This week on the show, I’m joined by my son, Glenn Loury II. I wanted to have him back on TGS to discuss Late Admissions and get his perspective on the events that I write about in the book. Glenn II, after all, was there for many of these events, including, of course, the joyful occasion of his birth, which accompanied my own spiritual rebirth after my emergence from drug addiction.
Thank you for sharing not only your life as you see it now, but also your wonderful son's perspective. You may disagree on many things but he clearly has your intellect and analytical ability. I'm sorry you couldn't have the relationship with your father you have with your son. Hopefully each generation learns and grows more than the last and passes it on. (Is that what we mean by progressivism?) As for your failure to conform to your espoused values, well that's complicated for sure and even you probably don't know entirely why, and there are multiple possibilities, not all mutually exclusive. Of course you are not alone in this regard, although I don't know exactly where you fall on this particular bell curve. As for the reason, one possibility is poor impulse control, and that is a skill that tends to improve with age. Only you know whether that has been a frequent issue in your life and in how many domains. Another possibility is intentional (but mostly likely unconscious) self-sabotage. From something you said on Bob Wright's show, I suspect that might have played a role (you can see my comment there for more if interested). As for the "boot-strap" method for which you advocate, it's a myth that people can overcome difficult problems all on their own. You had much help overcoming your addiction, and you never explained what finally caused you to stop sleeping around (maybe simply weaker urges due to age?). In any case, it's most helpful to others when people who've overcome self-made problems describe what specific coping strategies they learned to overcome them. As a psychologist, I'm obviously biased but I would suggest if you want to better understand why you so strongly espoused values with which you did not conform, therapy may help you determine that. Your son seems to have been in therapy a lot, and I suspect it gave him much insight.
Wow. That was touching and raw. Sometimes, people write memoirs out of narcissism, but certainly not in this case.
Thank you!
And I continue to disagree with you over Gaza (but I continue to come back!)
Regarding the tragic death of Gazan civilians:
1) Blame Israel. This is the easy route.
2) Blame Hamas. They don't have to hide behind civilians.
3) Blame the West (us, and more specifically, you Glenn) for handing Hamas a PR victory for every civilian death.
We've given Hamas an unbeatable weapon, is it any wonder that they use it against Israel? Given their priorities, they're perfectly happy to use the corpse of their civilians to club Israel, and it's our condemnation of Israel that makes that strategy successful. Shame on us.
A firm statement by the West: "As long as Gazan leaders hide behind Gazan civilians, we're not going to condemn Israel for Gazan deaths" might go a long ways towards reducing civilian casualites -- what would be the point of their deaths if Hamas derived no benefit?
[Time 12:46]; Genocide- according to Webster’s 1996 Encyclopedic Dictionary (physical book); is the deliberate and systematic killing of an entire group of people. Gaza civilians who are killed by IDF are not the target, they are in the way of the target or “standing in front of target” so to speak. Hamas military is deliberately positioned below civilian residents; thus making the civilians a human shield. I am not negating the sentiment of those who are alarmed by the civilian death counts, but IDF action fails to meet criteria for “genocide”.
[Time 10:21]; Professor Loury’s position on Israel/Gaza vs. conservative audience members. In November, I will vote for Trump a second time. So, people may perceive me as a conservative, which doesn’t bother me. Although I disagree with Loury on Israeli military strategy, I believe that an ethical pathway led him to his position.
Wow, Glenn let it all hang out in his memoir, and now he and Glenn II double down.
It's easy to understand leaving a candid private memoir. A memoir is a remnant of a real human, left for posterity, and if the memoir is not candid about the good and bad aspects of its author, the remnant is not of a complete human being, but rather of a collection of events--which themselves may be accurately described or not.
So why make a candid memoir public? In Glenn's case, I can think of three reasons:
1. To be truthful. Glenn is a public figure, and it's natural for public figures to write memoirs. If Glenn is to follow suit, lying--including covering up or just sugar coating--wouldn't do for the honest person that I believe Glenn is. Plus, his past troubles are, to an extent, well known, so if his memoir wasn't open about them, people would know he was being dishonest. Glenn signed up for some hard admissions in doing a memoir, and he delivered.
2. To address charges of hypocrisy head on. It's well known that in his public life Glenn advocates for ways of conducting oneself that he often failed to follow himself. He intends his recommendations to be taken seriously and believes passionately that they can change many lives for the better. Given their importance, it would be wrong to leave these ideas vulnerable to dismissal through simple ad hominem critiques. Thus, for better or worse, candid "admissions" were necessary to keep Glenn's public discourse focused on his ideas, not himself. In this way, Glenn's memoir is a courageous act in defense of important ideas.
3. To connect with people at a personal level. The memoir tells people that they are not alone in their fight against personal demons. We all have them, and it's an act of compassion to have prominent people speak out to reinforce that message.
Glenn may have his own reasons, of course.
---
I liked the memoir--even the parts describing Glenn's economics work.
Glenn II claimed, with regard to Glenn Sr’s rejection of identity politics:
“I don’t think you reject identity politics. I think you play a different brand [of identity politics]. I mean, if you’re calling yourself a conservative, you are embracing some sort of identity. I think people who are against identity politics are always being, by and large, disingenuous. ALL POLITICS IS IDENTITY POLITICS” (my emphasis).
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of identity politics. Sex, race and ethnicity are factors into which someone is born. One is not born into being a conservative, moderate, liberal, or progressive. In identity politics, people advocate that those within a particular sexual, racial, or ethnic group must band together, no matter what other features, ideas, or characteristics individual members of the group may have, against an opposing sexual, racial and ethnic group(s) (again, no matter what other ideas individual members of that group may have). That is grossly reductionist thinking: It’s an Us-versus-Them contest that is rooted only in a particular immutable identity. It is not based on arguments (such as a conservative or progressive arguments).
“I belong to Group X — therefore, as a member of Group X, I, and the rest of the Group X members, are entitled to A, B, C,...n. AND, YOU, as an opposing member of Group Y must do D, E, F,…n.”
No arguments. Just identity and DECLARATIONS of Truth™︎.
“You are the oppressor! I am the oppressed!” Or “The entire explanation for racial disparities is ‘systemic racism’! There are no other relevant factors!”
Identity politics are also authoritarian. I can have a good faith discussion about contentious issues with anyone along the political spectrum IF they don’t demand I simply accede to their worldview or their “lived truth” (such as insisting that “Racism = Bias + Power” as though that is an incontestable proposition).
So, no, quite emphatically, “All politics is NOT identity politics.”
I agree with you that when used within the term "identity politics", the word "identity" is equivocated down to a small handful of inborn characteristics.
The true identity of a person is something mediated among the person's inborn characteristics, their mental and physical development, and their social setting (credit to Jordan Peterson for pointing out the last one).
We often have to attach labels--like "conservative" or even "black conservative"--to particular aspects of a person's identity to facilitate efficient discourse, but we should be cautious in how much accuracy we can ascribe to these labels in conveying information about the person's identity.
Loren, thank u for being so clear. I’m assuming Glen II to be reading these comments to understand how his viewers were understanding their conversation and would ask him to comment on these clarifications.
To listen and watch a father and son speak through moments that were on the cusp of profound friction and resistance , expose an intimacy and love , a quality of reciprocity in conversation of who we are-- fragile, growing, seeing each other. This was beautiful.
Thank you for sharing not only your life as you see it now, but also your wonderful son's perspective. You may disagree on many things but he clearly has your intellect and analytical ability. I'm sorry you couldn't have the relationship with your father you have with your son. Hopefully each generation learns and grows more than the last and passes it on. (Is that what we mean by progressivism?) As for your failure to conform to your espoused values, well that's complicated for sure and even you probably don't know entirely why, and there are multiple possibilities, not all mutually exclusive. Of course you are not alone in this regard, although I don't know exactly where you fall on this particular bell curve. As for the reason, one possibility is poor impulse control, and that is a skill that tends to improve with age. Only you know whether that has been a frequent issue in your life and in how many domains. Another possibility is intentional (but mostly likely unconscious) self-sabotage. From something you said on Bob Wright's show, I suspect that might have played a role (you can see my comment there for more if interested). As for the "boot-strap" method for which you advocate, it's a myth that people can overcome difficult problems all on their own. You had much help overcoming your addiction, and you never explained what finally caused you to stop sleeping around (maybe simply weaker urges due to age?). In any case, it's most helpful to others when people who've overcome self-made problems describe what specific coping strategies they learned to overcome them. As a psychologist, I'm obviously biased but I would suggest if you want to better understand why you so strongly espoused values with which you did not conform, therapy may help you determine that. Your son seems to have been in therapy a lot, and I suspect it gave him much insight.
Wow. That was touching and raw. Sometimes, people write memoirs out of narcissism, but certainly not in this case.
Thank you!
And I continue to disagree with you over Gaza (but I continue to come back!)
Regarding the tragic death of Gazan civilians:
1) Blame Israel. This is the easy route.
2) Blame Hamas. They don't have to hide behind civilians.
3) Blame the West (us, and more specifically, you Glenn) for handing Hamas a PR victory for every civilian death.
We've given Hamas an unbeatable weapon, is it any wonder that they use it against Israel? Given their priorities, they're perfectly happy to use the corpse of their civilians to club Israel, and it's our condemnation of Israel that makes that strategy successful. Shame on us.
A firm statement by the West: "As long as Gazan leaders hide behind Gazan civilians, we're not going to condemn Israel for Gazan deaths" might go a long ways towards reducing civilian casualites -- what would be the point of their deaths if Hamas derived no benefit?
[Time 12:46]; Genocide- according to Webster’s 1996 Encyclopedic Dictionary (physical book); is the deliberate and systematic killing of an entire group of people. Gaza civilians who are killed by IDF are not the target, they are in the way of the target or “standing in front of target” so to speak. Hamas military is deliberately positioned below civilian residents; thus making the civilians a human shield. I am not negating the sentiment of those who are alarmed by the civilian death counts, but IDF action fails to meet criteria for “genocide”.
This conversation had so many facets, so many layers; specifically from a raw human standpoint.
But it is fascinating how so many people (ostensibly) cannot get past the Loury's takes on Israel-Palestine.
Disagreement is fine. No problem there. But can anyone deny the complexity of the issue? I know I can't.
Was it ever NOT complex?
Charles- for 30 adult years, I refused to have an opinion on Israel-Palestine due to the complexity.
I can totally relate to this comment (as a man of 58 years).
Foreign policy is complicated in and of itself. But Israel-Palestine is next level. And I see no end.
[Time 10:21]; Professor Loury’s position on Israel/Gaza vs. conservative audience members. In November, I will vote for Trump a second time. So, people may perceive me as a conservative, which doesn’t bother me. Although I disagree with Loury on Israeli military strategy, I believe that an ethical pathway led him to his position.
Wow, Glenn let it all hang out in his memoir, and now he and Glenn II double down.
It's easy to understand leaving a candid private memoir. A memoir is a remnant of a real human, left for posterity, and if the memoir is not candid about the good and bad aspects of its author, the remnant is not of a complete human being, but rather of a collection of events--which themselves may be accurately described or not.
So why make a candid memoir public? In Glenn's case, I can think of three reasons:
1. To be truthful. Glenn is a public figure, and it's natural for public figures to write memoirs. If Glenn is to follow suit, lying--including covering up or just sugar coating--wouldn't do for the honest person that I believe Glenn is. Plus, his past troubles are, to an extent, well known, so if his memoir wasn't open about them, people would know he was being dishonest. Glenn signed up for some hard admissions in doing a memoir, and he delivered.
2. To address charges of hypocrisy head on. It's well known that in his public life Glenn advocates for ways of conducting oneself that he often failed to follow himself. He intends his recommendations to be taken seriously and believes passionately that they can change many lives for the better. Given their importance, it would be wrong to leave these ideas vulnerable to dismissal through simple ad hominem critiques. Thus, for better or worse, candid "admissions" were necessary to keep Glenn's public discourse focused on his ideas, not himself. In this way, Glenn's memoir is a courageous act in defense of important ideas.
3. To connect with people at a personal level. The memoir tells people that they are not alone in their fight against personal demons. We all have them, and it's an act of compassion to have prominent people speak out to reinforce that message.
Glenn may have his own reasons, of course.
---
I liked the memoir--even the parts describing Glenn's economics work.
That was one of your best shows I've ever heard Glenn. Thank your son for me for participating. Will
Glenn II claimed, with regard to Glenn Sr’s rejection of identity politics:
“I don’t think you reject identity politics. I think you play a different brand [of identity politics]. I mean, if you’re calling yourself a conservative, you are embracing some sort of identity. I think people who are against identity politics are always being, by and large, disingenuous. ALL POLITICS IS IDENTITY POLITICS” (my emphasis).
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of identity politics. Sex, race and ethnicity are factors into which someone is born. One is not born into being a conservative, moderate, liberal, or progressive. In identity politics, people advocate that those within a particular sexual, racial, or ethnic group must band together, no matter what other features, ideas, or characteristics individual members of the group may have, against an opposing sexual, racial and ethnic group(s) (again, no matter what other ideas individual members of that group may have). That is grossly reductionist thinking: It’s an Us-versus-Them contest that is rooted only in a particular immutable identity. It is not based on arguments (such as a conservative or progressive arguments).
“I belong to Group X — therefore, as a member of Group X, I, and the rest of the Group X members, are entitled to A, B, C,...n. AND, YOU, as an opposing member of Group Y must do D, E, F,…n.”
No arguments. Just identity and DECLARATIONS of Truth™︎.
“You are the oppressor! I am the oppressed!” Or “The entire explanation for racial disparities is ‘systemic racism’! There are no other relevant factors!”
Identity politics are also authoritarian. I can have a good faith discussion about contentious issues with anyone along the political spectrum IF they don’t demand I simply accede to their worldview or their “lived truth” (such as insisting that “Racism = Bias + Power” as though that is an incontestable proposition).
So, no, quite emphatically, “All politics is NOT identity politics.”
I’ve used the word “oxymoronic” sparingly….Though in today’s discourse the words “identity politics” seems the perfect example…would u say?
I agree with you that when used within the term "identity politics", the word "identity" is equivocated down to a small handful of inborn characteristics.
The true identity of a person is something mediated among the person's inborn characteristics, their mental and physical development, and their social setting (credit to Jordan Peterson for pointing out the last one).
We often have to attach labels--like "conservative" or even "black conservative"--to particular aspects of a person's identity to facilitate efficient discourse, but we should be cautious in how much accuracy we can ascribe to these labels in conveying information about the person's identity.
Loren, thank u for being so clear. I’m assuming Glen II to be reading these comments to understand how his viewers were understanding their conversation and would ask him to comment on these clarifications.
If your book was a window into the human condition this exchange opened that window.
Congratulations Glenn on your Boston Celtics winning the NBA title!
Thanks, Yan Shen. Game 4 through be for a loop, but "all's well that ends well"!
Wow
Oh my…., this is going to take some restraint
Riveting and beautiful conversation. What a remarkable son.
To listen and watch a father and son speak through moments that were on the cusp of profound friction and resistance , expose an intimacy and love , a quality of reciprocity in conversation of who we are-- fragile, growing, seeing each other. This was beautiful.
It's going to be an apple cinnamon green tea kind of night tonight. Can't wait to see this one.
________________________
Okay. Finally had a chance to check it out in toto. Magnificent. Very human. Mature. Full of perspective.
Not sure what else to say =)
Not gonna lie, that title kinda scared me, y'all! I'm glad that this just turned out to be Glenn squared.