0:06

Welcome to Talking Feds, a

0:09

roundtable that brings together prominent former

0:11

federal officials and special guests for

0:13

a dynamic discussion of the most

0:15

important political and legal topics of the

0:17

day. I'm Harry Litman. These

0:20

days we tend to toggle back and forth

0:22

between the immediate news and the longer Connecting

0:26

the two to determine how a

0:28

legal motion or a jobs report

0:31

might influence the enormous question of

0:33

whether Donald Trump will be re-elected

0:36

president in 2024, with all

0:40

the disastrous consequences that might

0:42

portend. Concerns about the

0:44

prospect of a second Trump presidency

0:47

are palpably mounting as

0:49

Trump's glide path to

0:51

the Republican nomination looks

0:53

increasingly smooth. As

0:55

political critic Robert Kagan recently

0:57

wrote, In

1:06

the Congress, Kevin McCarthy, ousted from his

1:08

speaker's position in a brutal battle with

1:10

the hard right, has had enough and

1:12

he is leaving the body after close

1:15

to 16 years. His

1:18

tenure as speaker was marked by

1:20

a steadfast allegiance to Donald Trump,

1:23

a defining feature that translated to

1:25

a lack of any legislative action

1:27

to aid the American people. And

1:30

new speaker Mike Johnson, still finding

1:32

his way and figuring out how

1:34

to deal with the MAGA gang

1:36

that brought McCarthy down, came

1:38

out full Trump in saying

1:41

the GOP will blur January

1:43

6 video footage to protect

1:45

the rioters from prosecution. Last

1:49

week we also received a vivid

1:51

snapshot of the state of our

1:53

higher education system and its susceptibility

1:56

to and failure to repel extreme

1:59

anti-Semitism. Semitic sentiment that has

2:01

flared up in the wake of

2:03

the 10-7 Hamas attacks. Three

2:05

college presidents testified before the

2:08

House Education and Workforce Committee,

2:11

and disastrously evaded answers to

2:13

what seemed to most Americans

2:16

like morally straightforward questions. By

2:19

week's end, one president had resigned

2:21

and the posts of the other

2:23

two were imperiled. To

2:26

wrestle with these issues in

2:28

today's headlines, all of which

2:30

resound in the broader existential

2:32

struggle over the nation's identity,

2:34

we welcome three trenchant

2:36

and insightful commentators. And

2:39

they are. David French, an

2:41

opinion columnist with the New York Times,

2:44

a former JAG officer deployed to

2:46

Iraq in 2007. He earned a

2:49

Bronze Star with the third armored

2:51

cavalry regiment since transitioning

2:53

from full-time law practice to join

2:55

National Review in 2015. David

2:59

has been a prominent voice

3:01

in American politics, most notably

3:03

in his book, addressing growing

3:05

polarization, divided we fall, America's

3:07

secession threat and how to

3:09

restore our nation. David

3:11

French, thanks for your service and thanks

3:13

for returning to Talking Feds. Thanks

3:16

for having me back. Susan Glasser,

3:18

a staff writer at The

3:20

New Yorker, where she writes

3:22

the weekly column on life

3:24

in Washington. Susan previously served

3:26

as editor of several Washington-based

3:29

publications, including Politico, Foreign Policy,

3:31

and the Outlook and National News

3:34

sections for the Washington Post. She's

3:36

written several books, including The Divider

3:38

with Peter Baker, which we covered

3:40

in a Talking Books episode. Susan,

3:43

nice to see you again. Thanks

3:45

for joining. Great to be

3:47

with you. Thanks for that. Trenchin, I don't

3:49

know, we have to live up to that now. Jonah

3:53

Goldberg, a senior fellow at the

3:55

American Enterprise Institute, where he holds

3:58

the Asnes Chair and a Applied

4:00

Liberty, and also of

4:02

course the Editor-in-Chief of the Dispatch.

4:05

He hosts the extremely lively

4:07

and intelligent podcast, The Remnant,

4:10

with Jonah Goldberg. And

4:12

he's my colleague of sorts, though we

4:14

don't ever cross paths because nobody ever

4:17

goes there, as a weekly columnist for

4:19

the LA Times. Jonah, very good to

4:21

see you. Thanks for returning. Great

4:24

to be here. Okay, so I

4:26

want to start, as I've suggested,

4:28

in a broader thematic place. The

4:30

handicapping of Trump's chances

4:33

for re-election feels like a sort

4:35

of secondary current in many stories,

4:38

especially now with his proclamations

4:40

of autocratic rule premised on

4:43

loyalty to him and vengeance against

4:45

his enemies. But at least

4:47

the inside Washington crowd, I think we all

4:50

number them, have been fixated, and I've

4:52

been kind of shaken up this week

4:54

by an article in the Washington Post

4:56

by noted political scholar Bob Kagan entitled,

4:59

A Trump Dictatorship is

5:01

Increasingly Inevitable We Should

5:04

Stop Pretending. Okay, so

5:06

that's where I propose we start, away from

5:08

the daily diet of law and politics to

5:10

a broader range look of where we are,

5:12

40 days before

5:14

the Iowa caucuses, 11 months out from

5:16

the 2024 presidential election. Susan,

5:20

I wonder if we can start with you

5:22

because you wrote in response to this and

5:24

other things that the Capitol has a bad

5:26

case of year and panic. Is

5:30

Kagan overreacting? Well, what

5:32

I also wrote is that this panic is

5:34

when it comes to the prospect for its

5:36

second Trump term, entirely

5:38

justified. And I think

5:41

the piece is important reading. It's

5:43

hard reading, but I think back

5:45

to the spring of 2016, an

5:48

article I would urge you and

5:51

all your listeners to go back and reread. And

5:53

that's a piece that Bob Kagan wrote in

5:55

the Washington Post. It was the first use

5:58

that I am aware of. of

6:00

the F word with regards to

6:03

Donald Trump, that word being fascist in

6:05

this case, in the middle

6:07

of the 2016 campaign, it

6:09

was at a point in time where it was clear

6:11

that Trump was going to win the nomination, although it

6:13

was not over over at that point in

6:15

time. And much of

6:17

what Kagan wrote then was prescient and

6:19

it was accurate. And at the time,

6:22

it was shocking to

6:24

people. And it seems that this article

6:27

in some ways is having a similar

6:29

resonance. Now I can pull

6:31

back and I can say, well, hey, wait a

6:33

minute. I wrote a whole book about

6:36

Donald Trump and his first term in

6:38

office. The conclusion of which was, if

6:41

you want to know how disruptive and radical

6:43

a second term will be, look at the

6:46

record of the first term and all the

6:48

things that he talked about doing, but was

6:50

constrained in some ways from being able to

6:52

carry out or execute. So there's

6:54

a certain frustration, right? In saying

6:56

these are not really new observations,

6:59

even though they appear to be

7:01

resonating for people for whatever complicated

7:03

series of reasons, it's

7:05

clear that there were many people who

7:08

did not take seriously enough how

7:10

real the prospect of Trump, not

7:12

only winning the Republican nomination in

7:15

2024 was, but the

7:17

kind of agenda that he would be bringing to a

7:19

second term. For whatever

7:21

reason, that is now sinking in

7:23

on people. What I think

7:25

is different about Bob's piece, and I can't wait

7:27

to hear what everyone else has to say about

7:29

this, is that he makes the

7:32

effort to not only give

7:34

us the undifferentiated mass of, oh my

7:36

God, Donald Trump could be

7:38

president again, but to try

7:40

to unpack with more specificity

7:43

what that looks like, what

7:45

are some of the ways in which

7:47

the institutions guardrails would

7:50

actually collapse under the

7:53

kind of assault that we can

7:55

reasonably anticipate they would face? you

8:00

feel like you put him out

8:02

there, but every few years, you know, something really

8:05

sort of strikes a nerve and it is.

8:07

I mean, the article itself, so it grabs

8:10

you by the throat, just

8:12

really well done and doesn't let

8:14

you go. I have a bunch of

8:16

conflicted feelings about the piece, about

8:18

this whole argument. And so I want

8:20

to put on a pundit hat for just two seconds before

8:22

we get into the meta stuff, the deeper stuff. Even

8:25

if it is true, right, that there is

8:27

a non-trivial chance that he would become a

8:29

dictator, right? And again, I phrase it that

8:31

way for a reason. It

8:34

doesn't have to be 100% chance. If

8:36

there's a 10% chance, that's something you should

8:38

take seriously, right? You know? So

8:41

Kagan could be 90% wrong and it's still

8:43

worth noodling. That said,

8:46

it is not at all clear to me that

8:49

this conversation isn't helpful to

8:51

Trump. In much the same

8:54

way, Trump was losing in polls to

8:56

DeSantis prior to the indictments.

8:58

The indictments rallied the support of a lot

9:01

of people who otherwise thought they didn't like

9:03

him anymore or thought his time had

9:05

passed. Politics is not

9:07

strictly speaking rational. If you

9:09

look at a lot of the reporting about like

9:11

the focus groups or the surveys that like the

9:13

DeSantis campaign has done, they will

9:16

get diehard Republican voters to say, yes,

9:18

the COVID lockdowns were very bad under

9:21

Fauci. And like 70%

9:23

of them will say they were very bad.

9:25

And then they'll change the language to the

9:27

lockdowns under Trump were very bad and

9:29

70% will disagree. So

9:33

talk about this and they sort of

9:35

faculty lounge kind of rational

9:37

spirit misses the

9:39

irrationality of politics to a certain degree.

9:42

And when you hear people go straight

9:44

to the dictator talk, it

9:46

creates an antibody reaction psychologically among a lot

9:48

of Republicans. And in part, because I will

9:51

say as someone who holds a lot of

9:53

receipts on this, talk about

9:55

Republicans being fascists and would be dictators is

9:57

a very old tradition in this Daniel

10:00

Shor did it to Barry

10:02

Goldwater, lots of people called Ronald

10:04

Reagan a fascist. And while liberals

10:06

that I've talked to have no memory of this,

10:09

there are a lot of Republicans or a lot of

10:11

conservatives who have a deep memory of this and will

10:14

remind other Republicans by saying that's what they always say

10:16

about Republicans. And it also just

10:18

causes people to sort of rally around them.

10:20

So I'm a little torn about signal boosting

10:22

the conversation if it's actually going to have

10:24

the unintended consequence of actually helping Trump rather

10:26

than hurting Trump. I mean, there

10:28

has been, I think, in the country,

10:31

a kind of confusion between very conservative

10:33

and fascist, but Trump precisely brings it

10:36

home, the elements that he's not

10:38

just prone to, but touting really

10:41

begin to be the kind of

10:43

defining points of fascia. Go ahead.

10:46

I don't want to get into a, you know, I wrote a book about fascism. I

10:48

don't want to get deep in the weeds about this, but fascism

10:51

was not strictly speaking a conservative

10:53

phenomenon. Hitler did not want

10:55

to restore the monarchy. He did

10:57

not consider it. He said, I'm no patriot.

10:59

I'm a nationalist. Mussolini had

11:01

a cult of personality. It was all about

11:03

big government things that he wanted to do.

11:06

It was all about the cult of personality

11:08

aspect of it. That and the toxic masculinity

11:10

nonsense are the most reminiscent things about fascism.

11:13

The problem is that there are people

11:15

who want to say fascism is this coherent

11:17

ideology and it wasn't in the 1930s and

11:19

40s and it's not today. It's

11:22

wrapped up in these other sort of emotional

11:25

things. Trump has

11:27

cultivated this emotional bond with a big

11:29

chunk of the Republican party. I think one of the most

11:31

interesting things to point out to people is that

11:33

when you don't have Trump on the

11:35

debate stage, with the exception of the

11:38

pernicious Vivek Ramaswamy, these debates

11:40

have been remarkably Reaganite. The

11:42

differences between these candidates on actual policy

11:45

issues is pretty small. If

11:47

any of these other candidates said half

11:49

the things that Trump said, they would be

11:51

pelted from the state, from Republican politics. There

11:53

was just a huge psychological carve out for

11:56

Donald Trump that makes him very difficult to

11:58

deal with, very difficult to argue with. about

12:00

because he's got no serious commitment to any

12:02

issues with the exception maybe of immigration, which

12:04

is a real blood and soil kind of

12:06

commitment, not a policy commitment, that

12:09

it makes the whole conversation really

12:11

difficult to have. And

12:14

I don't know, I spent seven years, my

12:16

life was thrown on its head, as was

12:18

David's, by the rise of Donald Trump. I've

12:20

tried very hard to argue against Trumpism

12:22

and populism and nationalism for seven years

12:24

now, longer about populism. It is a multi-headed,

12:28

weird thing to fight, and when you

12:30

punch it, it's like Jell-O. And

12:33

so rallying the Atlantic writers and the fan

12:35

service that's implied in some of that, as

12:37

serious as I think many of those pieces

12:39

are, I don't

12:41

think it's persuading anybody right

12:43

now that isn't already persuaded,

12:46

and it might be driving some people

12:48

away from the right conclusions that they

12:50

should be drawing. So I

12:52

will say, I think Jonah is right, and that's

12:54

one reason why Kagan is right. That's

12:57

fair. Jonah is absolutely

12:59

right that every

13:01

negative development, every

13:04

even credible complaint

13:06

against Trump seems to build

13:09

and solidify the support for Trump within

13:11

the GOP. Forget Kagan for

13:13

a minute. Kagan is a drop in

13:15

the ocean compared to 91 indictments, okay,

13:18

four different criminal trials coming.

13:20

Kagan's op-ed isn't even

13:23

a rounding error of impact in the national

13:25

conversation, as much impact as it had. I'm

13:27

not denigrating the op-ed. It obviously

13:29

had a lot of impact, but compared to four

13:32

criminal trials with

13:34

three of the four, I think,

13:36

widespread bipartisan consensus among sensible lawyers

13:38

that these are very serious, dangerous

13:40

cases for Trump, and

13:42

he's stronger, okay. And

13:45

Jonah's also right that none of

13:47

these rules apply to any other candidate.

13:49

It's almost funny watching normal

13:52

political coverage harm DeSantis and

13:54

Haley, and really

13:57

in the ways that we are used to pre-Trump,

13:59

pre-20th century. DeSantis had

14:01

a gaffe. Is he wearing

14:03

lifts? What's

14:05

this online censorship that Haley wants to—so

14:07

all of these things are normal political

14:10

conversations that apply to every other politician

14:12

in the GOP. And

14:14

then you have this singular figure of Donald

14:17

Trump. Now, he's not singular in

14:19

the sense that he arises out of nowhere and

14:21

out of nothing. He arose

14:23

out of a political culture that was

14:25

already drifting into madness, but he is

14:27

still a singular figure. And

14:29

I, Harry, just to be honest, look back

14:31

at the arc of the last eight years,

14:33

and I can remember writing in 2016—and this

14:35

is after I had been never Trump, never

14:37

Trump, never Trump—I'm totally opposed to him. We'll

14:40

never vote for him. But I still

14:42

think people were a little too alarmist about

14:44

him. And then January 6 happens.

14:46

The big lie happens. All of the things

14:48

we saw before that. And

14:50

I kind of embarrassed, to

14:52

be honest, by that assessment

14:55

in 2016. I couldn't wrap my

14:57

mind around what the GOP would

15:00

ultimately become. And so where I am

15:02

right now is I read

15:04

the Kagan piece, and I viewed

15:06

it as unlikely that he would

15:08

be a dictator, but not

15:10

impossible. And as I said on

15:13

a different podcast yesterday, I really

15:15

dislike most important election of our

15:17

lifetime rhetoric. That's been part of

15:19

the problem. And I don't

15:22

even know if 2024 will be the most important

15:24

election of my lifetime. Ask me towards the end,

15:26

and hopefully this is not it. But

15:29

this is the first election of my lifetime that I'm

15:31

not 100 percent certain that the

15:33

country will survive. Can I

15:35

just try to square the circle?

15:37

I'm very interested in Jonah and

15:39

David's points. And

15:41

I think it's fascinating to

15:43

me because they're reacting in

15:45

a way to this issue that's perplexed

15:48

us, which is how

15:50

do you break the Trump fever, the Republican

15:52

Party? And I

15:55

think that's where you get a different perspective. If

15:57

the question is sort of like Trump and the

15:59

GOP, versus the bigger

16:01

picture threat to American

16:04

democracy. Kagan, one of

16:06

his arguments here is essentially that the Republican

16:08

party is dead. And

16:10

I feel like part of the circularity

16:12

and part of the qualms that people

16:14

have about Kagan's argument is

16:16

not that he's wrong, but oh no,

16:18

aren't we just gonna drive up Trump's

16:20

support among Republicans? And that's the same

16:22

objection that I hear to

16:25

the court cases, not that Donald

16:27

Trump is not guilty of being

16:29

essentially the first American president in

16:31

our history to seek

16:34

to overturn a legitimate election,

16:36

to break that social contact

16:38

in the United States that

16:41

win or lose, you leave when you lose and

16:45

having the peaceful transfer of power.

16:47

And I often hear Republicans express

16:50

this concern, the sort of

16:52

anti-Trump Republicans, well, we're

16:54

just going to fuel Trumpism

16:57

by having these court cases or

16:59

by talking about dictatorship or Biden

17:01

shouldn't campaign on, against the MAGA

17:03

Republicans, cause that really upsets them.

17:05

Oh my, we've been called dictators

17:07

before, that's terrible. And I

17:10

get the practical arguments, except when I'm

17:12

interested in now heading into 2024, and

17:15

I agree with David's point absolutely

17:17

that the stakes here

17:19

are pretty existential. The

17:22

thing is that these

17:24

arguments are gonna work.

17:27

The enabling has gotten to the point

17:29

we talk about, oh, these other Republicans

17:31

on the debate stage, it's pretty normal,

17:33

it's regular politics. I would

17:35

sort of say, yes, but the

17:38

but being the biggest possible thing, which is that

17:40

all those people, except for Chris Christie, raised their

17:42

hands and said they're willing to vote for

17:44

Donald Trump. The Republicans who

17:46

pass for the establishment enabled,

17:49

like they're not the Republicans, I

17:51

would say, of the

17:54

pre-Trump party because

17:56

they have gone along with

17:59

someone who doesn't. about

20:00

Trump and not saying, and therefore don't prosecute

20:02

Trump. Like my own point of view is

20:05

prosecute Trump even if a million armed

20:07

MAGA people come charging the courthouse. Let

20:10

justice be done though the heavens fall. No,

20:13

the argument is one

20:15

of the reasons why Trump is such

20:17

a singularly dangerous figure is

20:20

the very phenomenon Jonah was

20:22

accurately describing, which is all

20:25

the things that should end a

20:27

political career forever and ever, amen,

20:30

are perpetuating

20:32

his career. So that means

20:34

he's a figure that we've

20:36

not seen in recent American history.

20:39

I think Jonah is offering a

20:41

necessary sort of caution,

20:44

which says we can op-ed till

20:46

our heart's content and

20:48

we might still have the sort of

20:50

democratic apocalypse. And both Jonah and I

20:52

are well positioned to make that case

20:54

because we were at National House Review

20:57

in 2016 when we did the big

20:59

against Trump issue. It

21:01

was full bore, all

21:03

cannons blazing. We invited tons of

21:05

guests from the larger conservative movement

21:07

and you'll read down that list

21:09

and you will see MAGA person

21:11

after Trump or after MAGA person

21:14

how decisively they flipped and that

21:16

is a symptom of the

21:18

very problem. Do you think there's any

21:20

coming back for the Republican Party from

21:22

this or is it just the Trump

21:24

Republican Party for the future? Part

21:27

of my point about the party still being kind

21:29

of Reaganite and applying, as David put it, the

21:31

old rules of politics to everybody else is that

21:34

Trumpism, I don't think actually

21:36

survives Donald Trump nearly

21:39

as strong to be sure and maybe at all.

21:41

I mean, like there's some people who are so

21:43

bought into their nonsense and the way the internet

21:45

and other things help them monetize

21:47

it. That will be a half-life for a lot

21:49

of those people. We

21:52

saw in 2018 Steve Bannon tried

21:54

to put around all these Trump mini-mes in

21:57

the midterms and you got trounced. Trump

21:59

imitators don't. do well. Even

22:01

Vivek Ramaswamy is reviled

22:03

by a large number of people who

22:05

love Donald Trump. Yeah. And so if

22:08

Trump were, heaven forbid, you know, to

22:10

smell burnt hair on the golf course

22:12

tomorrow and keel over from an aneurysm,

22:14

I think nature would heal faster than a lot

22:16

of people think. And I think that there are

22:19

a lot of people on the left looking at

22:21

the Donald Trump that they see fairly accurately, and

22:23

they think, gosh, the party itself

22:26

or the rank and file are actually

22:28

these, you know, brown shirts. And

22:30

I just don't think that actually explain that's not how

22:32

they conceive of themselves. And calling

22:34

them that is not necessarily going to move them

22:36

off of their positions. I

22:38

agree with David's characterization of my

22:41

views. Generally, I'll be a little

22:43

bit of a devil's advocate here and point out

22:45

that if you take this stuff

22:47

seriously, right, if you believe, which I do, I

22:49

mean, I legitimately do not because I

22:51

think Trump in his heart of hearts wants to

22:53

be a dictator. It's just that he

22:55

listens to the people who flatter him the most and the

22:58

people who flatter them the most want him to be a

23:00

dictator, you know, which is a subtle distinction, but it's a

23:02

real one. And he's lazy. Let's

23:04

put it this way. Mussolini and Hitler had

23:06

a strong work ethic. I don't think that

23:08

Donald Trump does. And I think he's got

23:10

a sort of a lizard brain id that can only

23:12

see his time horizon is the next hour or two

23:14

hours more than anything else, when it doesn't have

23:17

to do with defending his narcissism. All

23:19

that said, if you

23:22

actually believe in your heart of hearts, the

23:24

full Kagan thesis, right, or the full Atlantic

23:26

theses, the idea that

23:28

the sole responsibility for fixing

23:30

the problem lies within

23:33

the Republican party, I think is

23:35

really, really short-sighted in myopic. Insofar

23:38

as, you know, look, we saw in

23:40

2022, the Democratic party signal boosted

23:44

and helped an enormous number

23:47

of horrible MAGA candidates because

23:49

they thought they were going to be easier to

23:51

beat. Now I get meddling in other people's primaries

23:53

and hardball politics under normal circumstances. But

23:56

if you were sincere when you say these people

23:58

are fascists who pose an threats

24:00

in the United States of America in

24:02

terms of minimizing your downside risks, you

24:05

shouldn't be boosting the

24:07

worst dregs of the

24:09

MAGA movement for short-term political gain.

24:11

We have in this country a

24:13

massive collective action problem. Joe

24:15

Biden is not the candidate to beat

24:18

Donald Trump. He's very weak for

24:21

beating Donald Trump and the way

24:23

he has positioned himself as president is

24:26

very good for Donald Trump. If

24:28

you actually wanted to peel off the gettable

24:30

Republican voters, you would have a different Democratic

24:32

politics right now. But you don't. This

24:35

is an American problem. Yes, it's manifest and

24:37

it's asymmetrical. It manifests itself mostly in the

24:39

Republican Party for obvious reasons and it's asymmetrical

24:42

because the Republicans were the idiots who did

24:44

this. But to

24:46

fix the problem, you can't

24:48

just have this, you know, la-di-da attitude

24:50

that if I shout fascist and dictator

24:52

louder, that will solve it because I don't

24:54

think it will. I believe that

24:56

a huge part of our problems in this country is

24:58

the weakness of our institutions starting with the political parties.

25:01

Serious Democratic Party would never have allowed Bernie Sanders to

25:04

run in 2016 because he wasn't a Democrat and he

25:06

was a pain in the ass to Democrats for 40

25:08

years. Serious Republican Party that took

25:10

itself seriously, took his brand seriously, took his

25:12

principles seriously, took democracy seriously, wouldn't

25:14

have allowed Donald Trump to run. But we

25:17

are the only Democratic industrialized nation in the

25:19

world whose parties have fully given

25:21

up the ability to pick their own candidates. And

25:24

when you do that, you get candidates

25:26

who go over the heads of elites

25:29

to the mob, like Mark Antony swaying

25:31

the bloody toga. And when

25:33

you can do that in this sort of society

25:35

where media outlets do not have the credibility or

25:37

the institutional power they once had, we learned that

25:40

at National Review with the against-Trump issue, you

25:42

get called an elitist for having any problem with

25:44

what populist masses on the left or the right

25:46

want. And so if you're gonna fix

25:48

this problem, one of the things you need to do is just, first of

25:50

all, back to the hilt the court, the

25:53

legitimacy of courts to handle Trump. I'm totally with David

25:55

on let justice prevail, even if I haven't the might

25:57

fall. But also, look, I

25:59

think... and

28:01

to do the explaining, we

28:03

have the great fortune of

28:05

welcoming one of America's great

28:07

actresses and comedians, Cecily Strong.

28:10

Cecily has since 2012 been

28:12

a cast member on SNL where

28:15

she has created a series of

28:17

indelible characters, including the girl

28:19

you wish you hadn't started a conversation

28:21

with at a party and

28:24

Janine Pierrot that are hilarious

28:26

and heartwarming at the same

28:28

time. For her work on

28:30

SNL, she was nominated for

28:32

an outstanding supporting actress Emmy

28:34

in 2020. Cecily

28:37

also can be seen in Ghostbusters,

28:39

The Boss, and can

28:41

be heard in the animated comedy

28:44

series, The Awesomes. And

28:46

now I give you Cecily Strong

28:49

on DC and Puerto Rico's

28:51

statehood. How

28:53

did DC and Puerto Rico become states?

28:56

On April 22nd, the House of Representatives

28:58

voted to make DC a state. That

29:01

represents a step to DC becoming a state.

29:03

But how does a territory become a state

29:05

and how might this play out for DC

29:08

and Puerto Rico, another territory that may soon

29:10

join the union? The Constitution

29:12

gives Congress the power to admit new

29:14

states. It exercised its power

29:16

by passing a law admitting the state just

29:18

as it would any ordinary legislation. Like

29:21

ordinary legislation, the law needs to get at

29:23

least 51% in the House, survive

29:26

any filibuster in the Senate, and be signed

29:28

into law by the president. Historically,

29:30

there have been two main routes that territories

29:32

have been admitted into the union. One

29:35

method has Congress first passed what

29:37

is called an Enabling Act. The

29:39

Enabling Act gave preliminary approval to

29:41

statehood and authorized the territory to

29:43

draft a constitution and apply for

29:45

statehood. Once the application was

29:48

submitted, Congress voted to admit or reject

29:50

the state. The other route

29:52

is known as the Tennessee Plan. Under

29:54

this route, the territory takes it upon

29:56

itself to organize the Constitution and elect

29:58

the state-like government. It then

30:01

holds a referendum on statehood and uses

30:03

the results of that referendum to petition

30:05

Congress for admission. Both

30:07

DC and Puerto Rico have sought admission

30:09

through this Tennessee Plan method. Indeed,

30:11

the case for making them states is compelling.

30:14

Both DC and Puerto Rico are larger

30:17

than several previously admitted states, and each

30:19

have held local referenda in which the

30:21

populations have chosen statehood. Many

30:23

of the arguments against statehood are

30:25

simply partisan concerns that the states

30:27

would elect Democratic representatives, if not

30:29

outright racist appeals, to suppress the

30:31

votes of non-white voters. Some

30:34

have argued that the Constitution precludes the admission

30:36

of DC as a state because it authorizes

30:38

the federal district as the seat of government.

30:41

The current admission legislation appears to avoid

30:43

this concern, however, by reserving a small

30:46

two-mile federal district surrounding the Capitol and

30:48

converting the rest of the city into

30:50

the 51st state called Douglas Commonwealth in

30:53

honor of Frederick Douglass. One potential issue

30:55

with this plan is that the 23rd

30:57

Amendment currently gives three electoral votes for

30:59

president to the federal district. Should the

31:02

rest of DC be admitted as a

31:04

state, the Douglas Commonwealth would be entitled

31:06

to three electoral votes. That would leave

31:09

the residents of the federal district, essentially

31:11

the president and his family, in sole

31:13

control of the other three electoral votes.

31:16

The admitting legislation calls for the repeal

31:18

of the 23rd Amendment, but unless that

31:20

happens, that could make for some awkward

31:22

electoral math. For Talking Feds,

31:24

I'm Cecily Strong. All

31:32

right, it is now time for

31:34

a spirited debate brought to you

31:36

by our sponsor Total Wine and

31:38

More. Each episode, you'll

31:41

be hearing an expert talk about

31:43

the pros and cons of a

31:45

particular issue in the world of

31:47

wine, spirits, and beverages. Thank

31:50

you, Harry. During today's spirited debate, we

31:52

peek behind the wine label to see who lays

31:54

claim to the best Chardonnay, California or

31:57

Burgundy, France. As we've

31:59

touched on before, wines from the US

32:01

are classified by the grape, while French wines

32:03

are classified by the region. In

32:05

France, the region of Burgundy produces some of

32:08

the finest Chardonnays known as white Burgundys, which

32:10

are almost always made from Chardonnay grapes.

32:13

To put it simply, when you see a white wine

32:15

from Burgundy, you know it's a Chardonnay. The

32:18

cooler weather and cloud cover in Burgundy

32:20

creates wines that have less of the

32:22

rich fruit flavors you might find in

32:24

a California Chardonnay. But what

32:26

white Burgundys lack in fruitiness, they make

32:28

up for in highly aromatic and complex

32:30

flavors that range from tropical notes and

32:33

crisp green apples to fresh jasmine and

32:35

exotic spices. And you don't have

32:37

to book a flight to France to taste them either. Just

32:40

swing into your local total wine and more and

32:42

ask one of our guides for a tour of

32:44

our white Burgundys at a great value. Swinging

32:47

over to California Chardonnays, you'll notice that they

32:49

tend to be rich, full-bodied

32:51

whites that have undergone malolactic fermentation

32:53

and heavier doses of new oak.

32:55

But that's actually a great thing

32:58

because it helps to create a

33:00

creamy, buttery feel and flavors of

33:02

butterscotch, vanilla and ripe tropical fruits

33:05

with medium acidity, which make for an

33:07

ideal bottle. So when the mood calls

33:09

for Chardonnay and you're torn between California

33:11

and Burgundy, come talk to our

33:14

guides at Total Wine and More, where it's always

33:16

easy to meet in the middle and grab a

33:18

bottle of each. Thanks to

33:20

our friends at Total Wine and

33:22

More for today's A Spirited Debate.

33:25

I want to move on to the

33:27

spineless crowd you've identified and talk a

33:29

little bit about the Republicans in Congress.

33:32

Let's give a couple minutes on his

33:34

way out the door to Kevin

33:36

McCarthy capping a bruising and

33:39

in many ways humiliating year.

33:41

He comes to Washington from

33:44

California 2007. He's sort of a

33:46

Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor kind of

33:48

different brand. You could say, I

33:51

wouldn't put him in it, but

33:53

you could say more intellectual conservatives

33:55

revamp the old style party. What

33:58

happened? Look, I mean, after

34:00

we saw the absolute clown show around the

34:02

speaker fight, it's a

34:05

super fair question to ask to

34:07

quote the legendary movie Office Space

34:10

to turn to the Republicans and say, what

34:12

is it you say you do here? And

34:15

so what is it they're doing here? And there's

34:17

a couple of things that are in play here.

34:19

One is the Republican Party no

34:22

longer has a coherent ideology at

34:24

all, not at all. OK,

34:26

so it's very much driven by

34:29

sort of infotainment pop culture wing.

34:31

It goes where the wind blows. I

34:33

mean, two and a

34:36

half years ago, critical race theory was

34:38

going to destroy the United States of

34:40

America in moments. Eighteen months ago, it

34:42

was LGBT books in school libraries. I

34:44

mean, it's just sort of like panic

34:46

after panic after panic. And

34:49

so you don't know what's actually going

34:51

on here. And, you know, look,

34:53

with McCarthy, there was a point

34:55

in time in the GOP and a

34:57

lot of folks who are sort of dissenting GOPers

34:59

can tell you this, like Jonah and I's mutual

35:02

friend Ramesh Ross Douthat, who

35:04

were trying before Trump to

35:06

move the GOP in a more sort

35:08

of working class direction. And

35:10

a lot of people piled on top of them because GOP

35:12

doctrine at that time was this very,

35:15

you know, you are a rhino

35:17

in 2014 unless you are very,

35:20

very Reaganite. Okay. And

35:22

that was the internal discipline. Well, now

35:24

the internal discipline has changed. The definition

35:26

of a rhino isn't deviating from this

35:29

particular ideology. The definition of a rhino

35:31

is not paying fealty to

35:33

Donald Trump and the world of MAGA.

35:35

Whatever Trump says. Right. Right.

35:38

So Kevin McCarthy, being a Reaganite early in

35:40

his career is just Kevin McCarthy following

35:42

the crowd. Kevin McCarthy being

35:44

all about MAGA in the

35:46

Trump term and afterwards is Kevin McCarthy

35:49

following the crowd. What we

35:51

learned about Kevin McCarthy is that he follows the crowd.

35:54

That's what we learned about him. His weakness

35:56

definitely will be on his epitaph,

35:58

at least his political. epitaph,

36:00

David, I couldn't agree more.

36:02

But the way I

36:04

look at it is that McCarthy is

36:06

the third straight Republican speaker to be

36:09

forced out by his own radicalized conference.

36:11

And so it's not a one off.

36:13

I mean, he's earned his place in

36:15

history of American speakers, because he will

36:17

be, so far, he's the

36:19

only speaker in American history to be actually

36:21

forced out of office by

36:24

his own conference. But

36:26

in reality, actually, he's the third because

36:29

John Boehner quit and discuss

36:31

when facing ouster using the

36:33

same maneuver that ultimately claimed

36:36

Kevin McCarthy. Boehner said,

36:38

screw this. And you know, I'm not

36:40

going to let these he called them

36:42

legislative terrorists, and political terrorists in

36:45

the House Freedom Caucus do that.

36:47

So I'm out of here. Then Paul Ryan

36:49

turned to by everyone as the savior, the

36:51

sort of very ideological

36:53

kind of hard rate figure, but

36:55

the demeanor of an old style

36:57

establishmentarian perfect fit at the country

36:59

club, except with perhaps some of

37:01

his views, he comes in and

37:03

he quickly discovers that they're going

37:06

to come after him. And he

37:08

can't live with the compromises that

37:10

he makes, by the way, and

37:12

that are necessary with Donald Trump sitting

37:14

in the White House. And so he

37:16

walks away from this very promising political

37:18

career, you know, he's a wonderkin who's

37:21

on the vice presidential ticket at a

37:23

young age, he's the consensus candidate for

37:25

speaker. And then a couple

37:27

years later, he's out. McCarthy really is

37:29

the sort of I would call him

37:31

the kind of slim pickens, the leftovers

37:33

there, remember that he was supposed to

37:35

be the heir apparent to Ryan,

37:37

and he couldn't get the job then they didn't

37:39

want him. And so

37:41

he's always much weaker politically, not known as

37:44

any kind of a thinker or

37:46

a, you know, someone setting up

37:48

a Republican agenda. But as David said,

37:50

he's a reactor and a follower at

37:53

a time when the country needed leaders. He

37:55

complained about Donald Trump, because that's where all

37:58

of his caucus was at during the

38:00

2016 primary campaigns and then

38:02

he did what they did and he not

38:04

only endorsed Donald Trump but became a slavish

38:06

follower of him and what is he going

38:09

to be remembered for other than being

38:12

the first in American history to be

38:14

dumped as Speaker he's going to be

38:16

remembered because Donald Trump called him my

38:18

Kevin and owned him and he was

38:20

such a suck up that he had

38:23

his staff pick through the Starbucks

38:26

candies to make sure

38:28

that only the nice red ones that

38:30

Donald Trump loved were given to him

38:32

to keep in the glass jar in

38:35

his special little tv watching office and

38:37

I you know to me I mean

38:39

that's the debasement of American politics the

38:41

revolution baby it eats its own

38:44

I'm not going to disagree with any of that

38:46

I have two counter narrative points to

38:48

make one big picture one very granular so

38:51

the big picture one is when I was talking about

38:53

the weakness of institutions the

38:55

weakest institution is the Congress of the United

38:57

States and it's made all

39:00

the week weaker by the fecklessness and weakness of

39:02

the political parties and a

39:04

lot of Kevin McCarthy's problems stem from the

39:06

fact that he just didn't have a very

39:09

large caucus and so even though 96% of

39:11

the caucus didn't want to get rid of them because

39:14

of his climbing the greasy pole desire for

39:16

power he agreed to really dumb provisions that

39:18

empowered people like Matt Gates and

39:20

so one of the lines I actually agree with

39:22

DeSantis on is this culture of losing thing there

39:25

an enormous number of people in the Republican Party

39:27

not a majority but a significant number of them

39:29

certainly a significant number when you only have a

39:32

two-seat majority who win

39:35

by losing if you make political progress Kevin

39:37

McCarthy had a had a win with

39:39

his debt ceiling deal and immediately a big chunk

39:42

of the sort of the purist house freedom caucus

39:44

types not all of them said

39:46

we were stabbed in the back we

39:48

were betrayed because the problem with winning

39:50

first of all it defangs your apocalyptic

39:52

rhetoric about how the Biden crime regime

39:54

or the deep state is

39:57

destroying America and it's impossible to deal

39:59

with with and there's no reason to work

40:01

with Democrats because they're the vermin, right? If you

40:03

actually get a deal that makes some, has some

40:06

wins in it, that makes it

40:08

seem like, oh my gosh, you can actually make

40:10

progress. And that's not the rhetoric that they want.

40:12

Man, if that's granular, what's your bare point going

40:14

to be? No, no, no, this is my big

40:16

picture part, right? You know, so like the big

40:18

picture point is that they're incentivized, but if you

40:20

lose, you get to say, I died on the

40:22

Hill. You get to say, I stayed pure and

40:24

I refused to collaborate with the enemy. That

40:27

incentive, which I think has always existed with a

40:29

few people in each party, right, because I mean,

40:31

you have it among the diehard sort of squad

40:33

types too sometimes who make the perfect the enemy

40:35

of the good. But in a

40:38

caucus where you have no margin forever,

40:40

it empowers them to a degree, particularly

40:42

when it is exactly what the conservative

40:44

entertainment complex on cable and the internet

40:46

wants to hear. And so it becomes

40:48

even more valuable for fundraising and all

40:50

the rest. And it's fueled by small

40:52

donors and yada, yada, yada. It's a

40:54

big picture thing. Can I have a

40:56

quick follow up on that for you

40:58

and everyone, which is now that we're

41:00

down to maybe two, does that further

41:02

empower the MAGA right or does it

41:04

weaken them? I'll just make the small

41:06

point very quickly and then I'll answer that very quickly. The

41:08

small point is, I think it's important to

41:11

remember that they got rid of Kevin

41:13

McCarthy because they didn't like, a lot of

41:15

people didn't like Kevin McCarthy. He lied

41:17

to an enormous number of people to get the job.

41:20

He couldn't follow through on his promises. All

41:23

of the idiotic stuff that Gates said was the

41:25

reason for getting rid of Kevin McCarthy, Johnson

41:27

has to do now too, right? It's not like they're

41:30

doing regular order now. They're have to do continuing resolutions

41:32

because that's what you get when you have a tiny

41:34

majority is you have no choice but to do it

41:36

that way. That said, I

41:39

think there's going to be a little bit of a pause for

41:41

now because like when even Matt Gates was

41:44

talking about don't get rid of George Santos

41:46

because we have such a tiny

41:48

majority, you guys don't actually want

41:50

to be the one to put them in the

41:52

minority before the 2024 elections. And

41:55

so I think people will slow

41:58

the roll a little bit. But

42:00

you're still gonna have Bandersnatches and

42:03

jackasses like Steve Bannon Saying

42:05

any compromise any pragmatism is a sign

42:07

that you're a rhino cuck squish deep

42:10

state agent and that's gonna create real

42:12

problems Which is why we're seeing the

42:14

halfway decent people like McHenry and others

42:16

saying I'm out of here God

42:18

bless you for using Bandersnatch Anyone

42:22

else? No Jonah said it well Okay,

42:24

then we can move on to

42:26

another kind of unusual topic But

42:29

I'm really eager to get everyone's

42:31

views here in particular on this

42:33

We had a remarkable weekend in

42:36

higher education as the schism between

42:38

sort of elite University culture and

42:40

the rest of the country was

42:42

on vivid display. So three university

42:44

presidents Testified before the

42:47

House Education Workforce Committee their

42:49

performances were widely panned The

42:52

crystalline moment was when none of three was

42:55

able to answer the

42:57

aggressive questioning from Elise

42:59

Stefanik the

43:01

school policy violated by calls

43:03

for the genocide of Jews

43:05

and Just today

43:08

we tape on Friday Second

43:10

apology from the Harvard president, you

43:12

know and said she'd love the

43:14

interview got caught up in the

43:16

volley of questions Let

43:19

me start here. Look the president's

43:21

obviously knew the stakes going in

43:23

they were prepared intensively

43:26

by intelligent people How

43:28

do you explain their tone deaf performance?

43:31

How were they they so? Tin

43:33

eared when they first sat down there

43:36

this week. I watch that

43:38

clip This is this questioning that you're talking

43:40

about from Elise Stefanik. It comes at the

43:42

end of this hearing and As

43:45

you said, it's an aggressive question But actually

43:48

it's not the hardest of

43:50

the questions interestingly and

43:52

what really got me I watched this a

43:54

couple different times because I almost couldn't believe

43:57

that it's like one of those like cartoon

43:59

movies in a way, right? Like one

44:02

after the other. All three of them head

44:04

right into the same meat

44:06

grinder. And actually that makes

44:08

Claudine Gay of Harvard even

44:11

more extraordinary for having watched

44:13

how her previous two colleagues screw

44:15

up and then he does the same

44:17

thing. And so I do think it's

44:19

an important moment. I'm glad that we're

44:21

talking about it, even though it's a

44:23

little bit outside of our normal

44:25

conversation about politics and law. And the

44:28

reason is, that I think

44:30

this is a really important moment

44:32

in our politics. And maybe it's

44:34

a moment when some people can

44:37

snap out of the toxic partisanship,

44:39

the toxic lines that we have

44:41

and sort of say, like, here's Larry

44:44

Tribe posting on X saying, hey, I

44:46

don't usually agree with Elise Stefanik, but

44:48

count me in, she's right here. And

44:50

Claudine Gay, the president of my own

44:53

university, Harvard, screwed up. And I

44:55

certainly agreed that she screwed up.

44:57

But more importantly, I think this

44:59

is a moment when, and every generation

45:02

may have them, when liberals realize

45:04

that it's not a synonym with

45:06

leftism. And liberals and leftists are not

45:08

the same thing. And this kind

45:10

of horrifying, intolerant

45:13

meeting and colliding

45:15

with the overly

45:17

cautious bureaucratization of

45:20

our institutions, this is why many people,

45:23

Jonah, I think on left and right,

45:25

correctly feel that our institutions are failing

45:28

us and have failed. I looked at

45:30

that. And I just thought, you know,

45:32

my son is in college and he's

45:35

at Stanford whose president wasn't there. But

45:37

certainly they've had plenty of screw up

45:39

themselves. Look, you know, my son had,

45:41

there were swastikas found in his dorm.

45:44

And my point is, these

45:47

institutions are failing our students.

45:49

They're failing the country, actually, by the way, at

45:52

a moment when our politics is so screwed up

45:54

for all the reasons we've already been talking about

45:56

in this hour. Actually, like during McCarthyism, this is

45:58

a moment for you. university presidents to

46:01

speak out. And I think there's

46:03

a way to condemn calling

46:05

for genocide of any group, Jews

46:08

or any other group in our society

46:10

without getting caught up in like free

46:12

speech wars and you're criminalizing speech. How

46:14

come Klonin Gay or any of the

46:16

others couldn't say, this is a

46:18

horrifying question. And to be clear, I personally

46:21

and the Harvard community condemns

46:23

anyone calling for genocide and

46:25

it's absolutely unacceptable. And

46:28

we'll talk about any individual violations of

46:30

our disciplinary code, but that's not, the

46:32

bigger point here is, this is

46:34

terrible. How come none of

46:36

them were capable of that basic instinct of

46:39

humanity there? Cause we all know the answer,

46:41

which is that you're not allowed to call

46:43

for the genocide of any group in America,

46:45

except apparently there now appears to be somewhat

46:48

of an exemption for calling for the genocide

46:50

of Jews. And that is horrifying

46:52

and it should be horrifying to all Americans

46:54

of good faith. And it has nothing to

46:56

do with what you think of Benjamin Netanyahu

46:59

and his tactics in this awful war. I

47:01

wrote a piece about this that has kind of gone a

47:03

little viral and I agree with everything that Susan said. The

47:06

only two things I wanted to add is that one, there

47:09

are good answers in response to the question. She

47:11

could have rejected the premise. She could

47:13

have said, I don't think that the

47:15

rivers of the sea necessarily means calling for Jewish

47:17

genocide. She accepted, all three of them accepted the

47:19

premise and gave bad answers that they

47:21

gave. Moreover, it's not an

47:23

abstract thing calling for genocide. This is

47:25

in the wake of these kids feeling

47:28

persecuted because of real actions by people,

47:30

in the wake of a genocidal attack by

47:33

a genocidal group on real human beings where

47:35

1200 people were slaughtered, many of them in

47:37

their beds. It's fine to have an academic

47:39

conversation about tolerance of free speeches, but in

47:42

the context of when these calls were being

47:44

made to accept the premise, not

47:46

push back on it at all, and

47:48

then say, well, it really kind of depends on the

47:50

context when you're calling for the genocide of

47:52

Jews in the wake of a genocidal attack on

47:55

Jews was just so terrible. The only other thing I

47:57

would add, and then I'll hand it to David, is

47:59

that. I think that it's

48:01

not just that they had bad lawyerly answers.

48:04

It was the damn smirking. Wow. It was the

48:06

smugness that they dealt with. I think she was

48:08

nervous maybe, but it's terrible. I get it, but

48:10

there was a lot of smirking, particularly from the

48:13

president at MIT. And I get, I totally

48:16

get having contempt for Elise Stefanik and thinking, you're too

48:18

good to be here and how dare you put me

48:20

on the spot like this. But if

48:22

you're going to have that attitude, you got to

48:24

bring the goods and push back on the question

48:26

in a smart way. Instead, she acted like... Elise

48:29

Stefanik was some dope from

48:31

some refrigeration repair school, and she was

48:33

going to explain to her why she

48:35

was asking a dumb question. And

48:38

the sort of body language of this thing was

48:40

so disastrous. And I think it comes from

48:43

the bubble that these people live

48:45

on on these campuses where they think this oppressor,

48:47

oppressed ideology stuff is a very

48:49

serious argument that deserves respect. And

48:52

the people who have problems with it are Philistines

48:54

and Lunkheads, and they're not. And that's

48:56

why I think their days are numbered as presidents of

48:59

these schools, perhaps. Oh,

49:01

Harry. Bring it. Don't

49:04

hold back. So I've spent 30 years

49:06

of my life litigating free speech issues

49:09

on college campus. I spent like 20

49:12

plus years actually litigating as attorney.

49:15

I'm the former president of FIRE, the Foundation for

49:17

Individual Rights and Expression. So

49:19

I bring a lot of context

49:21

to this, to use the word that they

49:24

like to contact. And

49:26

here's two things. One, believe it

49:28

or not, in some ways they were

49:30

actually right. Yes. Okay. And

49:32

advisory opinions podcast I do with

49:34

Sarah Isker. We talked about

49:36

two buckets, the accuracy bucket and the hypocrisy

49:39

bucket. So in the accuracy

49:41

bucket, it is actually the case that

49:43

context matters, even when you're talking about

49:45

calls for genocide. So if you're

49:48

going to apply First Amendment principles, I know these are

49:50

private universities, but they were sort of reflecting

49:52

back a First Amendment argument. If you're

49:54

going to apply First Amendment principles, the

49:57

First Amendment protects even

49:59

calls. for violence, and this has been

50:01

articulated by the Supreme Court many

50:03

times, many times. Now

50:05

it doesn't protect true threats, it

50:07

doesn't protect incitement to violence, it

50:10

doesn't protect harassment, but

50:12

the First Amendment protects even calls

50:14

for violence in certain contexts. At

50:17

the same time, the school is

50:19

bound by federal law to

50:22

defend and protect students from harassment

50:24

on the basis of race. The

50:27

Department of Education under both Trump and

50:29

Biden has been very clear that includes

50:31

anti-Semitism. There's an actual Title

50:34

VI investigation right now being launched against

50:36

Harvard for violating Title VI. So

50:39

here's what the university presidents could have done is walk

50:41

in and say, call

50:43

for genocide or repugnant, full stop.

50:46

Whether or not they are punishable depends

50:48

upon context. That's a true statement.

50:51

That's the accuracy bucket, but let's move to the

50:53

hypocrisy bucket. What was so

50:56

galling, Harry, about watching these three presidents

50:58

make this lawyerly free speech

51:00

argument, their schools are not

51:03

bastions of free speech. Harvard,

51:05

in fact, in the fire

51:07

rankings is the last ranked

51:09

university in America on free

51:11

speech. Penn and MIT

51:14

are not far behind. And

51:17

so this idea that they're going to come in

51:19

when you have this wave of anti-Semitism

51:21

and wax eloquent or not, they weren't

51:23

actually that eloquent about free speech really

51:27

gives the impression, especially when you

51:29

have this whole infrastructure of speech

51:31

codes, bias incident response teams, safe

51:33

spaces, microaggressions, that

51:36

you know who can endure free speech?

51:38

Jewish students. You

51:40

know who needs to be protected against

51:42

free speech? Well, basically everybody else besides

51:44

Jewish students. And

51:46

that's utterly intolerable, unacceptable

51:49

stuff. So the response to

51:51

this, in my view, should be really

51:54

pretty comprehensive. In other words, what has

51:56

been exposed here is that, and

51:58

Susan, your statement about difference between leftists

52:01

and liberals is so important.

52:04

It is so important for people to

52:06

understand. Everything left of center is not

52:08

one big monolith, okay? And

52:11

what has happened at a lot of

52:13

these universities, the monoculture has been so

52:15

insular for so long, they've become extraordinarily

52:18

extreme and often don't even realize how

52:20

extreme they are. And

52:22

so bursting that bubble is

52:25

a vital national importance. And

52:27

I think that means a few things. I love

52:29

what Steven Pinker wrote after his own president, clear

52:33

and coherent free speech policies, institutional neutrality.

52:35

We don't need to know what Harvard

52:37

thinks about every issue under the sun.

52:40

Greater viewpoint diversity. That doesn't mean bring

52:42

in flat earthers or

52:45

fascists, but just break up

52:47

the monoculture for crying out loud. Don't

52:49

tolerate heckler's vetoes. In other words, tearing

52:51

down of posters, shouting

52:53

down speakers. All of

52:55

these things are really important steps that need

52:58

to be taken that say, wait, this is

53:00

a place that is

53:02

teaching, not just the

53:04

subjects of the institution that it teaches,

53:07

but to quote the Supreme Court of the United States

53:09

in dealing with a free speech issue in education. One

53:12

of the purposes of education is to

53:14

prepare students to be active

53:16

participants in the pluralistic, often contentious

53:18

society in which they live. And

53:20

so that means you

53:23

don't sit there and constantly put your thumb on

53:25

the scales, coddling one group of

53:27

students, throwing another group of students to the

53:29

wolves. Clear, consistent free

53:31

speech, clear, consistent protection

53:33

from harassment. This shouldn't

53:36

be a difficult thing to accomplish.

53:39

100%, and I just wanna add a few things

53:41

first. You are right, of course, even

53:44

that's how it would be in the

53:46

public sphere, but there's the hypocrisy bucket,

53:48

there's the accuracy bucket, and then there's

53:50

the real world, are you crazy bucket

53:53

where, you know, when you're thinking about,

53:55

well, does that mean we say calling

53:57

for genocide is okay? No,

54:00

no, we have we must rethink this

54:02

and before the hearing it's true That

54:04

would be a principle University of Chicago

54:07

where my son goes has been very

54:09

good about this But they haven't gotten

54:11

into the business of you know, she

54:13

though Ukraine flag flew why not Israel?

54:15

Well, that was my predecessor's decision. Ah

54:19

and other obvious violations of

54:21

content neutrality That's

54:23

what made them look Really? Terrible

54:26

it seemed to me and I think all three

54:28

of you have given the implicit explanation that it's

54:30

just so far Upriver where

54:32

the universities are that they

54:35

thought in trying to

54:37

frame the right response to the country

54:39

They had to give a lot of

54:41

ground for this very strong Culture

54:44

within that they didn't want to sell

54:46

that out too much and they and

54:49

they took a stance that was disastrous

54:51

So, you know, maybe there's

54:53

a possible silver lining in the erosion

54:55

of the over-the-top, you know woke is

54:57

I mean universities another five-hour

55:00

topic that nevertheless as moderator

55:02

I must arrest here we're down

55:04

to a minute or two for

55:07

our final feature of five

55:10

words or fewer Where

55:12

we take a question from a listener

55:14

and we all have to answer in

55:16

five words or fewer and today's slightly

55:18

snarky question What valedictory message do you

55:20

have for Kevin McCarthy? All right. I'm

55:22

gonna go with a movie quote Powers

55:25

booth playing curly Bill Brochis and the

55:27

movie tombstone well,

55:30

bye I Was

55:34

thinking of Sia but how

55:36

about a song I'm thinking of

55:40

a visa Don't

55:42

cry for Kevin America

55:45

don't cry for Kevin America. I guess I go with

55:47

a song title or at least a lyric

55:49

from the doors This

55:52

is the end And we

55:54

have the the silent explosions over Vietnam

56:00

I'm going biblical in honor

56:02

of his successor as speaker

56:05

Mike Johnson. As

56:07

you sow, you reap. And

56:12

we are out of time. Thank you

56:15

so much, Susan, David,

56:17

and Jonah. And thank you

56:19

very much listeners for tuning

56:21

in to Talking Feds. If

56:23

you like what you've heard, please tell

56:25

a friend to subscribe to us on

56:27

Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their

56:30

podcasts. And please take a moment to

56:32

rate and review this podcast. You

56:34

can also subscribe to us

56:36

on YouTube, where we are

56:39

posting full episodes, talking books,

56:41

and bonus video content, as

56:43

well as daily explanations by

56:45

me of important developments in

56:48

the news. You can follow

56:50

us on Twitter at Talking Feds Pod,

56:52

and you can look to see our

56:54

latest offerings on Patreon. Talking

56:57

Feds is a completely independent production, so if

56:59

you like the work we do and are

57:01

inclined to support the show, joining our Patreon

57:04

is the best way to do it. And

57:06

some exciting news, you can now

57:09

leave voicemails with your questions for

57:11

me and our guests. All

57:13

you have to do is call 727-279-5339 and

57:15

leave a voice message for a chance to

57:17

be featured on

57:22

the show or to give

57:24

suggestions for our sidebar feature. That's

57:27

727-279-5339. Thanks

57:33

for tuning in, and don't worry, as

57:35

long as you need answers, the

57:37

Feds will keep talking. Talking

57:41

Feds is produced by Mal

57:43

Melies, Associate Producer Catherine Devine,

57:45

Sound Engineering by Matt McCardill,

57:48

our Research Producer is Zeke

57:50

Reed, Rosie Don Griffin, and

57:52

David Lieberman are our contributing

57:54

writers, and Production Assistance

57:57

by Meredith McCabe, Akshay Chaturbala,

57:59

and and Emma

58:01

Maynard. Our endless gratitude,

58:03

as always, to the amazing

58:06

Philip Glass, who graciously lets

58:08

us use his music. Talking

58:11

Fizz is a production of Delito

58:13

LLC. I'm Harry Littman. Talk

58:16

to you later. you