Truth Podcast - Vivek Ramaswamy - June 09, 2023


The Rise of the Managerial Class with Michael Lind | The TRUTH Podcast #32


Episode Stats

Length

37 minutes

Words per Minute

156.92712

Word Count

5,958

Sentence Count

372

Hate Speech Sentences

6


Summary

In this episode, I sit down with Michael Lind to discuss his new book, The New Class War: How to Save Democracy from the Managed Elite. We discuss the role of the managerial class in American society, and the role they play in crushing the will of the ordinary citizen. Michael Lind is a professor of political philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Review of Books. He is also the author of several other books, including The Managed Class: How To Save Democracy From The Managers, a book that focuses on how the managerial elite have replaced the old class with a new one, the technocratic class. Woke Inc. was written after Michael Lind wrote his first book, but it was written before he had even started writing for a book, so I had a chance to meet him before the book was published. I hope you enjoy this conversation, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the new class war and what he thinks about it in the next episode of the podcast. Thank you so much for joining me on this episode of Woke Nation. I appreciate it very much, and really appreciate your support and your support of my efforts to make this podcast possible. -Eugene Vellian and the work you're doing here at Woke America. Thanks so much, Elyssa and I'm looking forward to working with you again next week on another episode of The Woken Inc. and Woke in the future. . -Jon Chatter, Michael L. Lind (The New Class Wars, Michael's book, The New class War, and much more! -- of the Woke In America, of course, thank you for listening to this podcast, Michael Lind's work. --Jonestown Books: by Michael Lind, by , & ? "Woke Inc., by John Gray, "The Managed by the Managers" by The Class War by Jay Sheeran, , and in the New Class? by David Rothbard, Not Yours Truly, . . and The Third Party by James Burnham, This is a great book, and it's a must-listen-listener guide to the class war?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 I think one of the great
00:00:24.000 underappreciated divides in our country today is not that between Republicans and Democrats, but between the managerial class and the everyday citizen.
00:00:35.000 It is a managerial class that isn't just limited to government, permeates every other institution now increasingly in private sector life in America as well.
00:00:44.000 And they're the stewards of institutions that often co-opt that institution's workings for their own gain.
00:00:52.000 I'm focused on that in the federal government.
00:00:54.000 Talk a lot about the fourth branch of government, the administrative state, which I intend to dismantle.
00:00:59.000 We have three branches of government, the United States, executive, legislative and judicial.
00:01:03.000 There's no fourth codified in the Constitution.
00:01:06.000 The last time I read it, it's that fourth branch that actually operates with the greatest power today.
00:01:10.000 But this is just a symptom of a deeper cultural trend in America where the managerial bureaucrats have gained far more control of every institution, our universities, increasingly our companies, nonprofit institutions, and yes, government too.
00:01:27.000 That I think reveals a deeper skepticism of individuals and the ability of individuals to not only govern themselves in a constitutional republic, but but to come together in any institution to realize its purpose without being intermediated by the actual managers who are entrusted with safeguarding that institution.
00:01:49.000 Sort of reminds me of a story I first read in high school.
00:01:53.000 It was...
00:01:55.000 Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor, that was the chapter out of The Brothers Karamazov, one of his great works.
00:02:02.000 And the way the parable went was, Christ came back to earth in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition.
00:02:08.000 And he was spotted on the street performing miracles.
00:02:12.000 And then the Grand Inquisitor of the church heard about this.
00:02:16.000 And when he was spotted on the street, he had Christ arrested.
00:02:20.000 And the peak of the chapter is the dialogue between the Grand Inquisitor and Christ in that prison cell, where the Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that we the church don't need you here anymore.
00:02:32.000 In fact, your presence here impedes our work, and he sentences Christ to execution the next morning.
00:02:40.000 What do I mean when I'm talking about the managerial class?
00:02:44.000 I'm talking about the Grand Inquisitor, the one that Dostoevsky wrote about in The Grand Inquisitor.
00:02:50.000 And so anyway, that's the conversation we're going to have today about the rise of the managerial class and maybe a little bit weaved in there about crushing not only the will of the everyday citizen, but if we have time for it, a little bit of the discussion about the suppression of wage growth in America as well and what's going on there.
00:03:03.000 These things are all related.
00:03:05.000 And I'm happy to say I probably have like, you know, probably the best person in the country to talk about this unique nexus of issues.
00:03:11.000 I know this because I've read some of his work.
00:03:13.000 I quoted it in my first book, Woke Inc.
00:03:16.000 He's not a political partisan by any stretch, but he's an intellectual, somebody whose work I've enjoyed.
00:03:21.000 I've been looking forward to meeting for a long time and have a chance to meet today.
00:03:23.000 So Michael Lind, it's good to meet you.
00:03:25.000 Welcome to the podcast.
00:03:26.000 And I've been looking forward to this conversation.
00:03:29.000 Thank you for having me.
00:03:30.000 So, I want to talk about not your most recent book yet, though if we have time we'll get there, but the one before.
00:03:37.000 The Rise of the Managerial Class that I talked about that is in deep tension, in deep form of almost cultural warfare with the everyday citizens and or individual constituents of institutions they're supposed to represent.
00:03:53.000 You've written extensively about this.
00:03:56.000 Why don't you get some of your views on the table?
00:03:58.000 In some ways, you came before me.
00:04:00.000 Woke Inc.
00:04:00.000 was written after you wrote your book, so I think you get to go first here.
00:04:04.000 Tell me about the perspective.
00:04:06.000 The new class war, saving democracy from the managerial elite.
00:04:11.000 I build on the mid-century American thinker James Burnham's idea that a new class of managers Not only in big corporations and banks, but also in bureaucratized nonprofits and in government agencies, was replacing the capitalists of the 19th century, the owner-operators, the so-called bourgeoisie of Marxist theory.
00:04:38.000 Burnham had started off as a disciple of Leon Trotsky, but he concluded that Trotsky was wrong.
00:04:45.000 The old-fashioned capitalists were indeed giving way But to a new group of bureaucrats, both public and private, not to the working class, not to the proletariat.
00:04:56.000 And over time, Burnham, his views moved to the right.
00:05:00.000 He became a founder of National Review with his friend William F. Buckley Jr., one of my mentors when I was young.
00:05:08.000 But his essential analysis, I think, was correct.
00:05:12.000 And there have been others, including Milovan Jilas, a great Yugoslav communist dissident, who talked about the new class.
00:05:20.000 The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith talked about the technostructure.
00:05:24.000 But what all of them were saying was that in modern societies, You get the bureaucratization of what were fairly small-scale intimate organizations in the 19th century, in the 18th century.
00:05:39.000 So the company goes from being a small company with the owner-operator capitalists running it to this massive bureaucratic organization, where in some cases, ever-fluctuating shareholdership makes ownership Impossible to identify.
00:05:55.000 The same thing happens in the 20th century with gigantic bureaucratic philanthropy like the Ford Foundation or Rockefeller or these other enormous foundations where the donors don't control them.
00:06:10.000 In many cases, they're long dead.
00:06:11.000 It's simply a self-perpetuating group of bureaucrats.
00:06:14.000 The bureaucratization of the university and so on and so on and so on.
00:06:20.000 If Burnham is correct, contemporary Marxists who say you have two classes, capitalists and workers, are 100 years behind the times.
00:06:29.000 They're ignoring the rise of these private and public and non-profit bureaucracies as a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
00:06:40.000 And it's actually becoming an aristocracy because you have to have university credentials To participate in these public and private nonprofit bureaucracies.
00:06:52.000 And the best prediction of whether you will graduate with a bachelor's degree is whether you had one or more parents who did so already.
00:07:01.000 So we have these two things going on.
00:07:03.000 One is the centralization of social power.
00:07:06.000 Government, the culture, and the economy in very centralized bureaucratic organizations.
00:07:13.000 And the other is the use of university educations to screen out potential people in these organizations.
00:07:23.000 So it's interesting that you focus on that axis more than wealth, actually.
00:07:31.000 And that's where the departure is maybe from the classical Marxist to look at green pieces of paper, whereas you're looking at sort of the new currencies, I guess if you could call it that, to wield power in a way that a Marxist in some ways ought to be worried about if they were really solving for the real thing.
00:07:49.000 Well, that's actually the Marxist criticism of my views.
00:07:53.000 And of this Burnhamite approach to the managerial elite in general has been, oh, well, the capitalists are still in control.
00:08:00.000 The managers are merely their employees.
00:08:03.000 Well, with a lot of corporations, that makes no sense because you have thousands of dispersed shareholders and they may be changing day to day.
00:08:11.000 So the CEO really is in charge, right?
00:08:16.000 You know, it's not the fluctuating shareholders.
00:08:19.000 Moreover, in American law, and the same is true in European and Asian, The shareholders do not really own the corporation.
00:08:27.000 This is a myth that was spread by Milton Friedman, the economist who is not a lawyer.
00:08:32.000 If I own shares of a corporation, even if I own majority shares, I can't just go in and fire the secretary, right?
00:08:43.000 You have to go through all of these legal procedures.
00:08:46.000 You know, with the CEO and the board of directors and all of that.
00:08:49.000 So my answer to the Marxists is, let's have a thought experiment.
00:08:53.000 All of the rich people in the US, the capitalists, people who live off of investments, they vanish tomorrow.
00:09:01.000 Society more or less continues to function because most of the managers are salaried employees.
00:09:07.000 They may own shares, but they're very well paid salaried professionals.
00:09:11.000 Now let's do the opposite thought experiment.
00:09:14.000 Suppose that all of the CEOs, all of the staffers, all of the foundation program officers, all of the university administrators just vanish overnight, but the capitalists and the working class remain.
00:09:26.000 Our society would disintegrate.
00:09:28.000 The basis of power in the United States and in Western Europe and in Japan and so on Is not money directly.
00:09:37.000 It is a position of power in a powerful bureaucracy.
00:09:42.000 So, you know, if you're the chair of Goldman Sachs, you may not be the richest person in the world, but you have vastly more power and influence.
00:09:51.000 Right?
00:09:52.000 Than like a Walmart heir or heiress.
00:09:54.000 Totally.
00:09:55.000 Totally right.
00:09:56.000 It's a good analogy.
00:09:57.000 So how do you define, I mean, I think you and I know both know it from habituation and experience, but is there like a definition that you would offer of the member of the managerial class?
00:10:10.000 What does that mean?
00:10:11.000 Well, the closest and the test that I use in my book, The New Class War, is a college education.
00:10:19.000 Because about a third of the country has a college, at least a BA now.
00:10:25.000 The real serious managerial class at this point, you need a PhD or an MBA. A graduate degree of some kind.
00:10:35.000 And as I said, these are not because of your skills, it's because these are screening devices.
00:10:41.000 But so the comparison, and I'm showing my age as an old cold warrior, in all the communist countries you have what is called a nomenklatura.
00:10:50.000 These are the party members.
00:10:52.000 Now, there are millions of them in the country.
00:10:56.000 They're a minority.
00:10:57.000 They're less than 10% in the old Soviet Union and in modern China.
00:11:02.000 What do you call them?
00:11:03.000 The nomenclatura.
00:11:05.000 The nomenclatura.
00:11:06.000 From nomenclature.
00:11:07.000 Okay, the nomenclatura.
00:11:08.000 Got it, got it.
00:11:08.000 Yeah, and it literally meant the nomenclature.
00:11:11.000 They were the list of names from whom officers could be chosen.
00:11:16.000 Now, the vast majority of the communist nomenklatura of the party members were not terribly powerful.
00:11:23.000 They weren't terribly wealthy.
00:11:26.000 They were like the junior commissar in Kazakhstan or whatever.
00:11:30.000 And if you looked at them, they weren't necessarily vastly well-to-do compared to the non-elite in the Soviet Union.
00:11:39.000 But the Politburo, the actual small elite that's governing things, Could only be chosen from their ranks.
00:11:50.000 George Orwell in 1984, he has the outer party and the inner party.
00:11:57.000 So the outer party is a minority of the population, and most of them are not terribly powerful, but they have perks that the proletarians don't have.
00:12:06.000 The inner party are the people who really run, you know, the Big Brother system, but they are all selected from the outer party, even though they're vastly more powerful and better connected than members of the outer party.
00:12:21.000 So what distinguishes our outer party From the working class is basically university education.
00:12:31.000 Now, what we see as I talk about in my new book, Hell to Pay, from credential inflation, the BA is being denatured.
00:12:39.000 Too many people are getting BNAs and losing its scarcity value.
00:12:43.000 And so therefore, maybe by the 2030s or 2040s, it will actually be the graduate degree.
00:12:49.000 That is, the BA may become the new high school degree.
00:12:51.000 Even for the outer party.
00:12:53.000 Even for the outer party.
00:12:54.000 Yes, that's right.
00:12:55.000 Yeah, yeah.
00:12:56.000 So here's kind of how my sense of describing it is.
00:13:00.000 I think we're describing the same thing.
00:13:01.000 I even feel right now the college degree is almost over-inclusive of people who are really part of the managerial class, as I think you and I mean it.
00:13:11.000 I think about it as the pool of people from which anything, any entity that has a board of directors, could be a nonprofit, could be a company or whatever, could be a university.
00:13:21.000 But if there's such a thing as the title of a board of directors, The people who are eligible to sit in that role constitute today's managerial class.
00:13:33.000 It's a somewhat narrower version, but it's an excellent version because executives are constrained by boards legally in terms of power.
00:13:44.000 Oh, absolutely.
00:13:45.000 And even – I mean, people like myself or – you could think of certain quirky entrepreneur types sort of cringe at like the idea of sitting on a board.
00:13:54.000 It's not a particularly appealing activity.
00:13:57.000 I've not particularly enjoyed doing it every time I've done it.
00:14:00.000 So it's not like a wealth thing even though quirky entrepreneurs – I've enjoyed playing wealth creation through the businesses I've started, et cetera.
00:14:08.000 It's not – It's not quite that.
00:14:10.000 You can be...
00:14:12.000 And also, just because you don't have a lot of wealth doesn't mean that you can't be included in that club.
00:14:16.000 In fact, you can if you come from the right sort of social standing in the world of media or academia or other management roles.
00:14:27.000 But I think the pool of people who would be considered eligible to sit on a board of directors, whatever that board of directors is, to me is the managerial class in America.
00:14:35.000 Yeah, and C. Wright Mills, the 1950s Marxist and a fellow Texan, spoke about interlocking directorates.
00:14:43.000 And I think one of the reasons, and you may have seen this in your own experience, I've seen it, I've witnessed it up close.
00:14:49.000 Boards of directors are conformist forces.
00:14:53.000 Oh yeah, they are.
00:14:54.000 Because you start bringing in people who don't – they really are not interested in your quirky entrepreneurial idea.
00:15:01.000 They want your organization to win general approval of their social circle, right?
00:15:08.000 And at minimal risk to themselves.
00:15:10.000 At minimal risk to themselves.
00:15:11.000 Yeah.
00:15:12.000 Yeah.
00:15:12.000 So it has a stifling effect on innovation and on creativity in my opinion.
00:15:18.000 Why adopt that system of governance at all, right?
00:15:22.000 Our institutions were so in the West, and the law sort of creates the conditions for it, but we're bound up by whatever proper governance is in an organization has to take the form of a board of directors.
00:15:35.000 It doesn't really make sense, actually, if what you're solving for is creating things that don't exist in the world, and to serve people who are outside of that special club.
00:15:45.000 What's your take?
00:15:47.000 Well, actually, this is relevant to the James Burnham theory because it made sense In 1900. Why?
00:15:56.000 Or in 1920. Because the board of directors was the rich guys who owned them.
00:16:01.000 Oh, that's right.
00:16:02.000 Yeah, fair enough.
00:16:03.000 They were the owners.
00:16:04.000 But, you know, US Steel or whatever had gotten so big that Carnegie could not, you know, manage it directly.
00:16:11.000 So you hired managers.
00:16:12.000 But the theory was you would have a small number of people would own all the stocks.
00:16:17.000 And they would, you know, hire and fire the managers.
00:16:20.000 They were like a condo association.
00:16:22.000 So it made sense already by the 1930s when Adolph Burley and Gardner Means write about the modern managerial corporation.
00:16:31.000 The board of directors no longer really reflects people with a stake in the organization.
00:16:37.000 You know, they may nominally be elected by shareholder elections, but unless the founders, as some tech founders have done, you know, keep most of the shares for themselves or have class A and class B and so on, you get this really weird anomalous thing.
00:16:55.000 And you find the same thing in nonprofits, where according to law, the board of directors has all power.
00:17:01.000 Even if they don't raise any of the money for the nonprofit.
00:17:07.000 And they were just, you know, some random friends of the president who got appointed years ago.
00:17:12.000 So it's a very strange legal structure.
00:17:14.000 And as I say, it tends to promote conformity among elite organizations.
00:17:21.000 Now, here's just an interesting question for you.
00:17:25.000 I guess, like, I'm not on the left, but assume it's a challenge coming from the left, which is...
00:17:31.000 Why is – so far what you've offered and what we've been covering so far is a descriptive account.
00:17:37.000 It's not saying this is good or bad.
00:17:43.000 Why is that model of power distribution – Worse or less desirable than one in which it was just the capitalists that were wielding the power instead.
00:17:55.000 Like if you did substitute in the blank and said that the thought experiment was such that all the rich people disappear and all the managerial class disappear.
00:18:04.000 In sequence, it would actually be that society falls apart in the case of the rich people, you know, the Ayn Rand vision of the world or whatever, the Atlas Shrugged vision of the world.
00:18:12.000 Okay, like that would be – that's a different worldview, but it's a different group.
00:18:16.000 Some overlap, but not entirely overlapping group of people who hold the keys to power.
00:18:21.000 Why is that?
00:18:23.000 Oh, I think that there's no doubt that managerial capitalism in sectors where it's relevant, such as manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, automobiles, in the productive economy, it's far superior to old-fashioned small proprietor capitalism.
00:18:45.000 You can't have lots of mom-and-pop aerospace companies and automobile companies.
00:18:49.000 You have to have massive organizations.
00:18:52.000 It is better, in my opinion, that they be capitalist to some degree rather than simply being government bureaucracies.
00:19:00.000 So there's a strain on the right that wants to use antitrust to break up everything big.
00:19:07.000 Well, that's the end of your country as a technological and manufacturing power and also as a military power.
00:19:14.000 So then the question becomes, how do you check the power And we're just talking about the private economy now, okay?
00:19:23.000 Because you can structure the nonprofit sector and education in much more radically different ways.
00:19:29.000 But okay, so let's say you have Ford Motor Company, you have Boeing, right?
00:19:33.000 And you have Apple.
00:19:36.000 There were historically two ways to deal with this if you rejected antitrust, breaking up Boeing into 150 little tiny mom and pop airplane companies.
00:19:46.000 One is regulation.
00:19:49.000 And the other is what John Kenneth Galbraith called countervailing power.
00:19:53.000 So regulation assumes that you have a wise, benevolent government elite, which will win an election.
00:20:01.000 Maybe they're elected politicians.
00:20:03.000 Maybe they're appointed regulators.
00:20:06.000 But they will do the right thing.
00:20:07.000 They will just give orders and they will keep these giant concentrations of industry, which we need, in line, you know, focused on their work and not abusing workers in the environment and so on.
00:20:18.000 A much more skeptical view informs the idea of countervailing power, which is you can't trust massive concentrations of private power, but you also can't trust massive concentrations of public power.
00:20:32.000 And when they're the same class, when the regulators and the CEOs went to the same prep schools and the same Ivy League universities and so on, and their kids all go to the same kindergartens, then it's just really one elite.
00:20:48.000 I mean, even though it's nominally public and private.
00:20:51.000 So the countervailing power theory says ordinary people need to be able to pool their efforts.
00:20:59.000 To have organizations, mass membership organizations, that can bargain on their behalf without hoping that elected officials will altruistically govern on their behalf, but also give them some bargaining power with corporations.
00:21:17.000 And historically in the United States and in Western Europe, the two most powerful mass membership organizations were churches and trade unions.
00:21:27.000 Because these were extra-governmental organizations that were accountable to their members.
00:21:33.000 They weren't necessarily democratic.
00:21:35.000 You know, if it's the Catholic Church, you don't elect the Pope.
00:21:38.000 But, you know, they were accountable.
00:21:41.000 And, you know, so what has happened in the third group was local political party machines.
00:21:50.000 Which up to the 1970s, the parties in the United States from Martin Van Buren in the 1830s onwards have been federations of local chapters.
00:21:59.000 They were clubs.
00:22:00.000 They were federations of clubs.
00:22:02.000 That all disintegrated with the primary system in the 1970s.
00:22:06.000 So you flash forward to the 21st century, these three organizations that were not formal government organizations, but they acted as lobbies.
00:22:16.000 On behalf of working class people in particular who didn't have money and they didn't have social connections, they didn't have influence.
00:22:24.000 The churches, the trade unions, and the local political machines, they've largely fallen apart or died out.
00:22:31.000 And that just means that the managerial elite can kind of do what it wants to, and we've seen that's what it's been doing for a couple of decades.
00:22:40.000 There's nobody on the outside who's going to stop them.
00:22:43.000 So what do you think is the solution to this?
00:22:45.000 Well, I'm kind of pessimistic.
00:22:47.000 I think the solution has to be to build up some new versions.
00:22:54.000 It doesn't have to be old versions.
00:22:56.000 The existing National Labor Relations Act union system is dead.
00:23:01.000 It can't be revived.
00:23:03.000 You know, people are leaving churches.
00:23:05.000 It's kind of hard without the religious revival to change that.
00:23:10.000 But what you need is reformers within the managerial elite itself and also capitalists who have the resources to be heretics sometimes.
00:23:22.000 You have to have a reform faction within the elite and it needs to set up structures That will mobilize ordinary people and give them power.
00:23:34.000 So you would have this reformed faction of the managerial elite actually trying to empower working class people to check the authority of their fellow managerial class.
00:23:46.000 And this has happened throughout history.
00:23:48.000 Whenever you've had the extension of the suffrage, you've had extension of civil rights, it was always led to some degree by members of the existing elite.
00:23:57.000 And often they did it for political reasons.
00:23:59.000 It wasn't just out of altruism.
00:24:01.000 It was to create new voters.
00:24:04.000 We're to create new supporters.
00:24:06.000 So that's how I think it happens.
00:24:08.000 Otherwise, you're limited to two things.
00:24:11.000 One is ordinary people can vote every couple of years, and maybe they will, maybe they won't.
00:24:15.000 And most Americans, as you know, live in single-party districts where your vote doesn't count because it's not a swing district.
00:24:26.000 And you can hope that the person elected in the all-Democratic or all-Republican district will do something for you.
00:24:33.000 But, you know, it's kind of a – if you're working class, I don't think there's much hope there.
00:24:37.000 The alternative is that you just try to persuade the managerial elite itself out of the goodness of their hearts to try – and that, you know, these are not bad people.
00:24:50.000 No, no, no.
00:24:51.000 Most human beings are good – by nature, good people.
00:24:54.000 Yeah, the problem with oligarchies and aristocracies is they only talk to each other.
00:24:59.000 A certain mayor of New York, whom I will not name, but there aren't that many possible alternatives, told me one time that he kept in touch with the man on the street by talking to his bodyguards in his limo.
00:25:14.000 Okay.
00:25:15.000 At least he was trying, right?
00:25:18.000 I'm not sure how accurate a reflection they were.
00:25:21.000 But it's a problem.
00:25:23.000 It's a problem, you know, not to be in a bubble of other managers.
00:25:27.000 It's an interesting distinction.
00:25:31.000 One of the observations I would make, I'm just curious about recent political history is, you talked about the decline of mass member organizations to stand up to that concentration of power.
00:25:42.000 It feels like the MAGA movement is in some ways a mass member organization that filled the void created by the death of trade unions, local political party machines, churches.
00:25:58.000 I mean, Trump in 2016 in particular, and Trump today is something else, but Trump in 2015 or 2016 created a sort of mass member organization that stood up Well,
00:26:19.000 in my book, The New Class War, I argue that it's easy to get locked into a doom loop In which you have the technocratic neoliberals with the managerial elite.
00:26:30.000 And they just run things most of the time and pay no attention to the public.
00:26:34.000 Then you get large sections of the public get very alienated.
00:26:37.000 And they look for demagogues.
00:26:38.000 They look for demagogic populists.
00:26:41.000 And some of them are good, some of them are bad.
00:26:43.000 I'm just using this as a technical term.
00:26:45.000 And we've seen this.
00:26:47.000 They can be good ones.
00:26:47.000 They can be good demagogues.
00:26:48.000 And we've seen this in where you have very weak mass membership institutions.
00:26:54.000 In the American South, between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Revolution, you've got these demagogues like Huey Long.
00:27:02.000 And they did some good things, you know, sometimes.
00:27:05.000 In South America, you had Juan Perón in Argentina.
00:27:08.000 You had Vargas in Brazil.
00:27:12.000 And they were semi-dictators, semi-popular.
00:27:15.000 But the problem with these demagogues, and even when they're very well intentioned and very accomplished, It tends to be an evanescence, not a lasting structure.
00:27:26.000 It's not a lasting machine.
00:27:28.000 So it evaporates.
00:27:30.000 It's a cult of personality.
00:27:31.000 And when the personality is removed, the whole thing crumbles.
00:27:34.000 Or, as happened with Huey Long and happened with various other demagogues, it becomes family members.
00:27:44.000 So essentially, they create a family dynasty, which then joins the existing elite, the children or the brothers or the sisters or nephews or nieces or whatever.
00:27:55.000 But again, it sort of fizzles out.
00:27:57.000 So I think, you know, often the demagogues, if you're a successful demagogue, You are filling a void in public discourse, right?
00:28:08.000 The voice of the people is what it means in Greek.
00:28:12.000 And so Trump seized on various issues that were being excluded by the elite bipartisan consensus.
00:28:20.000 Bernie Sanders, who's a sort of demagogue of the left, did the same thing.
00:28:26.000 So you can introduce those issues into general discussion, but unless there's some kind of organization that isn't just a cult of personality around one individual or one family, then it's all too easy for the establishment just to wait until that person goes away.
00:28:45.000 As the establishment is fervently praying, Trump will go away.
00:28:50.000 Right?
00:28:51.000 And as the Democratic establishment pretty much did in Bernie Sanders in 2020s by rallying everybody against him and getting the progressives to drop out of the race.
00:29:08.000 So, you know, it's like they say in Vegas, never bet against the House.
00:29:12.000 If you have an outsider populist demagogue coming up against this interlocking bureaucracies that control, you know, much of the corporate world, banking, media, universities, and nonprofits, well, you know, my money's going to be on the establishment.
00:29:28.000 Yeah, I mean, that's as a betting man.
00:29:29.000 The question is, as a normative compass, you know, what do we do about it?
00:29:33.000 I think I... I think part of the ticket out is not just the creation of the mass member organizations because that's still – and this is such an interesting conversation.
00:29:46.000 That takes time, but I think there's even a normative current that – like this is where – I think on the descriptive account, you and I are locked in arms.
00:29:55.000 I think on the normative account, I think this is where – I don't think we're in disagreement, but my view is a little bit orthogonal to yours where – I think that embracing the individuality of the individuals who occupy the members of the managerial power structures is likely our way out.
00:30:22.000 And I do think that we live in a moment where, you know, we human beings, what makes us human?
00:30:30.000 We're Able to believe in something bigger than ourselves.
00:30:33.000 We were able to embrace ideals.
00:30:35.000 Ideals that we all share in common.
00:30:41.000 And that's what makes us different than animals.
00:30:43.000 Animals respond to needs.
00:30:44.000 They, you know, can't believe in things.
00:30:47.000 Part of what makes America appealing, I think, ought to make America appealing, is that it calls on our humanity.
00:30:54.000 It's a nation founded on a set of ideals.
00:30:56.000 And so, I guess I'm wondering whether a form of nationalism That calls on the common thread of ideals that we share as individuals and spheres of our lives that go outside of the social power relation prism of viewing the world that we've sort of been talking about is closer to being our way out of this quagmire than conceding that the relationships are governed by power relations at all.
00:31:23.000 I mean, we started with the Marxist example.
00:31:25.000 Now we're saying that locus of that power relationship is You know, in the form of bureaucratic power and managerial power, when maybe we just need to get rid of the, you know, I don't know what label you put on it, Foucault, Post-Foucault, whatever, you know, power structure-laden view of human relations to...
00:31:45.000 Try on a different prism that asks whether power relations are even the way we ought to be looking at this.
00:31:51.000 And even though that could be a source of concern and there's truth to that account, there can be truth to a different account too that dilutes the problems of the first account to less prominence, if not dilutes it to irrelevant by calling on The power of our common idealism as human beings,
00:32:10.000 as citizens of a nation, say, that make the inequalities be it through wealth or through bureaucratic standing limited to such a small scope of importance.
00:32:23.000 That the civic equality that we all bear as citizens are actually what grounds us in a true, deeper, normative equality.
00:32:29.000 And I don't know how much you followed in the last week when I sort of – it was an idea that's neither here nor there for our conversation really, but it is in a little bit of a way.
00:32:38.000 I said we'd raise the voting age from 18 to 25, but you still vote at age 18 if you either perform national service in the form of six months in the military or first responder role or else pass the same civics test that an immigrant has to pass.
00:32:53.000 In a sense, whether you're a kid of a billionaire, whether you're a kid of a college-educated person or whether you're not, that's what determines whether as a young person you get to participate in selecting who governs the country.
00:33:05.000 Anyway, I bring that up through this ramble.
00:33:08.000 Well, no, that's relevant.
00:33:12.000 I ghost wrote much of William F. Buckley Jr.'s book on national service.
00:33:16.000 Oh, really?
00:33:17.000 I was 26, I think.
00:33:20.000 So it can be done right and it can be done wrong.
00:33:24.000 So the right way to do it is to make it universal and mandatory for everybody.
00:33:30.000 The way that it's often been discussed is if you get student loans, if you get any kind of government aid, you have to do national service.
00:33:38.000 Oh, I reject that.
00:33:39.000 But if your parents can just write you a check, then you don't.
00:33:43.000 It doesn't make any sense.
00:33:44.000 Yeah, and that was Bill Buckley's view too.
00:33:46.000 It has to be universal.
00:33:47.000 It has to be universal.
00:33:48.000 I mean you understand the proposal that I made which is – it's a much more diet version of that.
00:33:53.000 But it is universal in the sense that nobody can vote at 18 if they don't do it and you can vote at 18 if you do do it but at least has like a civic empowerment.
00:34:01.000 But it's – regardless, there's no buying your way out of it.
00:34:04.000 Well, so here's the big – I know all the arguments for national service, for and against.
00:34:09.000 So what kills it – Is two things.
00:34:14.000 One, organized labor tends to oppose it, saying that employers are going to use these, at least civilian national service.
00:34:22.000 That is, if you allow people to do civilian work, like being nursing aides, then the fear is that you're not going to hire 45-year-old nursing aides with kids, right?
00:34:32.000 You're going to hire 18-year-olds.
00:34:33.000 Same fear of AI, except it's being supplied by unpaid labor of a different kind, yeah.
00:34:37.000 And the other explanation is simply that it's tyranny to do this in peacetime.
00:34:43.000 Now, to me, the answer really would be to do it through a militia-type system, not a right-wing militia, but, you know, classic, you know, colonial era.
00:34:52.000 Early Republican militia and just do it at the state level.
00:34:55.000 But I think it has to be connected to national security.
00:35:00.000 And I think that in the modern world, it would be very easy to do this because if there are serious direct assaults among great powers in the 21st century, the US, Russia, China, they're going to try to shut down each other's infrastructure before they do anything else.
00:35:18.000 So I think you could come up with things that you could do without going to serve in foreign combat that would be true national defense.
00:35:27.000 Shipbuilding, where we have a short – I mean, we could shipyards.
00:35:31.000 So – I think you and I are very similar wavelengths here.
00:35:35.000 Here's something I learned in this conversation is that it turns out I've quoted not one of your books, but two of your books.
00:35:39.000 I just thought I was quoting Buckley, which is in the same book, Woke Inc., that I wrote.
00:35:44.000 It was a different part of the book.
00:35:45.000 Well, Bill wouldn't mind.
00:35:46.000 He was asked when Reagan became president.
00:35:50.000 They said, well, if your friend Ron Reagan becomes president, what cabinet post would you accept?
00:35:55.000 Bill said, ventriloquist.
00:36:01.000 I really like that.
00:36:04.000 Well, you know, I think there's a role for everyone to play, right?
00:36:07.000 And so that doesn't take away.
00:36:09.000 Well, Reagan had a great line that you get a lot done in politics.
00:36:13.000 You get a lot done in politics if you don't care who takes the credit.
00:36:16.000 Yes, yes.
00:36:19.000 I'm in for that model.
00:36:21.000 I agree with you.
00:36:22.000 I think that get the right person saying the right things that Any person saying the right things really doesn't much matter as long as we have a way of getting them done.
00:36:31.000 Well, Michael, we could go on for a long time.
00:36:33.000 This is a good introductory conversation.
00:36:34.000 I take it you and I are going to be chatting for some time to come.
00:36:37.000 And I'd ask you to think about a more real – I don't know, more realistic.
00:36:43.000 Anything can be realistic, I suppose.
00:36:44.000 But maybe a good first step towards the service model may not – Like you, I'm not for this buying your way around it because then it just doesn't work, but maybe tying it to civic privileges at least.
00:36:55.000 So it's not at behest of imprisonment, but at behest of civic privileges like determining who gets to run the country, for example.
00:37:03.000 Maybe a bridge that actually in the American context gets there in a way that, you know, in South Korea or Israel, it might work the other way, but in the American context, this might just be our way of doing it, tying the privileges of citizenship to the duties.
00:37:18.000 And so that's a thought I'd leave with you.
00:37:20.000 Well, I think the 15th Amendment might – you'd have to revise the 15th Amendment.
00:37:24.000 That's why it'd have to be done by constitutional amendment, no doubt about it.
00:37:27.000 And so – But you can recreate, I think, something like a national service.
00:37:33.000 Without amendment.
00:37:34.000 I got you.
00:37:35.000 Yeah, I got you.
00:37:35.000 Yeah.
00:37:36.000 But I think the political consensus around, you know, tying into civic privileges may be more attuned to the, it immediately sidesteps the tyranny argument, which is the main argument otherwise.
00:37:47.000 And great discussion, Michael.
00:37:49.000 Really enjoyed it.
00:37:50.000 And I hope this is the first of several that we have.
00:37:53.000 Looking forward to it.
00:37:54.000 Thank you.
00:37:55.000 I'm Vivek Ramaswamy, candidate for president, and I approve this message.