« The Editors

Episode 161: Troubling Times

2019-08-21 | 🔗

Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, David, and Michael discuss the New York Times’ 1619 Project, Israel’s refusal to allow Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to visit, and Elizabeth Warren’s campaign.

Editors’ Picks:

Light Items:

  • Rich: Digging holes.
  • Charlie: Swimming with my youngest.
  • David: Hard Knocks on HBO.
  • MBD: Master and Commander (the film).

The Editors is hosted by Rich Lowry and produced by Sarah Schutte.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
I'm Alexandra Desanctis and I'm one of the hosts of national reviews ordered liberty. Podcast my co host David French and I discussed all the latest in political news and especially the intersections between politics, culture and faith. We approach these topics with a focus. The constitution and the importance of our founding values and every once in a while, you can even catch us talking about are clashing views on sports and pop culture. You can listen to ordered liberty at nationalreview, dot com or subscribe on Itunes. Google play stitcher tunein or wherever else you get your podcasts Omar and to leave need a new travel agency. America the new founding least according to New York Times. We will discuss,
This an more on this week's edition, the there's some rich Larry and I'm joined as always by the right honorable, Charles CW, Cooke, pride, Tennessee, David French and the notorious boo boo He Michael Brendan Doherty joining us, this week from inside his towns, local water tower, you might hands are listening to a national review. Podcast our sponsor this week is Sarah thought. It was amusing At least we are podcasts, we just kept it quiet, so 'cause you couldn't. I think, your laughter to be heard over the weird ambient noise Michael copy. That's really echoed for bow to WK yeah. I started this week Is the city journals awesome podcast, ten blocks more about that in due course new to this podcast at nasher dot com. We're glad have you, but to be easier, if you better for us, if you made as part of your feed at Google, play Stitcher Itunes
Tunein or Spotify, and if you like what you hear here, please give us a glowing five star review on Itunes. If you don't like what you hear, please forget, I said anything David we've had this flap for about a week now over. This planned trip that to lead and Omar wanted to make to Israel and to the West Bank Trump tweeted about it. Netanyahu canceled their trip, then that down a little and said. Ok to leave can visit her grandma on humanitarian grounds. They've obviously been playing this for all their worth to lead, declined except that he managed an exception. They they stayed home, held a big press conference today at denouncing Israel and calling for a cut off of of USA and all the rest of it. What do you make of it?
no, I mean two things at one time: one, I have a little bit of trouble, really caring About whether or not Israel is going to allow Congress women into the country who are actively operating in an anti semitic initiative of Bds and I just don't. I don't think it's that big deal that Israel says. No to that, I think it's up to Israel. I don't necessarily like the I don't necessarily like it when Israel appears to change its mind on the basis of the Trump tweet, but I just have trouble getting exercised about the entire controversy about whether whether or whether not to Laben Omar. Well, be invited in especially There was a large bipartisan congressional delegation that they probably could have joined without any kind of controversy. That larger congressional delegation wasn't going be explicitly.
Partnering with an organization- and this is the part of the story that I think is the mainstream media needs to pick up on a lot more than it has, although some have, but this for congressional delegation wasn't partnering the weight Laben Omar were with and vicious and fire Will anti semitic organization in with the West Bank? I mean this was an organization called Miftah which had articles that contained blood libel, another word The idea that Choose use the blood of Gentiles and Passover celebrations in his published. American NEO Nazi propaganda uh. It has published a Articles calling for Palestinians to honor some of the worst terrorist. There was an article called, let us honor our own, where they Mister contributor described this woman named Delilah Elmaghrabi as a palestinian fighter. Who is
during a military operation against Israel and night, seventy eight and describe her. One of the palestinian People's national heroes. Well, military operation with something called the little road massacre and it may have been one of the worst, if not the worst terror attack in israeli history, they killed. Eight civilians in a bus, including thirteen children and they've celebrated palestinian female suicide bombers, and founder of this person that the that that is uh, Longstanding palestinian politician had said You cannot adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as a terrorist. I mean so. This is this is an organization that is engaged in has published articles that are just so far beyond the pale.
Every mainstream media reporter should be asking to Laben Omar. Why? Why are you partnering with voices like this and if you're partnering, voice is like this. Why should Israel say come on in If you are a member of the United States Congress, I mean this is this is completely inexcusable and I know Jake Tapper covered it on CNN, which earned him the I of Linda's are sore and some who covered it rich. You had a notable confrontation on CNN about This very issue, but very few people have been covering this and I think it's an excuse. Well, I mean, if you're going to talk about the controversy Israel refusing entry to two democratic Congresswoman talk about it in full, talk about the whole context, yeah. I I I had this argument with her by her over this on CNN. He quite quite exercised
and the argument continued after the cameras were often- and one thing he said to me- is You didn't hear about this organization in this done until today and if I've been quicker, my I said no. I heard about five days ago, 'cause David French, correct about it on our website and the date of birth year. Credit you're, one of the first to highlight the nature of this. So Charlie. You are a famously liberal guy. Where do you come down on the balance here between a liberal society being open to people including highly critical people and whatever yeah right. Israel has to ban people that it considers Haas
it's it's very being and waging a campaign to isolate it and delegitimize it. Well. I should preface this by saying that, as far as I know, I have never written or uttered a single word about Israel or Palestine. This isn't a topic I opine on. It's not a topic. I know a great deal about I'm happy to leave the debate to others. I have two views on this country.
Let's see. The first is that, if it were up to me, I would have let them in that is in no way to endorse what they have said or to endorse this ugly organization with which they partnered, I just as a rule, prefer to allow people to hang themselves than to turn them into martyrs by giving them the chance to say, see, I'm being silent and to make the implication that being silenced, Becaus there right or they're saying something that is uncomfortable
I also think that we should be disgusted that two members of the United States Congress, partnered with this organization an hold the views that they do. Those are separate questions. The organization David wrote about this hideous is reprinted NEO Nazi propaganda. As David said, It advances the blood libel. If this were an organization that made similar arguments against African Americans, for example, every would instantly be able to see how inappropriate the endeavor was- and I think the double standard here is rightly upsetting-
during the Florida gubernatorial election last year on the Santa suit went on to win was criticized for, and these are what the headline said. Speaking at a controversial conference, it turned out that he had spoken at a conservative conference ACT which David Horowitz had also spoken. This dominated not just local headlines, but national news for awhile. He spoke at the same conference as somebody who can be overly, in my view, provocative ma and slave actively got into bed with this organization. Why is this not a national scandal and I think what was missed in your argument
with Peter Beinart by Peter Beinart was that the problem here is that two Congress women did this. The argument here is not becaus. This organization exists, nobody can ever criticize Israel. The argument is not becaus. This organization exists, every single defense of the palestinian people is tainted the argument here is not the cause. This organization exists. This decision should have been taken differently by the israeli government. The argument here is that these two Congress, women have allied themselves. With a disgusting disgusting organisations that in any other context, would have ended their careers again
if you look at it another way around. If this were an organization that had similar views toward African Americans say Steve King had joined, that would be it and he, of course, has already been marginalized.
I'm I personally would have preferred for is route to have let them in it's, not my cool, but that's my view. I would certainly have preferred that any contact Donald Trump had with the israeli government were private. I think tweeting about it was unseemly from Us President, but I don't think that changes. The fact that this is the extraordinary lapse of judgment at best and a an indication of a rotten hot at West so Michael feel free to react. Anything you've heard, but also I'm just curious. I don't think we've heard from you in an r e years of podcasting together. What's your basic take is on on Israel and the question of the palestinian territories, so you come from a paleo realist
school of thought on foreign policy, which often thinks that conventional conservatives are too unthinkingly defensive of Israel in every every instance. Little. Wonder, then that ebenefits having a little Israel I realize that there are some larger ourworld forearm also changed in recent years, as the city states has been in the
relationships interesting question I I can no people, Join Indian It Congress volunteers and latest incident.
Well, the show for its that is really now mutual alienation and Israel. That would work, obviously This hasn't happened in any way or as you to some of the key elements of pop So Liebherr meters, excluding Jeremy Corbyn, listening
british jewish. Worried that Jews are starting The so Dave Where do you come down this larger question and it came up in exchange with Peter Beinart that Palestinians are oppressed, people oppressed peoples traditionally resort to quote unquote violent resistance. I know why anyone would in any way suggest there's a whisper of a justification for suicide bombings and and blowing up innocent people. I mean a gorilla There is one thing you know the flat terrace right is another, so how should we think of oppressed people in the resort to critical violence or resistance? One and two? What we make of
his point that, even if you have nasty elements who are anti semitic or supporting violent tactics, that people should oppose that shouldn't color our view of their rights and their case for determination on the on the topic of violent resistance. In many ways I almost feel as if it's moot, because at no point in the history of the conflict with Israel, Have the Palestinians engaged in the kind of uh the kind of revolutionary combat or the kind of of revolutionary tactics that client in any way shape or form with the international law of armed conflict. They just have it and I haven't as a matter of purpose and strategy, I mean this is from
you're talking about an intentional massacre of civilians. Time and time again for decades and so in some ways this idea about the that the they're not. There is a theoretical version of armed resistance that could be appropriate that I would like to see in many ways. Ok, that's just an entirely academic discussion, because the reality that Israel has faced has been intentional violations of the law of armed conflict from day one both from it sort of irregular. Gorilla. In the insurgencies against it and from frankly, the conventional forces arrayed against it, which engaged which violated the Un Charter by trying to annihilate a sovereign state. Day one and so all of that
it's a theoretical discussion. It has no bearing on what Israel has practically indured the actual reality of PLO resistance to Israel. Hamas, resistance to Israel, Hezbollah, attacks on Israel, it's just all of them, like the LAW of armed conflict systematically intentionally, that's what Israel is dealing with and you cannot then evaluate israeli responses in the West Bank and in Gaza without understanding that reality, and so this is, this is a problem that I continually have within and I'm not I'm not excusing All israeli actions when you have two people involved in that much friction in that much conflict and there's human beings on both sides. We're going to be able to point to Israel israeli actions that are wrong. You're going to be able to point to israeli actions that constitute atrocities,
violations of the law and Israel to its credit as a general rule, will prosecute legal violators. But any evaluation of israeli reactions in the West Bank and Gaza has to account for the fact. That Israel has not encountered enemies that fight according to international law. They systematically violated, and that puts Israel in extremely difficult positions is to figure out how how to protect their citizens against people who intentionally blend into the civilian population against terrorists intentionally blend in the civilian population. Who initially civilians as human shields, who have and straight that, when peace talks, right now, they will often resort to systematic campaigns of terror. That's the security challenge, and
When I was in Iraq, we encountered a similar security challenge in Diyala Province, where, where I served, and believe me when I say it is extraordinarily difficult to it is extraordinarily difficult to create security, much less piece but just basic security when enemy is intentionally. Blending into the civilian population is intentionally killing civilians, as Actually killing civilians in place where civilians can be found, and so what I would like, for critics of Israel to do rather than sort of say well, theoretically, there's a right of armed, distance there is a way in which Palestinians could arm themselves to confront Israel in a way that would comport with the law of armed conflict all true, but What's the reality of the security challenge it real faces, the reality of the armed resistance is comprehensive terror,
directed at civilians, Part of this is ever since law school I've had this resistance to hype, debates over hypotheticals, let's debate get over realities and the reality is. Israel faces a systematic terror threat from people who violate the law. International as a matter of strategy. Let's deal with that, Let's talk about how realistically Israel control that threat, without engaging in some of the tactics that it's engaged in so Charlie. Any thoughts on that I accept as well as different in some ways it's surrounded by countries that want it to be gone. As David says, it does face a heightened threat in the way that the United States, for example, does not, and it is home to a people, have been historically persecuted. Most notably,
last century, but I think that the question remains, which course of action handed a greater propaganda, victory to its enemies, Was it allowing the two women was it keeping them out and my view again. It's not my call, but my view is accepting is that David has said that Israel has, and I don't know to what extent the Trump administration was involved in this.
That Israel has given OMA and slave and those people who think that they are great truth, tellers an advantage here, one of the reasons that westerners tend to side with Israel, especially in the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent in Britain, is it. Israel is a democracy and Israel has more classically liberal provisions within its constitution. It's called check, then do the surrounding nations and every time, even if it is for a good reason. Every time you limit at a democratic principle and free speech is one of those. Every time you make an exception to you,
You damage your capacity to stand up above all of the other nations as an example for the rest of the world and and again I'm, not saying Israel should have ignored its law. It has a law in place. Saying that Omar and slave have a good case. It's very odd to Maine that they would say we're going boycott Israel. Why won't Israel? Let us in? I am saying that, on balance, I would probably have said you know we're an open society. We let us congressman Congresswoman in we're, not going to make an exception for these two, even though we of course find their views. Apart, so I actually have you. I actually agree which I actually agree with Charlie. On that point I was responding mainly to the divine art. I was responding. The bind art point about resistance. I think that on is it just a strategic matter for Israel saying we're going to. Are these women from entering at members. Yes, Congress cry.
On balance, a mistake, but I first and the decision I uh stand, the reasoning, probably on balance from a propaganda stamp when a mistake they could have allowed them to come in and then continually highlighted to dismiss the organization is, but on that tactical and I think I agree with Charlie so Mbdx question to you in the medium term, the bds movement, via the advocacy of the likes of Omar, to Lieb will gain more or less support. War war, and but it will be more slowly than because the
right, did French. I think it in part because of negative partisanship. If Trump's against some there's going to be some people who are going to just default to before it uhm, but can it I just don't. I wonder how much Nancy Pelosi Regretz that rolling stone cover after the election right otherwise, without that democratic leadership, seal of approval
on Omar and on a see in others how? How much would be we really be talking about that Charlie Cook yeah? I agree with what David said in for the same reasons, I think, if we do see is route become a strictly partisan issue, then by definition you're going to see more people, if not explicitly siding with the views of Oman Slaven of this at least being less upset by them. 'cause, they are within the same tribe. I agree. Unfortunately, I think the answer is more support. I think these two and others have unfortunately succeeded. Fifteen the Overton Window a bit, and I agree with David Charlie about and Michael made this point earlier as well, but Israel increasing becoming a parson issue which will will open up people to to get to this. Our really dark place in dark position. So before we move on, let's hear
from our sponsor this week. City journals, podcast, ten blocks your interested in learning more about. Going on a nation cities and culture. You should listen and subscribe to ten blocks. A weekly podcast, hosted by her friends at city Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, the think tank led by our while colleague, Rihan Salaam City Journal Premier urban policy magazine featuring smart writers, like Heather Mcdonald, John Tierney Milton, is ratty Nicole Gelinas. Chris Rufo and many more Peggy Noonan calls it the best magazine in America. Oof thanks a lot But even even those of us who is institutional, pride is pricked by that evaluation, I can agree, see journals a hell of a publication. Indeed, one of the best publications, I believe in the English,
language and it's not just in print anymore. Once a week, city Journal editor Brian Anderson and his team welcome contributors and special guests to discuss critical issues from crime and I think the economics and education from transit and infrastructure to urban poll. See in national affairs. Ten blocks offers astute comment. Any ideas shaping american life visits, hyphenjournal dot, Org slash ten blocks, that's the number one thousand and ten blocks to learn more about the show you can listen and subscribe on all those service is always mentioned at the beginning of our pat podcast, Itunes, Stitcher Spotify or wherever else you find your podcast episodes
they run about twenty or thirty minutes, so they make a great listen for your commute. Recently, city generals, ten blocks is featured Kay Hymowitz on social isolation and the need to rebuild the family. Theodore Dalrymple, the former prison doctor on how elite medical journals, prioritize political correctness, over honest inquiry and much much more again visit city, hyphen, journal, DOT, Org, slash ten blocks or tuning ten blocks on your favorite listening platform. So please everyone check it out many of these people are friends and are sometimes colleagues they're, all brilliant. Original were three and worth listening to? So please check it out again. It's called ten blocks so Michael. We had a big controversy this week over nature of the United States of America, prompted by a project at the New York Times called the one thousand six hundred and nineteen
Project, I would say worthy in it's less ambitious, in sweeping aims to highlight the stories associated with the african slaves chattel slavery in this country, but it's in more ambitious project than just that, as one of the editors stipulated the times is hoping to reframe? The history America to establish the idea that this country is somehow founded and, one thousand six hundred and nineteen when the first is from Africa were imported here. What do you make of it. Or characterization that there's there is, Gary Morgan, home and cuddle father free will, if these clothes,
considering control some of the essence all well it the release of this comes at a time just after. Home for two years. Going to focus on Maybe the times led readers to expected with What is an agenda at work? However,
explain, conservatives want You were sounding one thousand seven hundred and seventy seven everyone slavery, wasn't in the for that most conservative some of the that
slavery at the founding, I need provided the tools for that so like you know more as Others defended slavery with these. So hoping be productive. If we,
I couldn't hear you. We have tools to engage hoes and respond appropriately. did not view of white supremacy, It was a legal. The ideals that the change in the world for most of the time.
it Charlie were talking about this yesterday. I really think the most important opinion writer in the last decade or so is far away tiny, easy coats who has totally find now the left and the center left view of race in America, Beto O'Rourke's Khan time he's he coats. I, the editors in New York Times, are our tenant time, he's a cult ites where they, they just think it's races, through and through and racism from the beginning to the end. The harsh way to look at the way they are portraying the founding is as the agreement basically is Roger Tani that this was a country founded in a bind for white men, end of the story, an artist or the the Stephen dealt Goggle Douglas side of the Lincoln Douglas debates. More chair, old way would be to to there the gear Usonians kind of this
Ical abolitionist to thought? The constitution was a a pact with the devil, view that I think was incorrect and a practical dead which is why a great statement like Frederick Douglass initially was of that view, and then moderated overtime it came to. In my estimation, a more accurate view of the founding, but also one that was much more practical, an realistic and eventually found common ground with Lincoln on that. But what's your take? Well, I think it is. Always a good thing when we remember the tyranny that sit in the United States and slavery and then on Jim Crow. I've written a great deal about this Madison and his fellow
founders were alarmed by the prospect of the United States falling under an autocrat that is one form of Tyra answer form of tyranny. We should all worry about, especially given the history of the 20th century. But America did host a tyranny within its borders and it was attorney far far worse than that of George, the third. It was a terrani far far worse than most Miss government in world history and to acknowledge that is important. I have a few problems with this project, though I have some specific problems. I think it is preposterous to suggest that the revolutionaries in one thousand seven hundred and seventy five six would.
And by a desire to maintain slavery, and I think that in some parts the package of essays is intended to use the egregious history of Every in the United States to win modern political debates, one of the essays is about capitalism. I think its claims are wrong. One of the essays is about the Senate, and the protection of minority rights in America, I think, is presumptions- are wrong. One of the essays about traffic in Atlanta. I think that, as Damon Linker is pointed out, is borderline faster cool. But my main objection is to what the New York Times says. The collection is supposed to achieve, which is, as you suggested, to cost one thousand six hundred and nineteen as the real founding or at least ask the main point on which we should
focus in american history. I think that would be an egregious mistake, D operation in american history and, in my view, in world history was the founding. It was the declaration of independence, it was the constitution and it was the intellectual
activity that informed and surrounded the publication and adoption of those documents, slavery, pre, existed those documents and it survived them and the best charge that one can level at the founders is that they were hypocrites. Many of them were to write. All men are created equal in a country that boasted chattel. Slavery was hypocritical. Nevertheless, the declaration of independence and the constitution served almost immediately as n stars to which Americans could look. They have continued to do so. They helped to get rid of the slave trade. The eight
Now it deadline in the constitution was taken literally first possible moment that the slave trade could be abolished. It was the claims in the declaration of independence were used by Frederick Douglass, by Abraham, Lincoln and by Martin Luther king called the premises. A promissory note, Abraham Lincoln, was vexed in the six hundred and eighteen fifties becaus. He felt that the premise is contained within the declaration and the constitution were being ignored, not that they were insufficient, He complains in a letter to Henry Pierce that the Southerners in particular and some in the north are dismissing the founding ask.
Littering generalities. He says all ANA to Jefferson, who was of course a slave owner. The proxy point stands all on a two listen to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document and abstract truth applicable to all men and all times and so to embalm it there, that today and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing, tyranny and oppression that is the moment and one does not need to downplay slavery to ignore slavery, to whitewash slavery. To agree with that, one can think, as I do, that
slavery was an enormous in that it is America's original sin that it turned the founders into hypocrites, that it was a tyranny Anne and also recognize that the founding of the United States was what eventually destroyed it. Has served as a beacon for Americans and for people all around the world looking for liberty and for manumission, if the by the narrative, a spouse in the introduction to the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project, We will be diminishing that beacon and that Northstar we will be limiting its practical effects will be downplaying its historical record. I think that be an enormous mistake, and although I think that this argument has been made
it's stupidly in some ways. I do think that it would be to let the cornerstone speech prevail and the Gettys Burg address subside Mls authority, then Gordon, would the eminent historian is not emphatically not one of us. Radicalism of the American Revolution argues that the revolution began. Questioning of slavery I, prior to that it was taken for granted and began a steady eek slavery, move in the north that eventually led to the civil war and the end of slavery, so David feel free to take on any aspect of this that you want, or anything you've heard, but I would say I've. Only the lead essay in the New York Times magazine package,
something I really liked about it. I I think that there are many ridiculous, an overwrought claims throughout the body of the peace, but was at the end When the author was was making the case, things are more american than any I don't know about that contention, but I really think what is need to more deeply engage with african American I history I have no problem with Juneteenth becoming a real holiday. I think an african American should be on the currency. I think Frederick Douglass was kind of born to be on the currency. Just has has the look, and if you just if you go by a ten year, a time in this country. You most african Americans have been here longer than European Americans. If you just take freedom fighting, if you take fighting for their own rights and freedoms. If you take service in the US military, if you take holding
two american ideals in the most dire and evil of circumstances by all those standards, the emphasis, on the phrase african American has to be an american right. You know I look at the discourse surrounded this. The six nineteen project as almost microcosm of what's been wrong with a lot of our discourse about race over the particularly over the last few years, as you know, questions around intersectionality and identity politics of search- and it goes something like this, so I think you begin step. One is: there is a really important Xuan in really important milestone that should require a We ride degree of self reflection in our country and that's the four hundred year anniversary of the first slaves coming to our shore, an it should remind us that
slavery has any credibly, long history in this country, an be going beyond slavery into Jim Crow. Think about this it was more than it was more than three hundred and forty years of formal legal education of black Americans more than three hundred and forty g a formal legal subjugation in this country. That's a ridiculously long time it was only in nineteen. Sixty four with the civil Rights act that the federal government, stepped in and essentially swept away, not just the formal legal subjugation of the states, but also the education that private enterprise pretty literally in the S I would simply imposed on African Americans that's a really long time and what that means is it's going to be an awful lot of implications for that. To this day, you don't just
reboot computer with the Civil Rights act everyday. There is enormous there's an enormous legacy from all of this that we should look at as clear eyed as possible. Not from a defensive standpoint, but from interest in honest standpoints. That's step one. I think. That's that's absolutely true then you go to the step to which is often so typical of discourse, and that is there's at least some of that and uh. This is, it goes well beyond what the facts warrant in some cases. Well beyond I mean, if you're going to the argument that you're going to reframe the american founding at sixteen Nineteen and not one thousand seven hundred and seventy six. That's A bold! What's the what's the from the movie dodgeball dodgeball bold, move cotton over pays off. That's a bold move and
then that conversation on the conservative side tends to then focus almost exclusively on the access is in the saved accesses of the project itself. But you have a worthwhile project. You have some access is in the project and then the conservative response, rather than look at the totality of it if you're going to just go, what's going on on line just drills down and focuses on the XS and says you know those guys look at what they're doing and happens time and time and time again and it's no the way out of it because the dynamic on the left in many ways. Invite these excesses, so you know What can you say about american capitalism and slavery? Well, there's an argument: there are arguments to be made about the influence of slavery in America. Capitalism did but just say: american Capitalism is '
in essence defined by slavery. Wow, that's bold! and so there's this sort of the dynamic on the left that invites this access and I think the coats influence It is interesting to note, because that was sort of a hallmark of his later. Writing with a lot of his later writing seem to follow a pattern that went kind of like this. It would say: well This is horrifying thing that occurred in nineteen nineteen, or this define policy from nineteen thirty three or this dreadful thing that occured in eighteen sixty and then fast forward to twenty seventeen, and that's why we are we are so we have what we have or anyways. We haven't fundamentally changed from that. Let's wait a minute hold time. I was with you, but you skip some. And that was sort of a way that a form in a style of art,
meant that began to emerge, and so it's sort of encouraged. This move towards making a boulder and greater statement. Then perhaps the facts warrant and then that and gives an awful lot of people on the right who are very defensive about these issues, something to just focus on to the exclusion of everything else, and it and so I think, the the there's been some and there's been some essays in that series that I think are really really thought provoking and and one of them and I don't have the title of it off top of my head, but essentially that African Americans were absolutely indispensable in granting in african American indispensable in America becoming a more fully democratic small spell liberal nation, I think, is standing reading, just being reading and you look at history and, as you were, alluding to rich some of the first
people, the notice I mean that the the first people to notice the aspirations of the declaration versus the reality of the present condition of african Perkins in the United States, in a condition of subjugation, slavery, African Americans, who said wait a minute, let's look at the also the founding I mean like The letter written from by Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson. And he says, attaining by fraud and violence. So numerous a of my brother under groaning captivity cruel oppression. You should sometimes be found guilty of that most criminal act, which you professedly, detested and others with respect to yourselves. That look physician heal thyself when you're We were talking about the the tension between the principles of the founding and slavery. Yeah, There is no greater champion of free speech and early american history than Frederick Douglass,
He says Liberty is meaningless where the right to enter one's thoughts and opinions to cease to exist. He said free speech, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Then you have Martin Luther King, calling on the nation to finally deliver on this? What he called a promissory note, to every American was to fall heir and so we just go on and on and on, and the history of african american resistance to subjugation by appealing to the founding values of this country to me is one of the most inspiring stories. Anime. In history and get it's something that I feel an awful lot of conservatives who sort of live in this permanent defensive crouch about questions raise, to be more much more forthright in understanding and acknowledging, and in
instead. What we often do is we say: well, you know we focus to the to the exclusion of other things on excesses of the left and that's been what's best to watch this whole conversation unfold. So Mbdx, question to you a couple of decades from now. The founding of this three will be known as one thousand six hundred and seven one thousand six hundred and nineteen one thousand six hundred and twenty one thousand seven hundred and seventy six one thousand eight hundred and sixty four one thousand nine hundred and sixty four it'll be a couple decades It is going to be
regenerate sixteen and seventeen and mobile development in Africa and South America whatever the excesses I think try to cook sixty. Seven hundred and sixteen one thousand nine hundred and sixteen twenty one thousand seven hundred and seventy six eighteen sixty five or one thousand nine hundred and sixty four. There will be one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, because the principles that were outlined there are so important and so beautiful one which I could see coming, and I think we would all be better off, for it is a broader understanding that the
Civil war was primarily fought over slavery, that the confederacy was rotten to its core and needed smashing and that the values that were outlined in one thousand seven hundred and seventy six could not be fully extended without what happened in the civil war. That's not for the record to say they will fully extended straight away. They weren't, but the recalibration of our understanding of the civil war would be a much better outcome is, I think, a much more likely outcome of anything that flows from the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project than the replacement of one thousand seven hundred and seventy six as the american founding with one thousand six hundred and nineteen. The french I mean one thousand seven hundred and seventy six without question I mean this is going to. This is a new, a new cycle.
Conversation. There will be many more other race. Conversations to come to the point where we will forget about this projector in relatively short order, in spite of acted. Some of it's really really good yeah. You know one of the things it just to call back to our war for liberalism here at thought recently, I think one of the the I understand the reality of the secession secession movement in movement in eighteen. Sixty one is that the principles of the found, by the time by the time sixty one rolls around the principles of the founding had begun to assume this incredible inexorable momentum again slavery and the S recognize that the S recognized that their regime was doomed if they stayed and so they just opted out, tried to opt out of it entirely, and so we we have to understand that in
discussing the origins of the civil war that the role that the founding in the principles of the founding played in by eight sixty one creating a nation that was inexorably moving against slavery, so so decisively that the southern states decided I couldn't stay anymore. They wanted to maintain this institution, and I think that those who would minimize the role of slavery, secession urging him the I don't even know what to say to those folks anymore, I mean just ran. Doc in another part of that was. It was not just the the drift of sentiment and in the north, but just the power and the economic die hammocks, where a capitalism not dependent on slave labor was much more dynamic than the the southern economy dependent on Labor immigrants were
didn't want to settle on a slave society when they came, they want to go to north north of growing in terms of economic power in terms of population and the S worry Justifiably that it was going to be overwhelmed and went to try to save its system while it it could. My answer is is also one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, although I believe the american nation existed prior to one thousand seven hundred and seventy six. I can't give you a date, but this is one of the themes of my my book by the way, the case. Nationalism now available for pre order. Amazon, but the question about I I I think date. Seventy seven six gonna be under pressure and pressure of the there goes to. Is this just a fever or experiencing on the left or is is? Is this a secular trend? we're going actually more radical and I think the answer is more radical so one thousand seven hundred and seventy six is going to be contested. An
tested more in the future than it than it is today so we wanted to get to Elizabeth Warren, but you gotta get Michael Audi He ran out of that water tower again extracted somehow in about what is it? Eighty eight minutes, five minutes, maybe so really quickly exit question style go to you. First Michael that Elizabeth Warren and it just sort of look at your polling. That's you'd think this is. The only thing that has happened over the last three or four months is that Elizabeth Warren has has route to the other candidates. Elizabeth Warren's odds, percentage odds of winning the nomination. one forty one,
really is weather weather in when Bernie Sanders I don't need check up. I think it's pretty low, just because I can't see the coalition coming together for her, and I think if Biden does collapse there, other people place to pick up his pieces. So I'm going to say maybe twenty percent just because if she were to crush it in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe that changes the dynamic. Maybe people think well she's the one who can win, but I think it's low Dave I think, she's second, most likely behind Biden at the moment, but
you, I think you know, I don't know, I'm even rethinking that, as I say, those words out loud because I feel like that she might be having one of those moments. Now, where you know, those of us who recalled two thousand and twelve republican. Primary in the twenty. Sixteen republican primary you kept having these contenders who had sort of surge forward for a little while who had a moment, two thousand and twelve Herman Cain had a moment. Rick Perry had a moment. Newt Gingrich had a moment until Rick sent, some sort of settled in is that the final anti Romney or not Romney candidate standing two thousand and sixteen you had a series of people kind of surge forward as the primary alternative to Trump and I get a feeling, we're sort of in a cycle like that with the Democrats. So I'm very curious as to who might have- and I think we're going to have one or two more candidates who have some sort of moment between now. In the first votes being cast but
Charlie. I I don't. I don't quite being. Specific, I'm I'm not quite sure of her appeal to black voters. As the primaries moved to the south, I'm not sure how she gets. That coalition together, and Biden is so strong, so strong, black voters he's gay I have to be really shaken. He's going have to be seriously shaken before South Carolina primary, for example, for that, for that you know, for his core constituency constituency to desert him put her on a little bit above Biden I don't see this as a blip or a moment, I see as a steady rise. She feels and looks to me like someone who can win the democratic nomination. She had twelve thousand people at a rally somewhere other day might have been in Minnesota and she
Kurd general election polling against Trump will probably take us not quite as strong as bidens, but as she strengthens in in the nomination fight. I I think those numbers will also look a little better and if she wins early, she do in Iowa and New Hampshire. It could collapse by Certainly, Biden loses Iowa and New Hampshire. Winning the nomination becomes really really hard for him might might be the end of his camp. Pain, she's a winner, then I think abilities for her to make inroads among black voters, although she's, obviously not a natural fit there. So Michael, let's get a few, other things before we go and if you need to go after hitting master and commander the movie which you've been watching. Just let us know Ann will, release you
I've been watching, you watch the first half of it last night all green from novels about the british Navy, I mean perfect 19th century person on the ship roll roll honorific together
together against, some of the things that were happening in the nineteenth century, hello. And also primitive and that is never David, even watching hard knocks on HBO yeah. This is this is filling the void in my sports life between the end of the NBA playoffs in free agency and the start of college football, but this year. Is I always enjoy it? I mean if you like football at all, it's it's just a tremendous show every year to see sort of the drama of this story. Lines going into the season, the undrafted free agents who are trying to make the team
this time it's got the added bonus of one Jon Gruden, who is quite a character, it's almost as if he is a duck the persona of a caricature, of a football coach and watching it unfold is in and just watching him address the team watch him talk about how now is not the time for dreams. Now is the time for nightmares because he wants a team. That's going to take. Everyone else is dream and turn them into nightmares. I mean you just can't make it up so Strongly endorse, especially for view in this. You know who are thirsting for some real sports in this desert of August. Turn into hard knocks an Charlie even doing some
swimming with the little ones I have David. My favorite ever tweet, out of every tweet that is ever been sent, is about Jon, Gruden Skype. This guy said Jon Gruden looks the guy sitting next to at hibachi to elbows you in the side and says it's Showtime. When the chef lights, the onion ring volcano eldest children complain that they have to be the trial blazes and then the youngest kids get away with murder. And I- and I think, that's true. The other advantage, I think of being a young, is K. It is that you get to walk search, your older brother or sister and copy them, and my year and a half old son has been watching his three and almost a half year old brother swimming, and this decided he can do all of that.
And I can and he's just it's incredible he's swimming now without help he jumped into the pool because he sees his brother there he's about a year inner ahead of his brother, just because he has that example on display, I'm very, very proud of him at at one and a half. Being able to do all of that. So I spent a little time away at the beach and just got transfixed by digging holes just just once. You start digging a hole you got to make a deeper, you got to make it better and it got to point where you know the US telling and have no you go head, go head to have lunch, have a drink I'll just be here to take in this hall, and I did pretty well, I think, dig dig in the whole of working on, but inevitably the beach being the beats or some other guy with a bigger and better hole. And you just you can
you can't catch up to him when all the other kids are coming around. They want to go in his whole and take pictures instead of yours, but I tried my, I tried my level best and the timing with the the beach and I take a real, a professional shovel and really get the could also eats a lot outlets, he's pretty good at that. Well done, Charlie! So Charlie. What's your editor stick, my editor's pick is John Mccormick on why it republican governors are more popular and they really are it's amazing. If you look at the rankings, that's not to say there are more of them. They are far more popular than that democratic. Can patriots suggested? This is because they promised less, and so they disappoint Is there a way that that may have limited time in office there where they have limited resources? So what I have to balance the budget, so they make smaller promises which they keep, and this is a popular and get reelected.
David. What's your pick, Kyle Smith, talking about mainly Ricky Gervais, but the potential of comedians to break this national fever around extreme intolerance, an and excessive wokeness we're talking about the the comedy industry has been under strain. Shall we say because the the to make jokes themselves. I mean If you look at everyone from Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock and others, they talked about reluctance to go on college campuses, comics, losing jobs because of tweets from a few years ago from skips a few years ago that people thought were funny at the time. Even some that were tensioned toward wokeness, such as a Sarah, Silverman tweet that she lost our skip, that she lost a job for recently and it was refreshing to read. Kyle summary of Gervais is attack.
On this trend. An at least gives some hope that some folks in Hollywood might have the guts to stand up to the excesses of the in liberal intolerant left. So I'm going to set- and I think Michael is left because actually I can hear myself think now. With ambient noise, maybe maybe will be if Sarah, if your income as we say, maybe Sarah will get the ambient noise gone. No, no! No, what we're talking about, but I'm I I think that might be even beyond cons there but might take in, and this sets a land record on this podcast for a back scratching. Colleagues is, is pieces by David. My and Charlie and the new issue of national review, which is devoted to short pieces with writers, just about what they love about. America and David wrote a piece
about bad movies, raising bad movies- and you know that's what they are David in your heart of hearts- that they are Michael wrote, a piece about the shore of Maine. Being so beautiful and Charlie wrote just. I think something that should be in an anthology this one of the best things Charlie's ever written. That's not an attack piece, and someone else, which is his, appreciation of of dive bars and what a great american institution they are. But I hope everyone checks out that issue and that's it for us you've been listening to a national review. Podcasting rebroadcast returns account this game, Healthy Express', written permission of national magazine, is strictly prohibited as podcasts Bin. Just by the aforementioned incomparable Sarah, Beauty who has her work cut out for her. This app try to make us sound better than we deserve. Think Charlie. Thank you Michael. Thank you, David thanks to city journals, podcast ten blocks, please check it out and thanks especially to all of you for listening,
we are the editors and we'll see you next time.
Transcript generated on 2019-11-05.