The Ben Shapiro Show - Can We Save Our Society? | Chris Rufo

00:00:00.000 I just started looking at the people around me, and these kind of left-wing, radical student groups and political movements, and what I found is that these were people who were the sons and daughters of the most elite people from around the globe.

00:00:14.000 These are people who are using this vocabulary cynically to establish their own status, to establish their own power, and then after a couple years of wearing the keffiyeh, are going to go on and take over their father's company.

00:00:25.000 And that was really the question.

00:00:28.000 If these people are utterly amoral frauds, maybe there's something wrong with these ideas.

00:00:34.000 Christopher F. Ruffo is a writer, filmmaker, and senior fellow and director of the Initiative on Critical Race Theory at the Manhattan Institute, as well as a contributing editor of City Journal, where his writings explore many issues such as gender ideology, identity politics, addiction, crime, and the decline of American cities.

00:00:50.000 Rufo gained attention as an outspoken critic of progressive ideologies and policies, fighting against CRT and DEI, and even inspiring a presidential order and legislation in 15 states where he's worked closely with lawmakers to craft successful public policy.

00:01:04.000 As a filmmaker, Rufo has directed four documentaries for PBS, Netflix, and international television, including America Lost, which tells the story of three forgotten American cities.

00:01:13.000 Chris has a popular substack where you can follow all of his work on critical race theory, gender ideology, institutional capture, and social decay.

00:01:20.000 His new book, America's Cultural Revolution, covers the period between the 1960s and the summer of George Floyd.

00:01:26.000 In this episode, we discuss how to create a free society through duty and responsibility, and how leftist ideology has evolved and planted itself into all of our social institutions.

00:01:35.000 Plus, we delve into how Chris transitioned from a young leftist to a force for good in

00:01:39.000 the conservative movement.

00:01:51.000 Welcome to the Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special.

00:01:53.000 Just a reminder, some of our conversation at the end will be exclusively for our Daily Wire Plus members.

00:01:58.000 If you're not a member yet, click the link at the top of this episode's description to get the full conversation with Chris Ruffo and with all of our awesome guests.

00:02:06.000 Let's get started.

00:02:07.000 This show is sponsored by Genusell.

00:02:10.000 Chris, thanks so much for joining the show.

00:02:11.000 Really appreciate it.

00:02:12.000 It's good to be with you.

00:02:14.000 So why don't we start with the biggest question on everybody's mind.

00:02:17.000 Are we winning?

00:02:18.000 I mean, it seems like in some areas yes, in some areas no.

00:02:21.000 Politically speaking, Republicans have been underperforming the last several election cycles running.

00:02:25.000 But at the same time, in a lot of states we're seeing some success.

00:02:27.000 So what's your impression?

00:02:29.000 Are we winning?

00:02:30.000 We meaning, you know, the rational people in America who don't believe that boys are girls and such.

00:02:34.000 Well, I think first it's that in politics there's no ultimate victories and there are no ultimate failures.

00:02:40.000 And so you have to figure out what the combination is amongst the two opposites.

00:02:45.000 And so I think that we are demonstrating effective models for winning, both on the media side, the activism side, the political side, the policy side.

00:02:55.000 But that hasn't translated into a broad-scale reversal of some of these cultural phenomena that we are fighting against.

00:03:02.000 But look, I think we're in an experimental phase, and the experiments that we've been running, I think, have been successful, whether it's critical race theory or gender or some of these corporate boycotts.

00:03:13.000 And these are the models that we'll need, and we'll need to replicate and to deploy across different domains in order to be successful.

00:03:22.000 So, Chris, one of the critiques that we hear from you a lot from the left-wing media is that they're not sure exactly what you are.

00:03:28.000 Are you a journalist?

00:03:29.000 Are you an activist?

00:03:30.000 So what do you consider yourself?

00:03:31.000 In which box do you put yourself?

00:03:32.000 Because you're pretty obviously not hiding the ball when it comes to your own political persuasion and the things that you're hoping to do, but you're also uncovering a lot of news and breaking a lot of news and making a lot of news.

00:03:41.000 Yeah, I like to maintain a posture of strategic ambiguity.

00:03:45.000 But, you know, I think that what I've come to a conclusion about is I try to work of what excites me, what interests me, what I think is effective.

00:03:54.000 And so I pick and choose from the variety of different backgrounds and disciplines and genres of work to put it together to do something quite simple.

00:04:03.000 I'm a politically engaged writer, journalist, policy analyst.

00:04:08.000 I want to put big victories up on the scoreboard.

00:04:11.000 And I use journalistic techniques to achieve some of these things.

00:04:14.000 And so it's a hybrid role that I've kind of created through my own experiments, drawing on my background as a documentary filmmaker, drawing on journalistic techniques, and then really by accident at first, translating it into the domain of activism and leadership and public policy.

00:04:32.000 And so I've created this, I think, somewhat unique system, this somewhat unique approach that confounds my critics.

00:04:42.000 And that just makes it all the more delicious.

00:04:44.000 It makes it all the sweeter that they can't quite put me in a box and they don't know what to make of it.

00:04:50.000 Now, Chris, one of the things that you've uncovered that really is fascinating is that you'll pick a story and people will immediately leap to the conclusion that the story is an outlier.

00:04:58.000 And then you'll hit them with a bunch of other stories along the same lines.

00:05:01.000 And they'll say, well, you know, it's not really happening, but it's good that it is.

00:05:05.000 Or eventually they end up at the position that the thing that you've been saying all along they've been trying to do is the thing they've actually been doing.

00:05:10.000 How do you know when what you're covering is an individual story and when it's actually an important trend that needs to be explicated and brought into public view?

00:05:19.000 Well, I think, look, a lot of us know that some of these things, whether it's critical race theory or gender in schools or any other kind of issue, they are widespread.

00:05:29.000 We know that intuitively.

00:05:30.000 We know that through our experience.

00:05:31.000 But what I found as a general rule of thumb, Is that you need to do somewhere along the lines of 10 to 12 reported stories to establish a trend, to establish a body of evidence, to establish a kind of irrefutable pattern that then forces the left to engage in debate.

00:05:48.000 And so whenever I'm designing a campaign or reporting campaign or a policy campaign, that's pretty much the rule of thumb.

00:05:55.000 I really try to do 10 to 12 stories over the course of 10 to 12 weeks.

00:05:59.000 And I found that if you can be hitting these stories, exploding them into the media, establishing them as a

00:06:06.000 narrative pattern.

00:06:08.000 And you can do that for a three-month period, more or less, every week, getting on TV, getting

00:06:13.000 on the radio, getting on podcasts, getting on social media.

00:06:16.000 What you do is that you force the left to finally engage, because you start doing damage

00:06:22.000 to their narratives, to damage to their own institutional power.

00:06:26.000 You start activating conservative or Republican politicians on these issues.

00:06:30.000 And only when you put them in a position of forced engagement Will they actually engage?

00:06:36.000 Because they'll play the game, you know, critical race theory doesn't exist.

00:06:40.000 This is an outlier.

00:06:42.000 It's just equity.

00:06:43.000 What do you have against equity?

00:06:44.000 All of these word games.

00:06:46.000 And what I found is that you have to have shocking, salacious, incontrovertible evidence.

00:06:52.000 And you have to do it in a repeated manner at a large scale.

00:06:56.000 And that's really how you force the debate.

00:07:00.000 And that's really how I think you change public opinion and ultimately deliver political victories.

00:07:05.000 So, Chris, let's talk a little bit about sort of the history that you've been uncovering.

00:07:09.000 You do so in your book, but also that you've been uncovering in a lot of your journalism.

00:07:13.000 And the first question I want to start with there is, what do you think was sort of the tipping point for the United States?

00:07:18.000 Was it back in the 1960s?

00:07:20.000 Was it that it was kind of hiding under the surface and then broke out into the open in the 2010s?

00:07:25.000 Or was there a simultaneous shift?

00:07:27.000 In terms of policy and publicity that happened in the 2010s.

00:07:31.000 In other words, was there sort of a lurking monster for 50 years that was gradually eating ground and then finally we saw it in the 2010s?

00:07:37.000 Or did it all sort of happen all at once?

00:07:39.000 Yeah, I think the lurking monster theory is probably the most accurate and, you know, what I found in researching this book that traces the radical left's long march through the institutions from 1968 to 2020, those are the great bookends, the kind of historical frame, you know, what I found is that intellectually The left's ideology was fully formed in 1968-1969.

00:08:02.000 They had the ideas, they had the theories, they had the basic coalitional patterns, they had even the very language that we see used today was already in use in the far left, radical journals, publications, and pamphlets by 1968-1969.

00:08:21.000 And so, in some sense, there are no new ideas on the left.

00:08:24.000 since that time. But what has changed is the placement of these ideas within institutions.

00:08:30.000 And so from that period of 1968 to 2020, with the death of George Floyd, everyone taking the knee,

00:08:36.000 everyone posting the black square for BLM, what you had is this long march process. And what I've

00:08:43.000 tried to do is trace not just the ideas as abstractions or as a kind of empty vessels,

00:08:50.000 but actually the flesh and blood march of these ideas through institutions.

00:08:54.000 And so you see it in universities, you see it in K-12 schools, you see it in government bureaucracies, and then you see it even in Fortune 100 companies.

00:09:03.000 And so it took that basic pattern over a very long period of time.

00:09:07.000 And what I think the left has done very brilliantly since 1968, when their intellectual development It's essentially ceased is that they've understood how to identify weak points within institutions, identify choke points where ideologies can take hold, and then distribution mechanisms where they can have a minority of individuals within, say, a Fortune 100 company that are exerting power with great leverage from the middle register all the way to the CEO suite.

00:09:37.000 And so that, to me, is really fascinating.

00:09:39.000 And I think the right has done a poor job historically.

00:09:42.000 We want to have a debate as if politics is an Oxford style exchange of ideas and the best ideas win.

00:09:49.000 That's not actually how it works.

00:09:51.000 That's not how politics plays out in the real world.

00:09:53.000 And so that's what I really hope to do is show conservatives how politics really works, how institutions really function.

00:10:00.000 And then given that knowledge, we can start to turn things around.

00:10:04.000 We'll get to more with Chris in just one second first.

00:10:06.000 Whether we love it or hate it, AI is here to stay.

00:10:09.000 AI is now expected to create over 100 million new jobs globally.

00:10:13.000 Some jobs include data scientists, product designers, robotics engineers, and, surprisingly, tax managers with AI skills.

00:10:19.000 ZipRecruiter is the best way to use AI to help you find people with these skills.

00:10:23.000 ZipRecruiter's AI identifies candidates who are best suited for all kinds of roles.

00:10:27.000 Right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash ben guest.

00:10:30.000 Want the most qualified candidates?

00:10:32.000 ZipRecruiter uses its powerful AI to find and send you people whose skills and experience match your job.

00:10:37.000 Then, ZipRecruiter lets you easily invite them to apply to encourage them to apply sooner.

00:10:41.000 In fact, over 3.8 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.

00:10:45.000 Get the leading edge on hiring with ZipRecruiter.

00:10:48.000 Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter will get a quality candidate within day one.

00:10:51.000 See for yourself.

00:10:52.000 Go to this exclusive web address.

00:10:54.000 Try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash benghast.

00:10:58.000 Again, at ziprecruiter.com slash b-e-n-g-u-e-s-t.

00:11:03.000 ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire. 0.73

00:11:06.000 So, why don't we go through some of those institutions?

00:11:08.000 I wrote a book in the early 2000s talking about left-wing bias on college campuses.

00:11:13.000 And I remember, even then, I was hit with a bunch of people on the right saying, what do we care what's happening on the college campuses?

00:11:17.000 People will get off college campuses and then they'll go into the workforce and then they'll be converted back to sanity.

00:11:22.000 when that happens.

00:11:23.000 I remember arguing, I was still at UCLA at the time I was in college,

00:11:26.000 and I remember arguing, well, I'm not sure that that's the case

00:11:28.000 because this is where bad ideas start and then they are sort of infused throughout the culture.

00:11:33.000 But obviously the takeover of the college has started, as you're pointing out, in the late 60s, early 70s.

00:11:38.000 Were colleges and universities sort of the first flowering of these ideas,

00:11:41.000 the first seed beds for these ideas?

00:11:43.000 And why were they, and if so, why were they such easy pickings for the left?

00:11:47.000 Well, they absolutely were.

00:11:48.000 And you don't have to take my word for it.

00:11:50.000 Some of those folks who were leading this movement, notably the German-American philosopher Herbert Marcuse and his student, the black communist radical Angela Davis, you know, they gave a speech at UCLA in the late 1960s outlining their strategy.

00:12:04.000 And they thought very clearly at the time that the universities were their initial revolutionary institutions.

00:12:10.000 That's the kind of phrasing that they were using.

00:12:12.000 And of course, universities have always been open, have been friendly to radical ideas, have been a home for left-wing political radicals for a very long time.

00:12:23.000 But what they deposited for the first time, really, was to say, we don't want to go towards the production of knowledge.

00:12:31.000 That's no longer the goal of our politics within the university.

00:12:35.000 We want to transform it, the university, into a revolutionary institution, into an activist institution.

00:12:41.000 And so they changed the telos, or the ends, or the purpose of the university.

00:12:47.000 That's what they were preaching at the time.

00:12:49.000 It wasn't necessarily the case.

00:12:51.000 There was resistance within the University of California system, believe it or not.

00:12:54.000 Ronald Reagan was the governor.

00:12:56.000 The trustees of those universities tried to tamp down some of the radicalism, tamp down some of the academic takeovers.

00:13:03.000 But they lost institution after institution, department after department.

00:13:08.000 And, you know, conservatives, as you said, made a grave error by condescending to campus life and to say, oh, these are, you know, blue-haired radicals studying queer theory.

00:13:20.000 They'll never get a job. 0.99

00:13:22.000 You know, look at these losers. 0.99

00:13:24.000 In fact, that's not true. 0.96

00:13:26.000 They didn't get the jobs that existed at the time, but they created jobs like DEI administrator Microaggression investigator.

00:13:34.000 All of these fake ideological jobs, these commissariat-style jobs that have really mushroomed and exploded not just in campuses but in really all of our institutions.

00:13:46.000 And so, you know, look, In 1968, the Black Panther Party's Minister of Information, in that period, Eldridge Cleaver, really truly said, we want to seize the factories.

00:14:00.000 We want to seize the means of material production in the United States and start making, you know, school buses instead of, you know, Ford trucks.

00:14:08.000 They still had that orthodox Marxist idea that the means of production were the source of wealth, the source of power.

00:14:15.000 Nobody believes that on the radical left anymore.

00:14:17.000 They don't want to build cars.

00:14:19.000 They don't want to manage agricultural facilities.

00:14:22.000 They don't want to do any of the hard physical work that it takes to run a modern physical economy.

00:14:27.000 They just want to have those prestige cultural institutions.

00:14:31.000 They've seized the means of knowledge production, of ideological production, and that's the situation we find ourselves in today.

00:14:38.000 We find ourselves in this Paradoxical and very contradictory moment where the means of capitalist production are still very much oriented towards the private market, towards capitalist production.

00:14:52.000 But our cultural institutions, our knowledge production institutions are very much in the hands of the radical left.

00:14:58.000 And so we are in this, I think, precarious spot where we have to take a hard look at the status quo and figure out what our next move is.

00:15:06.000 So, to go back to the universities for a second, because I want to move into corporate America momentarily.

00:15:10.000 When we look at the universities, what do you think was sort of the immune failure of the universities that allowed them to be taken over so easily?

00:15:18.000 Because this movement really breaks out in the late 60s, and by the early 70s, they're basically completely taken over.

00:15:23.000 I mean, the switch happens incredibly fast.

00:15:26.000 And it does lend some credence to theories that have been heard from some corners of I'd say an integralist crowd that classical liberalism is a failure, that classical liberalism, the idea that everybody's voice should be heard, that free speech carries the seeds of its own destruction because it turns out that if people walk through the front door and they say, well, my version of free speech is that you shouldn't get free speech and you're a victimizer and actually the entire superstructure of free speech is actually a reflection of power structures.

00:15:54.000 You have no systemic immunity to that because you've allowed that view in the door.

00:15:58.000 There actually has to be a rule to classical liberalism that is not universal, and that is that if you attack classical liberalism, then you are outside the realm of classical liberalism.

00:16:05.000 But many of the people at universities were not capable of actually implementing that.

00:16:10.000 The basic idea was, if this is a place for free speech, then free speech also includes people coming in and saying free speech is incredibly bad, you're a victimizer, and you should hand power to us to demonstrate that you're not actually a victimizer.

00:16:21.000 I think that is absolutely part of it.

00:16:22.000 And I think that if you say, well, why did the universities fall?

00:16:25.000 There really are two primary causes.

00:16:27.000 One is the intellectual cause, let's say, that you've outlined.

00:16:31.000 And basically what happened is that conservatives or even kind of old line liberals adopted what I think of as a proceduralist approach.

00:16:39.000 to campus life. They said, we want free speech, academic freedom, and those are the great rules.

00:16:45.000 And we'll have a marketplace of ideas. We'll have a debate.

00:16:48.000 We'll have a peer review in journals, and the best ideas will emerge triumphant. But what they

00:16:53.000 did is they removed the ultimate purpose of education. And so they had a lowering of

00:16:58.000 ambition.

00:16:59.000 They had no final point, no final reference, no highest ideal by which you could measure all of these other things.

00:17:06.000 And so the free marketplace of ideas turned into nothing of the sort.

00:17:11.000 You had no competition.

00:17:13.000 You had an ideological sorting rather than a sorting on a hierarchy of real values towards transcendent values like truth, goodness, and beauty.

00:17:22.000 And once we abandoned that highest point, You had a totally lateral system and in that kind of system, a horizontal arrangement of power without a highest point, the strongest wins.

00:17:34.000 You have a Nietzschean kind of battle of wills.

00:17:37.000 And so that brings me to the second point.

00:17:40.000 And the second point is one of character.

00:17:42.000 And you had old line liberals running these institutions as they had been run for many decades.

00:17:48.000 And they were simply, did not have the fortitude, did not have the strength, did not have the character.

00:17:53.000 to resist the left-wing radicals. And so you can see this, you know, you said they walk in the

00:17:58.000 front door, but actually they don't walk in the front door.

00:18:01.000 Herbert Marcuse and Angela Davis at University of California, San Diego, they had a famous

00:18:06.000 incident where they, they knocked down and broke down the front door to the registrar's office,

00:18:11.000 occupied it, and then, you know, the rest is history. And so you had old line liberals managing these

00:18:16.000 institutions that, that, that professed these values of propriety and civil discourse.

00:18:21.000 But when they were confronted with violent left-wing radicals that wanted to take over their

00:18:26.000 institutions by intellectual and physical force, they did not have the ability to resist

00:18:31.000 just as a matter of temperament, as a matter of character, as a matter of will. And so, and,

00:18:38.000 and, and, In a sense, what you had were people that were trained in the streets, people that were trained in revolutionary violence, people that were, you know, hitting police officers in the back of the head with batons.

00:18:50.000 They entered the faculty lounge and they find a bunch of middle-aged, predominantly men, with tweed suits, and they said, these people are no match. 0.85

00:18:58.000 We're going to eat them alive.

00:18:59.000 And that's exactly what happened.

00:19:01.000 The antibodies, or the defenses of the universities, We're so weak intellectually and temperamentally that it was only a matter of time before there was a demographic turnover until what we see today, which is a wholesale recomposition of academic life that signals that at least in this limited domain, the left has won.

00:19:21.000 That seems like the next move for the left after taking over the heads of universities was to then filter that out into the entire education system because ed schools become sort of the vanguard of the revolution.

00:19:31.000 And now the idea is we're going to see these ideas in kids, an entire generation of kids all across the United States using the teachers unions, making sure that every public school classroom is reflective of these values.

00:19:43.000 And that also requires a nationalization of the education apparatus.

00:19:47.000 And so when people look at why do young people think the way they do, the answer is because 0.95

00:19:51.000 they've been taught for two generations to think the way that they do.

00:19:53.000 So how did that bleed over happen?

00:19:55.000 How did the bleed over happen from the faculty lounges to the ed departments to public schools?

00:20:00.000 This is the great transmission that I tackle in the third section of the book.

00:20:04.000 I really show how these ideas went from originally the kind of philosophical core to the street activist revolution and then into these great organs of values transmission in the K-12 schools.

00:20:18.000 And so, absolutely, it starts with graduate schools of education.

00:20:22.000 This was a kind of soft conquest.

00:20:25.000 And so you have someone like Paulo Freire, the Brazilian Marxist pedagogist, bringing

00:20:31.000 the pedagogy of the oppressed, which is a kind of Marxist, Leninist theory of education

00:20:36.000 that says that the function of education is not to establish basic literacy skills.

00:20:41.000 It's not to create good citizens, as Aristotle would have said, to educate the child into

00:20:46.000 the political regime, which in this case would mean the American constitutional system.

00:20:51.000 But he said the function of education is to open a child's eyes to his or her own oppression,

00:20:56.000 to turn the revolutionary consciousness switch on in that child, and then guide that child

00:21:01.000 towards an activist politics where he can overturn all of the social entities around

00:21:08.000 him.

00:21:09.000 And so that became the focus of education.

00:21:11.000 And that book that outlined that theory that most people have never heard of is actually

00:21:16.000 the number one most cited book in all graduate schools of education in the United States

00:21:21.000 and the third most cited book in all of the social sciences and in American academic journals.

00:21:26.000 It's immensely influential.

00:21:29.000 And I think that conservatives again failed because they were not able to do that.

00:21:32.000 They had an implicit trust in public institutions like K-12 public schools to a great degree.

00:21:40.000 They bought into this idea that they were neutral entities that taught children in as neutral a manner as possible, that sought to show both sides and let students learn how to think, not what to think.

00:21:54.000 Which is, of course, one of the most awful ideas in practice that you could have.

00:22:00.000 And I think conservatives also didn't contest those school board elections, didn't try to take control over the curriculum.

00:22:10.000 And then consequently, you have an open playing field that over the years allowed these left-wing pedagogists

00:22:17.000 and activist teachers to take over the entire transmission chain so that now,

00:22:24.000 and I think that this is the most remarkable piece of research that I found doing the work for the book,

00:22:30.000 was you could read the radical pamphlets of the Black Liberation Army.

00:22:36.000 These were violent revolutionaries that were assassinating police officers, robbing banks,

00:22:41.000 bombing police stations.

00:22:44.000 And then you see the K through 12 public school curriculum in a school district like Buffalo, New York.

00:22:49.000 And the ideas, while the vocabulary has changed, while the connotations have changed, it's softened a bit,

00:22:55.000 it's passed through a therapeutic language, the core ideas are identical.

00:23:00.000 And so the radical ideas have gone from the revolutionary fringes

00:23:03.000 to your child's kindergarten classroom.

00:23:05.000 And to me, that is a shocking conquest that cannot be underestimated.

00:23:12.000 It's more on that in a second.

00:23:13.000 First, I want to talk to you about Daily Wire's most trusted privacy partner and the premier sponsor of this show, ExpressVPN.

00:23:19.000 Did you notice that big tech companies today are masquerading as privacy companies?

00:23:22.000 Just fix your privacy settings, turn off your app tracking, and you're all good.

00:23:25.000 Are we supposed to really believe that?

00:23:27.000 I mean, big tech literally feeds on your information.

00:23:30.000 Sure, maybe they'll release a feature now and then that does some good, but collecting and selling off your data, that is what big tech does.

00:23:35.000 They can't stop themselves from looking at what you do online because it's how they make their money.

00:23:39.000 To protect myself against big tech's prying eyes, I use ExpressVPN.

00:23:42.000 When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone, you're hiding your unique IP address.

00:23:46.000 Websites can't use that address to find out your real location or track what you do online.

00:23:50.000 On top of that, ExpressVPN encrypts and reroutes 100% of your online activity so your internet provider, Wi-Fi admin, and hackers can't see it.

00:23:57.000 The best part, though, is how easy it is to use.

00:23:59.000 It takes just one click to protect all your devices.

00:24:02.000 One ExpressVPN subscription covers up to five devices at the same time.

00:24:05.000 So you can protect your entire family as well.

00:24:07.000 That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET, Wired, TechRadar, and countless others.

00:24:11.000 So today is the day.

00:24:12.000 Get the VPN I use to protect my online privacy when big bad tech is at the door.

00:24:17.000 Check them out.

00:24:17.000 ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.

00:24:19.000 Use that link.

00:24:19.000 ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.

00:24:21.000 Get three extra months for free.

00:24:23.000 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-VPN.com slash Ben.

00:24:26.000 You can see pretty easily, as you talk about the book, how this infuses the government bureaucracy.

00:24:30.000 You're talking about a group of people who are not answerable to electoral politics.

00:24:33.000 They're not answerable to a market.

00:24:35.000 So failure and success look exactly the same.

00:24:38.000 The only sort of success that actually exists is an ideological success, and failure just looks like getting fired, and you're not getting fired because you have a government contract.

00:24:45.000 So you can see pretty easily how this takes over the bureaucracy, but most Americans,

00:24:48.000 because we don't tend to think of the unelected fourth branch

00:24:52.000 of government, the bureaucracy that actually runs all of us as being very important, we ignore all that.

00:24:55.000 We keep focusing on elections.

00:24:57.000 Who are we going to vote for for president?

00:24:58.000 Who are we going to vote for in terms of Congress next time?

00:25:00.000 But as you point out in the book, that's really not how the government is run.

00:25:03.000 And so it's a pretty smooth transition between a useless ed degree and a slot in the bureaucracy making regulations

00:25:10.000 that govern hundreds of millions of people.

00:25:11.000 Yeah.

00:25:13.000 And then choosing the people who actually enter the classroom and teach the curriculum.

00:25:16.000 And so we have, and this is a conservative critique that is spot on.

00:25:21.000 I mean, we have a vast bureaucratic state or administrative state that is really in charge of how our institutions function in practice.

00:25:29.000 And, you know, I found this to be true even in my conversations with folks that are in the U.S.

00:25:33.000 Congress, in the United States Senate, and you talk to their offices, you talk to even

00:25:38.000 the principals themselves, and you learn very quickly that their influence is actually rather

00:25:43.000 limited compared to their counterparts in the bureaucracy who are there permanently.

00:25:48.000 They're not accountable to voters.

00:25:50.000 They're almost impossible to fire, and therefore they're almost impossible to influence.

00:25:55.000 And so you have to, the political powers who are in theory under our Constitution the ultimate

00:26:00.000 authority over our republic are actually almost supplicants to the bureaucracy.

00:26:05.000 They have to engage in a kind of begging, a kind of persuasion just to get the bureaucracy

00:26:12.000 to do what the law says.

00:26:14.000 And so this is untenable, and I think the conservatives need to develop a strategy.

00:26:18.000 .

00:26:19.000 to deal with this and there really are two possible avenues and I think that we need to experiment

00:26:24.000 with both. You know, the one possible avenue that will not work and does not work and has not worked

00:26:30.000 despite conservatives best intentions is, you know, reducing the size of the government small

00:26:36.000 enough so you could drown it in a bathtub and Grover Norquist's famous phrase. Conservatives

00:26:41.000 have been promising to do that for many, many decades, really for about a hundred years.

00:26:45.000 That's never happened.

00:26:46.000 It's unlikely that it will happen in the medium term.

00:26:50.000 And so we're left with, I think, two options.

00:26:51.000 One is you recapture the bureaucracy.

00:26:54.000 You use administrative and executive power to try to remove the top layer of policy decision makers in the bureaucracy.

00:27:02.000 And you find and train and credential conservatives that can go in and actually replace those folks to to run the bureaucracy at that top level,

00:27:12.000 or you can try to decentralize the functions and create in a sense of patronage network

00:27:18.000 from the government to smaller groups according to subsidiarity.

00:27:23.000 And so this is the model for state level school choice programs

00:27:27.000 that have been remarkably successful in recent years because of the failure of these centralized teachers unions,

00:27:34.000 the rise of critical race theory and radical gender ideology in schools.

00:27:37.000 And then of course the COVID lockdowns.

00:27:39.000 And so the idea here is to say, we're gonna give parents the chance

00:27:42.000 to take their seven, $8,000 a year per child to any institution of their choice.

00:27:48.000 This is from the public budget, but it's going into the hands of parents and individual families, and they can create a side market that bypasses the great centralized K-12 public education system.

00:28:02.000 These two almost paradoxical approaches An approach of ideological centralization of the bureaucracy and an approach of financial and administrative decentralization providing the funding to smaller units in society.

00:28:18.000 I think some combination of these two is the way forward and we have to get really smart and really aggressive in how we execute them.

00:28:26.000 So let's move on to the part that I think conservatives have found the most troubling.

00:28:29.000 I think it's become a truism for conservatives for a long time.

00:28:32.000 Universities are run by the left wing.

00:28:34.000 Educational institutions are run by the left wing.

00:28:36.000 Bureaucracy is run by the left wing.

00:28:37.000 The one that I think took conservatives completely by surprise over the course of the last decade is the takeover of corporate America.

00:28:43.000 This is a place we had always thought would be safe, not because we assumed that every executive was going to be a conservative or Republican, Because the market was supposed to be the deciding factor in how decisions got made.

00:28:53.000 the idea that you were going to pile a bunch of ESG or DEI on top of the fundamental market mechanism

00:28:59.000 and in so doing, weigh down your profit margins and destroy your efficiencies,

00:29:04.000 that seems completely unthinkable to a huge number of Americans,

00:29:07.000 especially considering the fact that if you were gonna do all that,

00:29:09.000 the assumption was that there wasn't going to be giant scale collusion,

00:29:12.000 that there'd be another firm that would come along and out-compete you by not participating 0.95

00:29:15.000 in any of that garbage.

00:29:16.000 And yet over the course of the last 10, 15 years, we've seen now an open usurpation 0.92

00:29:22.000 of the mechanisms of economic power at corporations by either the woke or people who are woke-adjacent

00:29:29.000 or people who surrender to the woke.

00:29:31.000 So what exactly happened inside the halls of corporate America where if you look at actually the individual donations by corporate heads, they still, I believe, majority go to Republicans, but corporate donations go by far to Democrats.

00:29:41.000 What exactly happened here?

00:29:43.000 So yeah, and I tackle this a bit in the book, but what I've done is I've tried to talk to a lot of C-suite executives and board members of Fortune 500 companies off the record to try to get a sense of what's happening.

00:29:56.000 And the basic picture that I could paint for you is something like this.

00:30:00.000 Um, you have to think of corporations and especially C-suite executives as amoral operators that are merely putting their antennas up and then responding to incentives, responding to pressure, responding to economic and cultural and political forces for their immediate short term safety and protection and security.

00:30:21.000 And so that's kind of how the entity operates.

00:30:24.000 And what executives have learned in the last 20 years, and especially the last 10 years, is that they've secured their economic interests from the political right.

00:30:33.000 Since the Reagan administration, the political right has lowered corporate taxes, has created more favorable regulations, and has opened up free trade agreements, including with communist regimes like the Chinese, that allow American companies to make a lot of money, to maximize profits in a really spectacular fashion.

00:30:52.000 All things being equal, I think you and I would agree.

00:30:54.000 That's, you know, good with some, maybe some caveats.

00:30:58.000 But what happened is that when corporations felt like they had secured everything that they needed from the political right, they felt like they could also pander to the political left on culture.

00:31:08.000 So they're trying to have it both ways.

00:31:10.000 They're trying to have their economic fortunes taken care of by the right and their cultural status taken care of by the political left.

00:31:17.000 And so you see the creation of DEI bureaucracies, you see these kind of corporate marketing campaigns, you see their corporate donations and funding and philanthropic contributions that are really going all towards the cultural left.

00:31:30.000 Because they were getting a lot of pressure from the cultural left.

00:31:33.000 The left has very effective kind of elite mechanisms for putting pressure on companies to do these very things.

00:31:40.000 And so what you've also had then is the situation where a CEO is facing this kind of situation.

00:31:46.000 They're facing activist employees within the corporate hierarchy in their identity-based activist groups that were sanctioned by the CEOs.

00:31:56.000 The Black Employees Union, the LGBTQ Plus Employees Union, the Latino or Latinx Employee Resource Group.

00:32:04.000 So they're feeling pressure from below and within.

00:32:06.000 They're feeling pressure from these very effective left-wing activists laterally.

00:32:11.000 And then sometimes they're also feeling pressure from above, from their corporate board members, who are, after all, rich.

00:32:19.000 They have plenty of cash.

00:32:21.000 So what they want is they want status.

00:32:23.000 They want fame.

00:32:24.000 They want recognition.

00:32:25.000 They want a pat on the back from elite institutions.

00:32:28.000 They want to go to the kind of corporate dinner and then get the kudos.

00:32:33.000 And so they say, hey, we need to put trans characters in our movies.

00:32:38.000 For example, that's kind of what happened with Disney.

00:32:41.000 This is corporate board level pressure.

00:32:43.000 And so Corporate executives are facing a situation in which they're getting three-dimensional pressure, and as amoral incentive responders, they make the obvious choice was to kowtow to these left-wing cultural policies, and really without any countervailing pressure from the right.

00:32:59.000 So I think that it's been a simple calculus, so it shouldn't surprise any of us that corporations, especially those big corporations, that kind of brand entities, have really buckled to the left over and over and over in recent years.

00:33:14.000 We'll get to more on that in just one second.

00:33:16.000 First, you know, I've been using GenuCell since like 2013.

00:33:18.000 I used to have a radio show in Los Angeles with a couple of other people and GenuCell was a sponsor.

00:33:23.000 I started using GenuCell then.

00:33:24.000 Well, then we didn't do that radio show anymore.

00:33:26.000 I kept using GenuCell.

00:33:27.000 So did my family because it's just that good.

00:33:29.000 We're all fans of GenuCell around here, but don't take my word for it.

00:33:32.000 Ella from Rockford says, I have both age and acne spots and this stuff is actually fading both of them.

00:33:36.000 This serum is worth every penny.

00:33:38.000 Ella is raving about the famous Dark Spot Corrector from GenuCell.

00:33:41.000 It's a must-have after months of record heat and humidity.

00:33:43.000 Sun spots, brown spots, discoloration, even red inflamed patches, they will all disappear in front of your very eyes.

00:33:48.000 And here is the GenuCell Amazing Guarantee.

00:33:50.000 You see results on the first day, or you get your money back.

00:33:53.000 So you really have nothing to lose.

00:33:54.000 Take advantage of GenuCell's most popular package, which now includes that dark spot corrector, plus the classic GenuCell bags and puffiness treatment and immediate effects, all at about 70% off.

00:34:03.000 So you can try the best skincare on planet Earth for yourself completely risk-free.

00:34:07.000 It's simple.

00:34:07.000 Just go to GenuCell.com slash Sunday.

00:34:10.000 Start looking years, even decades younger tomorrow.

00:34:12.000 Say goodbye to dark and liver spots, bags and puffiness under the eyes, crow's feet at GenuCell.com slash Sunday.

00:34:18.000 That's GenuCell.com slash Sunday.

00:34:21.000 One other element that was pointed out first, I think, by Christopher Caldwell in his book Age of Entitlement was the idea that these massive legal structures have also been created that essentially create massive liability for a lot of companies if they don't kowtow to the left.

00:34:36.000 So the way that you Prevent some sort of mass lawsuit on your hands over racial discrimination is you force everybody to take some sort of diversity training.

00:34:44.000 The way that you make sure that you don't get sued for some form of racism is you make sure that you have a DEI policy to make sure that it's crammed down on everybody.

00:34:54.000 Now in the normal market mechanism, one of the things that probably would happen here is that Counterintuitively, what would happen if you try to force diverse crowds into a business and create additional liability for the business is people just don't hire them.

00:35:07.000 If you suggest that there's an additional liability risk for every, for example, LGBTQ plus person that you hire, then people will stop hiring those people because they're afraid of the liability risk.

00:35:15.000 So then a legal system comes up where if you don't have enough of those people in your company, then NASDAQ will delist you.

00:35:21.000 Or you will have a situation in which you will be sued for discrimination for not hiring, and then once people are hired, then you have a massive risk of those people actually suing you for having hired them, and now you're mistreating them, or you fired them.

00:35:33.000 And it makes people unhireable and unfireable simultaneously, so the best thing to do is you just create these broad-based policies, and this somehow is supposed to be a legal cure-all for all of this, which would mean, as per the usual arrangement, that the only way to fight that would actually be via legislation.

00:35:47.000 I mean, despite all of the talk about libertarianism, it just doesn't work in a world

00:35:50.000 where the laws are written the wrong way.

00:35:52.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:35:53.000 And I'd like to dig into that because it's an important point that you're making.

00:35:56.000 And the reason that the kind of classical, liberal economic idea of firms seek to compete

00:36:04.000 and they seek to kind of lower the cost of goods and increase quality,

00:36:08.000 and that if they don't get there in a system of perfect competition,

00:36:12.000 another firm will come in and replace them.

00:36:14.000 That's, I mean, beautiful.

00:36:15.000 And in some goods, I would say that there is a lot of truth to that, right?

00:36:20.000 It's not totally wrong.

00:36:21.000 But it doesn't apply in this case for a number of reasons.

00:36:24.000 The first is that many of these companies are not in systems of perfect competition.

00:36:29.000 If you look at a company like Microsoft, Microsoft essentially has a monopoly, a loose monopoly,

00:36:34.000 or an oligopoly-style position on operating systems, on government contracts.

00:36:41.000 If you look at Amazon, they have a kind of monopoly position

00:36:45.000 in certain verticals with limited numbers of competitors that take up a small share of the market.

00:36:51.000 And so firm after firm after firm, there's not a system of perfect competition.

00:36:55.000 And there are massive barriers for a new firm to come in and out-compete them.

00:37:00.000 But second, and I think even more importantly, and this applies to almost all of the largest firms,

00:37:06.000 there's an enormous amount of waste in these companies.

00:37:09.000 They aren't in a system of perfect competition and perfect efficiency.

00:37:12.000 They're very far from that system.

00:37:14.000 And so if you know anybody in, let's say, a corporate marketing department, I know a lot of people in corporate marketing department for tech firms here in the Seattle region, and they'll say very easily, yeah, you know, I'd say maybe 50% or more of our marketing budget is totally wasted.

00:37:29.000 And it's totally inefficient.

00:37:31.000 It's based on doing something that somebody likes for reasons unrelated to maximizing competitive pressure, etc., etc.

00:37:39.000 We have entire departments that are not profitable.

00:37:41.000 We have entire product lines that are a waste of time.

00:37:45.000 I mean, there is an enormous amount of waste, even in the most profitable companies, kind of paradoxically.

00:37:51.000 And so what I think that people are thinking in the C-suite is that these DEI programs, these ideological programs, are a form of insurance.

00:38:00.000 They don't add to the bottom line.

00:38:02.000 They don't add to productivity.

00:38:04.000 They don't create products and services that customers want.

00:38:06.000 But it's a form of political insurance and legal insurance that's simply deducted as a cost of doing business.

00:38:12.000 It's like paying a tax or in the past, it's like paying the mafia for protection, which I actually think is an even better analogy.

00:38:20.000 And so, you know, these companies stumble on.

00:38:22.000 And Adam Smith, of course, said there's a great deal of rot in a nation.

00:38:27.000 The same thing, you know, God bless him, can be said.

00:38:30.000 There's a great deal of rot in any of one of these firms.

00:38:34.000 Well, that raises sort of the broader question that's come up with regard to some of your work, which is, what should conservatives seek to do with government?

00:38:41.000 So this has been a broad-scale debate inside conservative circles.

00:38:44.000 You know, how far is too far with regard to government interventionism?

00:38:47.000 In a perfect world, obviously, you have free competition.

00:38:50.000 You don't have monopolistic situations.

00:38:52.000 Really, monopoly is created by government regimes.

00:38:54.000 I mean, really what you have is not even market power monopoly.

00:38:57.000 What you have is essentially A monopoly of ideas that's been created by forced government collusion.

00:39:01.000 If the government sets a standard, everybody has to hop to that standard.

00:39:04.000 There's no ability to out-compete that because the government set the standard.

00:39:07.000 That's true for DEI, ESG, lawsuits, and all the rest of it.

00:39:11.000 But this has raised questions for a lot of conservatives about, you know, let's say that you are the governor of a state, a state like Florida, and now you have the ability to take over a college or university that is state-funded What should you do?

00:39:24.000 Is the thing that you should try to do to reestablish a sort of classically liberal idea of a thousand flowers bloom?

00:39:30.000 Or what other standard should you utilize in order to pursue an educational institution that actually does good?

00:39:38.000 So what the left will do is now, after having lost the election, they will then attempt to revert back to classical liberal principles and argue through that Trojan horse.

00:39:46.000 After having destroyed classical liberalism, By basically arguing for critical race theory, which argues that, for example, classical liberalism is itself a power structure that must be destroyed.

00:39:55.000 Now that they've lost the argument, they'll start arguing, well, but we need our argument back because classical liberalism allows us to be there.

00:40:01.000 And so you can't actually bar us because that's a violation of freedom of speech.

00:40:04.000 Sure, we're arguing against freedom of speech.

00:40:06.000 Sure, we're arguing for Herbert Marcuse's repressive tolerance.

00:40:09.000 But you have to allow us to do that and to redestroy the system.

00:40:12.000 And if you don't allow us to do that, it's a violation of your classical liberal principles.

00:40:15.000 So what can government do here?

00:40:17.000 What should government be doing?

00:40:18.000 Well, I think there are really two important points, and the first is this.

00:40:23.000 I mean, I find it astonishing that some of our libertarian and maybe kind of libertarian conservative friends are appalled that states are restricting critical race theory in the classroom, that states are passing legislation saying that teachers are not allowed to racially scapegoat students or to categorize, shame, humiliate, and segregate them on

00:40:47.000 the basis of their ancestry.

00:40:49.000 And there are some libertarian conservatives saying, no, that's a step too far,

00:40:52.000 that's government interfering with the great transmission of ideas.

00:40:56.000 And so there's a number of problems with this, obviously.

00:40:59.000 One is that these are public schools, and then these are public universities, so they are the government.

00:41:06.000 The principles of the free marketplace of ideas do not apply.

00:41:09.000 This is a government-run monopoly.

00:41:12.000 In the case of K-12, over 90% of the market.

00:41:15.000 And in the case of higher education, colleges and universities, 75% of the market.

00:41:20.000 And so even under the most stringent libertarian philosophy, in a condition of a government monopoly, those rules, kind of non-intervention rules, do not apply.

00:41:29.000 And then of course, you know, it's absolutely absurd to say that a kindergarten classroom should be a freewheeling open debate where all opinions are welcomed.

00:41:40.000 No, you have to shape the values, you have to shape the character, you have to even shape the souls of kids that are that young, and you have to teach them principles that reflect the values of their parents and the society and the political regime that they live in.

00:41:57.000 And so I think government is, of course, well within its right.

00:42:01.000 to regulate within these schools.

00:42:03.000 And the libertarian argument, in fact, ends up in practice being a really catastrophic reversal.

00:42:09.000 What libertarians are arguing, in essence, is that the people, through their elected legislators,

00:42:15.000 have no right to regulate their own government.

00:42:18.000 And that's not liberty.

00:42:20.000 That's tyranny.

00:42:21.000 And so we have this really absurd pretzel-twisting on behalf of libertarian conservatives that seem to not even understand their own principles.

00:42:29.000 I think they're deranged by Trump, deranged by DeSantis, deranged by the so-called new right that is seeking to replace limits on these institutions.

00:42:39.000 And then second, briefly, and I'd love to talk about this more, is we've mistaken what classical liberal arts education means.

00:42:47.000 We've reduced it to a procedural value of freedom of speech and academic freedom and the free marketplace of ideas.

00:42:54.000 But that actually has, you know, has nothing to do with the ultimate aim or the ultimate purpose of education.

00:43:01.000 And of course, classical comes from the Latin classicus and liberal comes from the classic liber.

00:43:06.000 These are hierarchical words.

00:43:08.000 You know, it is the kind of upper class or the free.

00:43:13.000 And the idea of a liberal or an elite versus a base or a vulgar education.

00:43:19.000 And so embedded in the very terms, classical liberal, is this idea of a highest point

00:43:25.000 towards which we should all be aspiring that creates limits on this notion of unfettered access.

00:43:33.000 And so it requires us to make judgments.

00:43:36.000 It requires us to say racial scapegoating of children is either good or bad.

00:43:41.000 And if we determine as a society that it's bad, it should be restricted from, let's say, the elementary school classroom.

00:43:47.000 And so classical liberal arts education at heart means the education of a free man or woman In a free society.

00:43:55.000 And it's not just liberties which can become licensed, but actually has corresponding duties and responsibilities and limits that we should seek to reimpose in the interest of teaching students the great trinity of the true, the good and the beautiful, and being unapologetic about orienting our education system towards them.

00:44:17.000 Well, this is one of the areas where I think that, for a lot of libertarians, they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of liberty itself.

00:44:24.000 Is liberty an instrumental value, or is it an inherent value, is really the question for them.

00:44:29.000 And there are several different types of liberty.

00:44:31.000 If you were to say that liberty is an inherent value, then that leads directly to moral relativism.

00:44:35.000 I mean, because at that point, you're basically just saying whatever free choice anybody makes, those are all of equal value.

00:44:39.000 It's liberty to make the choice that is the thing that is of value.

00:44:42.000 But the reality is that nobody actually thinks like that.

00:44:45.000 Nobody actually believes, there's an Israeli philosopher named Joseph Raz, nobody actually believes that if you have the free decision to murder the person next to you, that that is more morally praiseworthy because you have utilized choice than the person who is forced to murder the person next to him.

00:44:57.000 The bad thing is still bad.

00:44:58.000 In fact, it becomes worse because you chose to do it.

00:45:01.000 The real question as to limits on what the public can do in the name of the good are more utilitarian than they are values-laden.

00:45:09.000 Meaning, you can make the case pretty easily, I think, that the free speech principles, the sort of libertarian full free speech principles, should be applied at the federal level as opposed to at the very, very local level.

00:45:19.000 Which, by the way, the founders understood, which is why the First Amendment is about Congress not abridging freedom of speech.

00:45:23.000 It is not about you and your local HOA abridging freedom of speech.

00:45:26.000 Because the reality is that when there's a great level of unanimity among people that you live around, your ability to actually, as a community, legislate, to maintain a certain social lifestyle for your community, is a core element of freedom and also decency.

00:45:40.000 But as you abstract up the chain, as you go to the federal government, for example, and it's governing 300 million people, it's a lot harder to say, well, here's the singular standard that should govern for everybody because it's a very diverse country with a lot of different ideas in it.

00:45:51.000 And so on a fundamental level, I think it's a lot easier to make the case for the kind of government involvement except for basic principles like Non, you know, non violation of the 14th Amendment.

00:46:01.000 But if you're talking about what should be taught in schools, this is something that shouldn't be mandated by the federal government.

00:46:06.000 This is something that should essentially be done in a place where you and your fellow parents have a pretty good idea of what it is that you want taught to kids.

00:46:13.000 It's the left that's arguing that the federal government should be able to cram down from the top down the notion that, for example, boys are girls and girls are boys.

00:46:20.000 It's why the libertarian argument seems to kind of drown the government in the bathtub idea.

00:46:26.000 There's an argument for it at the federal level.

00:46:28.000 There's significantly less of an argument for it at the state or at the local level.

00:46:32.000 That's right.

00:46:33.000 And I think that ultimately, we have to understand what the subject is and what the object is.

00:46:36.000 We have to go back to the very basics.

00:46:38.000 And we have to ask, what is the purpose of freedom of speech?

00:46:41.000 What is free speech for?

00:46:43.000 And of course, it's a question of something quite simple.

00:46:48.000 I agree with you.

00:46:49.000 I think that the curriculum should be decided at the local school district level.

00:46:53.000 That would be the ultimate kind of locus of authority in my ideal society.

00:46:58.000 Right now, it's actually at the state level.

00:47:00.000 In almost all states, the state mandates the basic curricular standard and then delegates the implementation to local school districts.

00:47:07.000 But what we're talking about is parents saying, and voters saying, Hey, we do not want you teaching our kids how to be a non-binary, pansexual gender theorist in fifth grade.

00:47:22.000 And we want to restrict the ability of the government, the public school, to promote those values and ideologies to our children.

00:47:31.000 And so we have to remember that individuals have free speech.

00:47:35.000 The idea of free speech was that the government should not infringe on the free speech right of the citizen.

00:47:41.000 But in this case, the citizen has every right to limit the speech and conduct of the government.

00:47:49.000 That's the entire purpose of having representative government.

00:47:51.000 The government does not have unlimited power.

00:47:54.000 The government can be limited and restrained by the people through the process of passing legislation, through the process of governing these institutions.

00:48:05.000 The left, though, sees the government as a citizen, as actually the primary citizen in the republic.

00:48:12.000 And it wants to endow the government with all of the rights that were initially intended to be secured for the citizens.

00:48:19.000 And so we have this really, the Leviathan is a beautiful metaphor because the Leviathan has now been endowed with rights of the individual.

00:48:28.000 It is the most powerful individual in society and it can impose its will with no restrictions on the average person.

00:48:36.000 And so I think we are in this very precarious space where even conservatives and libertarian

00:48:44.000 conservatives have bought into the great myths and superstitions of the left to the point

00:48:49.000 where they're functionally, they're theoretically defending individual liberties, but they're

00:48:53.000 functionally defending the Leviathan that seeks to override and destroy the actual liberties

00:49:00.000 of the people.

00:49:01.000 So in your book, America's Cultural Revolution, one of the things that you talk about is obviously

00:49:06.000 corporate America and and the relationship between government

00:49:09.000 legislation and corporate America.

00:49:10.000 This is where you get into the really fundamental debate with a lot of libertarians.

00:49:13.000 There are a lot of libertarians who will argue Or we'll acquiesce to the argument that local governments have the ability to restrict what's taught in third grade.

00:49:21.000 Because obviously you're talking about parents delegating a particular agency to the government.

00:49:25.000 The scope of agency is limited.

00:49:26.000 It is not unlimited. 0.97

00:49:27.000 And the idea that you've delegated complete power over your kids to this group of government bureaucrats is really silly.

00:49:31.000 When it comes to corporate America, however, They say that, you know, the government really shouldn't step in and do anything that is viewpoint discrimination if the government steps in and, for example, does what Governor DeSantis did with the special tax district for Reedy Creek and Disney.

00:49:45.000 That Disney decided to get itself involved in a deeply political conversation about what kids ought to be taught in public school and their special tax district went away.

00:49:55.000 And the argument is that this is a violation of free speech principles because this is a private actor now that's being acted upon by the state government.

00:50:02.000 Well, what is the countervailing argument on that one?

00:50:05.000 So there's there's an easier one and there's a more difficult one.

00:50:07.000 So the easy one with Disney is, well, wait a minute.

00:50:10.000 Why does Disney have special tax status that no other corporation in the state of Florida has?

00:50:15.000 Why did they have the ability to?

00:50:16.000 I think they had the ability to create a nuclear reactor on the Disneyland campus in Orlando.

00:50:21.000 And so in a sense, what Ron DeSantis did is said, hey, The state of Florida had negotiated in previous years a sweetheart deal, a kind of crony capitalist deal, with the Walt Disney Company because there was a general and mutual interest that this would benefit the people of the state and the society as a whole.

00:50:41.000 By participating in the political process, by seeking to overturn the will of the people of the state of Florida, we are simply revoking your special status and putting you on an equal free market and fair competitive playing field as your other competitors.

00:50:56.000 So you can make a free market defense of Disney.

00:51:00.000 The harder argument is to say, well, what if that wasn't the case?

00:51:02.000 Let's have a hypothetical.

00:51:05.000 What if, let's say, that the government was saying, you know, we're going to actually create a special standard for this one company.

00:51:12.000 I think that's a much more difficult case.

00:51:14.000 And I think that conservatives and free market conservatives are right that that can go too far, that that can run amok, that that can be problematic.

00:51:21.000 But what I think is the best approach is to say, that you can actually create general regulations and

00:51:28.000 general laws governing how corporations behave that don't provide special rewards or punishments to any

00:51:34.000 one firm, but say that, hey, these are the standards of conduct.

00:51:37.000 For example, on ESG, you know, ESG, I think, is a perversion of the purpose of the free market,

00:51:45.000 which is to create a high standard of living, is to create goods and services,

00:51:49.000 is to create a kind of mass prosperity for our society.

00:51:54.000 ESG is a hijacking of that purpose, a reorientation of that purpose.

00:51:57.000 And I think a general law saying that ESG standards are illegitimate, they're not in the best interest of shareholders, and they're not in the chartered purpose of the corporation, because of course corporations are chartered by the state.

00:52:11.000 I think we're on firmer grounds for something like that, and so I would like to see general legislation in that effect that seeks to counteract the special levers like the kind of abuse of the civil rights bureaucracy outlined in the Caldwell book, but I think also some more activist measures to say we do not consent to this Anti-democratic, activist-led injection of ideology such as ESG into the structures of our corporations.

00:52:40.000 I think that's, you know, it's well within the legitimate purview of legislatures to enact legislation to that effect.

00:52:48.000 It is going to take some aggressive action on this front because the game that the left has realized is that they can basically, through corporatist means, mobilize business on their own behalf to do the work the government isn't allowed to do.

00:52:57.000 We're obviously seeing this with regard to social media.

00:52:59.000 There's now an injunction on the FBI and the DOJ from talking with social media in the upcoming election because during the last election we obviously saw the FBI and the DOJ going to social media and basically dictating to them what they think they ought to do.

00:53:13.000 And in so doing, essentially curb the free speech rights of Americans.

00:53:18.000 As that boundary between private corporations and the government has blurred, it's very easy for private corporations to seek the immunities that private corporations ought to have while at the same time acting as tools of a government that shouldn't have that immunity in the first place.

00:53:31.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:53:31.000 And I think there's a simple test here also, even on libertarian grounds, why this is justified.

00:53:36.000 Because, again, on libertarian grounds, in conditions of monopoly and in conditions of limited competition, there is some government intervention that is justified.

00:53:45.000 And so what I'm seeing as I'm looking at the landscape is companies like YouTube that are an effective monopoly over video services.

00:53:52.000 You know, they have the lion's share of the market.

00:53:55.000 They've been entrenched for a number of years.

00:53:57.000 And then you have obvious collusion.

00:53:59.000 Look, someone like Andrew Tate, I'm not a fan.

00:54:02.000 I think he's awful.

00:54:03.000 I think he's an abominable human being that has values that are not aligned with mine in any sense. 0.53

00:54:09.000 But I remember what happened to him was quite remarkable.

00:54:11.000 He was banned from one of the social media services.

00:54:14.000 And then within 24 hours, he was banned from nearly the entire Internet.

00:54:19.000 And so this suggests to me either a kind of collusion that is direct at the staff level or a cascading collusion in a de facto sense, where if you are if you are deemed a kind of persona non grata, according to the kind of left liberal hierarchy, you can be wiped away from wiped off the Internet from basically all of the firms who, in theory, are competing against one another.

00:54:43.000 And so that to me, even on libertarian grounds, and I'm not a libertarian, thank God, but even on libertarian grounds, justifies some intervention to say, look, in a conditions of a dominant firm position, we could have basic rules, like let's say common carrier standards, to say that you can't be purged from the entire internet simply because you have a naughty opinion or even an abominable opinion.

00:55:06.000 Obviously, there are exceptions.

00:55:07.000 You can't be making actionable death threats against people.

00:55:12.000 I think that there are kind of prudent limits on these that can be negotiated between social actors and between courts and government and companies.

00:55:23.000 But certainly, we can push those boundaries outward to protect a wider range of speech.

00:55:29.000 And I think that's a totally legitimate use of government power.

00:55:32.000 Folks, our conversation will continue with Chris's personal story, how he became what he is.

00:55:37.000 Apparently he grew up as like a communist.

00:55:39.000 We'll talk about that, but that's only for our Daily Wire Plus members.

The Ben Shapiro Show - September 03, 2023

Can We Save Our Society? | Chris Rufo

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript