Speaker 1: Welcome once again to the Oath in the Office. I'm
John Peogle Sang, please welcome the star of our show
around Brown University. They called this man the mac the
author of the Oath in the Office, Constitutional Law Professor
Corey Bretschneider.
Speaker 2: Hello, sir, Thanks so much, John.
Speaker 3: I just had a note from a listener telling me
that these intros are worth the price of admission, and.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate them.
Speaker 1: You know what, It's a free podcast, so I believe
they're worth every penny. Absolutely, Corey, I'm so glad that
you're here today. There's so much I need to ask
you about. Professor. I got to cheat off your paper
in many ways. And I understand. We have a special
guest on today's show as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: You know, we have a really important discussion about the
President's disaster in the correspondence dinner. We're going to talk
about that and other issues. And the guest really this
week an amazing conversation that I pre recorded with David French,
the New York Times columnist, somebody who really defies categorization.
He's been considered a conservative at different points, but he
has been a brilliant critic of Donald Trump. And part
of what we're going to talk about, which of course
relates to everything that we discuss, is the coalition behind
Trump and how diffuse it is the new right, and
it's really a deep dive not only into the different
parts of it, including Christian nationalists, White nationalists relevant to
topics like the Smithsonian that we'll talk about as well,
but also how it relates to really frightening movements in
American history, and in particular the VSHI movement in France
around the Nazi period, and why really we have to
distinguish between the particular threat of Nazi, New Right and
Old Right and vc France. Really fascinating historical discussion, thoughtful.
You know, David and I don't always agree, but we
also have a common vocabulary and certain a common concern
and fighting fascism.
Speaker 1: I'm excited for it. But meanwhile, Professor, as you know,
FEMA and the Red Cross are still surveying the casualties
after the human rights disaster that was the White House
correspondence to Wow, did you watch Donald Trump? Set Corey,
Did you see any of it?
Speaker 3: It was really tough to watch, But I think you know, oddly,
you know much of disaster it is, And you know,
there's nothing worse than watching comedians bomb.
Speaker 1: As you know, there's something worse than that. There's something
worse than watching professionals bomb Corey go on.
Speaker 2: Stand up comedy, but the cringe that you feel.
Speaker 3: And yet when Trump bombed, I thought, you know, there
is something that we're learning about this man, about his
disposition and his lack of ability to be aware of situations.
His lack of humor tells us something about the narcissism
of the moment.
Speaker 1: So you know, you're way too polite, Professor. This was
like a eulogy for charisma.
Speaker 2: Sir.
Speaker 1: This was like ing bar Bergmann directing bass five. Do
you understand that's how unfunny this was, Like it was
so unfunny the crickets walked out, you know, like I
have seen funnier Hiroshima footage, Professor Bretschneider, I have seen
Hiroshima footage with more laugh It was so unfunny. The
silence got a writing credit at the end. I mean,
I just felt like Lars von Trier doing crowd work,
Like what could be less funny than this? And it
was astonishing in terms of the hate. But I think
you're right, I mean applying the stuff that we've talked
about with authoritarianism. This was all about a tax on journalists,
his recycled personal insults. Right. The jokes all failed, but
it seemed like authoritarian politics relies on humiliation. Do you
think this purpose of this speech of Trump was comedy
or domination?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, he got evidently a right wing comic
who's evidently not very funny. And part of what made
it so cringe, I guess is the word for it
is that he saw how badly he was bombing. Because
what was happening in that room, and Caitlyn Collins, for instance,
has given interviews about what it was like.
Speaker 2: To actually watch this.
Speaker 3: There was just dead silence, not only from journalists who
were skeptical of him, but from his supporters. Remember that
room was filled with the White House staff, and yet
even they couldn't laugh because you know, all he was
doing was engaging in a kind of you know, bullying,
the normal put downs about Senator Schiff and the others.
And yet you know, there was a heroic moment wolf
Blitzer giving an award to journalists for covering Trump's connection
to the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: For uncovering that disgusting.
Speaker 3: Picture that he drew for Jeffrey Epstein and really being
detailed in the description of it. I saw Caitlin Collins
talking about her friendship with well Blitzer, and really they
were the two stars. She receiving the president's hate and
really giving him nothing back, and Blitzer just to his face,
really talking about what it is to stand up to
a bully. And that's what gives her award to these
journalists was all about.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir, Blitzer literally handed an award to a woman
who Trump had doxed, and he revealed how Trump had
endangered her safety. And he's doing all this, Corey, and
Trump is sitting right there just Trump has just taking
it like a Democrat, just sitting there like a Democrat
being a pinata, taking all those I mean, what was
weird for me was not so much that he openly
blamed the joke writers when the jokes fail, that's him,
but the speech itself, it seemed to oscillate between demanding
approval from the audience while also attacking them. Then you
notice that like he wanted them to like him, but
he couldn't stop insulting them. Does that contradiction reveal something
to you about authoritarian leadership.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think it reveals two things.
Speaker 3: One is that for him, for this authoritarian and you know,
I get into this with David French. There are authoritarians
who have abhorrent philosophies, you might call them. They write
books mind compost Famously, Donald Trump doesn't have a philosophy.
He has a disposition, and his disposition is both narism
looking for praise no matter what. As he often tells us,
I like people who like me. I don't like people
who don't like me. So when Caitlin Collins from CNN
asked him a question that he doesn't like, specifically, she
asked him famously about his pardons for crypto currencies CEOs,
who he was in league with and who he's benefiting.
Speaker 2: From, and you know, he shuts her down. He just responds.
Speaker 3: So he both wants that love and he instinctively is
an authoritarian in the sense that any dissent, any criticism,
any question. And that's actually an important point about authoritarianism.
It's sat odds with reasoning and questioning that scene as
a threat. So he doesn't, unlike some of the New Right,
have a deep philosophy.
Speaker 2: He has a disposition, but we saw it on full display.
Speaker 3: And one last thing to say about this is, you know,
although I did learn from it, and you know, we're
having an interesting discussion about it, the main lesson was
it was a mistake. And this isn't somebody that you
can invite to an event that is supposed to be
a set celebration of the First Amendment, the celebration of
the freedom of press. And in the background you saw
the First Amendment. You know, there's that was the background
that they provide when you have a president who isn't
disagreeing with the press or not liking the coverage, he
is trying to shut it down.
Speaker 2: That is his goal. Yeah, so it was a mistake.
Speaker 3: And Peter Baker, who I've collaborated with and for instance,
he did an interview with me about my book right
before it came out in the New York Times. You know,
somebody really is good at covering this president. He admitted
it was a mistake. We shouldn't do it again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think he's completely right. I mean, I just
want to say one other thing about the comedy. You know,
there are no great right wing comics. There are great
comics who are right wing, but they don't do material
as a right wing comic, because great comedy involves punching up,
not punching down. And this is something that it's true
in religioon it's true in Christianity, it's true in comedy,
and it's true in politics. You don't punch down on
those weeks than you. You go to a comedy club
and you'll, you know, go on a weeknight where you
got a bunch of hacks, and you'll see guys doing
jokes about the homeless. You'll see guys doing jokes about
developmentally disabled people. They'll say they r word all this nonsense,
and then you know, maybe some people will laugh, and
you'll go home and you'll feel dirty because you're punching
down on people weaker than you. This is why there
are no great right wing comics, because you're defending the
status quo, and you can't be funny while defending those
in power unless you're going to be mean. This is
what this new right alt comedy, These these these humps
like THEO Vaughn push on us. It's punching down and
immigrants and minorities and LGBTQ people and journalists as well
and I just wanted to ask you do you find
that politically significant?
Speaker 3: You know, John, I of course you are a stand
up comedian. You do comedy. I am a fan of it.
So you know what you're saying is really making me think,
because as I watched him, I thought, this is the
least funny thing I've ever seen. The silence in the room.
You can feel it in your soul watching this person. Now,
why is it so un funny? Because it doesn't even
approach something that would get a laugh.
Speaker 2: It is just pure bullying, and hearth it is.
Speaker 3: And you know he thinks it's funny because the bully
enjoys the bullying. The bully thinks that punching down, as
you so perfectly put it, is funny. And you know,
when you watch it, it's just sad. It's just somebody
without any awareness and without you know, I think also
humor at its best it gets to a kind of
humanity or reflection, and that's not what this was.
Speaker 2: This was anti humanity. If anything.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't want you to be sad, Corey, so
let me let me give you some good news, and
that is that the Tape brothers were arrested, and that
They are being extradited to the UK for fifty nine
charges ranging from child poorn to rape to trafficking, and
these guys are going to be in jail for a
very long time now. A year ago we talked about
this when Trump was inaugurated and they triumphantly welcomed Andrew
and Tristan back from their prison sell in Romania, which
you guys might right if you guys remember them. The
tapes are these grifting, violent, misogynist losers with all the
humanity of a prison urinal, and they do these manisphere
videos where they teach guys how to blame real women
for their problems in their life and monetize resentment and
disparage female psychology to other virgins. And these guys who've
gotten very rich off of this mentality that women are
property and empathy is weakness and reading books is gay.
But Donald Trump a year ago was welcoming them. The
Trump kids were buddies with them, and they were saying, how, oh,
Trump's going to help us, and Trump's the greatest, We're
going to help him. What does it say now that
a year later, Professor, they sprung them from Romania. But
evidently Trump or Susie Wiles or someone in this White
House decided we're already handling rapists with the Epstein files.
We don't need these guys. I think the most significant
thing about this, what it says about the manisphere, is
that Trump's cutting these guys loose after all this hype
and all these years. They're going to England and they're
going to be in jail for a long time.
Speaker 3: You know, on this podcast, we're always trying to be
honest about the threat to democracy, but we're also looking
for moments in which democracy is pushing back and democracy
is winning.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I think this is one of them.
Speaker 3: Because Donald Trump, you know, his son Baron is a
big fan of the Tape Brothers.
Speaker 2: He's evidently in touch with them.
Speaker 3: The idea, by the way, that that shouldn't be covered
by the media because this is the son of the president,
he's no longer a minor. I think that is a
fair game, and in fact, it's an illustration of what's
so pernicious about the Tape Brothers, because they're not just
engaged in misogyny, they are selling it, and they're selling it,
unfortunately to children and young people, and teaching them that
to be a misogynist is to be a man the
worst forum of anti female violence and disparagement. You know,
that's what they're selling, and that's why they are such
a threat. One thing, you know, this also prefigures some
of what I'll talk about with David French. But there's
so much of the different coalitions behind Trump so different.
I mean, the Christian Nationalist support for Trump is of
course very different than the Tate brother Manisphere support or
a related podcast support. And yet you know, all of
a sudden there's weakness. Why is their weakness? Because Susie Wilds,
this is my surmise, I don't have direct reporting on this,
realizes that as a result of our guest, Katie Fang's
lawsuit and other ways in which the Epstein files are
becoming front and center an illustration of Trump's own misogyny.
After all, this is an adjudicated rapist at the Supreme
Court has refused to overturn the decision awarding his victim
monetary damages for this rape and for his lies about it.
And you know what is all that show that we
are starting to become aware of what we should have
all been aware of. But even his own base is
becoming aware of not just his misogyny, but of his
sexual assaults, of his violence. And so if he associates
himself directly with the Tape Brothers by fighting their extradition,
for instance, that just makes things so much worse. So
he must be hearing even internally from those who are
trying to protect them, like Susie Wilds's chief of staff,
I should say that no more Tape Brothers because it
just highlights your association not just rapist scene, but.
Speaker 1: With sexual abusers and trap. Yeah, exactly right. There's nothing
for him to gain. He's not running for office again.
And I just want to say about the Manisphere, because
it's very interesting that the Manosphere as they call it,
is becoming such a comfortable home for trump Ism. It's
not really a movement, you know. It's it's more like
group therapy where no one's ever allowed to meet. They're sad,
you know what I mean. Like the Manisphere is a
support group for young men who desperately need hugs, and
they've been convinced that hugs are woke socialism, you know
what I'm saying. Like, guys like the Tates don't cure loneliness,
they feed on it, and I think the manisphere, not everyone,
but generally it's where emotionally unavailable men go to learn
how to become even less emotionally available. And again they
masculinity is dominance, right women are adversaries, Empathy is weakness.
There's a lot of overlap between that worldview and authoritarian politics.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, there are a real deficits in
the society loneliness, for instance, among young men, you know,
inability to find fulfillment in intimate relationships. And what happens
as a result of those failures in the society and
the isolation is something is going to fill it. And
that's what right wing movements do. They cater to a
kind of weakness in the society, but they don't cater
to it in a way that lifts it up or
solves it.
Speaker 2: It makes it worse.
Speaker 3: I should say too, you know about Donald Trump's lack
of ideology, as I've been putting it, you know, I
would see authoritarian character is a way to put it,
or personality as opposed to ideas. Because he has no ideas.
It fits poorly with some aspects of the New Right
and better with others. And you know, the Christian nationalism
and Donald Trump are not a natural ally.
Speaker 2: You know, this isn't somebody who really is well versed
in the Bible.
Speaker 3: He's not going to sit there John and debate with
you about any Biblical text, because I'm sure he hasn't
read it and doesn't care and doesn't But what he
does fit with so well. And this is one of
the unfortunate things that helped him I think in the campaign,
for instance, his interview with Joe Rogan, which so many
people saw, is that his misogyny fits perfectly in the
manisphere and that that really is I think part of
his power, but also part of what's being exposed for
the history of violence that's associated with him, and that
really is you know that that is a good thing.
Speaker 1: Not oh hey, what's more alpha than four dollars for
a gallon of gas? All right, we got to take
a very quick break, Professor. I have a lot more
to talk with you about, including some questions about censorship
or stochastic self censorship and who's resisting. We'll be right
back on the Oath in the office.
Speaker 4: The new John Fiegel Saying Show every day at twelve noon.
Speaker 5: Good afternoon, John, and welcome back to Afternoon Radio.
Speaker 1: I have missed you.
Speaker 2: Now you're back into the daylight.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon, John, congratuations on the new sh Congratulations all
the changes happening with the show.
Speaker 3: Excited for you, Excited for me personally, like, oh my god,
I can call an again.
Speaker 4: The new John Fugel saying, show every day at twelve
noon on Serious XM Progress Channel one twenty seven or
on the Serious XM after.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the oath in the Office. I'm John Feugel,
saying so, Professor Bretschneiter. Donald Trump put out an executive
order directing federal officials. This is a weird one, Corey.
I might need you to walk me through this, but
you know they've been going after the Smithsonian. They don't
like museums that teach actual history that might make the
grandchildren of racists feel weird. So a little too much
truth for some of these people. And this is tied
into what they've done with the National Park Service, removing
markers about embarrassing, painful parts in our country's history, erasing
the achievement of anyone who's not a white, heterosexual male
from depending on website. But this is weird. He's attacking
the SMITHSONI a lot. But now they want to put
temporary signs outside of the National Museum of the American
History in DC on the sidewalks to correct what they
call inaccurate information presented in the museum. This is insane, Corey,
I mean, this is like so I mean, because I
don't know if you know this, the Smithsonian owns a printer,
they can hang their own signs. I'm saying, no, it's
all true. It is yourself. They actually have access to
a printer. Inside this it is dry. Is controlling historical
narratives so central to authoritarian movements. This reminds me of
the photos i'd see as a kid of how the
Soviets would photoshop cosmonauts out of old pictures because they'd
run a foul of the government, Like they're just doing
cultural erasure and they don't care how fake it looks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I'll begin with just the legal explanation
of what's happening, because I think it's interesting and as
you said, it's quite weird.
Speaker 2: So we need to understand that the.
Speaker 3: Smithsonian is not part of the government. It's not an
independent agency. It's got an independent border directors in fact,
John Roberts, the Chief Justice is the head of it.
Speaker 1: And I feel so much better now.
Speaker 3: And actually it's interesting right that he is really trying
not to cater. He's supporting the staff who want to
tell the truth about American history, including the history of
slavery and segregation and American apartheid.
Speaker 2: And you know, I should.
Speaker 3: Say, too, is just to frame it when you understand
that history. And this is true of my book, The
Presidents and the People. It's true the way the Smithsonian
tells the story of American slavery and segregation.
Speaker 2: There is a lot of hope in it too.
Speaker 3: So the idea that it's just making people fail bad
or it's bad news, that's the first lie here. It
really is a story of people resisting tyranny, resisting authoritarianism.
So it's independence is what allows it to tell continue
to tell that story. Even though the President has succeeded
in largely gutting destroying independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission.
Speaker 1: They slavery is depressing, slavery depressing, they do we see that.
Speaker 3: They are standing strong. They are an independent entity. So
now he can't control them, but he can do the
next best thing, which has put these stupid signs up.
One last thing, John, and then I'll throw it back
to you. You know, I talked about how uneasy he
is with Christian nationalism. Yes, that isn't something that fits
his personality authority, but the racism, I think is pretty
native to who he is, and so that is why
he cares about this so much.
Speaker 2: So you have a mix.
Speaker 3: Yeah, racism is white supremacy and is attempted authoritarianism.
Speaker 2: But again, good news. People are fighting back.
Speaker 3: Even John Roberts is not willing to look like he's
catering to the president, and that's why we've got this
weird story here.
Speaker 1: Well, I just want to say one more thing about it.
I mean, because I wanted to ask you about this.
This executive order. Yeah, it doesn't control the Smithsonian directly,
so it's an executive order for the sidewalks and the
public space around. I mean, let's talk about how limp
and flaccid and unmanly and pathetic and impotence this is.
I mean, does this it's pathetic, Corey. I mean, you
could put a side on the sidewalk saying don't believe
what the museum tells you. And this is the president,
this is all the power he has. Doesn't it reveal
we still have limits on executive authority in this country?
Speaker 3: It does, you know, and people continue to resist. And
you know, let's just say a very clear shout out
on the same way those civil servants who are remaining
in agencies doing their job protecting the law despite this
authoritarian threat.
Speaker 2: And that includes people in really all.
Speaker 3: Of the federal government which is being taken over by
this authoritarian threat. And yet you have civil servants fighting
back here. The Smithsonian staff are doing their jobs, I
should say. The head of the Smithsonian talked about what
it was like to tour Donald Trump around and how
he just had no interest, was completely bored about any
exhibit about slavery, and course, and one other kind of
just deeper point here that there is something you said
something about this in the beginning.
Speaker 2: I want to pull it out even more.
Speaker 3: Part of what authoritarianism and here we're talking about racial authoritarianism,
the idea of reinstituting white supremacy, firing military officials or
degrading them, or demoting them, or refusing to promote.
Speaker 2: Them because they are black.
Speaker 3: That is what this president and Pete hag Seth under
his direction have done. And the lack and really almost
complete absence of black Americans in the presidential staff, in
the cabinet, all of this is an attempt to resegregate America.
We saw this before, and the role of history was
also crucial during the Wilson administration.
Speaker 2: The federal government had been desegregated. Woodrow Wilson resegregated it.
And it's not a mistake that he was a historian.
Speaker 3: He in his textbook tells the story of reconstruction of
the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment providing equal protection,
the Fifteenth Amendment protecting a right to vote free from
racial discrimination, at least from men. What all of that
was turned to into for Wilson was the lie that
the post bellum amendments, those amendments didn't add a single
right to the Constitution. That's what he was saying in
his lectures, that's what he was showing in his textbook
where he even celebrated the ku Klux Klan, so reinstituting
white supremacy as policy for a president and literally whitewashing history,
which is what Wilson did and what Trump is trying
to do. That is part of the authoritarian playbook, and
that's part is not new.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, the Trump administration professor subpoena third party providers to
seize the phone and text records of several New York
Times journalists and their spouses and one reporter's mother. This
leak investigation was overseen by petulant, unqualified, alcoholic dude pro
Cash Betel, and it's pretty terrifying. I mean, the DOJ
is getting phone records for reporters, subpoenaing phone records for
reporters and their family members over a leak of true information. Constitutionally,
where do we begin to explain why this is so troubling, sir.
Speaker 3: Well, part of it is, you know, in whenever we
cover the attack on dissent, we recognize that these reporters
are not going to be convicted in a court of
law and go to prison in the way that the
newspaper editors of the Sedition Act in the eighteenth century
went to prison at the behest of John Adams.
Speaker 2: Something else is going on.
Speaker 3: They're trying to have And if you listen to Jake
Clayton and to the administration or Todd Blanche, they so well,
these reporters aren't being targeted.
Speaker 2: We just want to question them under the course of law.
Speaker 3: And what that all is about is is a chilling
effect because you know, the family members are involved. They
contacted these reporters in some cases in front of families,
and you know, are hauling them into the grand jury.
What that is about is trying to get into the
minds of those who are doing their job as journalists
and telling the truth about what's happening and make them
think twice about it, to think, you know, I might
not do that story about Trump, maybe I.
Speaker 2: Can exactly something else. And so it's not about winning,
it's about just intimidating.
Speaker 1: Self censorship, stochastic self censorship. Yeah, I mean, I got
to say I was a bit shocked that any journalists
would show up at the White House Correspondence Center, much
less shake his hand on stage after this. They had
just pulled these subpoenas right before the White House Correspondent Center.
They've already backed down. But I mean, Corey, you're targeting
journalists spouses because they leaked true information. Doesn't this cross
a line we've rarely seen in American history?
Speaker 3: Well, John, you can tell me if you agree, But
you know, as much as I want to celebrate the
courage of those who were standing up, those are the Smithsonian,
the journalists who, after all, did cover this story that
we talked about last week, the bribe playing from guitar,
and you know, basically the naked corruption that's existing in
this entire administration. Those are heroic acts, but there is
also a lot of cowardice. And when you combine that
with the real threats that are out there, you know,
it is frightening. And so I think some journalists, as
much as you know, I want to celebrate those who
stood up, think to themselves, well, we contame this guy.
As wild as that is, at this moment, we can
at least pretend that things are normal.
Speaker 2: It's not just journalists.
Speaker 3: I'm seeing it from so much of the academy, from
Vanderbilt University, which seems to be caving in to the
Trump administration, from those law firms that really went along
with the demand that, you know, stop criticizing the president's
not being involved in lawsuits against him.
Speaker 2: And agreed.
Speaker 3: So there is you know, let's be honest, that there
are heroic acts. They are made even more heroic when
you recognize that there is also a lot of cowardice
at the moment, or at least, let me call it
something a little less harsh. In the case of the journalists,
it's putting your head in the sand.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that cowardice is fine. Cowardice is actually accurate, Professor,
because I'm thinking about you know again, it's it's not
that they're doing government censorship. They're intimidating media into censoring themselves.
That's the game. And we saw this with Whitney Cummings.
She just, you know, did a set at the Mark
Twain Price ceremony for Bill Maher at the Kennedy Center,
and she came out and said that she had all
of her jokes about Trump. She said he was late
because he got caught in sex traffic and that was cut.
She said all of her jokes about Trump were cut
because the staff at the Kennedy Center was terrified. Nobody
formally banned the joke, but people feared the consequences anyway, right,
Self censorship is essential to maintaining authoritarian systems.
Speaker 3: Yes, and you know, I think that this is unfortunate
that as much as I want to applaud Whitney Cummings
for telling the truth about what happened. The fact is
that Netflix allowed this to happen. They did televise the special.
To me, that is giving in it is a kind
of cowardice of their executives. You know, you could add
something to the special where she talks about what happens,
where she retells the joke and says, hey, this is
That would have been a great intro to it. But
the bottom line is, you know, it's not enough to say, hey,
I was censored, woe is me?
Speaker 2: You have to actually do the work.
Speaker 3: And yes, it is difficult to have courage in this moment,
but it's so important I should say. You know, when
government crosses the line of not just saying you know,
here's our opinion, or this is information we'd like you
to carry, but threatening private entities, including Netflix, if that's
what's going on. We had this amazing discussion with Senator
Wyden about this. Difficult to understand, but I think listeners
really got an idea of job owning, which is when
it looks like private companies are self censoring, but really
it's coming from the government. As Widen's legislation makes it
clear that ought to be illegal. So go back and
listen to that. I urge listeners to do that. It
was an amazing moment. It's certainly relevant to this story.
Speaker 1: I want to SKay it one more thing. Before the break,
Chuck Schumer said that he's going to block any proposals
to rename Penn Station after Donald Trump. Sean Duffy, who's
our Secretary of Train Intation, who's another no talent racist
twit from the Real World and MTV. He's also an
amoral liar. I'll put that in there too. Sean Duffy
announced that, oh, we're going to renovate Penn Station, and
we might tell Amtrak that they have to rename the
station after Donald Trump. Schumer is saying he'll block efforts
for all of this. But Corey, what is the deal
with the authoritarian leaders who always need to have monuments
or renamed buildings or museums or flags or holidays or
public rituals. I mean, it seems like the bigger the ego,
the more fragile the ego when it comes to these guys.
Speaker 3: You know, when Donald Trump says that he admires the
dictator of North Korea, when he says that he Admires
putin a lot of us rolled our eyes, and now
we see that's not what's going on. When you combine
the authoritarian shutdown of free speech, the authoritarian white supremacy,
with this esthetic, which is to try to plaster his
name on everything, which as a businessman, now he's trying
to do it as president, you really see what you're
up against, which is a kind of authoritarianism. And it's
why it is symbols matter. The Smithsonian isn't just you know,
some story. It is the story of our national identity.
And so yeah, I think Schumer is exactly right. You know,
no matter what, we're not putting his name on Penn station.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean it's kind of funny to just
realize that he's doing all this because he knows once
he's gone, no one's going to name buildings after him.
I was working we haven't heard it like people need
to want to put your name on buildings, and it
seems like enough of them know that is never going
to happen, so they're going to try to force it
before he dies.
Speaker 3: I was working with a reporter in the New York
Times around twenty sixteen. I've written a lot about free speech,
but also the idea of state expression that government sometimes
sends its own messages, and its obligation to send messages
consistent with, not opposed to democratic values like equal protection.
And so when I was hoping he was going to
lose the twenty sixteen election, which of course he didn't,
I thought he did, But go on, well, we need
to do we need to do is we need to
ensure that he's repudiated, and part of that is never
celebrating him on any public building. And you know, his
name was taken down from the woman rank, something that
I think was really important to.
Speaker 2: Do a small gesture, and I look forward.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm talking about a hope there is a
good off the Kennedy's sign when we're gonna take his
name down. We already have seen it taken down at
the Kennedy Center. There should be nothing in Donald Trump.
And in fact, and I know you and I have
talked about this before, and I think you agree, we
should be at the point where it's just embarrassing to
have that last name, where no descendant of Donald Trump
wants to call himself a Trump.
Speaker 1: You're all excited about future buildings losing his name. I'm
excited about his grandkids losing their last I want him
to live long enough to see his descendants change their
last name because they realize they can't make a living
with a name like that. But hey, I'm a romantic,
you know, of spiritual. That's why I think about things
like this. All right, quick break when we come back
at the big interview with David French on the Oath
and the offer us.
Speaker 5: Hey, al, Glenn Kirshner here, So, friends, I hope you'll
join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters. Do you
care about ethics and government, criminal justice reform, a conflict
free federal judiciary?
Speaker 1: I thought so.
Speaker 5: On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need
to reform our government and its institutions, and we talk
about real, achievable reform.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll join us.
Speaker 5: Look for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. It's my
pleasure to introduce our guest, David French. David French, of course,
is a New York Times columnist. He's a graduate of
Harvard Law School, and I recommend his book Divided We Fall.
We're going to talk about the ideas of the new
ride post liberal is we'll talk about birthright citizenship and
whether or not trump Ism can out last Donald Trump. So,
David French, welcome to the Oath in the Office.
Speaker 6: Well, thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: I wanted to start off by asking you about birthright citizenship.
We've talked a lot about the case and the details
of the legal issues. We had Cecilia Wang in a
previous episode who argued the case. But one of the
things I was very interested to have you on is
you've been writing in your columns in the New York
Times about some of the ideas behind the right to
birthright citizenship, and so let's start with that.
Speaker 2: I mean, what do you.
Speaker 3: See as the main ideas behind birthright citizenship and how
do we understand the challenge to it that we're seeing
in this executive order?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just the legal issues.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's a really good question, and I think you
really have to sort of go back hundreds of years
to really understand the root and origin of this, that
this sort of is rooted in a notion that if
you were born in the soil or the under the
sovereignty of a particular king, that you are a citizen
of that of that domain, of that regime. And it's
an idea that carried across the Atlantic to the colonists,
and it's also an idea that matched very well with
the American idea, because the American idea wasn't one that
was really rooted in this. You know, if you're looking
at sort of European notions of citizenship, what you really
have had over time is sort of this idea of
blood and soil, the sort of notion that you know
you're you're if you're going to really be a member,
say of the French family or the German family or whatever,
then you're going to be have to have a particular
kind of lineage that is locking you in. Whereas an American,
the American nation is really based on an idea. We're
not based on blood. We're based on an idea, the
idea that all men are created equal, endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights. You know, to go back
to the Gettysburg Address, conceived in liberty and dedicated to
the proposition that all men are created equal. So we
really are an idea, and then from that standpoint, birthright citizenship.
This idea that if you are born here that you
can become an American is very sort of deeply embedded
in the notion of a creedle nation. And so whereas
in other conceptions of citizenship it is something sort of
handed down by lineage. This is something that you know,
and this is the opponent's of birthrights citizenship use this
term magic dirt. They derisively use the term magic dirt
to say, oh, you're just arguing that there's something magical
about being born in the United States. It just suddenly
makes you a citizen. No, it's not magic dirt. But
America's location of the magic idea, and the magic idea,
of course is you know, as we discussed earlier, all
men are created equal, and yes, a person who is
born here can and is going to merint a in
this sort of magic idea. It's not the dirt, it's
the idea. And so it really is an expansive way
at looking at this American family and really matches with
sort of the expansive way in which the founders thought
about citizenship. So this is something that goes back a
very long time as a distinctive away from sort of
you know, however you want to call it patrilineal citizenship
or you know, other forms of citizenship that are rooted
in blood from your ancestry as opposed to really truly
honestly rooted in the idea of the country itself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you see a continuity.
Speaker 3: It sounds like between the eighteenth century idea in the
Declaration of Equality and the ideas promised by the Bill
of Rights and the nineteenth century fourteenth Amendment guarantee that
if you're born in the country, then you are a citizen.
Speaker 2: And as listeners to the.
Speaker 3: Show, No, we couldn't be more kindred spirits on that
idea of what America is. I mean, I want to
pivot a little bit and ask about.
Speaker 2: What we can learn.
Speaker 3: And of course we can learn something from the attempt
to revoke birthright citizenship through executive order. Sometimes the new
Right talks about ethnicity in in this sort of explicit way,
and you have this sort of soil idea that really
is not at home in the American founding. Sometimes and
I don't know, I mean, you can talk to me
about whether or not this fits into the sort of
soil idea and the challenge to the American Creedle ideal
of America.
Speaker 2: But sometimes or.
Speaker 3: Whether it is just a strategy and a legal argument,
but sometimes you hear the claim that you did here
in the briefs the idea that there was this allegiance
theory of America. And the problem with birthright citizenship is
that if you're born in America and just get your citizenship,
you in a sense didn't earn it, or you didn't
buy in to the idea of America. So is that
a kind of hybrid of the soil idea and the
idea that we're talking about, or is it just a
cynical legal strategy and what do you think?
Speaker 2: I mean, just to be clear, you.
Speaker 3: Know for the listeners that I don't think there's anything
to the idea that there is this allegiance theory. And
when you heard the Solicitor General try to defend it
that it didn't fit with any of the ideas of
the nineteenth century, but it is what the new writer's saying,
at least in this context.
Speaker 6: Well, it definitely doesn't fit with a text.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 6: One of the things that's interesting about this argument is,
you know, we have a text right of the fourteenth Amendment,
which talks about people who are subject to the jurisdiction
of this country. If you're born here in subject to
the jurisdiction of this country, then you're a citizen. It
doesn't say domiciled. It doesn't say swore an oath of
allegiance upon reaching age of majority after being born here.
It doesn't say these things. And so what they're trying
to do is import extra textual tests and extra textual
requirements into the text and then trying to ret con
the whole history to sort of say, well, this was
intended to be there from the beginning, or this text
was supposed to encompass all of that, and it just
falls apart on a historical basis. I mean, if you're
looking at the combination of the Fourteenth Amendment and the
wankim Ark decision, what you're really saying is that they're
trying to do correct the giant, glaring, horrific error of
Dred Scott, where black Americans were written out of American citizenship,
not just by creating a rule for freed slaves and
for black Americans, but by creating a standard rule of
citizenship that applies to everyone. With the word subject to
the jurisdiction thereof not that really mysterious in their meaning,
to be honest, like, this is not like uncovering an
ancient manuscript written in like a lost version of Sanskrit. No,
these words are capable and have a meaning. And Wankim
Mark outlined it pretty well. Look, who's not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, Well, children of diplomats.
When diplomats are here, they are not. They have diplomatic
community there and a special legal status. If you're a
soldier in an invading army, for example, you're obviously not
subject to the jurisdiction of our country. You're trying to
defy the jurisdiction of our country. Supplant it, replace it,
et cetera. You know, if you go back generations, Native
American tribes had special legal status, they were recognized as
sovereign or quasi sovereign in ways that say, you know,
if you're a citizen of Alabama, you're not right. And
so all of these things were very linked to text
subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What the New Right has
done is sort of come in and basically said, yeah,
forget the text. The text is really trying to put
in place a particular kind of history, and that's the
history that we're sort of relating to now. It's a
history of domicile, as Clarence Thomas wrote at length, right,
the allegiance history that you just talked about. So it's
sort of pay no attention to the words on the page.
We have kind of the special historical. And one of
the things that's dangerous about sort of the newer methods
of originalism is that it can often just uses the
text as a springboard for this sort of open ended
historical inquiry, which I think is completely inappropriate when the
text is clear. You don't go to the historical inquiry
when the text is clear. But what the new Right
is wanting to do is do essentially a historical inquiry
only basically according to their specific terms.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and of course, a lot of the techniques of originalism,
the conservative idea of reading the Constitution for its original
meaning and to sort of turn this into a linguistic
dictionary idea is to do nothing less than to read
out the ideas of the American founding, of the second
founding of the Fourteenth Amendment, thirteenth Amendment, fifteenth Amendments, and so.
Speaker 2: That's not a mistake.
Speaker 3: And I thought it was a really important point too,
that it's not a mistake that they move to this
sort of fake interpretation of domicile, which is another way
of talking, of course about your point about soil. I
haven't heard people making that point, but it's a nice
way to say. What they're really doing is reading in
this very anti American different tradition of soil or domicile
into a text which is really about the idea of equality,
as so much of the Constitution is, and at least
we attempted in the nineteenth century to re up on
that idea. One thing, David, that just to switch places,
I mean to understand this phenomenon which you've been so
great on of the new right, some of which pretends
to be originalists. Sometimes there's an idea of common good
constitutionalism formule, and.
Speaker 6: It kind of flips back and forth depending on who
you're talking to.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So one thing I wanted to ask right exactly
that you know, different conservatives will do different ideas. I mean,
one thing I will say about the common good idea,
and I want to pivot to to your.
Speaker 2: Column about v sheism.
Speaker 3: Is it sort of lays on the table what's really
going on, and stops playing these games. And so I
appreciate something about that as much as I.
Speaker 2: Think it's headed.
Speaker 3: But one thing that you've done so nicely that I
want to ask you about is we've talked a lot
on this show about the collapse of Wymar, the way
that the collapse of Ymar shows the fragility of American
democracy and all democracies. But you've taken a different angle
that I think gets into the cultural arguments of the
new ride in talking about VC France and the way
that the philosophy of VC France really fits with a
lot of the new right ideology. So can you talk
to me about what you know, give us the time period,
tell us something about the history, but also so importantly
about these ideas and how they fit with what we're
seeing which and just to emphasize for listeners what you
and I agree with so much and why I was
eager to have this conversation is what we really are
seeing in conservatives today isn't a traditional kind of conservative ideology.
Speaker 2: It really is a.
Speaker 3: Foreign, anti American ideology, and you pointed that out so well,
and looking at VC Frands, I think helps us to
see that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's really fascinating because you know, we grew up
in an era. You know, one of the seminal books
of the era that we grew up in was The
End of History. Francis Fukiyama's book At the End of
the Cold War, often misunderstood, like the last chapter is
very eerily prescient of the present moment. But essentially we
grew up in the triumph of liberal democracy, where Nazi
Germany had been defeated, Soviet Union collapsed in front of
our eyes, Imperial Japan had been defeated, at least for
a while. I remember the heady days of nineteen eighty
nine and tien Men Square. We thought we're communist China
is going to fall as well. So we grew up
in a time of extraordinary optimism about liberalism. And so
it's very hard for us, many of us, to put
ourselves in the mindset of, say the late nineteen thirties
and early nineteen forties, when liberalism seemed to be not
just in retreat, but in a state of total collapse.
So you had a liberal government fym Our Germany that's
supplanted by a Nazi government. You have the Soviet you know,
the Russian Revolution results in the horrific totalitarianism of the
Soviet Union. The three great liberal democracy at the time, Britain,
France and the United States seemed to be and you
have of course Imperial Japan rising power on the march
in China. And so you have the three great liberal
democracies of Great Britain, France, and the United States, and
all of them were failing in certain ways. The United
States had pulled back into isolationism and had abandoned, you know,
the League of Nations and all of this sort of
idea of an international means of preventing another World War.
We pop smoke on that and we left that idea
like even before it was really born. Britain and France
were slow to recognize the threat of Hitler. And then
when Hitler attacks into France in nineteen forty, you know,
it's I think we are unfair about the French army.
A lot of French soldiers fought incredibly valiantly, but the
German army had superior tactics, had superior equipment, smashed through
French defenses and the French government fell. And you know,
we look back at Churchill stand from the standpoint of
being the victors and realizing how brave that was, how
courageous that was, and how was the key ultimately to victory.
At the time, it could look suicidally stupid. Right, So
you had a Nazi Germany overwhelming power, France being essentially
knocked out of the war, and we look back on
Vishi and we say collaborators. Well, that's only a very
small part of the story. Actually, what happened is a
lot of more illiberal right wing forces in France said
this is our opportunity to remake France and to turn
from the collapsed the failure of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy
has failed, and now it is time to rebuild something new.
And so when you look, it's not so much Hitler's Great,
Hitler's Great, It's much more reminiscent of the language you
read out the new right. Liberalism creates successive individualism. Individualism
creates successive selfishness, the foreigners or an invasion that undermines
sort of the cohesion of the country. The women's advancement
in the workplace is undermining the cohesion of the family.
So again and again, it's remarkable. You could put some
of the Vshi rhetorics side by side with the rhetoric
from say Doug Wilson types in the Protestant world or
some of the Catholic integralists, and they would be shockingly similar.
Liberalism eats away at institutions like the family, it eats
away at the church. So to restore the family, to
restore the church, you have to have a strong government
that is advancing these civilizational values. And so you have
all of this rhetoric about how a woman's place is
primarily in the home. You had rules passed where, you know,
only children of French fathers could serve in certain positions
in the government, and all of this is very reminiscent
of sort of this social cohesion project of the New Right.
Except the thing that's happening that's different. It's arising when
liberal democracy has not failed. It's arising when liberal democracy
is actually still ascendant and more powerful in the world.
So it's a rising without a Iyemar, It's a rising
without a fall of France.
Speaker 3: Yeah, some ways, I wonder if you agree with this.
I mean, it seems to me, and it makes it
more dangerous in a way because this rhetoric is so
far into the American tradition, to American ideals of the Constitution,
to ideals of equal protection and birthright citizenship. So when
we hear it, it sounds like, oh, that's kind of new,
and that's often you know, how Trump's rhetoric was received
as something different, and you know, the more philosophical versions
of this that talk about soil and talk about family.
You know, I don't know that the threat is quite recognized.
By putting it in the context of the nineteen thirties,
we see what it is, which is it might sound
innocuous compared to, you know, the rhetoric of explicit white
supremacy or Nazism, but it is meant to be a
challenge to liberal democracy. I think too, there's a kind
of abstraction when you challenge some of those on the
new right to ask, well, what is it that you're
opposed to, you know, free.
Speaker 2: Speech or you know, they won't be concrete.
Speaker 3: They'll talk in terms of this generalized idea, you know,
of soil or blood.
Speaker 2: Also, I think is part of it.
Speaker 6: Let us that's the heritage American concept is how far
back can you trace your history? And I mean we
can trace ours back to the Mayflower. That doesn't make
me more of an American than anybody else, right, it
absolutely doesn't. And we define our own citizenship by our
own actions. We can be proud of our ancestors, but
we don't carry their virtue, nor do we carry their advices.
And so this sort of idea that you know, as JD.
Vance said, you know that those of who have ancestors
who fought in the Civil War have a greater claim
to this country. No, absolutely not, absolutely not. But here's
what's insidious about the post liberal argument from the right.
Many dangerous ideas often begin with some truth to them. So,
for example, a country that does not have thriving families,
that where you know, sort of this the bowling alone phenomenon,
sort of the collapse of belonging to civic institutions, you know,
the collapse in church attendants. The all of these things
do fray the bonds of a society. It is true
that when families fail, it puts a society into stress.
It is true that when civic institutions and shared public
spaces become you know, they start to vanish, then it
does put us I mean, one of the most prescient
books of the last quarter century was bowling alone, was
Putnam's bowling alone. What it does to us to be atomized,
to be individualistic, and that is something to be concerned about.
But guess what does not fix it? Poritarianism right right exactly.
That is the opposite of the fix. You know, we've
had a couple of social experiments in Vladimir Putin's Russia
and to a lesser extent, Victori ra Bond's Hungry. They
did not. They have not made Russian and Hungry homes
of religious revivalism and economic prosperity and deep bonds. No,
they have. Just look at the trajectory of Hungary, for example,
compared to many of its more liberal neighbors, Hungary has
been left behind compared to say, Poland.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think we do well to recognize that
the ideas that we've been talking about throughout this episode,
that a nation the United States can be based on
an idea, that of course is going to come with
some vulnerabilities because it's not going to be a nation
based on shared family heritage or blood or soil. It's
going to be based on an idea. And ideas are
tough to form bombs around.
Speaker 2: But yet we've continued to do it.
Speaker 3: And the mistake, I think is to think that somehow,
because there's a challenge to a cultural democracy and a
multi racial democracy that we've been trying to build for
so many years, that a better route would be pure authoritarianism.
And as you say, we have examples of what that
looks like vs. France, Nazi Germany, Putin's Russia, and thankfully
now in retreat Victor Orbon's Hungary. I mean, one thing
that's been great about this conversation, and I think it's
a good way to pull back to the United States
into our current politics. And I know you've written about
this as well, is the degree to which trump Ism
is going to disappear after Trump. And I take it
from what you are saying what you've written that you worry.
It's not that it might be too strong. Of course,
Trump in many ways is responsible, maybe entirely responsible for
the spread of trump Ism.
Speaker 2: It's named after him.
Speaker 3: It captures a set of ideas that has a lot
of resonance with these authoritarian not just nations, but cultures.
Speaker 2: So what do you think you mentioned jd Vance?
Speaker 3: Of course, who if I had to pick one person
to spread the ideas of the new Right and what's
sometimes called post liberalism. Patrick Denin, who I knew actually
is a graduate student at Princeton or Adrian Vermule at Harvard.
I mean, he's really taken those ideas and sees those
two as mentors. And these are two academics. Also, we
have gone over and explicitly met with Warbon. They've made
those ties, and they would just be obscure academics possibly
if they didn't have leaders in the new right grabbing
onto those ideas, and Jade Vance, I think is probably
the most prominent person who's done it. You know, would
be great if they were just obscure academics who are off,
you know, in a corner, arguing in a conference or
in journals, but no their books are read. Incidentally, Barack
Obama might have inadvertently furthered this by naming Patrick's Denien's book,
you know, one of the most important of the moment
or something. I think he was trying to say in
order to understand it, but might have spread that book
beyond what he intended. So what do you think, though, David,
I mean, once we get rid of Trump, he won't
be with us forever. Is there a danger that this
remains a tradition to challenge the American idea that we've
talked about, and I guess I also I'll throw something
in just you know, I don't know if you'll find
this sympathetic.
Speaker 2: I think it is.
Speaker 3: But We've always had multiple traditions alongside the credle idea.
Of course, we've had a ku Klux Klan, We've had
white supremacy, and those are ideas explicitly that have drawn
on the ideas of blood and soil, and so this
is in some ways a new form of it. It
is foreign, I think, to the true American tradition, but
it does have a legacy. So what do you see
as the future of trump Ism? Is it going to
disappear after Trump?
Speaker 6: Yeah? So, you know, I've always been in the view
that trump Ism, properly understood is just the ambitions of
Donald Trump. MAGA, which is the larger enterprise around Donald Trump,
is a really far more diverse political movement than people realize.
And because what he's sort of done is he's taken
different sort of fringe strands of American life and united
them under the red hat. And there's going to be
a big battle when he goes to see sort of
which part of this coalition sort of emerges triumphant, And
I would peg several parts of it. So what we're
talking about. The group we're talking about is sort of
the most nationalist part of the coalition. These are the
people who've taken sort of the nationalist impulses of Trump
tied them to sort of a larger, pre existing, more
authoritarian enterprise, which is sort of this JD vance post
liberal you know what, You've talked about. Their names like
Patrick Denien, Adrian Vermule, Douglas Wilson. On the Protestant side,
the people the constellation of people that DeCamp to Hungary,
and in raw numbers they're probably the smallest camp, but
in intellectual horsepower they're the most influential as far as
they punch above their weight online, they punch above their
weight in academic journals, they punch above their weight in
the public conversation. So that's one group. Another group is
what I would call libertines. And the libertines are sort
of like they kind of gravitated to Trump for obvious reasons.
Trump is a libertine. He doesn't like anyone telling him no.
On anything he wants to do. So a lot of
the anti woke people kind of got drawn into that
because of you know, perceiving sort of the woke's golds
and you know, and so they they're personified by sort
of the Barstool Sports podcastis stan world. That are people
that are just like, don't tell me what to do.
And the right is already flirting with losing these people
because the nationalist right and the libertine right they are
on a collision course. And then you also have the
religious right. And the religious right is pulled in a
bunch of different directions, but it is possibly more driven
to the nationalist right, but it's also its own thing.
It is just trafficking on decades of Republican loyalty in
the evangelical world, a lot of prophecies about Donald Trump.
And then you have the conspiracists. You know, Robert F.
Kennedy Junior would be your lead guy there. You know,
the people who didn't feel at home really anywhere. They
had cranky out of their ideas and they found out
that they could enter the halls of power if they
put on the red hat. So you have all of
these different groups of people who found that they have
an avenue to be in the room where that happens,
so long as they have the red hat on. And
so there's going to be a battle royal when Trump leaves. Now,
the one thing that you know, I don't think that
Democrats watching that should necessarily say, oh, well, that means
that the Republican Party is going to be weak and divided.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 6: The other thing that unites all of those groups is
they also really hate the modern Democratic Party, and so
there's a real possibility that what you'll have is kind
of a power struggle between different strands that then tries
to unite everybody to take on the hated foe, say
in twenty twenty eight or whatever. But I will say this,
I think the group of people who are the most organized,
who have the most coherent plan or theory of the case,
they're all in the post liberal sort of more nationalist
right that they're starting journals, they're creating think tanks, podcast
to stand. It's not institution building, it's personality building. Right
at the conspiracists movement, you know that you can handle them,
You can kind of give them some room to run
in their chosen areas, and then the sort of the
religious right will fall in line against whoever's taking on
the Democrats. And so you can begin to see how
there's a pat how I JD. Vance could say, even
though I'm not a member of, say, the most numerous
or even most popular faction of the right, I am
a member of the most organized and disciplined faction of
the right. And when you hear them talk it to
each other and amongst themselves, they are very much convinced
that very small, very organized my minorities can capture democracies,
and by capturing one of the two major parties. And
so so I think that you know what you're looking
at as a situation where you know, is Donald Trump
a post liberal Catholic thinker.
Speaker 3: He can't say those words that many words together, no
any of them.
Speaker 6: But has he kicked the door wide open for postliberal
whitewing thought? Yes?
Speaker 3: But is that because I mean, it's a really important
analysis to sort of carve off the different aspects of
the new ride. And what is remarkable about him Donald
Trump is that, unfortunately, through his technique, and I want
to talk about what this might be, he's been able
to combine these without standing for any ideology. He's not
smart enough to read Patrick Denin's book or certainly Adrian Vermule's,
or to have a conversation about you know, any of this. Right,
we know he doesn't read, but yet his you know,
kind of like the character Chauncey Gardner, you know, he's
able to sort of back his way into these things,
maybe more intentionally than Chauncey Gardner, and in that you know,
he uses these clips, these words that trigger people in
order to think, Okay, this is my guy. Of course,
his promise to appoint justices, which he delivered on to
reverse roversus way that might have helped him, you know
ingratiate himself to people who otherwise might not have gravitated
to his philosophy. So I mean, one question, I guess
to me, the million dollar question is do you see
anybody out there who can do what he did, which
is to have a form of rhetoric that's going to combine.
Speaker 2: These different things. Because when I think about JD.
Speaker 3: Vance, for instance, watching clips of him on Joe Rogan,
he's so uncomfortable and trying to pretend to be, you know,
one of the cool guys in a way that Trump
sort of naturally did just fit with Rogan, and you know,
just anecdotically, I've talked to a lot of people who
listen to him on Rogan and thought, oh, what a
cool guy. I don't think JD. Vans is going to
be able to pull that off. I mean, so is
that you know, we always look for hope and optimism,
and one thing I guess I'm counting on is as
much as there's a challenge ahead and we'll have to
fight against so many of these ideas of the new Right,
but they don't have a natural politician and I don't
think it's JD. Vance certainly who's going to be able
to combine all these forces.
Speaker 2: But I'm wondering what you think and if that's help.
Speaker 6: You know, this is not my first rodeo with an ism.
You know. So we've had Reaganism, We've had Clintonism. You know,
we've had Obama and the emerging demographic majority, the coalition
of the Ascendant, and every single time, the name, ultimately
over time proves more important than the ism. So it's
that Reagan had a particular appeal to America. Not necessarily
Reagan's ideology, now elements of it were certainly popular. Clinton
had a particular charisma an appeal. Obama had a particular
chrisma and appeal. And I feel like those of us
who analyze politics tend to underestimate the personalities and overestimate
the ideology. And I feel like with Trump, nobody's like him.
You know, I'm in Chicago right now. If you look down,
if you walk out of my apartment building and you
look to the right, the back of my apartment and
you look down Wabash, there's this beautiful skyscraper and right
there is the word Trump, just like right there. No
other politician in America has that kind of cultural resonance
that he has. So I do think the smarter people
in MAGA know that trump Ism the ism is much
less important than the name, and that when he goes
it's going to be very difficult to put together the
coalition that he put together. That's going to be hard.
And so that's why, and you're seeing the sort of
the preview of coming attractions and the midterm elections that
their theory of the case is not that they have
to necessarily replicate Trump's particular charisma. They just have to
be more popular than the Democrats. And so what you're
going to see. And there was this headline I saw
yesterday that and you know, interesting article that a Republican
operative said, this is going to be the hate election.
In other words, the entire goal is to turn a
critical mass of the electorate so much against the Democrats
that they are going to be willing and you know, willing,
ready and able to accept whatever the Right offers as
an alternative to Trump. So I don't think the smart
people in MAGA think that they can replicate Trump's appeal.
I think the smart people in MAGA say the way
to continue to hold power is to relentlessly demonize the Democrats,
so that we are going to look better even if
you're a Ken Paxton with all the corruption and adultery.
You know, even if you're some of these fringe MAGA candidates,
at least you're not a Democrat. Right is going to
be the way they're going to argue this case. And
so look for the rhetoric to really I mean, is
it even possible for the rhetoric to escalate. But if
it's possible for rhetoric to escalate, look for it to escalate,
because you know that the old saying is I don't
have to be the fastest person in my hiking group.
I just have to be able to outrun the slowest
when the bear comes. That's their view is, I'm going
to outrun the slowest the Democratic Party. And this is
why you see, for example, let's say a DSA candidate
wins a primary in Brooklyn, or you have a very
fringe left wing candidate win another primary in some other place.
Immediately that person becomes the face of the Democratic Party
in right wing media. And so this is all part
of the you know, at the end of this election,
you might have I don't know two three, four five
DSA affiliated members of Congress. They're going to be the
face of the Democratic Congress in right wing media, because
this is how the game is played, and so that's
going to be that's what they're They believe they're key
to power is the Democratic Party and the leftism of
the Democratic Party, because their whole view is they just
have to be more popular than the Democrats.
Speaker 3: And David, you know'd be impossible to some all this up.
We've traveled, you know, to the nineteen thirties. We've talked
about the American Founding and the Second Founding. But I
wonder if one kind of as we start to close off,
I'll offer you a closing thought and just let you respond,
is that, you know, part of what the Democratic Party
has to learn to do to offer an alternative is
to tap into these deep American ideas. Of course, things
like affordability matter, and I understand why candidates want to
talk about that as well they should, But part of it,
I think also is that we have to reclaim these
ideas that have really been destroyed and degraded by the
new Right into talking about liberty, thinking that liberty somehow means,
you know, just lead me alone, rather than a deep
commitment to the freedom of speech and religious freedom. And
of course there's a long tradition, as you've written about,
and certainly listeners to this show know from John and
from me talking about my wife's grandfather, who's the dean
of Louisville Seminary and involved in the civil rights movement,
that there's a long tradition and believing in the ideas
of liberal democracy and religion that of course these things
are compatible, and seeing too at the same time that
these ideas can fend off explicit authoritarianism and ideas like
blood and soil that are not part of the American tradition.
Speaker 2: I mean, so what do you think.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's the right thing to believe
in a lot of what we've talked about as.
Speaker 2: Ideas and political theory.
Speaker 3: But how about a strategy for the Democratic Party. I
guess putting my cards on the table of the belief
that that has to be part of it, reclaiming the
ideas of the Constitution, not just in seeing the threat
that is Donald Trump, but affirmatively.
Speaker 6: Yeah, my message to those people who are opposing the
New Right is the Founders are your best friends. Yeah, okay,
so think of it like this. You know, I know
a lot of folks, maybe some folks who are listening
to the podcast it sort of you know, maybe from
the center towards the left have looked at the Right
and sort of seeing how the right so revers the
founding and so revers the Founders that maybe you've been
exposed to sort of the more of the contrary and
or more skeptical takes that justifiably point out their flaws.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 6: I'm not here to come here and say embracing the
Founders means embracing everything they did. No, no, no, okay,
you can hold two thoughts at once. James Madison was
a slave owner, so was George Washington. And also they
advocated for American politics some beautiful ideas that we should
wrap both arms around their ideas, right, And so I
think that if you want to refute, then you right.
There are few better people to go to than George
Washington and James Madison. And why this is so effective,
why this is so effective is that it actually speaks
in the language a lot of right leaning people understand.
Because if it's between James Madison and some politician they
barely know, they're generally going to go with James Madison
George Washington versus some random congressman, They're going to go
with George Washington. And so I really want more liberal
critics of the New Right to bear hug the founders.
Guys bear hug think about this, think about how relevant, like,
for example, this statement from James Madison is. And in
seventeen eighty five he wrote a remonstrance against religious assessments,
which was Virginia was going to impose a tax to
pay for religious education. And so James Madison writes just
very stirringly against it, and at one point, he says,
the proposed establishment, this would be the tax that was
going to the fee that was going to be assessed.
The proposed establishment and I'm paraphrasing it, but is antithetical
to that policy for which this nation would be attracted
to the persecutre in and oppressed of all nations and
all religions, and that by bringing these people in, we
would add to the luster and number to the luster
of the nation and the number of the citizens. That's
James Madison. So here he is. He's wading in from
the eighteenth century into the twenty first century immigration debate,
and he's saying, Hey, you guys who think that immigration
is only for Judeo Christian people, know all nations, all peoples.
You think that we shouldn't be a home for persecuted
and oppressed people. James Madison says differently, Do you think
it makes us weaker? James Madison says, it makes us stronger. Now,
you might be a smart person, and you might be
somebody who has some interesting ideas worth considering, but I'm
not putting you over James Madison in wisdom about this country.
And so I do think that there is and we
talked about George Washington and don't run away from religious
argumentation in American public life, run towards it in the
way the founders did. So what did James Madison say
in Remonstrances? He said that this religious assessment would diffuse
the light of Christ, though it did harm Christianity. When
George Washington reached out to the Hebrew Congregation of Rhode
Island to welcome them into this American family, very famously,
he quoted Scripture. So they made religious arguments for pluralism
and tolerance.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, And if I could, yeah, I mean, and
if I could just add on to this, of course,
I knew we'd be kindred spirits.
Speaker 2: And that's been clear through this conversation. I mean, just
to add on.
Speaker 3: They use those arguments drawing on religion, drawing on the
Enlightenment ideals to enshrine them, first of all in the
First Amendment banning establishment.
Speaker 2: And to argue against theocracy.
Speaker 3: And so much of what we're talking about are theocratic
ideas that had their home and v She France, that
were anti liberal in the nineteen thirties and that are
finding their way here. And although they're drawing on Christian ideals.
They're using it to reassure a Jewish community in Newport that, no,
we're not going to have the Inquisition here exactly, We're
not going to have the establishment of religion. And to
put it bluntly, I think the way to sum it
up is, we're not going to have theocracy. And yet
so much of the New Rite is an argument for theocracy.
And George Washington, I'm fond of. My favorite presidential speech
is the shortest ever given the second inaugural. What does
he say, I just took the oath of office. I
have to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And if
I violate it, you know, criticize me, upbraid me, subject
me to constitutional punishment. What a different idea from Trump
or trump Ism or the New Writer.
Speaker 6: When speaking of George Washington, he had a favorite Bible verse.
He used it almost fifty times in his writing. And
Mount Vernon very wonderfully highlights this. There's a whole like,
there's a whole web page that's dedicated to his use
of this Bible verse. And it's Micah four to four.
And what is it? If you saw the musical Hamilton,
you've heard it. Every man shall sit under his own
vine and his own fig tree, and no one shall
make him afraid. That is a beautiful Biblical argument for
tolerance and acceptance. And he used that Bible verse when
welcoming in the Jewish congregate, you know, when he welcomed
Jewish Americans into this into our republic. And so realize
that there is religious argumentation for American pluralism and tolerance,
and embrace the founder's arguments against the new Right. I
love what George Will said, you know, I think about
you know, as a conservative, I think, what is conservatism
trying to conserve in this moment? And George Will put
it brilliantly, It's trying to conserve the American Founding. That's
where we're trying to conserve.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I'll add one last thing, which is we've
been talking, you know, in this part of the conversation
about the eighteenth century Founding. We began by talking about
what is a refounding of the United States, or sometimes
called the Second Founding, and what was the technique that
was used there by the most powerful advocates of it,
and Frederick Douglass, I think is chief among them. It
was exactly what we're talking about to recognize not that
the Framers were gods or they were perfect. No, of course,
these deeply imperfect people with imperfect beliefs, but the best
of their ideas are to be understood as the center
of the American tradition. And that's what in refounding the
United States in the nineteenth century and creating birthright citizenship,
which we started with. What they did and what you
know I as we're looking for hope, what I think
we all need to do and trying to recover from
this assault on our democracy. David French, what a pleasure
to have you on the Oath in the Office podcast.
I knew I would enjoy it. I know the listeners
enjoyed it. Thanks so much.
Speaker 6: Well, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Great stuff. Corey, thank you so so much. I'm always
learning a lot here. What is the best way for
our listeners to follow you, professor and keep up with
your brilliance the other six days of the week.
Speaker 3: Well, leave us a review, I should say, first, subscribe
if you're listening to us on Spotify, on Apple, really
wherever you get your podcast on Amazon, push that subscribe
button and leave a review.
Speaker 2: That's how we grow.
Speaker 3: Tell others about the show, and you can also find
us if you're want to watch us and just listen
to us on YouTube. We have the Oath in the
office substack, a newsletter that really details what we're talking about,
the links to the stories that we're discussing, if you
want to go deeper than the show. And let me
just say too, John, you know, David French was such
a great guest because he just coheres with the themes
of this show, especially his criticisms of the New Right.
And you know, as I told him off air, the
way in which his project and your projects are so
sympathetic to really rescue Christianity from Christian nationalism. What could
be more important at a time in which authoritarianism is
on the rise.
Speaker 1: Now, you're too kind, Professor I, thank you so so much,
and I want to tell everyone you can hear my
show on Sirius XM Progress Channel one twenty seven every
weekday at it's twelve New Now Right Corey twelve noon
Eastern time, nine am Pacific time, So come join us
in the afternoons if you don't have Serious XM. We're
also a free podcast and my book is called Separation
of Church and Hate. And we just were notified that
we are a recipient of this year's American Book Award,
which is pretty groovy as well. So yeah, it's amazing
and whoopee Goldberg Summer pick on the view, So hey,
pick up my book, professor. I want to thank you.
I want to thank Wendy and Beowulf and everyone who
helps put this show together. And most of all, I
want to thank all of our deeply attractive listeners who
are making this podcast insanely popular. My god, Corey, where
are we on the on the rankings this week?
Speaker 3: Well, first, John, I've got to just say congratulations, you know,
on my behalf, but also I'm sure the listeners would
send you the same congratulations. Those are really incredible honors.
And that book, you know, I'm proud that. On the
other in the Office podcast, I think we did have
the first interview about it that was great to do
and amazing response.
Speaker 2: And if you haven't read that book, go out and
get it.
Speaker 3: And then I'll say people are responding because really, you know,
for a long time we were top ten, and we
were top five in terms of Apple podcast trending episodes,
and last week and really this has been regularly true.
We were number one at one point for a good
period of time. So thank you, and as I said,
push that subscribe button.
Speaker 1: That's all due to your riz Man. I want to
thank everyone for joining us again. And a reminder MAGA
may think that Andrew Tate is some kind of philosopher,
he's not. He's Tony Robbins. For people who think consent
is woke, don't forget. Thank you so much, Professor Bretschneider.
We will see all of you next time on the
Oath and the Office