Speaker 1: It's the Three Whiskey Happy Hour Special Gala July fourth
Speaker 1: edition with your usual bartenders, me, John Yu and the
Speaker 1: International Woman of Mystery, Lucretia. Well, it's the special July
Speaker 1: fourth edition of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour, brought to
Speaker 1: you like Yankee Doodle Dandy in a two four time signature,
Speaker 1: with no rest between the measures. Though more on that
Speaker 1: point in due course. And of course, I guess we
Speaker 1: should start out by observing that today is the real
Speaker 1: No King's Day. But we're gonna change things up a
Speaker 1: little bit since it is our sacred holiday. We're gonna
Speaker 1: skip the news, we're gonna skip the latest cases and
Speaker 1: does just do some July four themes, although I reserve
Speaker 1: the right to do a little retribution against John and
Speaker 1: the third segment. But we are now one year out
Speaker 1: from I've learned, by the way John, what we're supposed
Speaker 1: to call next year's anniversary. It's the semi quinn Centennial,
Speaker 1: which just rolls.
Speaker 2: That sounds almost as nice as the Clean Air Act.
Speaker 2: We might have to we're gonna have to ban that
Speaker 2: word too, Send me whatever.
Speaker 1: All right, But but I thought what we would do
Speaker 1: today is reflect on some general things and John, I
Speaker 1: want to start with you, uh, because you know, we've
Speaker 1: had these arguments on the substance of immigration, both the
Speaker 1: legal issue of birthright citizenship, but then we also have
Speaker 1: tangled a couple of times about whether the US needs
Speaker 1: more immigration. You made the argument theory we need more
Speaker 1: skilled immigration, that we're actually short of labor and so forth.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And I thought, let's talk about your immagate because you
Speaker 1: are an immigrant and your story I think calls to
Speaker 1: mind Lucretia and my late friend Peter Shram, who you know,
Speaker 1: fled with his family after the Hungarian Revolution in nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty six, and he asked his dad, dad, why are
Speaker 1: we going to America? And his dad said, because we
Speaker 1: were born American but in the wrong country. And there
Speaker 1: was no more patriotic person than Peter Shram, and no
Speaker 1: more eloquent person to talk about immigration rightly done. So
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, you've mentioned a couple of
Speaker 1: times that you moved here with your parents when you
Speaker 1: were what seven eight years old? I saw it.
Speaker 2: No, No, I it's much younger. I came to the
Speaker 2: United States when I was three months old, so I
Speaker 2: had lots of questions, but no one could understand me
Speaker 2: at the time when we came out.
Speaker 3: Well, we've seen that picture of you talking John, I
Speaker 3: don't believe.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, there's these great videos of me now
Speaker 2: speaking out at last Spanish and Spanish at that with
Speaker 2: a books sticking out of my hair. So we'll take
Speaker 2: it from the time I just actually heard my you
Speaker 2: know one. So a few things. So first, I think
Speaker 2: it's uh, you know, we appreciate the country, and I
Speaker 2: want to get to that second. But first, think about
Speaker 2: we're all descended from immigrants, and think about what what
Speaker 2: an imposing obstacle it was for all of them to
Speaker 2: decide to leave their home countries and come here. And
Speaker 2: they came here because of an idea, not you know,
Speaker 2: they came like you said, Steve with your description of
Speaker 2: the Shams. The Shrams I never met. It's my parents.
Speaker 2: And I think most you know, people who first come
Speaker 2: over as first generation immigrants, they have just rumors or
Speaker 2: ideas about what America is rather than what it really
Speaker 2: is like, and still they come. I think that's incredible.
Speaker 2: Think about there, all of our ancestors were rooted in
Speaker 2: some place for maybe thousands of years. That's certainly true
Speaker 2: of Korea, which is still rather homogeneous people and culture
Speaker 2: that was isolated from the world for about two thousand years.
Speaker 2: It was called the hermit Kingdom. I learned. So, think
Speaker 2: about all of our first generation ancestors who came here,
Speaker 2: had almost no real knowledge of what it was like.
Speaker 2: But because of their desire, I think, for freedom, they
Speaker 2: came here, and because of their rumor that you could
Speaker 2: make your lives as you wanted rather than be trapped
Speaker 2: in a hierarchy or a society that was the way
Speaker 2: it was for hundreds of years or thousands of years,
Speaker 2: is what brought them here. So I just heard my
Speaker 2: mother actually tell this story last week. So this is
Speaker 2: all about the revolution in a way. So I was
Speaker 2: in Philadelphia last week teaching a class of K through
Speaker 2: twelve teachers about the revolution. So here they just struck me.
Speaker 2: Here's a first generation immigrant, I wasn't even born here
Speaker 2: teaching a class of fifty K through twelve teachers about
Speaker 2: the American Revolution. And I made the case to them,
Speaker 2: and I taught it socratic. So I start out with
Speaker 2: a statement and then just asked them what they thought.
Speaker 2: And I said, the American Revolution is a strangely conservative
Speaker 2: revolution because it seeks to recapture your guy's favorite topic,
Speaker 2: natural rights, right, it seems to recapture that from the
Speaker 2: British who wanted to change things, and how it's amazing
Speaker 2: that people from all over the world come here, not
Speaker 2: for the French, a French, Chinese or Russian revolution. They
Speaker 2: don't come here because they want to sweep away society.
Speaker 2: They come here because they want something very old fashioned, right,
Speaker 2: thousands of years old, the idea of natural rights. Anyway,
Speaker 2: So after that, I took my mother, who's eighty seven,
Speaker 2: and some of her octogenarian friends to dinner at a
Speaker 2: restaurant that pre exists the Revolution in Philadelphia called the
Speaker 2: Guardhouse Inn, and they were all telling stories about how
Speaker 2: they first came to Philadelphia. And the restaurant is still
Speaker 2: in the same town that I grew up in. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's the thing. Things in Philadelphia, they don't change. So
Speaker 2: this restaurant's been there since seventeen there's a date on
Speaker 2: it's seventeen something, and it's still serving the food from
Speaker 2: seventeen something. I think the recipes have not changed. I'm
Speaker 2: just kidding, But there are restaurants in Philadelphia actually where
Speaker 2: you can go and the menu is like Benjamin Franklin's menu,
Speaker 2: And here I want to just say there have been
Speaker 2: massive improvements in human welfare since that time, because we
Speaker 2: don't eat that food anymore anyway. So one of the
Speaker 2: people at dinner who actually used to be an owner
Speaker 2: of the Philadelphia Phillies, but that's a whole nother story,
Speaker 2: a very interesting man anyway. So they asked her, how
Speaker 2: did you pick Philadelphia to emigrate to? And I think
Speaker 2: this has got to be replicated over and over again
Speaker 2: in all of our stories. So she said, we didn't
Speaker 2: know anything about the United States. Unrolled a map and
Speaker 2: there were all these cities, and there's New York and
Speaker 2: there's Los Angeles as the ones most Koreans went to.
Speaker 2: And they said they were fans of classical music. And
Speaker 2: in the nineteen fifties, the greatest orchestra in America was, oh, Philadelphia,
Speaker 2: the Philadelphia Orchestra, conducted by Eugene Eugene Ormandy, the great conductor.
Speaker 2: And they said, they have a great orchestra in Philadelphia.
Speaker 2: It must be a good place to live. Let's choose there.
Speaker 2: So I was like, you know, mom, at this time,
Speaker 2: the Detroit Symphony Orchestra is also a very good orchestra
Speaker 2: and the Cleveland Orchestra. Think, well, how could you pick
Speaker 2: a city based on the orchestra. There's a lot of
Speaker 2: bad cities with good orchestras too, But this was all
Speaker 2: they knew about the United States was just they had
Speaker 2: heard the music from the Philadelphia Orchestra, and that's how
Speaker 2: we picked it. But then they took me to a
Speaker 2: city which is wrapped up in the history of the
Speaker 2: Revolution and the Constitution. Where you can go today and
Speaker 2: visit the room in Independence Hall, which at that time
Speaker 2: was the Pennsylvania State House, and see the room and
Speaker 2: the desks are still there, the same furniture, and see
Speaker 2: where the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, and
Speaker 2: with the Constitution was written signed. I went to a
Speaker 2: high school that was founded in seventeen eighty five, and
Speaker 2: so it pre exists the Constitution. We still learned Latin
Speaker 2: and Greek at that high school. You know, it was
Speaker 2: originally founded to teach ministers of the Episcopalian church because
Speaker 2: that's who were supposed to go to college back then.
Speaker 2: So I had that was my immigration. I still remember
Speaker 2: I was around for the seventeen seventy six celebration I
Speaker 2: remember going to parade as a little kid, and I
Speaker 2: also remember that the following year I got my naturalization certificate,
Speaker 2: and I still remember, vaguely remember going to downtown Philadelphia
Speaker 2: to some federal building and getting the naturalization certificate, which
Speaker 2: I still have. So you probably remember a lot of
Speaker 2: things from when you were now nine or ten. I
Speaker 2: still distinctly remember that, and then just deficient. Lastly, you know,
Speaker 2: on July fourth, it's the other thing that's amazing to
Speaker 2: me is not just the travel of our parents or
Speaker 2: ancestors to the United States, but also it's amazing. And
Speaker 2: this is why I think immigration should be increased beyond
Speaker 2: one million a year. Is I think the country is
Speaker 2: an amazing country because it is founded on immigration and
Speaker 2: it's constantly renewing itself, but they're always still connected to
Speaker 2: the founding principles. The people still come here because they
Speaker 2: want freedom and liberty, not just I think economic benefits.
Speaker 2: They don't just want to go to the richest country
Speaker 2: in the world or the strongest country in the world.
Speaker 2: They want to go to the freest country in the world.
Speaker 2: That's why. But it's not the freedom you could find
Speaker 2: in Europe or Asia. They want to come or even
Speaker 2: the Latin America. They want to have the unique freedom
Speaker 2: we have in the United States. So sorry for going
Speaker 2: on line. I could go on longer.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm want you to back up a step on
Speaker 1: a couple of points, which is you were Were you
Speaker 1: naturalized at the same time as your parents.
Speaker 2: Yes, the same time, I see, I think almost the
Speaker 2: same time.
Speaker 1: So it took several years, I take it.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I mean back then it would take you.
Speaker 2: I think it took nine ten years. I mean it
Speaker 2: took nine years for me. Yeah, I mean it's it's
Speaker 2: not the and we didn't apply for asylum or anything.
Speaker 2: My parents came to fill needs in the healthcare industry.
Speaker 1: So well, that's what I was going to ask, is
Speaker 1: what we.
Speaker 2: First settled in New Jersey because it worked there. My
Speaker 2: parents worked at a veterans hospital. Oh okay, in a
Speaker 2: mental and a mental hospital in New Jersey. Yeah, well
Speaker 2: that okay, explain to you a little bits. That's why
Speaker 2: I'm so successful at navigating this podcast.
Speaker 3: Well, all right, and mom makes me better.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I say, back up a step. So
Speaker 1: you mentioned that you know your parents were you know, skilled,
Speaker 1: well educated people in medicine.
Speaker 2: I guess.
Speaker 1: And you know, the other thing I know is what
Speaker 1: year was did you come here?
Speaker 2: Was it like nineteen nineteen sixty seven? So years two
Speaker 2: years after the Immigration Act? So as yes, you know,
Speaker 2: before nineteen sixty five, this really wouldn't have been possible.
Speaker 1: Well, I wasn't sure. You know, it varies depending on
Speaker 1: the status of countries, and in a particular case of Korea,
Speaker 1: where we had, you know, fifteen years before, been involved
Speaker 1: in a war, and I think even in the late sixties,
Speaker 1: South Korea was still a pretty poor country. Today it's
Speaker 1: a real country, right, and so you can understand why
Speaker 1: you'd want to seek out better opportunities. I always like.
Speaker 2: An interesting thing though in the Yeah, well no, here's
Speaker 2: interesting in the mid nineteen sixties, so yeah, I went
Speaker 2: looked up the statistics and so nineteen sixty South Korea
Speaker 2: was the second poorest country in the world. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: so you know now it's one of the top ten
Speaker 2: cos in just two generations, right, ever, really become one
Speaker 2: of the top ten richest countries. And my parents were
Speaker 2: a doctor, so if they had stayed in Korea, they
Speaker 2: would have had you know, they would have been the
Speaker 2: top of that wave. In a way, So they actually
Speaker 2: gave up quite a bit of opportunity in their home country.
Speaker 2: But I don't they didn't want to live under a
Speaker 2: military dictatorship. Yeah, even though I mean, this is another
Speaker 2: other elements of it is I've always been interested in
Speaker 2: foreign affairs and war because the United States did fight
Speaker 2: in the Korean War right before I was born. And
Speaker 2: it's still amazing to me that, yes, the United States
Speaker 2: had great power reasons to go to Korea, but it
Speaker 2: also saved the country, and I find that incredible. I'm
Speaker 2: still so amazed that, you know, that's tens of thousands
Speaker 2: of Americans died in combat to save the freedom of
Speaker 2: South Korea, and you look at the result. It's now
Speaker 2: the tenth or just country of the world. You look
Speaker 2: at that map that Rumsfeld liked to show of the
Speaker 2: city lights at night between North and South Korea, and
Speaker 2: North Korea, which is run by communists, completely dark except
Speaker 2: for one tiny blip in Pyongyang, and South Korea looks
Speaker 2: like America now the from space.
Speaker 3: So let me just add a little something onto that.
Speaker 3: I attended a Holocaust remembrance ceremony several years ago and
Speaker 3: included this little anecdote in my speech to eight hundred
Speaker 3: people at a military ball on the two hundred and
Speaker 3: fiftieth anniversary of the US Army. And that was at
Speaker 3: the Holocaust Rememberment ceremony. A rabbi who had been rescued
Speaker 3: as a child from I think it was Dachau, came
Speaker 3: and spoke. He was the major speaker at the ceremony,
Speaker 3: and the one thing he said to a room full
Speaker 3: of soldiers was to billions of people across the world,
Speaker 3: a soldier in a US Army uniform means hope and deliverance.
Speaker 3: And like you say, John, what an incredible thing that
Speaker 3: is that our soldiers are not bent on world domination
Speaker 3: and conquest. I mean, I don't want to get into
Speaker 3: a neocon thing, but how proud can you be of
Speaker 3: a military harry that its primary purpose throughout most of
Speaker 3: its history has been either to protect the people of
Speaker 3: this nation or to deliver people of other nations from
Speaker 3: really horrible situations. I mean, can you imagine anything more
Speaker 3: noble than rescuing survivors of concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
Speaker 3: And why is it that we do that? I think
Speaker 3: that that's really the important question. Why is our army different?
Speaker 3: Why is it notvent on colonialism and imperialism and all
Speaker 3: of those other horrible things we hear from the left.
Speaker 3: I think it's because of who we are as a
Speaker 3: country and the one place that I differ with you, John,
Speaker 3: not differ, but maybe add to is there's a reason
Speaker 3: why America is entirely different from any other country. And
Speaker 3: I don't know that it's a conservative revolution. I think
Speaker 3: it's a contra revolution. It doesn't replace in seventeen seventy six,
Speaker 3: we didn't replace one set of dictator with another. It
Speaker 3: wasn't just a coup. It was for the first time
Speaker 3: in recorded history of people dedicating themselves to a universal
Speaker 3: principle based on the idea that the world was ruled
Speaker 3: by nature, the laws of nature, in Nature's God, not
Speaker 3: a specific Christian God, not a specific sect, not Islam,
Speaker 3: not whatever it might be. But to separate out from
Speaker 3: our commitment to our God, whichever God we choose to worship,
Speaker 3: but to base, to base our freedoms, our rights, not
Speaker 3: in something ephemeral or because we have a constitution that
Speaker 3: says so, but because we can go to nature. We
Speaker 3: can go to nature's laws, in Nature's God, and see
Speaker 3: what it is that we can learn about human nature
Speaker 3: and why we have those natural rights and freedoms because
Speaker 3: of the fundamental truth of human equality. Not equality in everything,
Speaker 3: but it equality in the sense that over human beings,
Speaker 3: there are no natural rulers. There's no divine right of kings.
Speaker 3: There's no evidence in nature from God, despite what ruled
Speaker 3: Europe for millennia, that God has placed some people in
Speaker 3: such superior positions over everyone else that they deserve to
Speaker 3: be rulers over the world. That's what creates American exceptionalism
Speaker 3: because we believe that, and it's why we could accept
Speaker 3: all of those immigrants from countries far from countries with
Speaker 3: totally different belief systems and so on. Why did they
Speaker 3: come here? Because the American exceptionalism is a human exceptionalism,
Speaker 3: and every immigrant from every country, if they're willing to
Speaker 3: accept those principles and those ideas, can become an American,
Speaker 3: regardless of where they come from. You can't go to
Speaker 3: France and become a Frenchman. I can't go to Korea
Speaker 3: and become a Korean.
Speaker 2: In Lucretia, you seem to share some of the common
Speaker 2: traits of the people.
Speaker 3: I do because I have lots of.
Speaker 2: Riving your enemies before you destroying their cities.
Speaker 3: But what does it mean to be an American?
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know anything about the naturalization procedures,
Speaker 3: rules and regulations of other countries, but I know about
Speaker 3: them here and they what they demand of you is
Speaker 3: that you understand those fundamental principles. That's what they demand
Speaker 3: of you. And you have to take a test. And
Speaker 3: the test is not necessarily about you know, history and
Speaker 3: this and that. It's about what are the fundamental principles
Speaker 3: of American exceptionalism and that's what makes us different and
Speaker 3: what makes July fourth worth celebrating.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you just did a in some ways
Speaker 1: a recapitulation of Reagan's farewell address. Ery talked about the
Speaker 1: story of the fishing out the Vietnamese refugee in the
Speaker 1: late seventies, the American Navy man, right and pulling the
Speaker 1: guy up on the deck and he says, hello, American soldier,
Speaker 1: Hello freedom man. That was the only English he knew, right,
Speaker 1: And the importance of a studying history. So, John, I
Speaker 1: am curious that Episcopal school you went to low those
Speaker 1: many years ago, where you learned Greek and Latin and
Speaker 1: probably were given you a sensible instruction about American American history.
Speaker 1: Do you know if they still teach it the way today?
Speaker 1: Do you suppose they've gone woke like so many other
Speaker 1: of our fine elite institutions of education.
Speaker 2: Gosh, I hope not. I know they still teach Greek
Speaker 2: and Latin, oh, which I think if you still learn
Speaker 2: Greek and Latin and you read ancient history, you come
Speaker 2: away with great suspicion of these utopian ideas of sweeping
Speaker 2: away the past and replacing it with you know, some
Speaker 2: kind of you know, Rousseauian, a Marxist Leninist paradise, because
Speaker 2: studying all that time in history and learning the language,
Speaker 2: it gives you a sense of how much of a
Speaker 2: you know, world history is tragic. And then you the
Speaker 2: United States, and yeah, we learned Western civilization in that
Speaker 2: high school. So actually I learned far more in that
Speaker 2: high school than I learned in college and law school,
Speaker 2: without a doubt. And one thing you do come away
Speaker 2: with is how unique America is. So, you know, response
Speaker 2: to Lucretia's point, So I have this story in my
Speaker 2: senior year of college, after I had already gotten into
Speaker 2: law school and basically finished my thesis. I was looking
Speaker 2: around for classes to take the spring of my senior year,
Speaker 2: and I was looking in the course catalog, which was
Speaker 2: on paper back then and you could not search it
Speaker 2: with keywords. And I found this class that caught my eye,
Speaker 2: and it was called American Exceptionalism. So I thought, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm going to take this class. It was in the
Speaker 2: sociology department, and I show up and there's four people
Speaker 2: in the class and Daniel Bell, who I had no
Speaker 2: idea who this Daniel Bell guy was. So he took
Speaker 2: a special interest in me because I was something of
Speaker 2: a rack hunteur in class. But also you thought it
Speaker 2: was interesting because I was an immigrant, so he thought
Speaker 2: this was really interesting. And I wasn't a sociology major.
Speaker 2: He was bored with sociology majors. But we basically sat
Speaker 2: around a table, the five of us, for the whole semester,
Speaker 2: trying to figure out what made America exceptional. And so
Speaker 2: his theory takes up on Lucretia's idea, but it's not
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say positive negative. He's trying to be descriptive.
Speaker 2: He thinks that he argued, just I don't think this
Speaker 2: is actual belief, but He argued that we were trapped
Speaker 2: in some kind of locke in paradise, that we are
Speaker 2: committed to natural rights from the founding, but then the
Speaker 2: country is so vast and the government is so weak
Speaker 2: compared to other countries, that's impossible to really change the
Speaker 2: United States out of a local So he would just say,
Speaker 2: you know, it's just hardwired. And that's not his phrase,
Speaker 2: but he would have said today Lochianism is hardwired into
Speaker 2: the American character, this belief in natural rights, this effort
Speaker 2: to limit government. But then also the large side. And
Speaker 2: then one other thing that was really impressed was was
Speaker 2: the religiosity of Americans. He said, if there's something really
Speaker 2: different and Western Europe, and he kept comparing us to
Speaker 2: Western Europe, is people here just much more religious? And
Speaker 2: he thinks that He thought that was a really important difference.
Speaker 3: And why the problem I have with that. The problem
Speaker 3: I have with that explanation is it puts the causes
Speaker 3: over the It calls the causes the effects and the
Speaker 3: effects the causes. You know, tyranny and oppression have been
Speaker 3: the rule throughout history, and what is it about America?
Speaker 3: Because human beings were created equal, they have a right
Speaker 3: to rule themselves. For the first time, the Americans demonstrated
Speaker 3: that you could have legitimate government specifically designed to protect
Speaker 3: and secure our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
Speaker 3: of happiness. They're not given to us by government. Their
Speaker 3: government exists to protect it. Alexander Hamilton said, you know,
Speaker 3: it's going to be up to us to prove to
Speaker 3: the rest of the world that we can do this.
Speaker 3: And if we can't do it because of I think
Speaker 3: some of the things you were saying from your bel lecture,
Speaker 3: because of the unique characteristics in America at the time,
Speaker 3: the belief in those rights, the traditional self government, all
Speaker 3: of those things made it this perfect sort of experiment.
Speaker 3: But Hamilton says very clearly, if we fail at this experiment,
Speaker 3: it can be considered the general misfortune of mankind. And
Speaker 3: then you have Lincoln coming along and saying, essentially during
Speaker 3: the Civil War, I'm going to quote this kind of
Speaker 3: the same thing. He says, we even we here hold
Speaker 3: the power and bear the responsibility in giving freedom to
Speaker 3: the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike.
Speaker 3: In what we give and what we preserve, we shall
Speaker 3: nobly save or meanly lose. The last best hope of earth.
Speaker 3: So and just one more point on that, the belief
Speaker 3: in human equality limited government. It didn't limit the purposes
Speaker 3: of man. That's why we can have such prosperity because,
Speaker 3: as you say, we have weak government and we have
Speaker 3: this commitment to natural rights. But it also opened up
Speaker 3: human flourishing in a way that was even inconceivable throughout history.
Speaker 3: I just protect your rights to property, and guess what
Speaker 3: human beings flourish, and we have an expanded notion of property,
Speaker 3: not just you know, I've got money in the bank.
Speaker 3: I've got this many cows, but I'm a talented musician,
Speaker 3: and I can earn money and keep that money. All
Speaker 3: of those things allowed Americans to flourish beyond anything that
Speaker 3: the world had ever known. It's not the economic freedom
Speaker 3: that made this country great. The things that made this
Speaker 3: country great cause the economic freedom. And that's what I mean.
Speaker 3: Steve was trying to push you and say your parents
Speaker 3: wanted to come here for economic freedom and economic opportunity.
Speaker 3: And that's true in many cases. But what we need
Speaker 3: to make sure people understand is that economic opportunity is
Speaker 3: the result of American exceptionalism and not the cause of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to back. I want to get out
Speaker 1: of this segment with a couple follow up questions for you,
Speaker 1: John about your time with Daniel Bell who. First of all,
Speaker 1: were you aware of him before you took the class?
Speaker 1: Did you know he was this famous?
Speaker 2: I did not realize who he was. And also, by
Speaker 2: the way, it was the very last class he ever taught,
Speaker 2: because he retired after he had me in class. He retired.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, by the way, I mean you gave us
Speaker 1: a little background about him. He was essentially a follower
Speaker 1: of Lewis Harts and the liberal tradition in America. And
Speaker 1: remember Heart said, with this lockeyan country, but he regretted that,
Speaker 1: and I think Bell did too. I mean remember Bell
Speaker 1: described himself as a cultural conservative, but a social democrat
Speaker 1: or socialist economics, an economic Marxist. Yeah. Yeah, well, I
Speaker 1: will say that I never met the guy, but I
Speaker 1: read him assiduously, and in particular, it was one really
Speaker 1: interesting essay of his back in nineteen eighty two in
Speaker 1: Partisan Reviews. So he'd retired by then, or maybe not quite.
Speaker 1: It alerted me to some of the interesting and usable
Speaker 1: aspects of Max Weber and uh if Belle were still
Speaker 1: with us, today. I think he would be horrified and
Speaker 1: appalled at the left of the Democratic Party and people
Speaker 1: like Montdombia, New York.
Speaker 2: Well, one thing that came through from the class and
Speaker 2: from the reading. You know, he wrote a famous book,
Speaker 2: The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism and the argument that our
Speaker 2: economy becomes so I mean, I can't I think he's right,
Speaker 2: but you know, it's seventy years later, I think after
Speaker 2: he wrote twenty years after at the book was no, no, no, wow,
Speaker 2: it's yes, it's almost fifty years since he wrote the book.
Speaker 2: Was that, you know, our economy produces so much wealth
Speaker 2: and luxury that it undermines the moral basis that causes
Speaker 2: capitalism to succeed. It's sort of an add on, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a it's an expansion of Weber's Protestant you know Protestants.
Speaker 1: Well, and Speter Schumpeter said that before both yes, right, yeah, right.
Speaker 2: But then you know, so that was I mean, he uh,
Speaker 2: but he became known I think as a future Stephen,
Speaker 2: though he did not want to be called that. Right,
Speaker 2: there's this is your time, Steve. The nineteen seventies and eighties,
Speaker 2: there are these people, the futurists, right. I don't even
Speaker 2: know really what it was. But you know the other
Speaker 2: great book that Bell wrote that we read in the class,
Speaker 2: but it's unbelievable that he wrote this book so much
Speaker 2: so half a century ago. Was he predicted that information
Speaker 2: was the actual right, the actual money of our capitalism,
Speaker 2: not industry. His book was about post industrial economics, and
Speaker 2: he predicted everything that's happening now. But in broad strokes,
Speaker 2: he didn't say there was going to be an internet,
Speaker 2: he didn't say there was going to be you know, email,
Speaker 2: but he said that our economy will switch to a
Speaker 2: knowledge economy because the real value is not from manufacturing.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't he right? I mean that's why he
Speaker 2: was called a futurist, because he was taking sociological trends
Speaker 2: and extrapolating them into the future in a very vabarian way, right,
Speaker 2: like he's he's So what I realized at the end
Speaker 2: of the class was he was the last sociology was
Speaker 2: like Marx, Weber and Durkheim, and now sociologists do studies
Speaker 2: of like peer groups and high schools and stuff. But
Speaker 2: you know, he was still interested in asking these big questions.
Speaker 2: As you said, we read Louis. Louis Heart's quite quite
Speaker 2: a bit. In class, we tried to figure out why,
Speaker 2: and this goes to both of your points. There's never
Speaker 2: been a Marxist or Socialist party in the United States
Speaker 2: that succeeded. And he was really, you know, this was
Speaker 2: really interesting to him, and he said one reason was
Speaker 2: because I think his hearts was right that we are,
Speaker 2: you know, trapped in Lachianism, which I think is I
Speaker 2: said in class was a good thing, not a bad thing,
Speaker 2: like he found. But that also we deliberately, our founders
Speaker 2: deliberately designed a weak constitution, a weak government that made
Speaker 2: it impossible for anyone to take over and overthrow, you know,
Speaker 2: the Lackianism we live in. So I was really I mean,
Speaker 2: he really showed to me the power of ideas. But
Speaker 2: he was also, in his way, uniquely American because he
Speaker 2: wanted to know, he accepted America was exceptional. He just
Speaker 2: wanted to figure out why.
Speaker 3: Well, I think the problem is that he was wrong
Speaker 3: in some ways about lots of things, but specifically about.
Speaker 2: You would not have liked your view, Lapprecia, that it
Speaker 2: was it was ideas that just sort of caused everything.
Speaker 3: Which is why he's wrong, because of course, it's like you.
Speaker 2: Can't prove it. You can't prove what you're saying. That's
Speaker 2: why you and Steve drive me crazy. You guys say
Speaker 2: these these things as if they're fact, but there's no evidence.
Speaker 3: This is why I hate it when Steve wants to
Speaker 3: go down these pretentious intellectual talks. It's really simple. Of course,
Speaker 3: ideas are the most important thing, because it's ideas that
Speaker 3: almost did destroy our constitution. I agree with you that
Speaker 3: that are we the Founders created a government, a weak
Speaker 3: government designed only to do those things that were absolutely
Speaker 3: necessary for it to do, especially at the national level.
Speaker 3: But it was the Progressives and they're stupid, half baked
Speaker 3: Marxist ideas that nearly ruined this country. That's why we
Speaker 3: have a fourth branch of government in the administrative state.
Speaker 3: It's why we have, you know, the belief that government
Speaker 3: should solve every problem it. You know, there's all of
Speaker 3: these reasons why Progressivism's ideas, which I probably think that
Speaker 3: Daniel Bell probably didn't entirely disagree with, ruin this country.
Speaker 3: And excuse me, but I'm going to I'm going to
Speaker 3: argue that despite the fact that like you, I don't
Speaker 3: believe Trump fully understands everything that he's doing here. He
Speaker 3: is trying to restore us to the point where we
Speaker 3: get back to the original understanding and get rid of
Speaker 3: all of the evil that was done by the progressives.
Speaker 3: And I call it evil because they refuse to understand
Speaker 3: human beings. They refuse to understand human nature, they refuse
Speaker 3: to recognize that there's such a thing as natural rights.
Speaker 3: Their idea of equality is completely skewed and false, and
Speaker 3: again evil. It's equality of result, not quality of opportunity.
Speaker 3: It's equity. All of these things are destructive of the
Speaker 3: ideas that make the Constitution successful, and those ideas matter.
Speaker 3: The other thing is is that we should have taken
Speaker 3: a better lesson from Lincoln. Remember what he says in
Speaker 3: the Lyceum address. If you want to keep what the
Speaker 3: founding fathers put together, you've got to teach it as
Speaker 3: a political religion. You've got to make sure that every person,
Speaker 3: every American citizen, from the time there a baby, gets
Speaker 3: the kind of education you got in that high school. John,
Speaker 3: That's what Lincoln tells us. And we know that you
Speaker 3: were an exception to the rule that that no longer
Speaker 3: happens and hasn't happened for years. You had progressives like
Speaker 3: Dewey who ruined education. You have others who wanted, you know,
Speaker 3: Charles Beard, who wanted to teach that our founders were
Speaker 3: not great men. They were just simply greedy capitalists who
Speaker 3: wanted to protect their own property. Those ideas matter. That's
Speaker 3: why I can't take someone like Daniel Bell seriously. I
Speaker 3: really can't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do too. I think you're putting trying to
Speaker 1: put Bell in a box he doesn't fit in.
Speaker 2: But I disagree how you view the progressives too, not
Speaker 2: the day's purses, but back then in this sense, in
Speaker 2: this sense, I don't think it's evil. I don't. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't put this moral view on what they were doing here.
Speaker 2: I was so. I was just teaching this in class
Speaker 2: last week to the K through twelve teachers, and they
Speaker 2: were asking me about progressive So I tried to restore
Speaker 2: the importance of Woodrow Wilson, not you know. I mean,
Speaker 2: I disagree with what he did, but here's how he
Speaker 2: saw it, right. The progressive thought, and Teddy Roosevelt too,
Speaker 2: writ it's not just a Democrat or Republican thing. They
Speaker 2: saw the huge changes being wrought by the Industrial Revolution,
Speaker 2: huge companies. Uh, there was monopolization, and so they thought
Speaker 2: the Founder's Constitution was not up to it. I mean,
Speaker 2: they said this openly, that the original constitution couldn't handle
Speaker 2: the Industrial Revolution, and so they thought that the government
Speaker 2: had to evolve, had to get bigger to be able
Speaker 2: to regulate. You know, Steve's favorite statute is, you know,
Speaker 2: is just an ultimate production of this progressive view that
Speaker 2: I'm trying to get Steve in here to help me
Speaker 2: out here. But they, you know, they didn't have They
Speaker 2: didn't I don't think thought about it as a moral thing,
Speaker 2: that natural law was a morality that had to be rejected.
Speaker 2: I just thought they believed it had become I.
Speaker 3: Haven't read enough progressivism then, no, I mean I've read
Speaker 3: RJ stuff and they no.
Speaker 2: But I mean they thought that. I mean, I don't
Speaker 2: think Widgrow Wilson is a particularly admirable guy morally, But
Speaker 2: they just thought the the government had to evolve to
Speaker 2: keep pace with the changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution.
Speaker 2: And they were looking around at what was happening in Europe,
Speaker 2: particularly Germany. The Prussians were doing a much better job.
Speaker 2: They thought of you know, regulating the economy. But I
Speaker 2: don't think it's a moral, immoral thing. I think they
Speaker 2: were just off. They were wrong about the solution.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I hadn't met for I don't think they're
Speaker 1: evil men.
Speaker 3: I mean eugenics. Eugenics is the natural follow on. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: it's not that eugenics is not some sort of thing
Speaker 3: out there that just you know, if your progressives happen
Speaker 3: to pick up. It is the natural outcome of progressive
Speaker 3: ideology that if there is no human nature, if human
Speaker 3: beings are not equal to each other, if some people
Speaker 3: are so superior and elite because of their education that
Speaker 3: they can decide for the rest of us, one of
Speaker 3: the things that we should probably do is get rid
Speaker 3: of them, as they called them, undesirables, and that, as
Speaker 3: you know, when all the way to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: it was a very powerful idea, and it was roundly
Speaker 3: embraced by the progressives, not because it was a sort
Speaker 3: of extra thing they thought of. It was integral to
Speaker 3: the way they thought of how society should be remade
Speaker 3: so that it could it could fulfill some progressive utopia.
Speaker 3: Get rid of the dumb people, get rid of the minorities,
Speaker 3: get rid of the immigrants, get rid of the disabled,
Speaker 3: get rid of the poor because we don't want poor people,
Speaker 3: and then we'll have a perfect society. It's a little
Speaker 3: bit like the beginning of Shrek.
Speaker 1: So the great book on this subject, and then we're
Speaker 1: gonna change. Then we're gonna change subject. But the great
Speaker 1: book on this subject a lot about ten years ago
Speaker 1: called Illiberal Reformers by Thomas Leonard, who is a liberal
Speaker 1: Princeton historian. But boy, you read that book about all
Speaker 1: the people Lucretia's talking about, and you can't think they're
Speaker 1: very good people. I don't think. But we're gonna leave
Speaker 1: that for another day. I hadn't thought we'd get off
Speaker 1: in this direction. So fully, let's turn to you, Lucretia.
Speaker 1: I thought you might have something interesting and provocative. Not
Speaker 1: you never to say about this survey data out Why
Speaker 1: should back up? By the way, you know, I was
Speaker 1: been saying for a while that if Kamala Harris was
Speaker 1: elected president or we're going a second term of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden that next year on the semi Quinn Centennial Declaration,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't get the tall ships of nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 1: We would get the slave ships of the sixteen to
Speaker 1: nineteen project. And there are some local governments in Washington
Speaker 1: State has said we're going to celebrate the declaration by
Speaker 1: talking about the marginalized voices, in other words, the usual
Speaker 1: lefty slot. So you saw this survey data out from
Speaker 1: a Gallop and Pew both. I think in the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, raising a lot of eyebrows showing that
Speaker 1: among Democrats, and especially younger Democrats, patriotism or pride in
Speaker 1: America has fallen off a cliff And I guess maybe
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be surprised, But Lucretia, I thought, what should
Speaker 1: we think about this? What should we say about this?
Speaker 1: I think you've already given us some of the remedies,
Speaker 1: but this is pretty how much.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's ominous, and it really goes back to the
Speaker 3: question of education. It absolutely goes back to the question
Speaker 3: of education. And God, I've been paying attention to this
Speaker 3: debate going on in the academic world about whether or
Speaker 3: not we should reintroduce vivics and you know, that's just
Speaker 3: scary because I know the people who will be in
Speaker 3: charge of new Civics education, and oh my god, there
Speaker 3: was a you probably saw it. Steve an awful article
Speaker 3: in the Chronicle of Higher Education about this a few
Speaker 3: weeks ago. Here's the problem. How do we teach civics
Speaker 3: to younger generations when they've learned nothing about anything of
Speaker 3: consequence because of progressive ruination of education in America? Okay,
Speaker 3: how the only way to do it is to stop
Speaker 3: all education until John can teach more K twelve teachers.
Speaker 3: And if John teaches enough K twelve teachers to spread
Speaker 3: out over the whole country, then I think we'd be okay.
Speaker 3: But in the meantime, teachers go to our universities. Teachers
Speaker 3: go to our universities, and they learn slop. If they
Speaker 3: learn anything about American history, American civics, American national government
Speaker 3: at all. What they learn is wrong. And sorry, I'm
Speaker 3: going to say again evil.
Speaker 1: Well question for you though, yeah, I mean I agree
Speaker 1: with all that, of course, except you have to answer
Speaker 1: this question, which is why you're Republican. I mean, what
Speaker 1: that data showed, by the way, is Republicans their pride
Speaker 1: in the countries remain very high, you know, eighty to
Speaker 1: ninety percent or higher for decades, and you know, maybe
Speaker 1: it takes a little dip when you get Obama bad
Speaker 1: mouthing and apologize with the country. But so Republicans seem
Speaker 1: somehow immune to these insidious teachings. Why is that? That
Speaker 1: seems to me to point to some deeper problems beyond
Speaker 1: just our rotten education.
Speaker 3: Not entirely, but yes, I get what you're saying. You know,
Speaker 3: I guess the choice to be Republican in those cases
Speaker 3: when you're choosing versus Democrat, probably especially now comes with
Speaker 3: it in certain you hold certain beliefs. And therefore, in
Speaker 3: my wildest dreams I cannot imagine, under any circumstances voting
Speaker 3: for a Democrat. Why because to me, the Democratic Party
Speaker 3: stands for everything I despise, and that probably became was
Speaker 3: clear just a few minutes ago. We see some Democrats
Speaker 3: out there who struggle with the progressive, illiberal bent of
Speaker 3: their party. But you know, how how can you be
Speaker 3: proud of America when the central theme of your own
Speaker 3: political party is that it's an that you know, America
Speaker 3: is a terrible place, that the American founding was a
Speaker 3: bunch of white, racist males. All of those things are
Speaker 3: the central purpose of the party. And let me go
Speaker 3: one step furtherest drives John crazy when I do it,
Speaker 3: but I'm going to say it. A major tenant now
Speaker 3: that the Democratic Party is embraced is the idea that
Speaker 3: nature does not inform how human beings ought to live,
Speaker 3: and everything about the Democratic Party seems to be denying
Speaker 3: that nature. What I would say is, Republicans who choose
Speaker 3: to be Republicans are are those people who understand maybe
Speaker 3: it's God, maybe they're more religious, maybe I'm not exactly
Speaker 3: sure what it is, but they understand that nature is
Speaker 3: not something to overcome, it's something to guide your life by.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: And and we think everyone who's a Democrat is immoral
Speaker 2: and evil, which is connecting what you said in the
Speaker 2: last segment.
Speaker 3: But you know, what I would say is that they
Speaker 3: may be unconscious of the fact that they are aligning
Speaker 3: themselves with a party that believes in evil.
Speaker 2: I don't believe every Democrat is.
Speaker 1: Well. If you want to put it this way, if
Speaker 1: you want to summarize the Democratic Party, as I think
Speaker 1: you can, as the party of slavery, secession, and segregation.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of their history, yes, historically, right, that
Speaker 1: last one out. But the point is is that if
Speaker 1: they're concentrating on their own history, then maybe they have
Speaker 1: a point. But I think there's a clue here about
Speaker 1: how Democrats, and well, I'll say Trump actually better than Republicans,
Speaker 1: who I think have fallen into a mistake of adopting
Speaker 1: liberal and democratic language. So you listen to a democratic
Speaker 1: leader and I think about he Actually this goes back
Speaker 1: to Trump's first inauguration in twenty seventeen. Chuck Schumer was
Speaker 1: the Senator in charge of inauguration that year. So he
Speaker 1: gives a little welcoming remark, and what does he do.
Speaker 1: He lists off all the different types of people in America,
Speaker 1: you know, blacks and Hispanics in this group and that group,
Speaker 1: and gays and all the rest. In other words, the
Speaker 1: typical language of a Democrat is to list different groups,
Speaker 1: emphasizing differences and of course calibrating their degrees of oppression.
Speaker 1: What did Trump say in that inaugural dress? And ever since,
Speaker 1: how does Trump talk about us? He says, doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what color you are, whether you're black, brown, yellow, whatever,
Speaker 1: you're all Americans. We're all the same America. There's a start,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a I think a significant implication of
Speaker 1: the differences just in the way the two parties talk
Speaker 1: about Americans and are different citizens, right, Yeah, And I think.
Speaker 2: That's I think that's they're just disguided. But they're not.
Speaker 2: They're not. I mean, all Democrats aren't evil. The Democratic
Speaker 2: Party is like a Republican party. It represents a coalition
Speaker 2: of people. I mean, there are Republicans in the party
Speaker 2: who probably don't believe with don't agree with what Lucretia
Speaker 2: is just saying either, right, like that doesn't make all
Speaker 2: Republicans evil. They are aspects of what Trump's doing which
Speaker 2: are not I think true to natural rights, particularly as
Speaker 2: you know, excessive intervention in the economy, I think, but
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't think Lincoln thought everyone in the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party was evil either or you know, some of
Speaker 2: it is some people think things which are wrong, some
Speaker 2: people think things which are moral in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: But when Lincoln say we shouldn't think of them as
Speaker 2: the enemy, but does no, not them?
Speaker 3: I think of their ideas as the enemy because those
Speaker 3: ideas would destroy our constitution, our constitutional republic, and our
Speaker 3: way of life. Because they've done a very good job
Speaker 3: so far of doing that. And the fight is against
Speaker 3: the ideas, not the people. The fight is against the ideas,
Speaker 3: not the people. That's what it comes down to. In
Speaker 3: the same way that I would never discriminate against a
Speaker 3: person who is Muslim for any reason. I find Islam
Speaker 3: the greatest source of evil in the world today. The
Speaker 3: ideas here are what matters, and the whole point of
Speaker 3: this is to try to convince people of why the
Speaker 3: ideas are wrong. Steve the reason I mentioned and fanticide,
Speaker 3: Yesterday was a great day. Yesterday was an amazingly great day.
Speaker 3: You know what happened yesterday? They defunded Planned Parenthood out
Speaker 3: of the federal budget. Finally, I mean, what in a
Speaker 3: wonderful thing? And I won't they shouldn't even bring it up.
Speaker 3: But my friend A Hadley has to be happy about that.
Speaker 3: We had some debates with him before the election and
Speaker 3: he didn't want to support Republicans Trump because they didn't
Speaker 3: go far enough. But no president, no matter how much
Speaker 3: they gave lip service in the past, managed to do that.
Speaker 3: And there's there's an example. I mean, that's the progressives
Speaker 3: have embraced abortion as a right above all rights. If
Speaker 3: that's not evil, and the kind of rhetoric they used
Speaker 3: to support it. If that's not evil, I don't know
Speaker 3: what is. And it is now the case that for
Speaker 3: it's almost a clear division. Democrats support without limit, because
Speaker 3: that's the party line, abortion up into birth, and Republicans
Speaker 3: somewhat apt is it. I'll leave it like that, And
Speaker 3: so you know that to me, that's to embrace the
Speaker 3: idea of abortion and to be taken in by something like, oh,
Speaker 3: it's a woman's right to choose what she wants to
Speaker 3: do with her own body. What a dumb thing to say,
Speaker 3: but it's compelling for some reason to Democrats.
Speaker 1: I still think that there is something several layers of
Speaker 1: meaning to be made out of the fact that Republicans
Speaker 1: and now maybe people self sort of understand that, but
Speaker 1: the Republicans seem to be immune from the Howard zenification
Speaker 1: of our education in the schools, and maybe that comes
Speaker 1: down Yeah, well, okay, I said that I did not
Speaker 1: like the way too many Republicans start using the language
Speaker 1: of the left, that that makes a rhetorical concession they
Speaker 1: shouldn't And that's by the way, Steve right. Well, so
Speaker 1: you know, one of the things Trump said he's going
Speaker 1: to do next year on the semi Quinn centennial is
Speaker 1: have a UFC fight on the White House lawn.
Speaker 2: Come on, see this is what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: No, see, I love it.
Speaker 2: I mean no, I I have The spectacle amuses me,
Speaker 2: but that shows he doesn't really understand anything of me.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe not.
Speaker 2: Have you ever watched I was possibly consistent?
Speaker 4: Have you ever watched.
Speaker 3: Where Trump is there?
Speaker 5: John?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: What has that got to do though? With the revolution
Speaker 2: and the founder? Because I would think.
Speaker 3: That of all of the sports, if you can call
Speaker 3: it that, of all the entertainment out there available to
Speaker 3: Americans and you know, celebrated by Americans, that UFC is
Speaker 3: the most patriotic.
Speaker 2: Oh come on, It's two people beating the hell of.
Speaker 3: Each other, and it's and you know, it's open. But
Speaker 3: what you see very very often, even in the ring
Speaker 3: with the loud mouth fighters and so forth, is that
Speaker 3: American patriotism comes through. And many times it's people who
Speaker 3: have been from countries like Brazil and others who recognize
Speaker 3: what it is about America that makes it great.
Speaker 2: And if you what is it about this kind of
Speaker 2: fighting that makes America great?
Speaker 3: Well, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm
Speaker 3: seeing is the whole culture of UFC from the watch.
Speaker 2: Sometime when culture it's a lack of culture. That's UFC.
Speaker 3: And what happens when Trump walks into the UFC. You
Speaker 3: don't see. I mean, it used to be NASCAR was patriotic.
Speaker 3: We got that stupid eat it Bubba whatever his name is,
Speaker 3: whining every other day about how he's oppressed.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 3: There, they put a noose in my garage. It was
Speaker 3: it was a garage pull. Oh oh, let's get the
Speaker 3: FBI out. I mean, all of those other sports have
Speaker 3: become corrupted by the left. The UFC is the most
Speaker 3: patriotic sport out there. Well, I don't even watch it.
Speaker 2: Audience you mean you mean the audience.
Speaker 1: But there's one thing, there's one more dimension that I
Speaker 1: think Lucretia leaves out. By the way, I was on
Speaker 1: your side John against Lucretia on the Daniel Bell question.
Speaker 1: I'm with Lucretia's side on this question.
Speaker 2: Uh, which, what is your defense of this?
Speaker 1: Here's why it's savage.
Speaker 2: I mean, so there's no this is the worst of
Speaker 2: it entertainment. It's like, I mean, really, it's just it's
Speaker 2: just professional wrestling. But you said professional wrestling is also
Speaker 2: it's not at all American, but the spectacle around it
Speaker 2: is very people waving American talented asset.
Speaker 1: May I interject and say, there is a it's a
Speaker 1: bit of a morality play going on now. Professional wrestling
Speaker 1: is completely fake, but UFC has good guys and bad guys.
Speaker 1: It's a melodrama of sorts. And so I think, by
Speaker 1: the way, there is a Lucreatia may dislike this comparison.
Speaker 1: I think there's a connection between Trump's perception of fake
Speaker 1: news and what you might call fake sports. It's not
Speaker 1: completely fake, I'm not saying that, but it is people
Speaker 1: know that this is an entertainment. You put your finger
Speaker 1: on the right phrase, John, it's entertainment, but it takes
Speaker 1: on a sort of a moral character, on a patriotic
Speaker 1: character that the other sports, despite having the national anthem
Speaker 1: song and having the flag on the field, have generally
Speaker 1: let erode from them. And it does huge box office.
Speaker 1: The fact that it's not a sport the elites like,
Speaker 1: and so the New York Times ignores it, the networks
Speaker 1: ignores it. They're ignoring this huge phenomenon in our culture.
Speaker 1: I didn't get it either, Hill. I had some very
Speaker 1: shrewd people point out to me the late John von
Speaker 1: Cannon used to go to professional wrestling, and I was
Speaker 1: always found that astonishing, right, But okay, you don't get it.
Speaker 1: You never will.
Speaker 3: There's not the two. Professional wrestling and UFC are not
Speaker 3: the same thing. UFC just means that they got m
Speaker 3: m A training, whether whatever, mixed martial arts training. They
Speaker 3: are the best of the best. John, this is not
Speaker 3: hull Cogan out there throwing people around, fake. This is real.
Speaker 3: I like watching because I.
Speaker 2: Don't like the vib gladiatorials games were the high a
Speaker 2: great expression to know there's just the savage and brutal.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. I mean, it's uh. I guess
Speaker 1: the only comparison overseas I can think of right off
Speaker 1: hand would be bullfighting right in Spain, and.
Speaker 2: I've been to that. I didn't get that either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Watch it, by the way I would. I wanted the
Speaker 2: ball to gore so many Spaniards it was not fair.
Speaker 2: I really wanted the.
Speaker 1: To win something else. You don't get John to change
Speaker 1: subjects and take us out today.
Speaker 3: Listeners, Let's have some comments on.
Speaker 2: That one, yes, please, but on whether the bullshit. What
Speaker 2: I'd like to do is let a bowl loose in
Speaker 2: one of those uf C rings and see if those mma,
Speaker 2: guys could stop a bull right.
Speaker 1: All right, John. Something else you don't get is well, uh,
Speaker 1: well music, I'm gonna put it that way. So in
Speaker 1: that Unplugged episode three weeks ago, you threw calumnies at
Speaker 1: me saying, you know this is Unplugged episode. You know
Speaker 1: you used to have studio albums, but now you know,
Speaker 1: you get the unplubbed album where things like Steve, like
Speaker 1: Moog synthesizers are gone.
Speaker 2: Steve, you you defended like didn't you defend air supply
Speaker 2: and Earth?
Speaker 1: No? No, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: You know you know other seventies.
Speaker 1: No no, not those guys. Air supply was eighties and
Speaker 1: Clint Bullocks remains a fan of air supply, which I've oh,
Speaker 1: I know it's horrible stuff. But look, I'll just say
Speaker 1: this late on a mark. You are getting yourself on
Speaker 1: the wrong side of the person in my household that
Speaker 1: Hugh Hewitt likes to refer to as the lovely and
Speaker 1: talented Missus Hayward. And I'll let you know and let
Speaker 1: listeners know that next month, the Lovely and Talented Missus
Speaker 1: Hayward is playing and singing in a duo in Upstate
Speaker 1: New York with Adrian Blue. Now you're gonna say, of course,
Speaker 1: who's Adrian Blue?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: Never heard of him? I figured he's He's progressive rock
Speaker 1: royalty from the seventies. He was in King Crimson, he
Speaker 1: played guitar and backup singer in the Talking Heads, and
Speaker 1: he was the tour guitarist for David Bowie.
Speaker 2: So he's gonna wear a big suit too. He's he
Speaker 2: gonna wear one of those gigantic big.
Speaker 1: Suits like David Burns.
Speaker 2: Like no, Steve is like one of Steve suits before
Speaker 2: he lost weight.
Speaker 1: But here's another question for you, John. There was the
Speaker 1: time of the bi centennial in seventy six, a song
Speaker 1: that Elton John put out in tribute another big No
Speaker 1: No no Ah, I see You Increase you gave it away.
Speaker 1: I was gonna quiz John to see if he was
Speaker 1: familiar with it. It's an absolutely dreadful tune conversation. So
Speaker 1: of course you are. That was part of the point
Speaker 1: was to appall you. Uh uh. The The point is, John,
Speaker 1: no one's going to recall that song next year because
Speaker 1: it's something I've never heard it. Oh well, uh well,
Speaker 1: I'll play a few bars for listeners can remember the
Speaker 1: full pain of it.
Speaker 4: See, I told you it was awful.
Speaker 1: By the way, John, it's not the synthesizer. It was
Speaker 1: the melotron that revolutionized rocking the music. You don't even
Speaker 1: know the difference. There's a huge.
Speaker 2: Difference, Steve. You sound like the dungeon Master and dungeons
Speaker 2: and dragons or something. Now there's a big difference between
Speaker 2: the wizard and the magician. Come on, don't you know anything?
Speaker 1: Well, so, first of all, I'll just assert this that
Speaker 1: the melotron did for rock and roll what smartphones did
Speaker 1: for cellular communications twenty years ago. And by the way,
Speaker 1: and it starts, everybody always slags me for liking progressive
Speaker 1: rock and roll, or, as Jody Bottom put it, rock
Speaker 1: and roll that went to college, because I.
Speaker 3: Just will slag you for talking about it.
Speaker 2: Well, but no, no, I'm on him for liking it.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what progressive rock is. Aggressive, well,
Speaker 2: automatically not win anything progressive, Steve.
Speaker 1: Well, ah, this is the one exception why because it
Speaker 1: is inherently conservative in some respects. It represented, yes, it
Speaker 1: represented a rebellion two and reaction against where rock and
Speaker 1: roll music was going in the late seventies, late sixties.
Speaker 1: I mean not late seventies, which was complete nihilism, by
Speaker 1: the way, some of the leading problem state nihilism. Yeah, well, no, no.
Speaker 2: It's I'm serious. I want to under explain this. How
Speaker 2: are they worshiping it the altar of Nietzsche and then
Speaker 2: we're saved?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, progressive rock. Well, I am happy to
Speaker 1: be your tutor, John, because you clearly need it. You
Speaker 1: cretnous philistine. So, first of all, when I say that
Speaker 1: sixties late sixties rock was increasingly nihilistic, what I have
Speaker 1: in mind is that it was increasingly politicized. It was
Speaker 1: self consciously part of the protest movement that grew up
Speaker 1: with a student New Left.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: And you know, the stylings heavily degenerated from the Beatles romances.
Speaker 1: It was the acid rock of Jimmy Hendrix and the
Speaker 1: early drug culture of people like the Grateful Dead. But
Speaker 1: the proud rock people come along and they do several
Speaker 1: things differently. First of all, they drew away from, you know,
Speaker 1: the acid guitar stuff of Hendrix and people like that.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: The melotron, you say, you don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: It's a highly unusual instrument that no longer really exists.
Speaker 1: Because it's all digitized. But in those days it was
Speaker 1: actually tape loops of different orchestral sounds and connected to
Speaker 1: a keyboard, and when you pressed a key on a melotron,
Speaker 1: you were actually then playing a tape at the back
Speaker 1: of the machine that had certain orchestral sounds in it.
Speaker 1: It was impossible to do that before. Then. The synthesizer
Speaker 1: is a different thing. It's really just a souped up organ.
Speaker 1: The second thing to say about it is this was
Speaker 1: challenging music. I mean, all those early progressive rock bands
Speaker 1: starting in nineteen seventy they did twenty minute songs. They
Speaker 1: weren't interested in airplay, they weren't interested in conventional popularity.
Speaker 1: They got no radio airplay. In other words, they're kind
Speaker 1: of like this podcast. And in third, they weren't part
Speaker 1: of the protest or the political scene at all, with
Speaker 1: a couple of partial exceptions, they were influenced, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, by epic poetry, things like even Ts Eliott,
Speaker 1: and so it represented a as I say, a rebellion to,
Speaker 1: a reaction against where rock and roll was going. And
Speaker 1: think what replaced it or rivaled it in the mid seventies.
Speaker 1: It was the horrible stuff like disco and later on
Speaker 1: punk rock, which were rebellions of their own. So I think, John,
Speaker 1: to complete the torture, I need to inflict upon you
Speaker 1: a couple of samples of what the early melotron did,
Speaker 1: just because it's good for your soul. Starting with one
Speaker 1: of the classic King Crimson tunes or another classic early
Speaker 1: moment of the melotron is Watcher of the Skies from
Speaker 1: I think the second or third album by Genesis. Okay,
Speaker 1: So those are just some opening bars of some very
Speaker 1: long songs that get a lot more complicated, and I
Speaker 1: know they won't impress you very much at all, John,
Speaker 1: But the point is when you got into the middle
Speaker 1: of some of these long and complicated arrangements, the old
Speaker 1: dominating electric is conspicuously missing, like from this short sample
Speaker 1: from one of the more obscure tunes from Yes in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy or seventy one. Okay, So you get the idea,
Speaker 1: and thus ends your tutorial in the greatness of the melotron.
Speaker 1: I will just mention for listeners who are familiar with
Speaker 1: some of the names that among other leaders of the genre,
Speaker 1: Rick Wakeman, one of the premier keyboardists who pioneered the
Speaker 1: use of the melotron. He was a huge Thatcherite in
Speaker 1: Britain in the seventies and eighties, for example. But no,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to go through the musicology sense of
Speaker 1: the noise in the Fens Lucretia, I think. But I
Speaker 1: do think, though, John, I find.
Speaker 2: This really interesting your effort to link pop music to
Speaker 2: political philosophy. You know, no bounds to the depths you
Speaker 2: will travel to win your argument.
Speaker 1: I'll just say that the I'd say the golden age
Speaker 1: of prog rock lasted less than a decade, and that's
Speaker 1: an important point, and it begins in nineteen seventy. Coincidentally,
Speaker 1: the same year the Clean Air Act was passed. All
Speaker 1: of our listeners to say they want to it is.
Speaker 3: An uplifting show, and instead we're all going to fall
Speaker 3: asleep into a deep coma from boredom. No, you won't
Speaker 3: Sweet Home Alabama. That's not progressive rock. That's a good
Speaker 3: old rock and roll. Sorry, and that's the best most
Speaker 3: conservative song there is.
Speaker 1: Correct. I will say this that I think prog rock
Speaker 1: in some ways the style of it explains this podcast,
Speaker 1: because unlike Yankee Doodle Dandy with a two four simple
Speaker 1: time signature. A lot of prog rock had different artists
Speaker 1: or different members of a band playing different time signatures,
Speaker 1: changing them up. It'd be like fourteen thirteen time exactly
Speaker 1: the way we do this show, right, Okay, it all
Speaker 1: came apart, and I think I can explain the details. Well.
Speaker 1: It ends with when prague rock tried to especially Yes
Speaker 1: tried to equal Elton john for really bad takes on
Speaker 1: American music. I don't know if you can remember back
Speaker 1: to the twenty sixteen primary campaign, but Bernie Sanders had
Speaker 1: a very fetching television spot that was set to the
Speaker 1: old Simon and Garfunkle Standard America, which was, you know
Speaker 1: about a bus strip from New Jersey to Michigan, and
Speaker 1: it's very sentimental, and she struck some patriotic notes.
Speaker 3: To them.
Speaker 1: Well, then Yes decided they were going to do a
Speaker 1: cover of it, and it couldn't be any worse and
Speaker 1: farther away from any kind of genuine Americana Jacobs, that's
Speaker 1: where it all starts to fall apart, and by nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy nine it's all kind of gone.
Speaker 2: Can I just make a point to this progressive rock
Speaker 2: you speak of, it's really it really comes from Great Britain.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, well, King Crimson, they are partly American gentle
Speaker 1: giants British Jeff Brotal. Genesis is I think the premier
Speaker 1: band in those early years.
Speaker 2: Genesis is the uber progressive rock band.
Speaker 1: Yeah, except you only know them from their modern stuff
Speaker 1: in the eighties, when, as they said, we had to
Speaker 1: start doing some more popular tunes so we could get dates.
Speaker 1: Because it's the very male thing, which explains why Lucretia
Speaker 1: hates it.
Speaker 3: No, I prefer men to women any day of the week.
Speaker 3: I just.
Speaker 2: All right, all right, let's see if this just shows
Speaker 2: once again your guys, you political philosophers, and your strange
Speaker 2: inferior already complex to the British and the Europeans, that
Speaker 2: you would look to them to save American good Americans,
Speaker 2: not me.
Speaker 3: Give me sweet home Alabama every day of the week.
Speaker 2: I see, I'm not going to get fir I mean,
Speaker 2: it was that a bunch of inbred secessionists. What is
Speaker 2: that song? John, I'm just kidding, I'm just kidding.
Speaker 3: I've heard this song Birmingham, We love the Governor's Rightsionist.
Speaker 3: Does your conscience bother you?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And tell like Neil Young to go to hell.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm all for that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Neil Young. Hope Neil Young will remember this other man.
Speaker 3: Don't need him around anyhow. Yeah, he wasn't the best
Speaker 3: song ever.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Neil Young is Canadian, so it
Speaker 1: gets even better. So he's even worse than a Yankee.
Speaker 1: So all right, let's uh, let's let's move to our
Speaker 1: Babylon Bees for the week and get out for this
Speaker 1: special episode.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, first of all, Happy happy fourth of July,
Speaker 3: Happy Independent Day. I hope everybody is starting their incredible
Speaker 3: celebration year long celebration leading up to the actual two
Speaker 3: hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Decoration
Speaker 3: of Independence by drinking, putting off fireworks. By the way,
Speaker 3: I have to just tell you guys quickly for fourth
Speaker 3: of July, my crowning achievement today is I'm making a
Speaker 3: being cherry bourbon cherry pie. I'll send you a picture
Speaker 3: and grilling grilling a cowboy rabbi, you know that sort
Speaker 3: of thing. Anyway, back to the Babylon Bee and happy
Speaker 3: fourth everyone. I'm going to begin with whale of agony
Speaker 3: heard from Satan's office as planned parenthood defunded. You get it, Ah,
Speaker 3: that I did not. I did not send what's his
Speaker 3: name an email and said make sure you have a
Speaker 3: Babylon bee. That that proves my point about planned parenthood
Speaker 3: and abortion being evil. But anyway, Continental Congress reluctantly agrees
Speaker 3: to trim down name a big, beautiful declaration of independence winning.
Speaker 3: By the way, John, I saw that article the other
Speaker 3: day that said we had so much winning that it
Speaker 3: was now shwinning. And you know, why did you ever
Speaker 3: see the watch Wayne's World.
Speaker 1: Wing?
Speaker 3: This is such great winning this past week that it's shwinning. Okay,
Speaker 3: journalists up late trying to decide whether to compare Trump's
Speaker 3: bill to Jim Crow or the Holocaust.
Speaker 2: That's true, o ed.
Speaker 3: The problem with kids these days is not enough of
Speaker 3: them smoke cigarettes. Subway names Diddy as new spokesman.
Speaker 5: Oh god, oh man report Trump bill will cause one
Speaker 5: hundred and seventy five billion people to lose Medicaid and die.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's fun to watch. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we didn't even talk about that, which I know
Speaker 3: we didn't intend to, because you know a lot of
Speaker 3: people have talked about it, and this is our fourth
Speaker 3: of July edition, But it really was a week of
Speaker 3: winning between the Supreme Court, just at the barely last week,
Speaker 3: the big beautiful bill passing all of the things that
Speaker 3: happened in foreign policy. So I think we probably, I
Speaker 3: think we probably should say that winning also makes us patriotic.
Speaker 3: On the fourth of July. I'll leave it at this.
Speaker 3: Cold hearted leftists demand immigrants stay in evil, oppressive states.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a perfect illustration of what I was talking about, John,
Speaker 3: just for you. Okay, I'm done.
Speaker 2: Well, I can start the ending by saying, how first,
Speaker 2: happy July fourth. Everybody happy July fourth, Steve and Lucretia,
Speaker 2: and always drink your whiskey. Neat and Steve, what new
Speaker 2: haiku do you have for us from the our robot
Speaker 2: overlords about the three whiskey happy hour?
Speaker 1: Yeah, not this week. I'm saving one appropriate for today.
Speaker 1: As Thomas Jefferson said to King George two hundred and
Speaker 1: forty nine years ago, thank you for your attention to
Speaker 1: this matter. You guys.
Speaker 6: Next week, Ricochet.
Speaker 1: Join the conversation.
Speaker 3: Sh