support of its of Israel, who want to see the relationship remain at a pop up by partisan one guy. I think that is important point. Dont know that he doesn't care at all of a, but certainly his main objective here was was to play that partisan game with with the the so called squad, and what not
What just what a sales of to take it's is going to take a lot of work to to steer the Democratic Party back from the the cliff for which its been heading on the on Israel And- and I dont know that this at the end of the day, is going to be decisive. Erway. Thank you I agree that I mean personally. I think they should have just let them in because, if there's anything we know about these, two members of the squad in particular, is that they often open their mouths and say something stupid or you know hateful or awful, and they get themselves in trouble all the time, and I think we did see that a bit with leave when she claimed her refusing to. Let me see my beautiful Grabe. She puts a picture of a grandmother on twitter and you know:
grandma grandma, and so the Israelis have cable, will let you go see or grandma then she's like actually dont want to do that because you, you know we hit it. That's not fair, so so I mean the fact. This is a woman who will use your grandmother as a prop in her campaign against Israel. So I think that you know any any idea that this is an ethical tour rather than a propaganda tours is was revealed by that I will say that one of the things that really shocked me was the way that this nonprofit group that sponsored their tour. Mr the way it's being treated by the mainstream press right, it's basically being given a cover by the mainstream press which calls it. You know humanitarian group or Propalestinian group if a the Republican was sponsored by minded the extremist organization. To go on any sort of foreign trip. We would be hearing about it constantly, so I do think that the there's a real lack of due diligence on the part of the media? That's covering this whole debacle.
In not really questioning what who is this group? What are they represent? What are their values? I'm not seeing a lot on that. You see it in the conservative press, but you don't see the mainstream press yet and, and going forward were not that it he would. I can see Omar to leave sphere out of the fire on this unit in question about what what what kind of organism organization did they think this was due? Do they still stand by it, but how did what do they make of these charges? I'm outside of the precincts of conservative media. It with the that issue will die. What do we make of all that I mean it's advocacy on on the part of the press. Obviously, is subtle, advocacy you by omission, but what is the? What is the just just the clouds. The notion that Donald try me, because we have some some synergy between this organization, white nationalist groups, does it and the sort of dovetails with the second topic of the day. But does it just cloud the really clear narrative that the purveyor and beneficiary of white? No
sentiment in this country, Donald Trump, and only one theres that- and there is also there is a very sconce rted effort right now- mainstream media to turn the deal itemization of Israel into some sort of upstanding activity and revealing the types of organizations and people who are actually behind those ideas, messes up that are testand. You agree yeah yeah. I think that I mean we have seen this with the look. We see this with any time, theres a story written about hate crimes. If the hatecrimes committed by what's considered by the mainstream media to be a beleaguered minority, then the story is not going to get as much play right, and I do think that there's but what's what's striking to me, is that if you want to make your beats, you know I. Nationalism, white, supremacy, all the stuff that that mainstream media folks claim to be deeply concerned about because of Donald Trump than your own,
I'm going to undermine that case by being so partisan and how you cover it and that this isn't your of all journalists. Obviously there are some who still try to be consistent, but I, find this striking, because if we, if you agree that White nationalist and white supremacy are harmful forces than you should root them out ever you find them not just when it's you know conveniently someone within or next to their name, not a date, I mean this at the risk of moving on toward second topic, a little prematurely, I mean this seems to be an increasingly prohibitive focus of the of the objective press Koran quote the centre left press and that the explicitly lit liberal press and all of them sort of melding together into the the democratic parties. Political ethos, that racism is the singular focus
should be a physical focus of our attention today and that is exclusively limited to one side of the political aisle and that site is benefiting from these sentiments which have a lot more purchase than anybody. We're going to get into in a little bit, but I want to read something that leaked out of this New York Times. Town hall did everybody, get a chance to take a look. A parenthesis a town hall was being held between One New York Times staffer staffers, reporters editors, member, the company and the transcript was published on slate and some Excerpts have been making the rounds. I wanted to read one one line men and meant named staffer, who was of probing deemed a cat? I'm not sure what his title is. What does this title managing at something like that editionthe times
question about racism, the quote begins im wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and White Supreme s being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting just because it feels to me like should be a starting point. You know like these conversations about what is racist. What isn't racist, I just feel like racism is, isn't everything it should be considered in our science reporting and our culture reporting national reporting and so to me its less about the individual instances of racism and sort of how we are thinking about racism and white supremacy is the foundation of all the systems in the country, and then it leads on to then wanted New York Times magazine project which we're going to talk about briefly and then coming minutes. The one thousand six hundred and nineteen project, which is about the origins of human slavery in this country, but
the cats response. Wasn't especially yes of enlightening, earn our heartening, rather because he sort of accepted the premise and then went on to jawbone. As sort of I think it was just a way to get out of the question, but he didn't challenged the premise really at all, and this is what we ve been talking about it in this podcast for months now is the extent to which the youngest cohort of media professionals are dedicated to the idea that a nation is irredeemable on its foundation. Allied IE is not just the the presence of racism in human slavery at the dawn of the country, but also its capitalist ethos. Its general support for sort of a NEO colonial project as far as power projection goes is virtually every aspect of the state of the nation. Today is be redeemable to this covert of cultural revolutionaries on the young
she left, who are increasingly to the left of the people, who are already very much ensconced on the left, who are in charge of these institutions. They are simply not radical enough further youngest stir the and his people coming behind and in their large vocal numbers, they have the ability to instil fear in their older, less left, colleagues and and and make them Hugh to their radical line. I mean if it demonstrated the extent to which they can execute policy preferences and punish dissenters pretty effectively. Now, for the last two three here's so briefly before we get into that. I'd like to turn your attention to the wonderful folks at blinds. Dot com for many of us
your blinds or whatever you have on your windows is an afterthought, but with brand new made to order custom window coverings from blinds dot com, you can really transform the look and feel of your entire home when the right everything in your home looks better, but when theyre wrong, everything in your home looks cheap, so
I need to go to buy new blinds is only one place I will go and that is blinds dot com with fifteen million windows covered and over thirty thousand five star customer reviews blinds dot. Com is America's number one retailer for affordable quality custom, new window coverings, whether you're looking for energy efficiency or maybe you just moved or you want to refresh the look of your home, blinds dot com makes the whole experience fast and easy blinds dot. Com mix just send them pictures of your house and they send back custom recommendations from a professional who will work with your color scheme. Furniture and specific rooms will even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online, and every order gets free shipping, and this is the best part if you accidentally measure or pick the wrong color. If you make a mistake line,
a com will re, make your blinds for free. They really made it easy for you, so there's no excuse to leave up those mangle those old lines and for a limited time our listeners get twenty dollars off at blinds dot com. When you use promo code commentary, that's blinds dot com, cop promo code commentary for twenty dollars off forward, blinds cellular shades, roller shades and more blinds dot com. Promo code, commentary rules and restrictions apply, so we touched briefly on the sixteen nineteen project, which has overtaken the internet. It is which, by the way, has nothing to do with regular life and without your people are talking about, but it does trickle down, because these are the people.
Who dictate the terms of the conversation and eventually they will force you to talk about this. So to say I mean the project is this? Is a noble one, a a symposium of essays examining the history and legacy of american slavery at its four hundred mark that in so far as you could date, it back to an origin point they have it at sixty nineteen and there's a series of essays? I haven't gotten through all of them. Ive read a couple, and some of them are valuable. Some of them are interesting. Some of them are less so a little bit more conjectural and, frankly revisionist. But generally I like the mission of the project with the exception of some of the voice that is applied to it by the New York Times editors. So there is individual essays written by individual authors, but the voice of the paper comes through in the introductory
paragraphs of this thing, and even in that the titles and headlines- and I think the tone is set for this piece- really early on. I mean not not just in in the headlines were talking about, but the tone editorial direction of where they want to go with this thing and what they actually want to achieve. A second a I pull it up but up, but it's an interesting look into what the time is trying to do here in the days and weeks to come. The editor editorial introducing the supposing that essays begins, we will pay assays, demonstrating that nearly everything that has made America Exceptional grew out of slavery as a broad sweep statement and clearly one intended to execute a political task to to shift the conversation towards the direction of
the youngest progressive cultural Revolutionary is, which is this country, is redeemable and racist and bigoted and doesn't deserve the kind of praise that it receives It's only a small point that Christina let you jump and that's why I don't. I can't say that I think this is an oral noble undertake front from it from its start from your initial description, something that would simply of look back at the impact and legs slavery, sure that is a noble project do now at least the ones that I read that I liked, but by by it or inception in its own declaration. This is intended to do something different from that. I too but but in some ways its incredibly savvy to have that at a toil framing note, you Americans, love to read about their history. You know we are. We actually do like history when learn about it in a lot of the initial risk, as I saw to the project were people saying just that saying well, you know here some stuff that we might not
have learned enough about in school and im kind of curious and some again like now. I've only read a handful of them, so are intend to finish reading them up this week. But what disturbed me from the perspective of someone who is trained as a historian was the sweeping claim, the lack of distinction between saying that slavery has profoundly impacted american culture, american life, american political system and saying that it is that only Patin on which the countries is that it that everything good is tainted by slavery, so that those are two different things I think the historians mind wants to say with curiosity and with empathy, let's try to understand how this happened when it happened, why it happened and its repercussions. That's not what this is trying to do this. This is a much more ideologically motivated project. Now it doesn't. That doesn't mean it's, it's not useful, but
I think that anyone who approaches it thinking they're going to read you know kind of deeply elderly. Take on some of the stuff is going to come away surprised. The other thing I think is worth mentioning is these. These debates are ongoing among scholars. There's a wonderful new book. I just started by Sean Mullens called no property in man and it basic he looked at this from the perspective of the constitutional convention and asked the deeply important question was: founding document based on slavery, and I think that this her one thousand six hundred and nineteen project approach would say it's all tainted, because you know you had this bad deal between southern slaveholders in northern sellouts, and so it don't change it. He gives this much more nuanced and and fascinating depiction of the various factions and play. You know it notes some facts for ample. The fact that now many states were already on their way to eliminating slavery are headed in that direction. When the convention met so theres, so much nuance and detail, that is required to really think
out the legacy of slavery in this country, and that is a project we should do and certainly on the to many, extreme conservatives. Think, as you know, uses like. Oh, we fought a war without its over. No that's really not the case, but I do, but I don't know I again. I have to finish reading all of the same, but I'm not sure that this is projects approaches. Gonna, help, add new, wants to have really fascinating Yet you know when we were talking about this right before we started the show. It occurred to me that so ship generally is marked, by, among other things, some disagreement and different arguments. Out how and why things happened and that keeps this argument sharper and more one, because they have to fend off challenges from those with other arguments. This is, I think, ultimately, not scholarship
in part, because it is there, it is just a mono argumentative there is there's. Just one sort of take here and then its a bunch of evidence and storytelling lumped on top of them. So by Anywayi was just going to say that did they say that they the project is going to reframe american history and thats. That's not what we need to be doing so and I'm going to defend the is that a read a little bit because I don't think they really reflect the editorial view that the paper has taken like Nicole Hannah jones- yes, he so I didn't get the times framing from her item. I may I thought it was a nuanced and vivid and sort of takes a good with the bad and the grid, the good that grew out of the bag.
I'm. So I thought it was a valuable addition. There's another essay that had to do with how the origins of American Capitalism Worm, infects racist and that that the white slug Anti Bellum South was the typical of the yellow key example of what a capitalist society looks like what does a store collided there. I dont think there are very many scholars of this period who would say that the Anti Bellum South was a capitalist enterprise. In fact, it was very much. We rejected the kind of capitalist energy that was being executed in the north because it was an attack on the way of life, and what have you You know we can get into that is just. There was obviously an agenda being executed there, but I didnt see that the papers editorial being reflected even in the headline of the Hannah Jones piece that what was the headline that was
MOC races founding ideals were false when they were written Black America thought to make them true. Thats not reflect that kind of hostility is not reflected in and it's also nonsense, Ryan, just not a definition. Only false we can at the notion that there is an idea can be an ideal, rather can be false. Just doesnt make any sense based on the word itself and ideal is aspirational there. They are not true or false. They are compelling or not compelling or means by which an ethos around which you can organize a society or not truth has not does defies the dictionary definition of true or false, but it gets it with the wanted to convey, which is that America's founding is legitimate. Is also unnecessarily polarizing in the sense that, for example, it overlooks the abolitionist movement, for example, which had people who were white and black in I mean this. I did this idea that we have to a
polarized our history in order to come to terms with it. I mean it struck me that this sort of all to me going on about white privilege that we also talked about that on the podcast a bit, but the the rise in the discussion of white privilege. What is it is something we need to change. How do we do that that struck me as the more informing editor force on this, even though, as I agree with you know that some of the individual essays are just trying to read an essay and sort of pond and the best essays take a question and look at it from many different angles, and they don't always come to a simple conclusion date they're supposed to provoke, and I think some of them o in this case and others dont. I will say, however, the other thing I disagree with is the idea that nobody is being taught about the history slavery. I mean I mentioned before my kids. Are you know through Middle School DC. Public school students and theyve theyve had a ton of historical fiction about slavery that,
a lot of history, their entire unit as they start eighth grade, is going to be about civil. It- and you know the sort of history of slavery- that I mean theyre learning all this interesting stuff, but the idea that the New York Times has to swoop in and rescue us from this terrible education system that pretends slavery didnt exist its a little bit. Little bit naval gazing of the New York Times, yeah. I mean the notion that we, talk about racism in this country is weird, it's just about all we talk about yeah, but that has been the argument for a long time that Americans are scared to talk or talk about this. If you think of the original sin of her with our creation, and it's really never been true. As far back as I can remember, I mean it's right. It's always been in the ether at all times because we, the question, is in just should: are we scared to talk about it, but the bit they secondary question after that is once we start talking about it? Is there something practical policy minded in full
Antalya restorative that we have to do as a result of that and I think thats what thats, what if people say theyre uncomfortable it's not that theyre uncomfortable acknowledging that the country's horrible ass and slavery as an integral part of that, but it's a question of well, then. What do we do now like? Is there something we have to do now? What is that you know what happens next? It's also become a litmus test, the extent to which you refer to narratives totally yet but you can't, for example, we were talking about this before we started. There is an idea abroad that you cannot discuss that sixteen nineteen project, unless you have consumed every essay in its entirety, thought ruminated on certain period of time meditated before coming to the consensus conclusion that they want you to come to that at that. Only at that point can be taken seriously as an observer of rates in America. So in that sense we are already aware I conic lasts here just spouting off about only to us as well
from the entire simplethe same time, providing an interesting perspective. I think im in part, because this the times has really tapped into an ethos. Here are really a bubbling sentiment among the democratic candidates who are reflective of their voters, so you have to say that they know they have their finger on the pulse of what the primary electorate wants- and you have heard a lot of them defer to the themes that were hearing in the New York Times at a total boards view of what the symposium means, which is that America's racial founding is tainted and therefore it in its pervades every institution. Merrick and life in a lot of those institutions are therefore suspect. Probably the case in point is better Rourke who is rebuilding his campaign for the second time. Failing
generate traction among democratic voters. Pacing spacing his campaign relaunch on the notion that America is irredeemably racist. He quotes quoting him speaking somewhere. He's in Arkansas were says once our country was founded on racism and is still racist. In Arkansas, I said what I believe that there is no denying this reality, and that is why it's a it's incumbent on all of us to change it. So he's not saying anything, he really hasn't said before he's just saying it now bunch of different audiences and also saying that he is now keys, knock on our focus on Island of Hampshire. So he's not really running for President he's just more launching this talk about how the United States is terminally plagued by Willy DE legitimize racism, oh yeah, I mean, if the problem is that fundamental and and massive than
oviously: there is nothing else to talk about theres. No, there is no other task worth putting oneself towards the other than you know. Getting to the atom of that so- and he said this is I mean this- is what he's been saying for quite some time before the relaunch he said this is this country was founded on what supremacy during the last democratic debate, he said that the legacy of slavery and segregation, Jim Crow and suppression is alive and well in every aspect of the economy and the country today, which is a very broad, generalized statement when I don't think you can necessarily support unless this is a religious conviction, one. That doesnt demand support. Really, it is an exercise of faith, yet I dont know informed himself. I think hes probably a little more cynical than that, but I think for a great number of people. It is absolutely in an article
well now that we know that Stacy Abrams has, like you know, made it known that she's ready and available to be someone's running made. Maybe she in bed oaken NATO fight out for the vip slide from someone, because it's it's a mean its clearly that the kind of pandering that he's doing at this point is I mean it. I actually makes me feel so Sad for her I mean nobody seems to number that she herself relieved off the notion that she would be anybody's VP because it was demeaning It was an insult to her to be considered a caliber of somebody who could run for the presidency having never held elected office higher than a house of State House Representative right. It wasn't a compliment. It was an insult and the people around in common, their community in the opinion and pundit community were also like these white guys, like Joe Biden, just trying to use her as a human shield, and now all sense is amenable, and I guess everybody is with it. I also just to put you back on
more thing about the sixteen nineteen project and why I find it the editorial someone annoying is that it had been. We all know, as conservatives conservative, it's been a long time, certainly since the Republican Party has had any significant support from the african american community at the at the bolts. Write me who's the last last to get even even me. What Eisenhower this is. The conservative movement has long had this problem and I think that what these sorts of things make it easy for conservatives to do if they don't want to be thoughtful about, will look just just crazy and I think one of the things is incumbent upon those of us who are looking ahead at the demographic trends. In looking at the aging of the sort of older white male Republican Party and are concerned for conservative ideas is to say you know what we do need to grapple with this, but it has to be and in a way that understands that history is not a tool to be manipulated to get. You know. People freaked out and running to the polls to Jayson yet
though there is no limiting principle, let's applied in when it. When the exact left talks about this and you forever everybody to things. Your button is the big savior. I mean there are plenty of warning signs: canaries in the coal mine that he's just as amenable to this narrative as everybody else before he launched a campaign. He said something very disturbing quote in the nineteen hundreds, so many women were dying at the hands of their husbands because they were channel just like cattle or sheep, that the court of common law decided they had to do something about the extent of these death and then he he said something about a myth about the rule of thumb, and the extent to which I was done was based on how howling the means by which you could use to be women, and he said quote this is english jurisprudential culture, a white man's culture, and it's got to change that should send chills down your spine precisely because jurisprudential culture is the foundation upon which all american rights and civil liberties are based. This is
sort of stuff that is redeemable. That is valuable. That is the stuff that we sort of sifted out from the the baggage that we inherited in the antebellum country and for The comment that they, the nation, that we know today and all the rights that stem from things like the equal protection clause in the in the 14th amendment, and this has become a threat to the social justice left. These jurisprudential writes these the sort of stuff that you seem meted out in a courtroom where it has become an obstacle to achieving the kind of collective justice that is envisioned by people who rewrote the the rules that title nine rules at the colleges and universities after the twenty eleven dear colleague, letter which prescribed new means, by which you could adjudicate claims of sexual assault on campus and the result was the
judicial, star chambers, in which accused and accuser alike, had their fifth, sixth and first amendment rights abridged now, unless we're saying the first fifth and sixth amendment rights, aren't all that great in the first place, because this is english jurisprudential nonsense, then I guess we have but we also, if we're going to be intellectually honest with ourselves about the founding of the country and the ethos and the ideals that formed its basis than those are the things that the bill of rights is sort of valuable if you know what came from the same people who were flicked it all on race and culture you're part of the Harry here and in this goes back to the the lack of argument within the discussion? Here is if someone makes a point, no, like you just made about the jurisprudential legacy that gets twisted and spun
He quickly and pretty viciously as somehow being white supremacist argument, but why wouldn't you welcome that? If that was your objective, if you're, if your philosophy or political philosophy is such that we define sexual assault too narrowly in our founding documents and our understanding of law, so that the delicate confronting your accuser and a court room is too traumatic, evidentiary standards for conviction of violent crime are too high and therefore we need to undermine these institutions and these ideals. Why wouldn't you welcome calling them all a legitimate and all racist, because your objective is to tear the whole thing down right? That's that's! That's! They do open okay, so this is the indictment established, there's a similar challenge when talking capitalism right. I mean that there's the same trap that gets fallen into where the the left, in particular extreme left, says you know unless you want it owed to increase welfare payments and make the social safety net. Basically it owed
with everyone which of course has its cost if you, worry about, how to pay for that. If you worry about, you know promoting values the conservatives ten tend to want to promote than your mean right, you'd, you hate the poor and, and this it has a lot of traction. I think, because conservatives especially today with these younger voters to think socialism is nifty. We haven't been able to persuade them that this isn't about disliking people who don't have money. It's about understanding, how capitalism works, understanding and acknowledging as conservative, that there are excesses that that need to be curved or tamed figuring out. But those are, and how to do it is, is know thats, that's what policymakers supposed to be doing, but that we have. We need to be able to tell a story, thats optimistic and positive and says, and an again this will speak to race as well. I mean you, you think, about enterprise and free markets, those help everyone if they function properly. If races,
is preventing people from being able to establish their own business or to get a mortgage in a red lined area thats wrong, and that has to be fixed. And those are the kinds of things that I hear too few conservatives saying in particular republican politicians again. I think that there are parts of this argument that weird that because seeding entirely to the other side, and that's a big mistake, I think you're there There are the sort of two ways to approach that on the right, and one is the negative, I'm tired of paying for other people I'm tired of I'm having to pull my weight and other other people are piggybacking off me and that kind of thing or I want. I don't want to have to pay taxes to support x y z. I mean there certainly some legitimate arguments against against. I taxes but there is an entirely other way to approach this, which is that what you are going seismic site. It
conservatives generally believe in things like free markets, because in part we believe that they will serve the poor that they will serve minorities best it is it is. It is the best hope to further individuals trying to get ahead, as it is likely a more libertarian argument. But the things that you outlined, Christine like Red lining and that's public pie sigh, that is the heavy hand of government executing directives that the mark wouldn't otherwise tolerate ran so, and that how do I dye the 1sa in the in the one thousand six hundred and nineteen? That was attempting to impugn the Antebellum south of some sort of a capitalist utopia was so pernicious because it went after
the very foundational understandings of what capitalism means and conflicting definitions is, is so as to the extent that it was almost confusing profit with capitalism. We have you made him if you make profit in any way, shape or sense, then you're involved and capitalism as though profit, profits or preceded. The definitions of capitalism. Once we had a means of exchange, you had profits. We didnt that was You know that that predates Tom Smith by several centuries, but there was one you know: I thought was illustrative, and I send it over a text message to everybody. I wanted to read this passage from this essay when an accountant, depreciates an asset to on taxes or when a mid level manager spends an afternoon. Finally in rows and columns in an Excel spreadsheet. They are repeating business procedures whose roots twist back to slave labor camps. I feel that I feel that way about excel spreadsheets I have, since they are pointing their onto something, but I mean
at base- and this is just one anecdote from this very long essay, some of which was interesting. A lot of it was like that to me: a revisionist effort to impugn catalysts, energy and enterprise as a racist enterprise by virtue of the accidents of its birth, that it was essentially forged. American capitalism was didn't, look like the industrialized south, which made a lot of which allocated resources based on the marketplace to industrialization and looks more like the honour bound culture of the south, which did do any of that stuff and instead sort of languish tenant. So in its streets, the Anti Bellamy sooner than the em, they honour culture and didn't industrialize. That is much more like american capitalism. That just makes zero sense.
Sur of a historical man. Theres plenty of scholars have worked on. The hater quotes many scholars, but it avoids quoting anybody else who takes issue with the conclusions in the peace, and there are quite a few lol well. I think it also of allow for a richer and deeper discussion of some of the cultural and family issues that have traditionally been the focus of conservatives when it comes to issues like the black family, the breakdown of the sort of neighborhood in social culture that that offer you no support churches and other organizations that supported neighborhoods supported each other. That breakdown is,
in White America too were seeing a lot more of it now. But I think that there is this there's this rich history that can be explored and not for guidance in some ways right. But if you are coming out this from a conservative perspective, you're really told pretty forcefully time and time again that you're not really allowed to talk about black family structure, you're not allowed to talk about out of wedlock. Burs, you can talk about them. The context of white families because its happening there too, it in those numbers, are increasing, but to talk about the family is now considered oppressive, and I think that again that that's just a dead end for everyone. We should all be concerned about this, not just for the sake of lots of kids, who are growing up without good role models without you know, sort of a stable environment to wear their
receiving, nurture and care, and good education. These things should matter to everyone, but it has become a racially polarized that its difficult to have those conversations anymore by the way. There is also a little trap there, because if you, then, if you do talk about it as it affects white families, the responses Oh net. So now you care because a defence right families, you yak, where, where were you? Where were you you know and unblock on black suffering? Why I'd think there's actually really valid point to that when you think about, for example, how the opium crisis is discussed versus the crack of them epidemic and then nineteen eighty? So now it's is much more sympathy in the modern approach to this epidemic. Maybe we have all to society were less thirty years. Nine thickets quite plausibly true, but I don't think there's knows the basis for the argument that there was a racial element to the discussion around the Duke recognising the violence that at that arose from adequacy of primarily interest
phenomena and now that this is much more broader based, we get to talk about it with much more sympathy. I think that's of applicants die issue. I agree with you, but I think is of a general proposition that its it can be used as a cheap Shane doesn't facilitate right problem solving well the usual understanding. The other danger with all of this is is the reaction stuff right. I mean Dr Sullivan has a great say in New York magazine from the other day, where he talks about you know, being conservative versus being reactionary and what fuels the reactionary mindset, and I I do think I've heard this from from conservatives. I know from certainly we hear it from Donald Trump, a fair amount
I did that I am so sick of hearing about race. It's just like that. The reaction is just just discussing I'm always being called racist cause. I'm white, that's not fair and of discussion, and that is the danger with these kinds of projects whose starting points and whose basis for argument is, are you know all white people are racist? They just don't know it, so we have to educate them. That's not a good place to start. If you actually want to heal these. These divides, and I fear that you know that's the point we ve been out for a while now, but I'm seeing occasionally some thoughtful people have that reaction, certainly ones. I know who are in academia who are, you know not again not allowed to talk or research certain scholarly topics for fear that they will be called races for doing so, and that's that's, not freedom! That's not liberty! That's not what we're supposed to be about when it comes to discussing these very difficult issues. Time, though, the missions to educate, even in an up ad form, you run the risk of being patronising yet was probably just
converge of the task before you to educate. You feel yourself and explain our news. Culture has generally been a detriment to discourse which we have discussed in previous podcasts, but we look forward to reading the rest of the sixteen nineteen essays and probably not discussing them in the future pass episodes. But at least we will have a fuller understanding of what the arguments they are trying to make a bar. But were going to call it here for John Bubbles, who is not here but surely wishes you well Abe. Walled Christine rose, and myself keep the candle burner.
Transcript generated on 2019-12-02.