SIO64: No, Progressives Aren't Embracing Hate

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:29 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Serious Inquiries Only. This is episode number 64, nice square number there, and I'm your host Thomas Smith. A little bit different today. I'm gonna do briefly just a little tiny book review. I recently finished the book The New Jim Crow and I'm a few years late. It's from 2010, but I think it's pretty vital. I just want to talk about a couple of the themes that I found very compelling that I think inform a lot of the conversation that I have had a primer on this show about race, and so I think it's a very good book. I highly recommend it. I'm going to talk about a couple things. Also, I went into the voicemail segment and one of the messages, they were all actually pretty short, but I launched into some diatribes and I realized I started talking about that op-ed you may have seen shared around the usual suspects about, and it's entitled "When Progressives Embrace Hate."

0:01:25 Thomas: Just came out yesterday, maybe the day before, depending on when you're hearing this, and it's about the leaders of the Women's March. I started going on to this whole spiel about it, and I realized, oh wait, I should, this is what the show should be about, because a lot of people saw that column, and I think it would be a good thing to do some of a show on. So it's not the whole topic, but it I realize in retrospect, it's kind of the focus. So that's what I'm going to be talking about later, in addition to some other stuff, some other voicemails. Love doing the voicemails. And that's my favorite segment. So let's Let's get over to this book review thingy I'm gonna do.

0:02:15 Thomas: So yeah, I just finished The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, and I really just thought it was so important that I wanted to talk about it, because there's so much about it that I think tells us why there's so many disagreements around race and why two sides of this conversation are not even really conversing. That's a simplified way. There's... there's lots of sides of the conversation, but there's some major ones that are not speaking on the same terms.

And I think that's a problem. So this was written in 2010, or came out in 2010, after, you know, Obama was first elected. And so it was that was a curious part of people. And it, it's actually a major reason why she wrote it. Alexander was a, or maybe still is, a civil rights attorney, and she had, you know, a career going in that direction, but upon kind of discovering this story and the data, I suppose, of how black men specifically are targeted in the drug war and are essentially just incarcerated, like, we've incarcerated so many young black men that it is essentially, in her view, has become a new version of Jim Crow. And it's a particular, she goes into this, uh, of course it's a long book, uh, and and there's a lot of detail, but to sum up, it ends up having the a very racialized effect.

And one of the major problems is it's ostensibly colorblind. And that's a theme that we talk about on the show a lot, where, you know, it's not good enough to just say, oh, yeah, well, I don't see color, or this system, you know, or this policy or that, you know, I'm colorblind.

0:03:51 Thomas: I'm trying to not let's let's stop talking about race. I don't want to see race. Well. This is a consequence of that where a system that everyone believes is just, oh, it's just targeting drug dealers. You know, it's just that could be black, could be white, could be any race. It turns out that when filtered through, you know, the system, the justice system and the bias inherent in that system, and some of it, some of it is outright bias, but a lot of it is just kind of internal bias. It's not, it's never stated. And once this drug war was filtered through that, It resulted in just a completely disproportionate number of black men being arrested. Here's some key facts from the book. There are more African Americans under correctional control today in prison, that includes prison, jail or probation or parole, than were enslaved in 1850.

0:04:45 Thomas: A decade before the Civil War began. That's one of the factual claims in the book. As of 2004, more African-American men were disenfranchised due to felon disenfranchisement laws than in 1870. was the year that the 15th amendment was ratified. And so that was the amendment to stop denying people the right to vote based on race. She's saying that more African-American men, now part of that is obviously population growth, but it still puts it in perspective. More black men aren't able to vote now because of these felon disenfranchisement laws than were not allowed to vote. Back in 1870. And a black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery.

0:05:30 Thomas: Isn't that something? And that sounds, so that stat, if she has that right, that's population neutral, because it would be, she's talking about the chances. So that is stunning. Wow. So the drug war started back in the 70s, it was really accelerated by Reagan, and through the 80s, continued through the 90s, and basically, our idea, like, just some of this astounding facts is just, it's stuff that I had absorbed, you know, through reading, but had never seen it all put in one place so well, I suppose. Like, when you look at the list of countries by incarceration rate, we are number, the United States, is number two, it's only behind one country, which is this tiny country that has fewer than a hundred thousand people, and they happen to have a bunch of, like, Somali pirates imprisoned, so that's why they win first place, but really it shouldn't even count. We are second, we have 693 per every hundred thousand, and that's imprisoned.

0:06:28 Thomas: The numbers sometimes include people in prison, sometimes include people on parole. The highest numbers include, you know, everyone on parole and in the system, and that's more like a thousand out of a hundred thousand, so one out of a hundred. But when you look at the other countries that are near us on this, Turkmenistan, you know, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, you know, that are even, and by the way, they're, they're, they're quite a bit below us in terms of incarceration, but that's our competition. When you look at just what kinds of places we're talking about, it's really astonishing. And And what Michelle Alexander talks about is the fact that crime doesn't really explain it. The crime rate has stayed the same throughout that, or gone down a little bit, but it doesn't explain the rise in incarceration.

0:07:17 Thomas: The relative crime rates between countries doesn't explain it. It's not like we're more... There's a couple, I mean, again, it's a whole book, I'm obviously not trying to cover every point, but just a few things that are relevant for conversations we have on this show. Colorblindness is a big problem, so, takes us through the evolution in the book of slavery to Jim Crow, to the different ways that the white elite kept black people disenfranchised, and it's become less and less overt, to now, in her view, the sinister nature of this system, of this mass incarceration problem, is that it is essentially colorblind.

If you look at the policies, and there have been legal challenges to it, And time and time again, what happens is the judges will say, well, there has to be some overt bigotry. There has to be some intent here. There has to be some officer saying, yes, I'm trying to arrest more black people. But what we have is just a system that results in a racist outcome. And that's been so much more resilient to change. And she talks about that as essentially a sort of a feature, like a defense, You can look at it in terms of evolution.

0:08:55 Thomas: It's like a superbug of to keep black people disenfranchised. And she talks about how what a lot of white people will do to justify it or to talk about how, oh, it's black people have it fine. Look, we, we elected Obama. We elected a black man to the highest office of the land, therefore racism is gone. And I know this isn't arguments that I think most of my listeners would make, but it, but I have heard these arguments. They do come up, especially in our community, especially from certain atheist leaders. The idea that because of Oprah and because of LeBron James and because Because of Obama, you know, racism, how could you talk about racism in this day and age? And that things are essentially, racism is essentially a thing of the past. And what she talks about is this dynamic where like they actually, a lot of people use these exceptional black examples to try to deflect from what's really happening.

0:09:48 Thomas: When you look at black people as a whole, they've been, the community has been ravaged by this mass incarceration. So the system is essentially, the way the process works is, like, a whole bunch of opportunities are made for cops to just arrest people. Like, they patrol black neighborhoods, they them, even though, by the way, black drug use is often less than white drug use and drug dealing. Like, if you look at the numbers, so it's the same. And sometimes white people deal drugs more and go to the hospital more for overdoses. Yet the police target communities of color. And then that has this horrible effect of it breaks up families. So then fathers aren't raising kids, which then in turn creates more bad circumstances, which then leads to more crime and poverty, or at least to poverty, which leads to some more crime.

0:10:38 Thomas: I mean, it's just one of those of feedback loops. That's all because of this persistent incarceration of black men. And then even when they get out, they aren't able to get jobs because they're felons, or, and that creates, again, more poverty, reinforces itself, and and that's, it's a way of, the whole black population in this country has been adversely affected by this as a whole, when you, and and again, you can't just look at exceptions, you can just look, you know, Obama or whatever, because in actuality overt bigotry has decreased, and that's, that's what a big theme that I wanted to talk about for this show. Which is the defense when you look at, whether it's a Brett Weinstein, whose defense is like, "Well, I'm not a racist, look at one thing I've said that's racist."

0:11:25 Thomas: And it sort of mirrors that, where the other side on some of these issues deflects to, you know, "point me to the words I said that were, black people are less than white people." You know, they're trying to set up a straw man of, you have to find an overt set of, you know, example of racism in order to prove your point, when it's like, no, this is a systemic problem, there's a reason that the black community has been and yes, the rate of crime is higher because of it, though. There's a reason the rate of crime is higher. It's avoiding this colorblind deflection from the real problem, which is this systemic mass incarceration problem. Nearly one in three black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point in their lives, which is just a staggering number. The last thing I want to mention, and this is something I want to ask Alix Jules about, he's coming back, we're recording soon.

She makes the claim, Michelle Alexander, the author, makes the claim that things like... affirmative action might not be the way to go. I think she goes so far as to say we should probably stop doing affirmative action, which is very fascinating, I don't know, I want to get more information on that claim, but her logic is it offers this sort of

0:12:47 Thomas: Race bribe to black people, to make them think that they're getting somewhere, to make, and and to make society think, "Oh yeah, look, how could, could there be racism?" You know, Obama, how could there be racism because this person went to Harvard? Whatever it is, it's way, it's, she phrases it as kind of a race bribe to keep the status quo. So that's a fascinating thought, that that may be, so affirmative action is doing more harm than good. I want to get some more thoughts on that. So that's something to think about too. But one thing that... I'm really taking away from this is how much it seems like the conversation on race is missing the point, because in reality, if Michelle is right, if Michelle Alexander, this author, is correct, then this is what we need to be talking about, like getting black people out of prison, getting for drug crimes and ending that.

0:13:52 Thomas: Like, oh, there? Things that I think are actually on the decrease. They're not nothing, don't get me wrong. I fully think we should be doing our best to have a welcoming environment, of course. But the 100% focus on sort slight interpersonal racism versus a systemic... You know, problem that is really at the root of so much of the suffering. In the black community. I wonder if the mainstream conversation is completely missing the point. So that's something I think I'm going to ask Alex about too, to get his view on, to see if I'm on the right track there, if he agrees with the author. Can't wait. That's going to be coming up.

0:14:46 Thomas: That's the reason I keep bringing it up. I'm going to be speaking to him soon. But those are some thoughts I had about the book. I think definitely read the book. I highly recommend it. And I look forward to, maybe I'll keep doing this if I, you know, I... I'm not able to read. I have to listen to books. I'm just terrible at reading. I have a focus problem and I end up spacing out. I'm really bad at reading. But I've found that I can listen to stuff on Audible and do chores and that sort of thing. I'm not sponsored by Audible, by the way, but I just am throwing that in there. So all this is to say, if I ever come across another book that I want to recommend, let me know if you think this is a good idea.

0:15:39 Thomas: With that said, let's get to some voicemails and some long rants about possibly tangentially related things. So here we go.

0:15:51 Clip: It's time to check the voicemail, and of course if you'd like to leave a message, that's 916-750-4SIO. That's 916-750-4746. Let's check out this week's messages. Music

0:16:11 Voicemail: Hey, Thomas, it's Vladimir. I just wanted to mention a couple things real quickly. Your, one of your latest podcasts, about Linda Thurston, was really good. You have done very good research, and it's very well needed, because there's so much crappy information out there, as you said, basically.

And, yeah, it would be also kind of nice to have, maybe, I was thinking, because they kind of discussion about Sam Harris, and how the criticism of him sometimes on the left is extremely over the top, you know, just kind of insult the racist, you know, the supporter of nuking entire countries and all that stuff.

But he does have a legitimate kind of concerns and issues with his handling on, you know, kind of the right wing, apologizing a little bit when he has like a Douglas Murray on and he just kind agrees with him all the time and stuff like that. So, there, there is some legitimate, but a lot of it is white noise. And unfortunately, then the legitimate stuff kind of gets filtered out, and all we hear is kind of noise. So, to the point, yeah, your talk about Linux, our story is what we need more, basically, to filter out the garbage and the nonsense. Thanks a lot. Bye.

0:17:26 Thomas: Hey, Vladimir. Thanks for saying that. Thanks the call. I don't really want to do a whole episode on Sam Harris in the way that I kind of did it on on Linda Sarsour. I think that I've pretty much already said most of the stuff there. And I agree with you. I think that there's a lot of ridiculous criticism of Sam Harris. Like you said, there's a lot of quote mining, taking the stuff out of context and assuming he wants a nuclear attack on the Muslim world or stuff, stuff like that. But I also think that a lot people are not catching up to how problematic some of his views have been. And you bring up Douglas Murray. I totally agree. Had Douglas Murray on there and maybe it's worth doing an episode on that. I considered it, but a lot of the sensationalist descriptions of immigrant crime and stuff that Douglas Murray is talking about is just not accurate from the little bit I've researched it.

0:18:25 Thomas: Let me know if that's something you guys would want me to cover. Could be an interesting topic to cover, but it's it's a little tough cause it's not one, I'm not an expert. I don't live in Europe. I don't, you know, like I, that would be really coming from an outside stance. But when I looked up a couple of things, uh, I saw some, some, some hints that some claims were exaggerated there. And, and Douglas Murray has said some very questionable things. Ina, uh check out Ina's blog for that. She, she has some, some good coverage of Douglas Murray. And in terms of criticism, more criticism of Sam Harris, yeah, I also agree, because I read a blog post by PZ Myers, who is, if you're not familiar, he's a very strong social justice atheist, but he's, in my view, goes so far over the top in attacking anyone who disagrees with him slightly, that I just, I don't have a lot of interest in him.

0:19:18 Thomas: It's just not, it's not very constructive, like, I I don't find that environment useful. So someone like him who just completely blocks and insulates himself. He's blocked me for nothing. Like, I don't even remember. Honestly, I don't remember what it was. I think I just asked a question one time like three years ago and I got blocked by PZ Myers on Twitter. So, I mean, I don't have a lot of interest in that as an environment online, like creating a space where the second someone disagrees with you on either side, by the way. You block them and you insulate yourself and you create this little echo chamber. It's fine, you know, if that's what people want to do, it's, you know, obviously it's a free country as they say, you know, I'm not saying anyone is legally not able to do that or something, it's just I'm not interested in it.

0:20:08 Thomas: So like it doesn't, I don't see a lot of value in that ecosystem. I'll still read PZ if I see, you know, something interesting, but oftentimes it's littered with vitriol against whoever he's against. So it's just not useful to me. But he endorsed this ridiculous blog post about Sam Harris that I think is a good example of what you're talking about. This appeared on loonwatch.com and it's a guest post by Jonas Spooner and JB Stubbings. I don't know who those people are off the top of my head, but it's basically... I'll link it in the show notes. I linked it on my Facebook. It's mixed in with, again, some legitimate criticism is this bizarre narrative. They call Sam Harris because his parents...

0:20:55 Thomas: Apparently, I didn't know this, but his parents were some sort of producers in Hollywood, maybe? They call him Hollywood Harris, because is that what we... Are we Trump now? Is that what we're doing? If we can assign a nickname to someone that insults them or paints them with the brush we want to, to denigrate their views, like that's how we win? Hollywood Harris? It's just absolutely juvenile to me. But anyway, it talks about how it just paints him in...

The problems I have with it are the whole angle is this mind-reading view that everything Sam Harris does is from the perspective of trying to maintain an image and like sell an image and I just find that to be absurd like I have vociferously disagreed with Sam Harris on many things including the Jordan Peterson stuff, his Charles Murray episode, All kinds of stuff. I think he's got many problematic views. I never once have gotten the impression that he's maintaining an image. I think his career has been the opposite. He could have maintained a far more lucrative image by staying out of a lot of these issues. He could have not risked alienating so many people as he has. He went into this, like, the torture stances, the...

I mean, just all this stuff that is really a no-win situation, other than I feel like he wants to explore this stuff. And you may disagree with him, I may disagree with him, I have not seen good evidence that he's doing so out of a cynical ploy to maintain his image.

0:22:31 Thomas: I find that to be so far divorced from the evidence. It's not a serious criticism and it's a weird... Frankly, kind of asshole criticism to, I mean, you could say that about anybody. You can reconfigure everybody's views in terms of, oh, he has this image, you know, they have this image of needing to be X, and so this is why they do that. I mean, you could do that with anybody. That data fits that for anybody, because we all have some sort of public image, and the sum of our online views, you know, in our public whatever we're writing, if you're any sort of online personality, the sum, some of that can be called your image, and any attempt you do to defend yourself can be called like maintaining your image. I mean, it's just not a useful lens, I don't think, unless someone, and the only time I think it could be useful is if you see true signs that someone believes differently than they're publicly saying.

0:23:23 Thomas: Like if we if we discover that, I Don't know, let's say Ted Cruz and I'm sure this is absolutely true, but let's say we discover that Ted Cruz, there's like a voicemail is released in which he just totally goes on like an atheist rant or goes on a rant, whatever it is against the stated views. Maybe it turns out he, he's not as Christian as he says, or he's not as conservative, whatever. Then is where I think it would be useful to say, okay, he has been deceiving people to maintain an image. Like that's where an image matters. But if If you're just saying that his image, Sam Harris's image is the things he says, like it doesn't, you've added no useful information. You're just kind of being a jerk. Like you're trying to belittle him and make him seem more dishonest without any evidence of it.

0:24:12 Thomas: I have to say, it's kind of a lonely existence to be someone who wants to try, you know, my best to stick to the appropriate level of criticism for people. I mean, of course, it doesn't mean that I'm right on all the time, but that's what I try to do my best do. I think this has been something I've been thinking a lot about in the wake of this Linda Sarsour stuff and the Sam Harris stuff and the infighting that we're having now.

We really do seem to want to be able to pick sides and to be able to, you know, this person's 100% bad or they're 100% good, one or the other, they're on my team. And I really does seem to be the impulse with a lot of these things, like people say I didn't go hard enough on Linda Sarsour, and then I ask like, okay, what did I miss?

And the answer is, well, just look at these tweets, like it's not, it's that I didn'y say anything, I pretty much covered it, it's just that I didn't do so with like angry enough, like I wasn't mad enough at her, which is, it's it's interesting to reflect upon, like,

0:25:09 Thomas: Because there is, it could be said that if you just talk about someone's flaws and aren't critical enough of them, that you're still not quite covering it. But I, I don't know what to say other than all her stated views and what she's fighting for publicly and in the Women's March. Those seem to be good things to me. So, I mean, we could talk about that. So then we're talking about the case of someone who is fighting for good things, fighting for things that go against Sharia law, by the way, and all that. Then we're talking about someone who has flaws, who has said some things that I think are really crappy, who is endorsed Assata Shakur, which, you know, my listenership is very divided on that topic, by the way. So I don't even know what to think on that. Like, I think I said at the time as a strategy, it doesn't seem worth it.

0:25:55 Thomas: Like it's just, you can just not do that. There's plenty of leaders you can congratulate instead, You can promote instead. But I got some people saying that was tone policing of me, which is, arguably could be true. But when I say that I agree with the Women's March and I want it to succeed, it's a little different than when the other side is tone policing you how to protest or something like that. That. I think it's different anyway, but that's up to interpretation. But a lot of people just don't view Assata Shakur with any sort of negative lens.

Like it's just, oh no, she was framed and she's a hero. So that's interesting. So I think you have put that into context if if the Women's March Founders are endorsing Assata Shakur and it turns out that they're doing so because a lot of people just think she was framed and was targeted by police and didn't end up, you know, really doing the crimes that she was accused of, then, I mean, you can at least look at it in that lens and not say, oh, so you are defending killing a state trooper. No, they're not. They're saying this person was innocent and was framed.

So that's That's there background assumption, there, and that the assumptions they're using to praise Assata Shakur. So you have to address it on its own terms. But one thing I wanted to talk about, jumping off from this question, it's kind of going off of the Sam Harris stuff, and focus on the sarsour part, maybe, is I realized today that I just, this thought just occurred to me.

0:27:30 Thomas: That, okay, so we had Trump, we had the Women's March, right? We had the Women's March which swept the country, it was really inspiring to me. What I saw, you know, I think my wife went, I was busy podcasting, but my wife went and marched in Sacramento, a lot of my friends went, I support it. I I thought it was inspiring. It was cool. It's fighting back against a lot of the disgusting ideas of Trump, a lot of, you know, Muslim ban ideas and, and the building the wall and, and his sexist comments about women, his, the fact that he, you know, bragged about sexual assault, the fact, you know, all this stuff, which I was like, great, this is inspiring. Let's march on. And then, later on down the road, I start to see these hit pieces on Sarsour and other people who were...

0:28:16 Thomas: There are four women, I think, that were the main leaders of this Women's March. And it occurred to me, and I'm just reporting this honestly, and I would like to... Everybody listening, if you could, you know, honestly take a look at yourself on this issue, would you have had any idea who was in charge of the Women's March, if not for these hit pieces, or for my show, or wherever you heard it first? Because I would not have. Now, I don't know what that says, should I have, maybe, but I, the reason I bring it up is I, I'm trying to realize when the New York Times op-ed that just came out, that I also wanted to reference, this is, I'll post it also in the show notes, this was called "When Progressives Embrace Hate" by Bari Weiss, or actually it might, Bary, I'm sure, she's, she wrote about, you know, she did a bit of a hit piece, a bit an expose on this, Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez, Tamika Mallory, and there's somebody else too.

0:29:14 Thomas: And I realized like I would not know who these leaders were. And frankly, I don't know that it matters that much because like for me, what matters is the stated goals of the march. It's a movement. This was a movement, this wasn't an election of a person, this was any sort of hero worship, this This was a grassroots, let's organize and march against the things we're seeing happening in Washington right now, against the alt-right, against all this stuff. I didn't stop and say, okay, who's running this thing? What are their past tweets? What are their views? And I don't think it's realistic to expect that people do that. I so the reason I think it matters is when we're seeing op-eds in the New York Times that are about progressives embracing hate, I think that's a bit unfair.

0:30:07 Thomas: I think what's happening is progressives are embracing this cause, and it turns out some of the people who are at the top of it have some questionable associations. And the worst is, and I want to say, I think this article is educational. I'm not saying you can't write it.

It's totally appropriate to say, hey, the people running this Women's March, one of them really embraces Fidel Castro, one of them has some associations with Louis Farrakhan, if that's how you pronounce his name, who, I mean, has said some really horrible things. Here's the biggest problem that I'm seeing.

From my understanding, and I am not an expert on this civil rights era by any means, but from my understanding, there were a lot of black leaders in the civil rights movement who embraced Islam as a way of sort of going back to their roots and casting aside the religion, Christianity, that had been forced upon them by their captors, essentially, when slaves, when their ancestors were brought over as slave, that's my understanding of part of the motivation there. And as such, a lot of these really amazing civil rights leaders who did very brave and progressive things to further the cause, the anti-racist cause, A lot of them have some really shitty views because they also embraced Islam along with that. So that does seem to be a problem. These leaders of the women's movement, they seem to have a very fairytale view of Islam because of that. Like, they seem to have a blind spot for Islam and the nation of Islam specifically, and the things this Mr. Farrakhan has said here, which are really bad.

0:31:52 Thomas: I mean, he's got horrible views on homosexuality. He's got very bad views on Judaism. I mean some shitty stuff as a result of being a Muslim. So that's a problem. But here's where we have to look at the big picture. Because that's not great, and that's fine to write an op-ed to point that out, I totally agree with that. But the movement that they started, this women's movement, everybody rallied together to fight against bigotry against LGBT people, to fight against any sort of racist policies that Trump might be, you know? So, it's one thing to st- like, there's this weird connecting the dots where it's like, oh, because They admire this Louis Farrakhan person.

0:32:40 Thomas: That means they must endorse these bigoted views against Jews and these horrible views against gay people. It's like, no, they don't, because they started a movement specifically against those things. So I would argue that that's better evidence. And that it is more just a blindspot for a particular group of people, like civil rights leaders from that time who embraced Islam.

I think there's a blind-spot there, and it's fair to call it out, certainly fair to called out, but it doesn't mean everybody who marched are embracing that. It doesn't mean that... I mean, you just have to put it in proper perspective. I mean, anecdotal evidence, but my wife marched, she had no idea who these people were, who were leading it, and she doesn't support Islam or support, you know, bigoted views on gay people or Jewish people or anything like that. That's what your average women's marcher believes, I think. And I think this quote from the article is most telling because at the end of this op-ed, the author says here, recall that only a few months ago, Keith Ellison, a man with a long history of defending and working with anti-Semites, was almost made leader of the Democratic National Committee. Committee. And there's a link, so I click on the link. It's a CNN article. And here's a quote from it.

It says, Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, publicly renounced his association with the Nation of Islam in 2006 after it became an issue during his run for Congress when local Republican bloggers began publishing old law school columns and photos connecting him to the organization. Here's a quote from Keith Ellison. At that time, I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas.

0:34:21 Thomas: And statements, as well as other issues, end quote. So it, it seems to be saying here that this was such a bad thing, because, I'll go over that wording again. And actually, let me go back, because this paragraph frames it as though, because we almost elected Keith Ellison, I say "we" by Democrats, I had nothing to do with it, but because Keith Ellinson was almost made leader of the DNC, by the way, wasn't, but almost, that means we're just as in danger of the right as falling victim to anti-American sentiments. Here, let, let go back and read the paragraph for you. "But the nightmare of the Trump administration is proof text for why all of this matters. We just saw what happens to legitimate political parties when they fall prey to movements that are at base anti-American. That is true of the populist racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump and are hollowing out the Republican Party."

0:35:09 Thomas: And it can be true of the Progressive Resistance, regardless of how chic, Instagrammable, and celebrity-laden the movement may seem. And then that's the sentence where it says, "recall only that only a few months ago, Keith Ellison, et cetera, was was almost made leader of the DNC." So that's what's being said here. That's what being argued, that this is somehow on par with Trump. Trump, somebody who in 2006 said, "Hey, yeah, I totally disavow all my associations with the Nation of Islam because of these views are bigoted," that that was a tragedy, that someone that we don't hold them accountable forever for anyone they associated with at any time of their life, even though they've said in 2006, 10, 11 years ago, that they've they've renounced all ties.

0:35:56 Thomas: I mean, that's this the kind of perspective I when want to put this into. You look at the evidence. Here, I found a Quinnipiac poll that showed that 87% of Democrats said they consider antisemitism either very or somewhat serious as a problem, and only 53% of Republicans said so. And the alt-right are the ones who are outwardly pretty anti-Semitic at times, and they're the ones that are in the White House, so the reason I bring it up is don't frame this as, oh, this is a problem that is plaguing left and right alike, we've got the right's got their weirdos, and then the left's got theirs, no! No. When you're talking about anti-Semitism and anti-LGBT bigoted views, don't tell me that progressives are falling down the same path.

0:36:43 Thomas: That the right is on that stuff. It's not even close and it's more mainstream on the right. They're actively pushing to discriminate against gay people and against trans people and all that stuff. And on the left, it's just some associations with some people who back in the day were heroic civil rights fighters, essentially. I mean, we're talking associations versus actual agenda. And, as I just referenced the numbers by polls, 87% of Democrats say that prejudice against Jewish people in the United States is a serious problem. 87% say it's either serious or somewhat serious. Versus 53% of Republicans. So, no, they're not equal, this isn't a major problem on the left at all, this is a few bad associations which, by all means, call them out.

0:37:31 Thomas: Call out the associations. Call out, hey, next time you're alone with Mr. Luis Farrakhan, maybe ask him why he thinks gay people are horrible and all this. Like, he's got problematic views. Feel free. Call them out and call out Linda Sarsour and whoever is endorsing these people. I think it was one of the other leaders specifically was Was endorsing Farrakhan, but let's again put it in the perspective that's required. This isn't the left falling into the same traps as the right. This isn't, you know, it's it's just nonsense. Oh, yeah, this was a call by Vladimir. Sorry, a bit of a branch off, I know, but those were, I had seen that article, Make the Rounds, and I had some more of those thoughts on this, our source stuff that I was talking. I really want to bring up anyway, so thanks, Vlad, for letting me use you as a springboard there to go off on a bit of a tangent.

0:38:17 Thomas: But in terms of Sam Harris, yeah I mean, we can talk more about Douglas Murray, I just don't know that I have the expertise, but there's a lot of of questionable claims that I heard in that episode, and there is fair criticism of Harris. I tend to think that people like Dan Errol, who I argued with on the show and I said at the time, I think he goes so far the other way as to be not worthwhile to pay attention to. He renders himself kind of irrelevant by just crying racist and Nazi at basically anybody, because Sam Harris is not a racist Nazi. He has some troubling views, in my view, and he doesn't go far enough enough to distance himself from people like Ruben, who, by the way, just did an interview with Katie Hopkins, who is outright bigoted and whitewashed her in a horrible way.

0:39:07 Thomas: So stuff like that. Yes, that's fair criticism. But stuff that you pointed out, like saying he wants to nuke Muslims and stuff like that, I mean, that is not a fair criticism, but I do not know how interesting that is for an episode. But thanks for the call. Hey, everybody, you know, chime in either way on that if you would like me to try to look more into that. Or if you know somebody who would be a good expert for the Douglas Murray stuff, somebody who's more of an expert on European migration. I don't know much about it other than what I read. So that could be cool. Anyway, thanks for the call. Sorry for the branch off forever.

0:39:48 Voicemail: Amaya. Just some thoughts about your conversation with Michael Wood. I was wondering, well, I was thinking that I'm a bit cynical that the way our Constitution is set up, that we would be able to ever get the changes that Michael was talking about, like, you know, with gerrymandering and, you know. The binary, like whoever gets the most votes gets an entire president and the the legislative branch kind of follows along with that. I'm a bit cynical that any change will get done without, like, a radical, like reconstitution, like a new constitutional change, something that would be more conducive to more parties or something. I know there are still problems with, like England, but at least they got Jeremy Corbyn and Labour representation. So anyway, just my thoughts. Hope you're not sick anymore. Bye.

0:40:41 Thomas: Hey, thanks, Jeremiah. I am, I don't think I'm sick though. I still am coughing. It's weird, like everything else went away except that cough, just kind of lingering, but it's easy enough to record around. Thank you for asking and thanks for the call. I gotta say though, I'm very puzzled by this. So the conversation with Michael A. Wood Jr., I thought it was really fun because I always love to get to be to the right of someone just for fun. But but I thought was great because it it helped me realize a few things, like a lot of what I was saying I was kind of realizing in real time. And I, I don't know, I think it makes sense, a lot of what I said at the time, and people were echoing that. So I'm glad, I don't think I got anything too wrong. The trolley problem stuff, I think was in particular, I think that really makes sense to me. I mean, I know I said it, but I'm just like this.

0:41:28 Thomas: I argue off the top of my head. So oftentimes doesn't mean I'm saying like the most brilliant thing, but, but I do think that the trolley program thing is kind of where we are all the time. And what people don't take into account is losing the progress we've already made like that doesn't set us equal. You know, like if we if we maintain that's still better for people who have just recently won the right to marry the one the right. Right? To, you know, uh, or trans like trans visibility. Like if we, if we if the choices are maintain or go way backwards, we need to realize that maintaining is the better choice, even if it's not a positive movement. I mean, the people on the trolley still matter. So that's, you Know, on the Trolley track, like that's that's what I wanted to say there. And I think it was a useful metaphor. Uh, also some people pointed out in terms of the whole, you you know, burning down the system thing.

0:42:18 Thomas: Some people on Patreon, there are a lot of good Patreon comments on this thread. So thank you guys. But people point out like, hey, every major change that like every major positive movement has pretty much been accomplished through the current system. Like, I mean, sure, the revolution wasn't. So count one for revolution there. But revolutions are very difficult and very, you know. Fickle and often don't work and often a backfire and you install, you know, if you just look around the world, I mean, revolutions are by no means always the good, like the best outcome happens. Oftentimes you get stuck with somebody that becomes corrupt. You get civil war, you get death, you gets just horrible things. I mean so revolutions don't always go well. Someone also pointed out, you know, we did need to fight a civil war to make some change and that's true that but that wasn't within the system, so true.

0:43:09 Thomas: So there's two points for not within the system, but lots of things since then have come from electing the right people, from getting the right representatives in, you know, the Civil Rights Act, and it comes with, sure, some civil disobedience for sure, which I've always said, you know, I support protests, I support getting the word out, but this idea that we need to burn things down and that we have to go third party in order to accomplish anything. I just don't think it's true. I just don' think it is going to work. And I have to say, specifically Jeremiah, what amazes me, and this is probably just from my overexposure to one Andrew Torrez, which I think is a good thing. I can't have too much exposure to Andrew Torrez. I am amazed, you know, maybe it's something that people don't realize, but it takes a lot to amend the Constitution.

0:43:58 Thomas: It's impossible. I do not think it it's happening again anytime soon. And the idea that we can't even get 50% of the vote because Hillary got, yeah, she won the popular vote. I know, but she got like 49.6 or something like that. Like the idea that we can even get a majority, a strong majority of the vote and we can even get the extra 70,000 or 100,000 votes we need in those swing states. But somehow in order to fix all that, we're going to get the numbers we'd need to amend the constitution. It's just not going to to happen in order to amend the constitution here. I had, I looked all this up to make sure I had the civics lesson, correct. In order to amend the constitution, barring the constitutional convention, I'm just going to ignore that because it's never happened. None of our amendments have been done that way, but it's a different route you can go.

0:44:44 Thomas: So forget that barring The way it works is you need two-thirds of the House and the Senate to propose and approve the amendment. And that's not even enough. By the way, that rarely happens. I would say we got almost that level of support for these Russian sanctions, so it's possible, but after that, then you have to get the states three-fourths, three-quarters of the states to affirm the amendment, so how are we going to do that if we can't even get a majority. And I say, we, I mean, how are not even just Democrats, because now we're talking like far left revolutionary stuff. Like how is the far progressive left going to inspire those kinds of numbers to fix something in a, in an amendment?

0:45:31 Thomas: I just, it's just, I just don't see how that's happening. Much anything we're talking about, like any change you're wanting to see happening, getting Congress to merely pass a bill is always going to be easier than getting a constitutional amendment. I mean, by a factor of zillions. I mean, just look at how many bills they pass. Not so much anymore, but historically how many bills we've passed versus how many amendments we've done to the Constitution. I so I don't, I don't really get it, and I apologize, Jeremiah, if I'm not understanding exactly, maybe I maybe I'm misunderstanding part of your question, but I I've never understood that impulse that I'm hearing from not just you, I hear this a lot of the time, and we hear it on on Opening Arguments, that hey, this is not going to happen, we need to change the Constitution, it's like, okay, if we can't even get this simple majority, we're not gonna get the super, super, super majorities you need in all these bodies to amend the Constitution.

0:46:24 Thomas: So, sorry to, I guess, dump some cold water on that idea, but I just don't see it happening. Gerrymandering certainly needs to be fixed, but also the gerrymandering is another reason why it'll be even harder to get, like, like the gerrymandering affects both things. It both affects how Democrats can get into Congress, and it also therefore affects how you would be able to get two-thirds of Congress to vote something. So like, amendment, the constitutional amendment doesn't circumvent any of that.

But in terms of gerryandering, what we have to do is vote in 2018, 2020, take back control, uh, locally, vote locally, state, state assemblies, like all that stuff matters a ton, governorships matter a lot, I think the rules are different by state if I'm remembering my OA properly. So basically, to be safe, we need to get the hell out and vote Democrat in every possible thing we can in order to counteract some of this gerrymandering, because it let's say it goes the other way, I mean, if things go even further Republican in 2020, it's it's even another another opportunity to gerrymander even worse. So we're going to have to just, I mean, we got to get out and vote. That's the way, that what frustrates me about the solution is not within the system thing is that in actuality, it is right there.

Like the system, I don't know, and again, that's such a vague thing to say, like the system. But if this, if we're talking about the voting process, the election process, you know, how we draw lines and all that, the solution actually is right there in the system, if that's what we're talking about. The solution is more people need to vote.

0:47:59 Thomas: Half of the nation didn't vote. So the problem isn't the system. The problem is the half the nation that didn't vote, right? I mean, it seems like that's the easier place to go. So we need to get out and vote in the coming years. We always should, but we really need to, for many reasons. And then surprisingly, a lot of the solutions will come from the system. We can get district lines drawn more fairly. That allows us to, in the future, have the House and Senate more... Specifically, the House actually represent the people better and the House responds to quick political change. That's why it's every two years, all the House seats are up for election. That means that there can be a bloodbath and then then the whole house can be ousted, you know, if people don't like what their representation is doing, that's kind of how that's supposed to work.

0:48:53 Thomas: And you said the sentence, you also said, was gets a whole, the majority gets a whole president and the legislative branch comes with that. I'd not really, though, because it didn't work for us with Obama. You know, you don't just get the legislative branch, you know, they are separate. I mean, the president has veto power, but then the Congress can overrule that with enough support. So, you know, they can, if you have enough numbers in Congress, you can overrule the president, you can override his veto. So, I mean, the system's there, there's the tools within the system to do it, I think is what I'm trying to say. But what's never going to get changed to happen, what is never going to work is voting Jill Stein or something, because it's just, she's, she's just not that great of a candidate. Like, that's the thing.

0:49:38 Thomas: A lot of these third-party people pretend that their can't, like, we all know their candidates better, we just vote main party because their candidate doesn't have a chance, when in actuality, that's not true. Like, their candidate just isn't that great. You know, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, they just, they're not, they weren't good candidates. And what makes you think that once you get a third party in there, then all of a sudden what, the system rules don't apply to them? You don't think it'll be exactly the same where Congress can block them or con, you know, it's going to be exactly the same, there's no, that third party is not the solution, like that's not going to work either. In reality, what we have to do is keep trying to get grassroots support. We have to keep trying to get more voters to agree with at least most of the things that you and I want.

0:50:24 Thomas: You know, like if you're on the left like I am, it doesn't mean we agree on everything, it means compromises. The only candidate you're ever going to agree 100% with is yourself, that's how it works. I remember, I think Alonzo Fife came on the show and talked about how another party, like, like third party doesn't end up really working, because that just means you bring on more people who compromise, and then it ends up turning into the two party system, at least under the way we have it here. So it's, I think there are benefits to the UK system, as you mentioned, but it also ends up being not that different, because you have coalitions in, within our Congress, so like the Tea Party branch of the Republicans, for example, how is that any different than just having a separate party?

0:51:09 Thomas: You know, because like they don't always vote with them, and in fact, oftentimes they don't vote with the Republicans at all. Like they're a hard tough nut to crack for when you're trying to get Republican legislation done. So in some ways we have that in our system here, like we have in the US, they just, it's not a name, basically. Like it's, it's effectively a third party because they don't always vote with the Republicans.

There's sort of a coalition going, um, and they have different views on a lot of stuff than the Republicans there just don't really call themselves a different party, but it still effectively works out the same. Um, so I don't know. I mean, I'm not an expert on the, the multi-party system on parliament and all that. I really don't know how a lot of it works. Uh, but It strikes me that we kind of have something similar anyway. Way. Uh, and I don't think like we can, we can talk about that being a pie in the sky solution, but if we want to get down to brass tacks, as they say, if we wanna get down to what will actually institute change, it is continue getting our voices heard and trying to change minds and trying to pull people over to our side.

Uh and then people get more people to vote because that inevitably benefits the left because the more people that vote, the more left things are. It's just how it works because of the math on it and the percentages of which side votes and all that. So that's what I think is the fix. It's a boring, long-term, unsexy fix, but I just don't think there's really any other option. I mean, good luck with revolution.

0:52:41 Thomas: It's not, there's no guarantee that that goes your way, you know, like there's no, so anyway. All right. That's what I think on that. Thanks, so Jeremiah, for the question.

0:52:56 Voicemail: Hey Thomas, this is Tyson from Washington State. I just got a question about what you would consider the center to be, because for me, the center has always been the majority. A quick example would be, say, firearms, where the majority of Americans want reasonable gun regulations. That makes the left and the right to be no guns allowed, and everybody should have any gun they want. So, I'm just curious what your ideas on that would be.

0:53:20 Thomas: Hey, this should hopefully, thank you for the question, Tyson. Hopefully this allows me to go on another half hour unrelated rant. No, I think this is a great point, because it illustrates the problem, not with the system, I'm trying to use specific terms with, but with how our elected officials are situated currently, and this is my view, you know, I don't, maybe people might disagree, but I think what's going on is the right, through things like gerrymandering and all that, have allowed themselves to be so insulated, and they're particularly right now so shielded from any left opposition, that they're more interested in not being primaried. This is something that I think Andrew said pretty well. And so, so that causes them to listen, to pay attention to these very vocal right wing Tea Party groups.

0:54:11 Thomas: And that in turn gives us a bogus view, like you're pointing out, Tyson, I think you're pointing this out very astutely, it gives us a bogus view of what the center is. First off, I think we need to deal with, and I don't know how many of you are like this, but there's some prominent thinkers out there that tend to think that being centrist means you're pretty much more right by definition, they tend to pull for the center, like it's the fallacy of the middle. And, there's so there's a couple different concepts I've been thinking about here, because there is a sense in which I'm in the middle of a lot of things. But it doesn't, but it's more like I'm in the middle of some vocal people, not necessarily on a view spectrum, I hope that makes sense. So, like, what I'm imagining is there are really vocal anti-free speech people on the right, there are vocal anti free speech people on the left, or whatever the variable is.

0:55:05 Thomas: They're very harsh, they're very illogical, there are super illogicall people on right and super illoggical people on left, and therefore, well, let's all be in the middle. But what does that middle mean? What are you in the the middle of? That's what, that's where the trick is. Because so that is used when people point out these, you know, shrill, harsh, illogical voices on either side. That's then used to say, let's all come together in the middle.

And then you take an issue and you say, well, clearly the middle must be the right thing. But like, what is the middle of abortion? What's the middle of global warming? What's the middle ground there? You know, like what's the middle ground on the death penalty? It's like there's a lot of issues that well, there's...

There's, I mean, maybe we can try to bicker like, okay, a more limited death penalty, or global warming, maybe it's like the middle is like, we can, we change it, like, yes, we recognize it, but can we, but it's like that there's no reason that has to be a middle view, like most of these are pretty binary, like, Are humans causing global warming or not? Should you have the right to an abortion or not? We can argue about the details, but you're still on one side or the other of these issues. When it comes to gun control, I think you're totally right that pretty much most people are just sitting there in the majority, and maybe it is the center, Tyson, where it's like everybody wants background checks pretty much. If you look at the polling, we all want sensible gun control.

And and then this is where the dynamic of our elected officials comes in, where they're not properly representing us, because what we get is an extreme right view, and then the left is actually kind of the center on this. The Democrats' view on gun control has for quite some time been the center view, the majority view, and this is where I think Michael A.

0:56:54 Thomas: Wood Jr. was right. And I think it is a very useful, interesting thing to look at. Like the right, the far right kind of bullies everybody into becoming the center. Like instead of a right and a left on gun control, that you don't, that you name me one elected official, elected official who says they want to take away all guns. They want to ban all guns from the U.S. I have never heard it. Now, maybe you'll find some obscure person in some state, a super liberal state, possible. But I've never heard that in mainstream debate. I've never heard that. In a mainstream presidential debate, I've NEVER heard it, the story is always, oh, Obama and Hillary are going to take away all your guns. They never, ever do anything like that. So that's the the trick that's being pulled on us.

0:57:39 Thomas: Because the right wing, the far right wing view that's displayed in the mainstream all the time, the far left wing view of, oh, guns, say, give every teacher a gun, give every, you know, like, more guns is the solution, that is certainly in the right, right wing debates it always is, and I think it is true that this uh exaggerated right wing that really shouldn't have this kind of power, unfortunately, but they do. They pull everybody over to where the center is just the left, and then they've kind of won. They have essentially won because nothing ever happens on gun control. So, it is a very interesting problem. And if you want to say the center is where the majority is, I think I would reject the idea that there necessarily is a center.

0:58:25 Thomas: Sometimes there is. And I think when you talk about gun control, I think that's probably correct. Although I think again, there isn't really a far left. There's like a few people here and there who want to ban guns. You know, sometimes I flirt with that idea, even though I don't think it's practical, but I do dream of an America without guns. It would be amazing. I just don't think we can do it. But that's not represented in the mainstream. So there's no, so it's just where everybody is and then the far right, really.

0:58:54 Thomas: So what I mean when I say I kind of reject that there has to be a center is not, I don't think most issues are like that. I think most political issues are kind of binary. They're pretty much just, you know, do you want high taxes or low taxes? Do you want, you know, and it's not necessarily true that the middle is where everybody is, like the center is where everybody is. I don't think it's a perfect bell curve, you know, chart like of the center is like everybody's there and then there's fringes. I think that For a lot of these polarized issues like abortion, like taxes, like whatever, most... I think the majority of voters have bought into one side or the other on most of these issues. Interesting thing to think about. It is really frustrating, though, how the center on gun control is pretty much where everybody is, yet that's not how it's framed because of the way the far right has this stranglehold on the right, in my view.

0:59:49 Thomas: All right, well, thank you, Tyson, for the question very much, and that does it for voicemail today. I love the participation and definitely keep it coming!

1:00:04 Thomas: All right, now's that time where I've got to thank you very kindly for listening. I appreciate it so much. I also have to thank my patrons who make the show happen over at patreon.com/seriouspod. Really, really thank you guys. New patrons this week, Cynthia Francis, Jason Waite, Steven Eagles, and Zachary. Thank you guys so much. Really, really you make the show happen. And of course, even more so to my all-time greats who I've got to thank right now, and they are...

Matt Garrett, Peter Skelton, Steve, Sigmund, Adrian Borshchoff, Roger the most surprising of all surprise witnesses Metcalf, I like that I get a little carryover from the opening arguments joke names, that's fine with me, I have no problem with it, Matthew Maxson of Audie Atheist Friends, Andrew Waddington, Zabby, John Bodley, Ian Ryan, Matthew Vernon, Rayloves, Jenny, Robin, the Zika baby that lived, Marcel the T&B Nostologist, Democratic Socialists of America at DSA USA, Thank you guys so very kindly for being the top patrons. Making the show happen really would not exist without you. Go go to patreon.com/seriouspod if you'd like to be one of these magnificent people. And with that said, thank you so much for listening as always. Got some great interviews planned for you, and I'll have to see you next week. Have a good weekend. See you Monday.