Republican Credits Rape & Incest for Humanity’s Existence


one of the most disgusting Republican members
of the House right now is Steve King. I’m not going to [inaudible], I’m gonna go through his full repulsive credentials
for you, but they include everything from coddling and excusing, white nationalism,
extreme religious hysteria. Even many Republican organizations have condemned Steve King as
the disgusting racist that he is. Steve King one spoke about being upset that white nationalist
is now considered offensive. He once told Breitbart news that he doesn’t want Muslims
working in meat packing plants because quote, I don’t want people doing my pork that won’t
eat it, let alone hope I go to hell for eating pork chops. He equated the torture and a prisoner
abuse of the AGU Ghraib prison to quote hazing. And he subscribes to this white genocide conspiracy
theory known as the great replacement, which we’ve talked about a few times now, but I
won’t go into detail about now. So anyway, needless to say, this is a horrible, horrible
person. He now is saying that we should credit rape and incest for the existence of humanity. That in a sense, if it were not for rape and
incest because it apparently is very common, his mind, um, it is, it would be destructive
to humanity and therefore maybe rape and incest aren’t that bad. And thus there should be
no such exceptions for rape and incest. When you talk about abortion law, when I saw the
headline, part of me didn’t want to believe it. Even if it was Steve King. Even for Steve
King, it sounded a little bit too much. I don’t want to speak for Steve King. So here
he is. Yesterday in Urbandale, Iowa. This is out of his own mouth. What if it was okay and what if we went back
through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape
and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? Considering
all the wars and all the rape and fillers has taken place and then whatever happened,
they told her after society, I know I can’t certify that they’re not not part of a product
of that. So I guess the argument is we should not have
a rape and incest exceptions for abortion bans because if we did, humanity wouldn’t
exist because rape and incest have been so prominent in the perpetuation of Homo sapiens
around the world is Steve King feeling like with Donald Trump in the White House, he’s
no longer getting attention for saying really dumb things. Like is he, uh, realizing that
there’s someone actually more repugnant and reprehensible who’s getting a lot of attention
for the things he says and he wants some of that attention back to Trump. I read a funny
comment. Something like Steve King is from Iowa. He mostly knows people who are the products
of rape and incest. And that’s why he thinks that without rape and incest, there’d be no
humanity. I read that on the Internet, but that would be a distasteful joke to make.
So I’m not going to make it today. Uh, Steve King also suggested during the same
speech in Urbandale, Iowa that there’s a plot to remove him from power. And I want to talk
about that because the way Steve King presents it, there’s some kind of conspiracy or subterfuge
to remove him from his seat. In the House of Representatives, I call it something else,
I call it. He has an opponent and there is actually really good news. The opponent is
our friend j d Scholten who is running again against Steve King. You can support j d you
can maybe vote for JD if you live in Iowa’s fourth district. So we met j d Scholten back
in 2018 August of 2018 I went to net roots nation in New Orleans, Louisiana, interviewed
a few different 2018 candidates. One of them was j d Scholten. J D Scholten is a actually
a political outsider with really good ideas. He’s a progressive. He recognizes the horrible
nature of Steve King. I tweeted with him a few weeks ago and said,
hey, are you running again in 2020 because it would really be great to remove Steve King
and he said at the time he wasn’t sure. He has since announced that he is running again.
So we’re going to try to get JD Scholten on the show and talk to him. He lost by only
10,000 votes to Steve King in 2018. This is a significantly red leaning district. Iowa’s
fourth district and j d Scholten came within 10,000 votes. Just three percentage points
separating them. Steve Scholten, uh, Steve King could lose to j d Scholten in 2020. I
hope you’ll check out JD Shelton’s campaign, uh, contribute if that’s the way you want
to activate work to get out the vote, vote in that election if you live in Iowa’s fourth
district. But we’ll definitely be talking about that one more. As much as we would’ve
loved to see Ted Cruz be removed by better or worse in 2018, I would love to see JD Scholten
removed disgusting bottom theater, Steve King in 2020 and we’re going to do what we can
to make that happen.

The Epidemic of Intellectual Arrogance


It’s great to be joined today by Michael Lynch,
who’s the director of the humanities institute, a professor philosophy at the University of Connecticut. Also author of the new book. No at all society, truth and arrogance in
political culture. Uh, Michael, so great to talk to you. Thanks so much for having me. This is such an interesting topic, a to me,
the idea of the sort of combination of a much longer period of pseudo and anti intellectual
realism, which has sort of combined with or crashed with this intellectual arrogance trend
that we’re seeing partially because of the Internet and social media. Can you first just talk a little bit about
what are some of the ways that Internet and social media have made people intellectually
arrogant? Well, when we talk about, first of all, just,
you know, when we talk about intellectual arrogance, what I mean is the idea of being
resistant to improving your worldview by appeal to evidence or to the experience of other
people. Uh, it’s the idea that, you know, you know,
it all and that your, your, your worldview is at least with some respects unimprovable
and I think there are pretty obvious ways that all of us are, are really intimately
familiar with, uh, in which the Internet and the ways in which we use the Internet can
reinforce and encourage this attitude. I mean, for one thing, you know, no matter
what your opinion you may have on, on any topic, you can Google and get some confirmation
for that opinion from some corner of the internet or not. Uh, and in a way, you know, right now, uh,
it used to be that scene was believing we’d say, but now googling is believing and therefore,
and you know, getting information, uh, in that way, the, the sort of weird, paradoxical
fact is that our ability to get information in the, in that way so easily, right at our
fingertips is also, uh, not, not just making us in a sense, feel more knowledgeable, but
feel that we, we are, uh, always right. Because of, uh, the ability to confirm my
biases. I mean, one add, one other element to that,
which is that the Internet is a personal personalized information seeking device. Uh, as it were, a set of devices and platforms. Uh, everything that we encounter on the Internet,
uh, from the news that comes down, uh, our Facebook feed to, uh, the ads that we see
on the pages we visit are all personalized. And of course that’s great when, uh, we’re
shopping for books or shoes or what have you. It’s not so great when we’re shopping for
facts because if you’re just getting the facts that confirm your preexisting prejudices,
that’s a, you know, short road to type of epistemic disaster. Yeah. There are some elements to the social media
platforms, the way you’re talking about algorithmically and otherwise, which sort of, um, encourage
or perpetuate a sort of reasoning from emotion and style rather than facts. But, but beyond that, is there something about
social media and the Internet that just beyond the algorithms does encourage people to be
arguing more from emotion rather than from fact? Yeah, I think there is. I think that one of the things that we, uh,
besides the sort of algorithms and the personalization, one of the things that I think is really motivating
this rise that we see in a type of arrogance and including what I would call as type of
tribal arrogance, is that we’re often unaware of how we’re communicating on social media. Um, we’re sort of in a sense a blind to, to
the real nature of our communicative acts. Here’s an example. When you share, when we all share something
online that’s a news story, whether it’s fake or otherwise, when we share some piece of
news content, uh, you know, from the Guardian or, or from this show or what have you, you
think of yourself, uh, as at least I do as like sharing some piece of, you know, factual
information or at least saying, you know, here’s some interesting opinion that you should
probably pay attention to. And I’m saying that to my, my friends or followers. Yeah. So it looks like I’m engaging in sort of the
game of, you know, giving reasons and so forth. But really it seems like we might be doing
something else. So one reason to think that is because a lot
of data’s coming out right now, uh, that show that something that we probably all intuitively
know, which is that almost no one that shares things online reads what they share and what,
you know, what that, that so just something, it’s just that we’re really not, we’re doing
something else. We’re communicating in some other way. And what I think we’re often doing is what,
what we’re doing is signaling that, well, we’re a member of a particular tribe or group. We’re saying we’re on this team and we’re
so we’re, and we’re communicating. In other words, I sort of emotional feeling
and, or perhaps we’re communicating in a sense of outrage. And of course the platforms are hardwired
to encourage this sort of thing. The sorts of, uh, you know, the treats, again,
things that most of the people listening here are going to know is that the more sort of
emotional language you include in your tweet or your post, uh, the more sort of at language
of outrage who include the higher the likelihood that that will be reposted, reshare, reshared
or retweet it. And that fact alone suggests that the whole
economy of social media is, uh, encouraging us to engage in this, uh, sort of expression
of sentiment. I was David Hume, the philosopher would call
it a door emotion. And the fact that we’re not aware that we’re
actually doing that makes us really easy marks. Yeah. Well, this, this starts being dovetail with,
um, findings from such, you know, varied academic disciplines as what Jonathan Height has written
about in moral psychology. What Daniel economen has written about in
behavioral economics that in many times we simply, we believe that we have come to our
conclusions based on the evidence. When in reality, we’ve often come to our conclusions
for other reasons. Hight would say it relates to our moral values
that, that resonate more with us. Uh, Daniel condiment would have more of a
logistical, practical behavioral economics approach, but that we are first coming to
our conclusions then finding information to justify them. And that’s where I think social media has
really scaled up this mechanism. Yeah, it’s a, it’s, it’s definitely a, a device,
a mechanism as you just said, uh, to fuel confirmation bias. I mean there’s been a lot of research as,
as most of the listeners will probably know, uh, about this sort of bubbles, the uh, information
and epistemic bubbles that we live in that is, uh, fueled by the personalization we talked
about and also, uh, encouraged by the, the, the, the hard wiring of the platforms as I
was talking about, uh, them to encourage the emotional exchange over informational exchange. I mean, I think what we’re finding is that
both the economy of social media and our, our, our psychology, our human psychology,
our PR, our just to working together and formed me to sort of toxic mix that’s include increasing
this type of arrogance that we’re talking about. And of course you have to add to that politics
ideology. Right now in our country, there is an increasing,
there are ideologies that are starting to celebrate the idea that fat, uh, facts and
unreason and the experts and science celebrate that those things should not be listened to
and that you should trust your gut and that you should trust your child and that it’s
the tribe that gives power and it’s not, and we’re not answerable to the facts that, that
ideology together with the psychology that we’ve already, we were just talking about. And, uh, the, the technology that’s a real
toxic mix and it’s really leading to what I’m calling the know-it-alls society. So that’s what I wanted to talk about next,
which is what do we know empirically, uh, or, or a quantitatively about the partisan
divide on some of these phenomena. Because, for example, there are many reports
which say if you look back at the 2016 election, the amount of actual fake news, not using
the definition of the current president but actual just straight rate fake news that was
shared was significantly higher by conservatives than by liberals as one example of showing
that this phenomenon is not sort of taking root equally across partisanship. What can you add to our understanding of the
partisan element to this, uh, sort of cultural element that you’ve identified? The no, it all society. Okay. Well, you know, when we think about polarization,
so let’s step back a little bit and think about, uh, what, you know, common topic of
conversation conversations like this, which is that, uh, you know, were polarized. W recent data for example, from Pew, suggest
that on a broad range of issues, uh, uh, on, on actual issues, if you pull people, uh,
who are both conservative leaning, conservative, liberal, leaning and liberal, you find, surprisingly,
while of course Americans are, you know, strongly divided on a whole number of issues, there’s
actually much more agreement than you might Annecy Lee think. Yes. At the same time, at the same time, there
is increasingly a dramatic increase in polarization of what we might call effective polarization
polarization or, uh, group polarization. That is, we are more and more prone to describe
the people on the other side of the aisle as distrustful, as, as, as untrustworthy,
as a moral, as ignorant. Uh, and we increasingly know that the other
side describes us. Whoever the up us is in the same way, and
we resent them for it. That, so the first thing I think to keep in
mind is that there’s a sort of, hi, there’s a growing awareness that we, uh, that we are
sort of, uh, polarized in this way and there’s, I’ve strong resentment antagonism that’s fueling
being fueled precisely from that awareness. Now, to get back to your question about, uh,
how these different ideologies both on the left or the right, respond or, or react to
that I think in, in very different ways. There’s no doubt right now, at least in my
mind, that, uh, many of the ideologies on the y on the right, particularly ideologies
that are driven by nationalism, uh, and, uh, white nationalism in particular are ideologies
that are self-consciously celebrating, uh, a, uh, rejection of, um, what we might have
called rational authority authority. Uh, that’s part of what’s fueling, uh, some
of the enthusiasm I think that we see from, from particular advocates of that ideology
online. The thought is, uh, and we, we see it, I think
an indeed by the inhabitant of the White House. I mean, if you want to talk about arrogance,
it seems like, uh, exhibit number one of course is Donald Trump, a man who after all has been
known to say that he’s the humblest person that he knows. Uh, look, I think it’s not, so it’s not, I
think it has surprised most of the, your listeners that, uh, that white nationalism is a view
as a view according to which, you know, uh, whites are superior. Uh, they, uh, the, uh, whites intrinsically
know more, are better people. That sort of, uh, nonsense. That’s clearly an attitude that is symbolized
by or in, in embodies as type of arrogance that I had been discussing. And I think that the degree to which that’s
continues to be propagated, uh, is the degree to which we’re going to see an increase, uh,
increase in sort of effective polarization that we were talking about before. On the other hand, I also want to point out
that, look, it’s, uh, if you want to look up intellectually arrogant in the dictionary,
you’re probably gonna find a picture of a face very much like mine. I mean, I’m out. I’m a white male, liberal, Progressive College
professor, uh, to do a lot of people in the country. You know, I, I embody intellectual arrogance
and I imagine some of the people listening have probably been thinking that. Fair enough. I think it’s important that progressors realize
that we are not immune to implicit bias. We are not immune to the sort of problems
that are inherent in human psychology that afflict the rest of mankind, so to speak. Uh, progressive’s I think we, and I am, I
have been guilty of this and some of your listeners might think I’ve been guilty of
this already and this is that you can fall into thinking that, uh, well, uh, conservatives,
you know, they’re all like, uh, they all, they all fall into the same buckets. Uh, they all are the ones that have prejudice
and bias and we are the, we are the tribe of reason and rationale and we are free of
those things. That’s a mistake. It is falling into the same type of tribal
arrogance that were there. You know, I, for 1:00 AM trying to combat, so I will, um, frequently, somewhat frequently
get phone calls from viewers who will say, Hey, David, you know, a couple years ago I
fell into an alt-right sort of echo chamber. I was watching some gaming thing on youtube,
which led me to Stefan Molyneux and then Ben Shapiro. And then, Whoa, okay. What they, they described the path in and
they say they, I bought into it completely. And then the algorithm showed me, uh, a left
wing Gamer, which brought me to you and to, you know, they’ll name other people that do
what I do. And now I’m out. I’m out. I’ve, I’ve sort of been deprogrammed from
that. Uh, and of course my initial reaction is,
okay, that’s the outcome is a good one as far as I see it. But is there not a bigger problem here that
merely by clicking around on youtube, you were first pulled to the extreme, right? And then merely by chance you became pushed
to the extreme left too. I hear the, uh, way too malleable nature of
so many people’s thinking and I’m curious what your reaction is to those stories of
radicalization and de Radicalization, which even if we like the way that the outcome went
to me signal a sort of problem plot, problematic, deeper problem. That’s a really interesting point. Uh, like you, of course I celebrate people
becoming de radicalized. Yes, entirely from violent nationalist ideology
is, but I also agree that what that sort of anecdote or story illustrates is the passiveness
by which most of you know the pass away in which most of us seem to know nowadays. Much of what we know we Google now is right. I was talking about earlier, that’s how most
people today receive most of their social, their information. And while again, that’s, that can be really
super useful. I Google know all day every day. Um, it’s also I think changing the way we
interface with information and how we critically evaluate it. I think that one of the things that, one of
the things that I, I talk about in the book is some lessons from some very ancient, uh,
philosophical figures, including going back all the way to Socrates. Socrates. One of the things that’s really interesting
about the license you can get gleaned from the end of his life is that he was somebody
who was interested in questioning, uh, both authority and, and himself. He said, well, you know, one of the things
that I really, the only thing I really can say I know is that I don’t know very much. And he was keen of course, to sort of bring
down the people who claim that they know, uh, quite a bit about things. And he was like that he some a pleasure clearly. And in, in getting them to admit that they
didn’t know as much as I did and that’s great. But he also wanted us to focus on our own
attitudes. And he thought that in order to do that you
needed to get outside on the street literally and start talking to people to start having
conversations. I think there’s something to be said with
that attitude. Not so much as that you can’t talk people
to people online like we’re doing right now. That’s perfectly, I think Socratic what, uh,
Socrates I think was really pushing us there was to think of ourselves not as passive,
just shockers of information, but as, uh, active inquirers people who get out and try
to, you know, read, engage, talk to one another and question, question assumptions. And as I said, continue to question your in
yourself and your own, your own biases and prejudices that you might not have been aware
that you actually have a very, very good advice for sure. And if only I was taking place, if only it
was easier to make that the reality based on how a lot of these online platforms are,
are deliberately configured to, to really generate the opposite. Um, we’ve been speaking with Michael Lynch
who’s author of the new book. No, it all society, truth and arrogance in political culture. Michael, really a pleasure having you on today. Thanks so much. It was great.

A Moderate Democrat Confesses His Sins


-Welcome back
to the show, everybody. I’m very excited —
-Excuse me. -Sorry?
-I’m here for my beating. [ Laughter ]
-What? -I’m a moderate Democrat,
and I’m here for my beating. [ Laughter ] My flagellation for my sins
of having the thoughts of a moderate Democrat.
-I’m sorry, everyone. This is one of my writers,
Ben Warheit. Ben,
what are you talking about? [ Cheers and applause ] -I think you know what
I’m talking about. I’m a moderate Democrat.
I have a problem. I’ve been having thoughts that
are only kind of progressive, but not
dramatically progressive. [ Laughter ] So I’ve come to confess
my twisted thoughts and receive my punishment
for being a moderate. That’s right, a moderate, the most hated, vile,
indefensible, and least sexually appealing
of all political philosophies, turned eunuch many years ago,
having pulverized my genitals on the grindstone
of compromise! [ Laughter ]
-Are you done, Ben, ’cause I — -I am a moderate Democrat,
a man without family or a home, a bad man, a sick man,
and I need to be punished. Now, come, Willem, and flail me
upon the buttocks and the back while I confess my sins. [ Scattered applause ]
Excuse me. [ Laughter ] Let us begin. As a moderate Democrat, I think
you sometimes need to listen to those with whom you disagree. [ Crack ]
Aah! [ Laughter ] I think that
incremental progress is better than no progress.
[ Crack ] Uhh! I think that Fox News
is a pile of garbage, but on any given day,
I find MSNBC and CNN to be just as insufferable. [ Crack ]
Uhh! I still eat at Chick-fil-A.
[ Crack ] Uhh!
-All right. This is ridiculous,
and I’m going to stop. Ben, those aren’t things anyone
needs to apologize for. -I haven’t gotten
to the hard stuff yet, okay? [ Laughter ] I think David Brooks makes
good points now and again. -You son of a bitch!
[ Laughter ] -I don’t know,
sometimes I read the articles, and I think this makes sense.
I don’t know why this guy gets so much hate.
[ Crack ] Uhh!
-Hit him harder! [ Crack ]
You’re sick! -Oh, you think that’s sick? I saw the “Roseanne” reboot, and
I thought it was kind of funny. [ Crack ]
Uhh! [ Laughter ] I also thought
the “Will & Grace” reboot was kind of funny. -Wait, why does
that apply here? -It doesn’t, but I still need to
be punished for it. [ Laughter ] [ Crack ]
-Okay. Ben, are we done here now?
-No! I’m still Facebook friends with
my Trump-supporting cousins. [ Crack ]
Uhh! I think we’re being
too willy-nilly with the term “alt-right.” [ Crack ]
Uhh! I believe most issues
are complex. [ Crack ]
Aah! And have nuance. [ Crack ]
Uhh! And can’t be reduced… [ Crack ]
…to the size… [ Crack ]
…of a tweet. [ Crack ]
Uhh! Or a “Huffington Post” headline. [ Crack ]
[ Sobbing ] Ooh! Come on! -Ben, Ben, Ben.
Why are you doing this? -Ugh, it’s like a
Jewish-Scottish guilt thing. -Uh-huh.
-Yeah. You don’t want to get mixed up
in it. -Yeah.
-Actually, you might want to step back a little bit because
I don’t think everyone’s gonna be onboard with this next one.
-Okay. [ Laughter ] -As a white man…
-Uh-oh. [ Laughter ] -As a white man, I understand
that there are certain words that I should
never say. But if I am at karaoke,
and I’m doing a rap song, I just think that I should be
allowed to say like the — [ Crack ]
Okay. I think in the context of the song, I think I should be
allowed to sing the word — [ Crack ]
Okay. All right. Forget. We’re going to forget that one.
-Yeah. Yeah. -We’re letting that one go.
It’s gone. -Yeah.
-Never mind. -Yeah, I think
that’s for the best. [ Crack ]
-Aah. Hey. All right, one more.
[ Laughter ] I think there’s a good chance
that the current focus of most mainstream liberal news
outlets is creating more Trump supporters than it is
converting minds away from Trump, and I believe
that diehard Trump supporters love watching Democrats
get worked up, and so by getting outraged at
every little single thing Donald Trump does, we’re only
giving them what they want, which is bad for us, and perhaps
we should be more strategic in deciding the sort of outcome
we want from our news coverage! [ Crack ]
Aah! [ Cheers and applause ] [ Groans ] [ Cheers and applause
continue ] -I think you’ve had enough. -Wait. I’m still excited
for the new Kanye album. [ Crack ]
Aah! [ Laughter ]
-Is that it? -That’s it.
-So where will you go now? -Well, I have nowhere to go. I have no friends left
in the writers’ room. So I shall strip down
to my nakedness, walk the Earth,
and wherever I go, people will look at me,
and they’ll know what I am. And they will say…
[ Laughter ] Shame. Shame! Shame! [ Laughter ] [ Cheers and applause ]
Because… [ Cheers and applause continue ]
I am a moderate Democrat. -You know —
you know, Ben, I hate to burst your bubble, but being
whipped by a hooded man in public is
actually pretty progressive. -It is?
-Yeah. -It’s too late for me. Okay.
Goodbye, everybody. [ Laughter ] -Shame!
-Shame! -Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!
Shame! Shame! -Give it up for the moderate
Democrat, everybody! -Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame! -We’ll be right back
with music from the Aces!

Are You Going to Politicon 2019?


(617) 830-4750 is the number. Let’s go to our color. Why not the five zero two area code? Let’s try five zero two hello? Yeah, that’s you. Who’s this? Oh Hey David. How are you? I’m Amar from Louisville, Kentucky. Okay. Amar. What’s going on? I’m just calling to see if our, you’re going
to political con this year. You know, I don’t have anything to announce
yet with regards to political. My, my representative is in touch with them. My understanding is that it’s a completely
new staff at Politiken, so there’s a lot of sort of starting from scratch and I don’t
have an answer for you right now. There’s a complicated scheduling thing where
I’m at another conference up until the day before Politiken and so to do it, I’d need
to fly there, not from Boston, but from the southern conference. So there’s like some logistical things and
they’ve really got to get sorted out soon. Otherwise it’s going to get too late in the
game. But are you going, cause it’s a Nashville,
so I’m guessing it’s close to you in Kentucky. Yeah, I was. I’m going in my first time going this year. I wanted you to see you debate maybe like
Ben Shapiro because I watched a video of when the first time you talked to him and he kind
of turned into a robot. Yeah, I thought that was hilarious. Well, maybe it’ll happen, although my sense
is, I don’t even know that Ben Shapiro’s going have, has political on announced to anybody
who’s going yet. No, no, no. I’ve just been watching, you know, progressive
voice and he’s been covering Sam Seutter and Steven Crowder and all that. So, uh, I was wondering if you were going. Got It. Yeah, no, it’s, if I, as soon as I have something
to announce, I will, and if it’s determined that I’m not going for whatever reason, I
will also announce that right now it’s just a question mark. Okay, awesome. Thank you, David. All right. Amar from Kentucky. Thank you for the call.

Sean Hannity Is Horrible Politically But a Nice Guy


Let’s go next to our call or from the a three
Oh three area code. Who’s calling from three Oh three today. Can you hear me all right, David? Yeah. Who’s this? This is Patrick calling from Colorado. Hey, Patrick. What’s going on? So I’m wondering if you saw the, uh, Sean
Hannity Deblazio interview last week? No. Wow. How was it? Oh, horrifying. Just horrible. In what sense though? Because Hannity was asking his weird questions
and attack questions or because the Blasio was, oh yeah. Well, I mean de Blasio did. Okay. I think his position is not something I’m
fully on board with. Right. Just honestly, just the way that like Sean
Hannity is definitely one of the worst when it comes to a beating, unable to ask questions
that are even grounded in Maria. Yeah. Um, but I have to say though, I haven’t mentioned
that, I’ve mentioned this before and I don’t know if you’ve heard me say this or others. It’s probably new to other people who are
watching this or listening to this. Sean Hannity is absolutely deplorable and
disgusting. I, I, he has a horrible history with his real
estate investments of effectively being like a slumlord type dude. He, his politics are disgusting. His attack interviews are just vial. Personally, he is super nice every time I’ve
seen him in person at different radio events, he’s way nicer than a lot of the left left-wing
via a media people. There are left wing media people that a lot
of people in my audience probably really like in terms of their politics who are disgustingly
vial people who react to you saying hi as if you are just like a piece of dirty gum
on the bottom of their shoe. Hannity is super nice and he’ll stick around
and take pictures with whoever and talk to whoever. I have to give him credit for that even though
his politics are disgusting. Oh yeah. And do like not saying anything about the
guy personally, but like it really is just like his inability to oh yeah. But yeah, like the, the [inaudible] the thing
that uh, Kyle Kalinsky actually did cover it just the other day, but only a small segment,
uh, about taxes. And the thing is like, even to this day, Sean
Hannity says 70 cents out of every dollar when he’s talking about the, uh, income tax. And it’s just insane to me that you can not
yet like the marginal tax rate. Yeah. W we have a lot of people, I would say they
don’t understand it, but with Hannity I think you’re suggesting he’s deliberately and I
think that’s probably the case. Yeah. I have no doubt that he is. And like even in my personal life, I’ve had
some people on the right, um, with blamed how income tax works to these people on multiple
occasions. Yeah. But something about just like, I don’t know
if it’s just their inability to comprehend a nuance or something, but inability and the inconvenience of comprehending
it. I think it’s a combination of the two. Yeah. And of course that nuance comprehension goes
into every single issue you can possibly bring up. Absolutely. Patrick, thank you. Appreciate the call. I’ll check out that interview. Will do. All right, take care. Thank you.

Caller: Trump is Losing Support from His Base


Let’s go to our next call. Caller from the
six to six area code. Who’s calling today from six to six. Hello, David, this is Ramon. Hey Ramon. Okay.
So I have a question regarding, um, Trump’s support. You coming for the, um, 20, 20 election.
I know that he has a strong base and they are very much very committed to him. I would
say drinking the orange, believe the Kuwait. Yes, but um, check this out though. I saw
an article, um, very recently that, uh, with uh, Trump how he is, um, with his, uh, lack
of morality advocacy and how he’s handling, you know, recent events such as mass shootings,
a lack of gun control and the tariff war with China. Um, I read that he could be losing
some kind of support, um, whether it’s someone from people from those who vote for him back
in 2016 and thought that, um, he’s not doing much of a good job or those who voted for
him who have a moral standards and to feel that he used to not win the up to that kind
of morality or independence as a whole, who I believe that he really needs to be reelected,
especially in the rust belt states. So I want to know if you have any kind of, um, if you
seen somebody like that or what your take, is it about his support coming in for 2020. I mean, listen, so what you’re, you’re saying
something that’s qualitative, which I appreciate, which is there are farmers who are realizing
that Trump’s tariffs are crushing them. We played a clip earlier this week of a mom and
daughter who vote in and they’re Republicans, but they can’t vote for Trump because they
think he’s crazy on immigration. Like qualitatively. Yeah. That there are people who are Republicans
and voted Trump in 2016 who are not going to vote, vote Trump in 2020 the thing is,
it’s like, so what in the sense of that, there’s no strategy around that. Right? If people
are on the right and they’ve decided I can’t vote for Trump again, then that’s great. They’re,
they’re not voting for Trump. They’re already sort of out of the equation. Then it’s just
a matter of what is it that the Democratic Party and eventual candidate can do to defeat
Trump and get people to vote. Find people who already agree with you but
might not be planning to vote and get them to vote. So I don’t know what the numbers
are of what you’re talking about. There are Trumpists from 2016 who won’t be voting Trump
in 2020. There are probably some people who didn’t even vote at all in 2016 who now loved
Trump and are going to vote. I just think that it’s a non factor in terms of strategy
because the strategy never was to convince Trump voters to change their minds. It’s some
of them will, some won’t. We’ve got to get our base out, if that makes sense. Yeah. And that leads me to my next question
just regarding former governor, former representative Mark Sanford, who, um, he had expressed interest
in running for president against Trump and the GOP primary. Now I don’t know if he’s
going to run as a GOP for the GOP ticket or I don’t know if he’s gonna run as a third
party PR as a third party. But, um, if you can recall back in 1992, would Ross Perot,
the late Ross Perot, now he ran it as a third party and it hurt, um, George h w Bush during
the reelection. Do you think that may have, uh, the same effect or very similar effect?
If he did. So, I don’t know that Sanford specifically is
the guy to have that effect. But yeah, I mean, mathematically I would love a strong, a primary
challenge to Trump because it would just delay the amount of time it would delay when he
can really start focusing on running the general if he’s running a primary. So I would love
that if someone runs third party and can actually get to 3% of the vote that would pull republican
votes, that would be absolutely fantastic. And it could literally be the difference maker
and defeating Trump in 2020 so I’m for all of that stuff, as long as you know, I’m not
going to support someone where it’s less clear who they’re taking votes from. Like the Howard
Schultz thing, there was disagreement over who would Howard Schultz have taken more votes
from the Democratic nominee or Trump, different people at different ideas. If there’s a republican
running third party who clearly will hurt Trump, I’m all for that 100% all right. Now, one quick question. This very
quick. Okay. I’m not yet a member, but yeah, I have your personal authorization person’s
permission to become a member of the Dina package show. Yup. Oh, you’re completely, you, you, I’ve
authorized you fully two by a hundred memberships for yourself. Yeah. I just hope, yeah, to have you on the
line of is we’ll ask you good. Yep. No, I’m completely forward that
and I look forward to welcoming you as a member. Good. I do that too. All right. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate the
phone call. Great to hear from you.

Governor MARIO CUOMO: Poetry and Prose [Preview]


– It is somewhat intimidating as you’ve launched an
important, new career, to get your name butchered. It’s Cuomo, for whatever that means to you. – Mario Cuomo said it himself best, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.” And he was the greatest poet in politics, we’ve ever
seen in New York State. Probably, and maybe, the country. – I was for the people
who work for a living because they have to, and the people who are not allowed to work because, they’re too old, or too weak, or because they’re economically oppressed. I said it as a Democrat,
I said it as a Liberal. – For a reporters point of view, particularly the big city papers, they liked having somebody who, early on in
his gubernatorial career was considered a national leader. – I’m Larry King at Grossingers and we welcome to our microphones, Mario Cuomo, the Governor of the State of New York.
– [Crowd] (clapping) – We proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of
nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze if only to affirm the simple truth; that peace is better than war, because life is better than death. (raucous cheering) – Half-way through the speech I literally waved and
said goodbye Governor, (laughs)
because I thought this is it. He’s gonna be President. – [Reporter] For all of us
who are leafing through here looking for signs pointing
to his political future, where should we look? – Up – I have no plans to
run for the Presidency. – [Male Reporter] Governor,
under no circumstances will you run for the Presidency? – I have no plans to
run for the Presidency. – It turned into a press war such in, he had told the Editor of The Daily News, that if Adam Nagourney was
stuck in a burning building, don’t come calling me for help. – The budget deficit
seems to be complicating the Governor’s political plans. – [Recorded Voice] What makes you think that you’re qualified to run the country when New York is the way it is right now? – Everybody wakes up that morning and they think Cuomo’s gonna
get on this private plane, gonna fly to New Hampshire,
file his paperwork. – The question of course,
will he or won’t he? – Before the news conference was over all the national TV crews that were there were packing up their gear and moving on. And it was like, it was poignant. It was like, Mario, it’s over. – It’s time for a change. It’s time to replace Mario Cuomo because it is Mario Cuomo’s fault. (crowd cheering and clapping) – [Female Reporter] This weeks news was dominated by the Republican
Mayor of New York City. He endorsed the Democratic Governor. – I was about as pissed
as anybody could be. – [Male Interviewer] Figures
from the Business Council, saying New York is the
highest taxed State. A lot of people will see that
and be concerned about that. What would you say to them? – Well, it’s, first you… – I don’t think Mario
Cuomo’s legacy is a good one. I think he was all talk, no action. – Andrew’s election as Governor
meant two things for him; it was affirmation for him as a father, and number two, was
affirmation in some way he left his mark, and it was positive. – There was a melody to his voice. An incredible — it was like a song. The guy really represented a beautiful and communal American experience. – We should work together,
and hope together, and love together, for
the good of all of us. That’s the essence of the New York idea. (single note with drumming)

Which Democratic Ticket is MOST Electable Against Trump?


Let’s go back to the phones at (617) 830-4750
where many times people are a hoping to get on. Let’s go to
our caller from the eight six Oh area code color from eight six so maybe down in Connecticut,
is that possible? Eight six. So maybe you have this muted, but I can’t hear you. Eight
six. So going once eight six. So going twice. No, eight six so, all right, that’s too bad.
Let’s try instead. Three four seven. Who’s calling today from the three four seven area
code. Hello? Yes, that’s you. Hey David, I’m a big fan of your show. Thank
you. I have a, I have a question. Do you, which democratic ticket do you think would
be best? Which candidates, president and vice president do you think would win a best? Cause?
I know there are a lot of mixes and matches that would be Trump, but I know there are
a lot that aren’t. There are a lot that wouldn’t. What is your opinion? I have not thought about vice-presidential
at all. So I really couldn’t tell you. I mean w w as far as what the polling says right
now in terms of who could beat Trump in the general, you know, both Bernie and Biden do
really well against Trump and hypothetical polls. Harrison Warren do well, but not quite
as well. I’m just sort of going from memory here. But as far as VP, I mean, listen, in
one sense, I don’t think VP is going to matter that much in 2020. I think that this thing
is going to be won or lost on a couple of things. One turnout in a few key states who
gets slightly more people to vote. Number two, how much voter suppression takes place,
and number three, how well the eventual Democratic nominee is going to be able to fight back
against Trump’s personal attacks and his style during the debates. The VP candidate is ultimately
only going to debate Mike Pence or whoever replaces Mike pence on the ticket. If he’s
replaced, that’s not gonna matter nearly as much as, uh, the, the other things that I
mentioned. So I honestly, I have not thought about VP at all. Hmm. That’s interesting. I, I believe that
since there are a lot of popular Democratic candidates that, uh, that are, could be popular
in one area but really, really unpopular in another area. I know, uh, I know that we have
a lot of, I know I will very much like Andrew Yang. Um, well actually, no, he might not
be the best example, but there are a lot of coastal Democratic candidates that don’t think
could do well in the south. Um, and there are a lot of candidates say, uh, Biden were,
or, you know, actually say Warren or say maybe even, uh, well I guess if we’re not going
to count the straight white candidates that the won’t really make the second round of
debates, but I don’t think people like Warren could really, uh, make the, uh, make, uh,
people in the Midwest or even on the west coast. Uh, very, I know, I, I generally think that you’re right,
you are correct that different candidates will appeal to different pieces of the electorate
to different degrees. I actually think you’re wrong about Warren Warren does really well
when she goes to the Midwest and talks to Trump voters and explains policy. I actually
think that she will do better than people give her credit for. Although I completely
agree with what you’re saying, that the idea of northeastern liberals in the deep south
for example, it, it, there may be some lack of appeal there, but I actually think Warren
does really well when she talks to red state voters. I might look into that. That’s very interesting.
Thank you for, uh, for talking with me. I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you for the call.
Great to hear from you.

The Rise of Conservatism: Crash Course US History #41


Episode 41: Rise of Conservatism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse
U.S. history and today we’re going to–Nixon?–we’re going to talk about the rise of conservatism.
So Alabama, where I went to high school, is a pretty conservative state and reliably sends
Republicans to Washington. Like, both of its Senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby,
are Republicans. But did you know that Richard Shelby used to be a Democrat, just like basically
all of Alabama’s Senators since reconstruction? And this shift from Democrat to Republican
throughout the South is the result of the rise in conservative politics in the 1960s
and 1970s that we are going to talk about today. And along the way, we get to put Richard
Nixon’s head in a jar. Stan just informed me that we don’t actually
get to put Richard Nixon’s head in a jar. It’s just a Futurama joke. And now I’m
sad. So, you’ll remember from our last episode
that we learned that not everyone in the 1960s was a psychedelic rock-listening, war-protesting
hippie. In fact, there was a strong undercurrent of conservative thinking that ran throughout
the 1960s, even among young people. And one aspect of this was the rise of free
market ideology and libertarianism. Like, since the 1950s, a majority of Americans had
broadly agreed that “free enterprise” was a good thing and should be encouraged
both in the U.S. and abroad. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, and also in deep space
where no man has gone before? No, MFTP. You’re thinking of the Starship
Enterprise, not free enterprise. And anyway, Me From The Past, have you ever
seen a more aggressively communist television program than “The Neutral Zone” from Star
Trek: The Next Generation’s first season? I don’t think so.
intro Alright so, in the 1950s a growing number
of libertarians argued that unregulated capitalism and individual autonomy were the essence of
American freedom. And although they were staunchly anti-communist, their real target was the
regulatory state that had been created by the New Deal. You know, social security, and
not being allowed to, you know, choose how many pigs you kill, etc.
Other conservatives weren’t libertarians at all but moral conservatives who were okay
with the rules that enforced traditional notions of family and morality. Even if that seemed
like, you know, an oppressive government. For them virtue was the essence of America.
But both of these strands of conservatism were very hostile toward communism and also
to the idea of “big government.” And it’s worth noting that since World War
I, the size and scope of the federal government had increased dramatically.
And hostility toward the idea of “big government” remains the signal feature of contemporary
conservatism. Although very few people actually argue for shrinking the government. Because,
you know, that would be very unpopular. People like Medicare.
But it was faith in the free market that infused the ideology of the most vocal young conservatives
in the 1960s. They didn’t receive nearly as much press
as their liberal counterparts but these young conservatives played a pivotal role in reshaping
the Republican Party, especially in the election of 1964.
The 1964 presidential election was important in American history precisely because it was
so incredibly uncompetitive. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was carrying the torch
of a wildly popular American president who had been assassinated a few months before.
He was never going to lose. And indeed he didn’t. The republican candidate,
Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, was demolished by LBJ.
But the mere fact of Goldwater’s nomination was a huge conservative victory. I mean, he
beat out liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And yes, there were liberal
Republicans. Goldwater demanded a harder line in the Cold
War, even suggesting that nuclear war might be an option in the fight against communism.
And he lambasted the New Deal liberal welfare state for destroying American initiative and
individual liberty. I mean, why bother working when you could just enjoy life on the dole?
I mean, unemployment insurance allowed anyone in America to become a hundredaire.
But it was his stance on the Cold War that doomed his candidacy. In his acceptance speech,
Goldwater famously declared, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Which made it really easy for Johnson to paint Goldwater as an extremist.
In the famous “Daisy” advertisement, Johnson’s supporters countered Goldwater’s campaign
slogan of “in your heart, you know he’s right” with “but in your guts you know
he’s nuts.” So in the end, Goldwater received a paltry
27 million votes to Johnson’s 43 million, and Democrats racked up huge majorities in
both houses of Congress. This hides, however, the significance of the election. Five of
the six states that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South, which had been reliably
democratic, known as the “Solid South,” in fact.
Now, it’s too simple to say that race alone led to the shift from Democratic to the Republican
party in the South because Goldwater didn’t really talk much about race.
But the Democrats, especially under LBJ, became the party associated with defending civil
rights and ending segregation, and that definitely played a role in white southerners’ abandoning
the Democrats, as was demonstrated even more clearly in the 1968 election.
The election of 1968 was a real cluster-Calhoun, I mean, there were riots and there was also
the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, who was very unpopular with the anti-war movement,
and also was named Hubert Humphrey, and that’s just what happened with the Democrats.
But, lost in that picture was the Republican nominee, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was one
of the few candidates in American history to come back and win the presidency after
losing in a previous election. How’d he do it?
Well, it probably wasn’t his charm, but it might have been his patience. Nixon was
famous for his ability to sit and wait in poker games. It made him very successful during
his tour of duty in the South Pacific. In fact, he earned the nickname “Old Iron Butt.”
Plus, he was anti-communist, but didn’t talk a lot about nuking people. And the clincher
was probably that he was from California, which by the late 1960s was becoming the most
populous state in the nation. Nixon won the election, campaigning as the
candidate of the “silent majority” of Americans who weren’t anti-war protesters,
and who didn’t admire free love or the communal ideals of hippies.
And who were alarmed at the rights that the Supreme Court seemed to be expanding, especially
for criminals. This silent majority felt that the rights
revolution had gone too far. I mean, they were concerned about the breakdown in traditional
values and in law and order. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.
Nixon also promised to be tough on crime, which was coded language to whites in the
south that he wouldn’t support civil rights protests. The equation of crime with African
Americans has a long and sordid history in the United States, and Nixon played it up
following a “Southern strategy” to further draw white Democrats who favored segregation
into the Republican ranks. Now, Nixon only won 43% of the vote, but if
you’ve paid attention to American history, you know that you ain’t gotta win a majority
to be the president. He was denied that majority primarily by Alabama
Governor George Wallace, who was running on a pro-segregation ticket and won 13% of the
vote. So 56% of American voters chose candidates
who were either explicitly or quietly against civil rights.
Conservatives who voted for Nixon hoping he would roll back the New Deal were disappointed.
I mean, in some ways the Nixon domestic agenda was just a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society.
This was partly because Congress was still in the hands of Democrats, but also Nixon
didn’t push for conservative programs and he didn’t veto new initiatives. Because
they were popular. And he liked to be popular. So in fact, a number of big government “liberal”
programs began under Nixon. I mean, the environmental movement achieved success with the enactment
of the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board
were created to make new regulations that would protect worker safety and make cars
safer. That’s not government getting out of our
lives, that’s government getting into our cars.
Now, Nixon did abolish the Office of Economic Opportunity, but he also indexed social security
benefits to inflation and he proposed the Family Assistance Plan that would guarantee
a minimum income for all Americans. And, the Nixon years saw some of the most
aggressive affirmative action in American history. LBJ had begun the process by requiring
recipients of federal contracts to have specific numbers of minority employees and timetables
for increasing those numbers. But Nixon expanded this with the Philadelphia
plan, which required federal construction projects to have minority employees. He ended
up attacking this plan after realising that it was wildly unpopular with trade unions,
which had very few black members, but he had proposed it.
And when Nixon had the opportunity to nominate a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court after
Earl Warren retired in 1969, his choice, Warren Burger was supposed to be a supporter of small
government and conservative ideals, but, just like Nixon, he proved a disappointment in
that regard. Like, in Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenbug Board
of Education, the court upheld a lower court ruling that required busing of students to
achieve integration in Charlotte’s schools. And then the Burger court made it easier for
minorities to sue for employment discrimination, especially with its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. This upheld affirmative action as a valid governmental
interest, although it did strike down the use of strict quotas in university admissions.
Now, many conservatives didn’t like these affirmative action decisions, but one case
above all others had a profound effect on American politics: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester
of a pregnancy as well as a more limited right as the pregnancy progressed. And that decision
galvanized first Catholics and then Evangelical Protestants.
And that ties in nicely with another strand in American conservatism that developed in
the 1960s and 1970s. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Many Americans felt that traditional family
values were deteriorating and looked to conservative republican candidates to stop that slide.
They were particularly alarmed by the continuing success of the sexual revolution, as symbolized
by Roe v. Wade and the increasing availability of birth control.
Statistics tend to back up the claims that traditional family values were in decline
in the 1970s. Like, the number of divorces soared to over one million in 1975 exceeding
the number of first time marriages. The birthrate declined with women bearing 1.7 children during
their lifetimes by 1976, less than half the figure in 1957. Now, of course, many people
would argue that the decline of these traditional values allowed more freedom for women and
for a lot of terrible marriages to end, but that’s neither here nor there.
Some conservatives also complained about the passage in 1972 of Title IX, which banned
gender discrimination in higher education, but many more expressed concern about the
increasing number of women in the workforce. Like, by 1980 40% of women with young children
had been in the workforce, up from 20% in 1960.
The backlash against increased opportunity for women is most obviously seen in the defeat
of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974, although it passed Congress easily in 1972. Opponents
of the ERA, which rather innocuously declared that equality of rights under the law could
not be abridged on account of sex, argued that the ERA would let men off the hook for
providing for their wives and children, and that working women would lead to the further
breakdown of the family. Again, all the ERA stated was that women and men would have equal
rights under the laws of the United States. But, anyway, some anti-ERA supporters, like
Phyllis Schlafly claimed that free enterprise was the greatest liberator of women because
the purchase of new labor saving devices would offer them genuine freedom in their traditional
roles of wife and mother. Essentially, the vacuum cleaner shall make you free. And those
arguments were persuasive to enough people that the ERA was not ratified in the required
¾ of the United States. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Sorry if I let my personal
feelings get in the way on that one. Anyway, Nixon didn’t have much to do with the continuing
sexual revolution; it would have continued without him because, you know, skoodilypooping
is popular. But, he was successfully reelected in 1972,
partly because his opponent was the democratic Barry Goldwater, George McGovern.
McGovern only carried one state and it wasn’t even his home state. It was Massachusetts.
Of course. But even though they couldn’t possibly lose,
Nixon’s campaign decided to cheat. In June of 1972, people from Nixon’s campaign broke
into McGovern’s campaign office, possibly to plant bugs. No, Stan, not those kinds of
bugs. Yes. Those. Now, we don’t know if Nixon actually knew
about the activities of the former employees of the amazingly acronym-ed CREEP, that is
the Committee for the Reelection of the President. But this break in at the Watergate hotel eventually
led to Nixon being the first and so far only American president to resign.
What we do know is this: Nixon was really paranoid about his opponents, even the ones
who appealed to 12% of American voters, especially after Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times in 1971. So, he drew up an enemies list and created
a special investigative unit called the plumbers whose job was to fix toilets. No, it was to
stop leaks. That makes more sense. I’m sorry, Stan, it’s just by then the
toilets in the White House were over 100 years old, I figured they might need some fixing,
but apparently no. Leaking. Nixon also taped all of the conversations
in the Oval Office and these tapes caused a minor constitutional crisis.
So, during the congressional investigation of Watergate, it became known that these tapes
existed, so the special prosecutor demanded copies.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, and the case went all the way to the Supreme
Court, which ruled in U.S. v. Nixon that he had to turn them over. And this is important
because it means that the president is not above the law.
So, what ultimately doomed Nixon was not the break in itself, but the revelations that
he covered it up by authorizing hush money payments to keep the burglars silent and also
instructing the FBI not to investigate the crime.
In August of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that articles of impeachment be
drawn up against Nixon for conspiracy and obstruction of justice. But the real crime,
ultimately, was abuse of power, and there’s really no question about whether he was guilty
of that. So, Nixon resigned. Aw man, I was thinking I was going to get
away without a Mystery Document today. The rules here are simple.
I guess the author of the Mystery Document, and lately I’m never wrong.
Alright. Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole
would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith
in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and
be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.”
Aw. I’m going to get shocked today. Is it Sam Ervin? Aw dang it! Gah!
Apparently it was African American congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan. Stan, that is
much too hard. I think you were getting tired of me not being
shocked, Stan, because it’s pretty strange to end an episode on conservatism with a quote
from Barbara Jordan, whose election to Congress has to be seen as a huge victory for liberalism.
But I guess it is symbolic of the very things that many conservatives found unsettling in
the 1970s, including political and economic success for African Americans and women, and
the legislation that helped the marginalized. I know that sounds very judgmental, but on
the other hand, the federal government had become a huge part of every American’s life,
maybe too huge. And certainly conservatives weren’t wrong
when they said that the founding fathers of the U.S. would hardly recognize the nation
that we had become by the 1970s. In fact, Watergate was followed by a Senate
investigation by the Church Committee, which revealed that Nixon was hardly the first president
to abuse his power. The government had spied on Americans throughout
the Cold War and tried to disrupt the Civil Rights movement. And the Church Commission,
Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Vietnam all of these things revealed a government that
truly was out of control and this undermined a fundamental liberal belief that government
is a good institution that is supposed to solve problems and promote freedom.
And for many Conservatives these scandals sent a clear signal that government couldn’t
promote freedom and couldn’t solve problems and that the liberal government of the New
Deal and the Great Society had to be stopped. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week.
Woah! Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people and it exists because
of…your support on Subbable.com. Subbable is a voluntary subscription service
that allows you to support stuff you like monthly for the price of your choosing, so
if you value Crash Course U.S. History and you want this kind of stuff to continue to
exist so we can make educational content free, forever, for everyone, please check out Subbable.
And I am slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning, I’m slowly spinning. Thank you again for
your support. I’m coming back around. I can do this. And as we say in my hometown,
don’t forget to be awesome.

Tulsi Gabbard to Americans: War with Iran would be devastating


>>President Trump: I’VE BEEN WATCHING HER AND I HAVE BEEN WATCHING HER FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SHE IS NOT THE SAME PERSON. SHE HAS LOST IT.>>THIS TIME ANOTHER TEMPER TANTRUM AGAIN. I PRAY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I WISH THAT HIS FAMILY OR HIS ADMINISTRATION OR HIS STAFF WOULD HAVE AN INTERVENTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.>>Bill: WE HAD A BACK AND FORTH ALL DAY YESTERDAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI ESCALATING THEIR PERSONAL FEUD AS THE DRAMA PLAYS OUT CONGRESS IS TRYING TO GET DOWN TO BUSINESS. WHAT ABOUT THAT BUSINESS? OUR HEADLINER IS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSWOMAN TULSI GABBARD OUT OF HAWAII. WELCOME BACK TO “AMERICA’S NEWSROOM.” SO PETER KING SAID THEY’VE HAD A SHORT-TERM BREAKUP. HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE IT?>>LOOK, I THINK IT IS THE HYPER PARTISANSHIP AND DIVISIVENESS THAT PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THAT THEY SEE IN WASHINGTON GETTING IN THE WAY OF ACTUALLY DOING THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS, SERVING THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. THERE IS SO MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE’VE HEARD TALKS ABOUT ACTUALLY FINALLY PASSING AN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, SOMETHING THAT COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE IN HAWAII AND ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE IN DIRE NEED OF. WE HAVE TO PUT THE WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE FIRST IN THIS COUNTRY AND DO WHAT IT TAKES TO DELIVER RESULTS FOR THEM.>>Bill: HOW MUCH OF THIS DO YOU THINK IS POSTURING RIGHT NOW AND HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT IS PERSONAL?>>I DON’T KNOW. FRANKLY IT DOESN’T MATTER. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT WE IN THIS COUNTRY AS LEADERS HAVE A MANDATE TO FULFILL THE VISION THAT OUR FOUNDERS LAID OUT FOR US. TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT THAT IS OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. NOT FOR THE DEMOCRATS, NOT FOR THE REPUBLICANS. NOT FOR THE RICH AND POWERFUL, FOR THE PEOPLE. AND SO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER WHETHER THE DIFFERENCES ARE PERSONAL OR WHATEVER IT IS, SET ASIDE THOSE DIFFERENCES AND ACTUALLY PUT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY FIRST.>>Sandra: CONGRESSWOMAN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THEY SAW THIS WEEK IS NOTHING GETTING DONE IN WASHINGTON THERE WAS THIS PLANNED MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GET SOMETHING DONE ON INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT WAS THE PLAN. NANCY PELOSI TOOK TO THE MICROPHONE EARLY THAT MORNING ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF A CRIME, THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED IN THE ROSE GARDEN SHORTLY AFTER. I MEAN, FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY SAW NOTHING GETTING DONE ON THOSE IMPORTANT ISSUES YOU JUST MENTIONED.>>AND IT’S VERY DISTURBING. I CAN SPEAK AS A SOLDER. I’VE SERVED IN THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FOR OVER 16 YEARS AND DEPLOYED TWICE TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOMETHING I’VE APPRECIATED SO MUCH THROUGHOUT MY TIME IN SERVICE WITH MY FELLOW SERVICE MEMBERS, PEOPLE WHO COME FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DIFFERENT IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM, DIFFERENT POLITICS, DIFFERENT RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION, ORIENTATION BUT WE ALL SERVE ONE MISSION, SERVING THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT KIND OF FOCUS ON SERVICE, PUTTING SERVICE ABOVE SELF IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY’S LEADERS NEED.>>Bill: THE BIG NEWS TODAY IS THE PRESIDENT ORDERED ALL THE INTEL CHIEFS TO COOPERATE WITH BILL BARR A.G. AND WE’LL SEE SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. HOW CURIOUS ARE YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE FISA COURT AND CARTER PAGE AND THE SURVEILLANCE OF GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND THE JAMES COMEY MEETING AT THE TRUMP TOWER IN JANUARY OF 2017?>>I THINK THE TRUTH IS MOST IMPORTANT TO COME THROUGH. I THINK WE’VE SEEN BOTH IN SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU’VE RAISED BUT ALSO PREVIOUS EXAMPLES OF HOW THE FISA COURT AND THIS SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. WE HAVE A ONE-SIDED SYSTEM REALLY THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY VOICE OR ANY PROTECTION FOR THE CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PRIVACY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I’VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH FELLOW DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TO TRY TO BRING ABOUT SOME REAL CHANGE AND REAL REFORM.>>WOULD YOU CONSIDER A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT THE TIME, A CANDIDATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, TO BE IN THAT SAME CATEGORY, THAT BEING DONALD TRUMP.>>I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN.>>Bill: TALK ABOUT AFFORDING EVERYDAY PEOPLE THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE PROTECTED BY THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.>>OF COURSE, OF COURSE. THE RIGHTS THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US HAVE THAT ARE AFFORDED TO US UNDER THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PRIVACY.>>Sandra: YOU HAVE STRONG THOUGHTS HOW TO PROCEED WITH ESCALATING TENSIONS WITH IRAN. HERE IS THE PRESIDENT ON THAT YESTERDAY. I’LL ASK YOU ABOUT IT AFTER.>>President Trump: THEY ARE A NATION OF TERROR AND WE WON’T PUT UP WITH IT. THE DEAL THAT WAS SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS A HORROR SHOW. A TERRIBLE DEAL. THE MINUTE I COLLAPSED THAT DEAL AND TERMINATED IT IRAN WENT IN A VERY BAD DIRECTION. THEY ARE NOW SUFFERING MASSIVE PROBLEMS FINANCIALLY. THEY HAVE INFLATION THAT IS ABOUT THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.>>Sandra: HOW SHOULD THE UNITED STATES PROCEED, CONGRESSWOMAN?>>LET’S TALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE NOW. WE’RE UNFORTUNATELY IN VERY CONCERNINGLY ON THE BRINK OF WAR WITH IRAN. THESE ESCALATING TENSIONS HAVE BROUGHT US HERE. MY EXPERIENCE AS A SOLDER HAVING DEPLOYED TWICE TO THE MIDDLE EAST SERVICE IN CONGRESS ON THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEES FOR OVER SIX YEARS I’M FAMILIAR WITH THE REGION, THE COST OF WAR AND WHERE THIS PATH LEADS US. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW DEVASTATING AND COSTLY SUCH A WAR WOULD BE. HOW IT WOULD IMPACT ALMOST EVERY PART OF OUR LIVES. IT WOULD UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, IT WOULD STRENGTHEN TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE ISIS AND AL QAEDA AND TAKE THE TERRIBLE HUMAN TOLL. THE COST OF COUNTLESS AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS’ LIVES. MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN UNIFORM. THE COST TO CIVILIANS IN THE REGION. INCREASING THE REFUGEE CRISIS ACROSS EUROPE AND IT WOULD COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD COME OUT OF OUR POCKETS. TAXPAYERS’ POCKETS TO PAY FOR THIS ENDLESS WAR. RESOURCES THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE FOR THINGS LIKE REBUILDING OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE.>>Bill: TO BUILD ON THAT AND TO PREVENT THAT AS A DETERRENT WILL YOU GIVE THIS ADMINISTRATION CREDIT FOR SQUEEZING GROUPS THAT ARE OFFSHOOTS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT? JUST THE REPORT THIS MORNING SUGGESTING HEZBOLLAH AND HAMAS ARE REACHING OUT TO GET MORE FUNDING AND MONEY BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING STRANGLED. WOULD YOU GIVE HIM THAT?>>THE DECISIONS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN TOWARDS IRAN HAVE MADE THINGS WORSE, NOT BETTER. THEY HAVE MADE OUR COUNTRY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, LESS SAFE, NOT MORE SECURE. BY PULLING OUT OF THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL THAT THERE ARE SOME FLAWS AND THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED SEPARATELY WHILE MAINTAINING AND UPHOLDING THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL TO PREVENT IRAN FROM GETTING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. INSTEAD BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PULLING OUT FROM THIS DEAL, THEY’VE ESSENTIALLY GIVEN IRAN AN EXCUSE TO BE ABLE TO RESTART THIS IRAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THEY’VE STARTED TALKING ABOUT. SOMETHING THAT MAKES US AND THE WORLD FAR LESS SAFE. SO AS PRESIDENT I WOULD REENTER THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL. WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCES OUTSIDE OF THAT AND DE-ESCALATE THE TENSIONS THAT ARE BRINGING US TO THE BRINK OF WAR WITH IRAN TODAY.>>Bill: I APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION.>>Sandra: 2020 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES POLLING. JOE BIDEN CLEARLY STILL THE FRONTRUNNER LEADING BY DOUBLE DIGITS OVER BERNIE SANDERS, KAMALA HARRIS, ELIZABETH WARREN. YOU AREN’T ON THE SCREEN BECAUSE YOU’RE STILL POLLING IN THE SINGLE DIGITS. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MAKE YOUR MOVE?>>WE’RE BRINGING OUR MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THAT IS A MESSAGE OF PUTTING THE WELL-BEING AND INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST AND FOREMOST AHEAD OF PARTISAN INTERESTS, AHEAD OF CORPORATE INTERESTS, AHEAD OF INTERESTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. AND MAKING THIS COMMITMENT TO THEM THAT AS PRESIDENT I WILL END THESE WASTEFUL REGIME CHANGE WARS WHETHER IT’S AGAINST COUNTRIES LIKE VENEZUELA, IRAN SYRIA. WORK TO END THE NEW COLD WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND NUCLEAR ARMED COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND CHINA. AND END THIS NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TAKE THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SPEND ON THESE WARS AND WEAPONS IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH WE’RE ON, AND TAKE THOSE DOLLARS AND PUT THEM BACK IN THE POCKETS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. USE THOSE DOLLARS TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.>>Bill: WE’RE OUT OF TIME BUT CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOURS