Glenn I thank you for exceptional conversations. You and your guests have really contributed to my knowledge base, and challenged me to think about things. I am grateful for that.
Which makes the next part disappointing.
I am Canadian and I disagree strongly with the American decision to impose 25% tariffs on your closest trading partners. I know you had little to do with the decision, but I have a client that will be affected by these new trade taxes. I am therefore affected by them,.
I am withdrawing my subscription to your channel in protest. I regret having to do so because I really enjoy the content.
Thinking about the US strategic bombing of Japan from 1944 - 1945, you've expressed the opinions that "it might have been a military necessity" and "those people (we?) have blood on our hands". I wonder how you reconcile those statements.
Imagine you're talking to a 20 year old in 1944, who's thinking about volunteering for the USAAF and wants to be a B-29 pilot. Do you encourage him or discourage him? Telling him he'll "have blood on his hands" seems pretty discouraging. OTOH, not bombing (by assumption) leads to bad outcomes, at least for the US, and plausibly for Japan and others (e.g. China) as well.
Can a person or country justify "blood on their hands"?
Are there scenarios where all outcomes have "blood on your hands"?
I'm also thinking about the trolley car problem. If I throw the switch (net savings of lives), do I have blood on my hands? More than if I do nothing?
Essentially it was to compensate for the fact that like attracts like. That is, people tend to give slightly favorable consideration to what is FAMILIAR, even unconsciously. SO, adding some 'otherness' to the mix just helps a thinking person to question their biases.
I also think there is GREAT value for young people to "See" themselves ... women professors, professors of color, etc ...
"Merit" ?? The person with the highest test scores a highest GPAs does not mean they would be good at any given job. The best teachers are not often from the most prestigious schools or Summa Cum Laude.
Please discuss ... oligarchy ... and ethics conflicts of interest.
Financial gain from government 'service'. Trump bitcoin? Clarence Thomas? All the conflicts of interest with these billionaires (Elon Musk, government contracts)? Even the post presidency speaking fees !! (Thanks Reagan.) Leaving congress to be on boards of lobby firms?
Whatever you think of Jimmy Carter, I appreciate that he returned to his humble town, in his humble home and spent his time doing good deeds (including protesting the Baptist church's position on women).
An ex-president gets a generous exit 'pension'. And I don't begrudge anyone who write a book, and makes money from it (Hey, democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, makes money from selling books.) But the Trumps (family included) and the Obamas have taken it to a new level.
They probably don't pay taxes either ... like the Bezos, Zuckerbergs, Musks of this world.
Has it been over for so long that you both have forgotten the Cold War? Trump very clearly wants to break down the post-Cold War global order of the past 30 years and I sense that both of you or at least Glenn are sympathetic to that. It also seems very clear that Trump has a worldview based on great power competition and spheres of influence. And he seems willing if not eager to step aside and allow Russia and China to rise as global powers by backing away from our long term allies in Europe and Asia. This seems like a return to the global order we left behind in 1989 when we rightly celebrated its demise. Glenn sometimes talks about his concerns of nuclear war, but if we return to another Cold War with three great powers seeking territorial expansion, that seems like it will eventually raise not lower the risk of a nuclear exchange. Are either of you even a little bit worried?
Harvard's announcement of its adoption of a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism as hate speech will have a chilling effect on criticism of Israel, what sanctions will the school take against you.
Below are a few excerpts from Glenn Greenwald’s System Update onJan 23.
Please consider covering the subject if not in the Q&A, then on a separate episode.
As Trump Vows to restore Free Speech, Harvard Just Assaulted It
Since October 7th, dozens of people, if not hundreds, in media, and journalism, and politics, and academia, and entertainment, and other professions, have been fired for statements deemed too critical of Israel. Governors have ordered pro-Palestinian groups banned from campus. And today, Harvard announced its adoption of a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism as hate speech.
The same definition approved by a bipartisan vote of Congress last year, that would make it prohibited, even illegal in some cases, for anyone to express a wide range of commonly held views about the state of Israel and its supporters. You're allowed to make exactly the same arguments and express exactly the same views about every other country on this planet, even your own government, the United States, just not about Israel.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which long supported the free speech rights of conservatives, wrote in a post on X “ instead of choosing consistent robust protection for free speech, Harvard is opting for consistent censorship”
These are things you may not do from now on at Harvard …
Accusing Jewish students of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interest of their own nations. People who have the hardest core loyalty to Israel and United States Congress are often evangelicals for religious reasons. You're allowed to say that about them. You're allowed to say Mike Huckabee has more loyalty to Israel than to his own country in the United States. You're just not allowed to say it about Jews.
Denying the Jewish people their right of self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor. That the United States is a racist endeavor. That you're allowed to say. That you hear all the time. Nobody tries to censor that, nobody tries to punish that. You can say that the state of China is a racist endeavor. You can say the state of Peru is a racist endeavor. Pick any country in the entire world at Harvard, and you are totally free to call the existence of that country a racist endeavor, except one country where you fall into the crime of hate speech, and that is the state of Israel under this definition.
Applying double standard, by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Think about what madness that is.
I can criticize China without having to make sure that I'm applying the same criticism that I'm expressing to China, to every other country, so I'm not engaged in double standard. I can criticize the United States freely without having to worry about whether I'm being inconsistent and applying to the United States a double standard because I'm not applying the same to Norway, to the Philippines, to Uruguay, whatever country you want, feel free to apply double standards or inconsistent statements.
But the minute you criticize Israel, you better make sure and you'll be scrutinized for it, that the criticism of your making of Israel is a criticism you've expressed of other countries that deserve it as well, or you are now formally guilty of expressing hate speech and anti-Semitism.”
Finally, the prohibited example, you may not draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. So, if you happen to believe, that what the Israelis did in Gaza over the past 15 months or what they've done to the Palestinians for decades, bears at least some similarities to the mentality and the mindset and the ideology of dehumanization that permitted so many Germans to view Jews as not only justifiably killed, but as deserving of that. You're allowed to compare any other country you want in the world, including your own government, the United States, to what the Nazis did. There is one country and one group of people where it's now prohibited to make that comparison, and that is Israel and American Jews”
Glenn and John - your beat has been really to call out the potential risks of DEI/CRT excesses. Have you guys payed attention to and have any thoughts on the Rape Gang Scandal in the UK?
It seems as though immigrants predominantly from Pakistan and Bangladesh were able to have their way with white working class women. When this was brought to authorities it seems as if it was deflected or downplayed to avoid being perceived as racist. Senior political leaders that pushed multiculturalism and open boarders policies have been keen to suppress it. I am very interested in your thoughts on the story. It seems to be a vivid example of what the costs are of their policies at their extreme.
Dear Professors Loury and McWhorter, I mentioned this question in another post, but I will present it formally here. Both of you have opposed reparations in the past for slightly different reasons. Professor Loury does not want a hand-out, while Professor McWhorter feels they’ve already been rendered via various government programs, such as affirmative action and the Community Reinvestment Act. However, in my view, reparations serve two purposes. One is to compensate the formerly injured parties, while the other is to expiate guilt on the part of the oppressors. So, supposing a critical mass of people whose ancestors were oppressors said, “We feel a need to both expiate guilt and formally uphold the moral stance that we repudiate the former behaviour and declare that is not who we are as a society any longer." Would you deprive the guilty of the opportunity to redeem themselves?
who are the oppressors in your question? The government or white people? The problem is government is funded by tax payers that had nothing to do with any past transgressions. And I feel no guilt for something I had nothing to with and don't want my money to pay for past transgressions of someone else. Even if my ancestry was linked directly to the oppressors... I would still fight the sins of the father dichotomy.
Hmmm, you bring up a good point; however, I do think there is value in a society acknowledging past mistakes. This is why sometimes posthumous Medals of Honor or honorable discharges are bestowed upon military veterans who were unfairly discriminated against. They are dead and buried, and the medals are given to their descendants, but I still think it’s important as a society to acknowledge wrongdoing and make it right when we can. Same thing with Japanese Americans who were sent to internment camps during WWII, many of them lost their homes and businesses because of that policy. There is also a monument in Salem for the unfair executions of people suspected of witchcraft due to what were essentially property disputes using dubious “spectral evidence” which was soon thereafter made illegal.
To expand a bit on my question here’s a rough analogy. One time I was driving to a campsite and a friend went with me. She insisted on giving me gas money, even though I told her I didn’t need it or want it because I was driving out there anyway. She insisted on giving me some money, and I insisted it wasn’t necessary. Well as I dropped her, she threw a $20.00 bill through my car window. So I take it she deeply felt she had a moral obligation to give me some gas money even though I insisted it wasn’t necessary. I hope that clarifies the nature of my question a little bit.
What's to prevent the guilty redeeming themselves by giving money to particular institutions and causes - either as individuals or as a formal fundraising group? Why involve Congress, the IRS, and all those many citizens whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery? Why involve people who don't want to take your money even if you feel morally compelled to give it? There are many ways to donate to people who really need it.
On the January 6th episode of the Glenn Show entitled "Seismic Sociopolitical Shift," you and John discussed the issue regarding immigrants and culture. At one point John actually used the term "white culture." He subsequently modified it by saying "whatever that is." You then responded by saying "all of this discussion about culture gives me the willies." I'll have to admit. When John said "white culture," it alarmed me. Only two groups of people actively define "white culture" today: White Supremacists and Anti-Racists, both of whom assert the belief that race is not malleable and essential. That stated you and John both ascribe to a belief in "Blackness" and what may be defined as "black culture." Here is a little experiment. If you and John were in a room with say five more individuals of African descent, could you all agree on the same definition of "Blackness" apart from just skin tone? For example, let's say the seven individuals were you, John, Al Sharpton, Charles Barkley, Condoleezza Rice, Raven-Symone, and Iman (the super model). Could you all agree on one definite characteristic of "Blackness" and/or "black culture" apart from simply skin tone as a mark of oppression?
Glenn, You recently said in your solo podcast that you did not think Israel's response reflected "Western Values" and that your affinity for Israel and the Jewish people was what led you to offer your critiques. When pressed on what they believe Israel should have done differently, I many critics of the Israel response say something akin to, "They should have done better." This seems like armchair quarterbacking and does not grapple with the fog of war and potential trade-offs that may be incurred. Can you articulate what a more calibrated response should have looked like and if you see any downside to the Israelis from pursuing that response?
Glenn and John, any thoughts regarding the OpenAI whistleblower who was found dead in his apartment and ruled a suicide under extremely suspicious circumstances? This following similar stories involving not one, but two whistleblowers from Boeing. I have a creeping fear that the mask is slipping from the face of our society and we are just beginning to glimpse the terrible truth that is behind it. Check out this interview Tucker Carlson did with the whistleblower's mother for more information. https://youtu.be/Kev_-HyuI9Y?si=yBbLz3wMZd_-DehP
Glenn this is another question for you: your longstanding compelling argument on education policy is that the necessary alternative to affirmation action in university admissions is improving early childhood ed, alongside shifting values and norms (making school a priority even if a community culture discourages it). Roland Fryer's proposal to have the universities practicing aggressive levels of AA fund development of charter schools in areas where public education is weak is often dismissed by certain progressives as not the responsibility of private institutions. Should conservative policymakers do more (or should they have done more in the past) to support public pre-college education? I dont take the Democrats counterargument to be fully convincing, which amounts to "if conservatives funded public ed better, we wouldnt need to have Harvard and Yale underwrite charter schools."
Glenn I thank you for exceptional conversations. You and your guests have really contributed to my knowledge base, and challenged me to think about things. I am grateful for that.
Which makes the next part disappointing.
I am Canadian and I disagree strongly with the American decision to impose 25% tariffs on your closest trading partners. I know you had little to do with the decision, but I have a client that will be affected by these new trade taxes. I am therefore affected by them,.
I am withdrawing my subscription to your channel in protest. I regret having to do so because I really enjoy the content.
Bets regards to you and yours into the future
Belated … , Illusions of Containment, a history of Hamas … from the London Review of Books
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n02/tom-stevenson/illusions-of-containment
Glenn -
Thinking about the US strategic bombing of Japan from 1944 - 1945, you've expressed the opinions that "it might have been a military necessity" and "those people (we?) have blood on our hands". I wonder how you reconcile those statements.
Imagine you're talking to a 20 year old in 1944, who's thinking about volunteering for the USAAF and wants to be a B-29 pilot. Do you encourage him or discourage him? Telling him he'll "have blood on his hands" seems pretty discouraging. OTOH, not bombing (by assumption) leads to bad outcomes, at least for the US, and plausibly for Japan and others (e.g. China) as well.
Can a person or country justify "blood on their hands"?
Are there scenarios where all outcomes have "blood on your hands"?
I'm also thinking about the trolley car problem. If I throw the switch (net savings of lives), do I have blood on my hands? More than if I do nothing?
Thanks,
Steve
Just getting my questions in:
While I'm not fan of quotas, I think that exploration of the "Rooney Rule" is interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooney_Rule
Essentially it was to compensate for the fact that like attracts like. That is, people tend to give slightly favorable consideration to what is FAMILIAR, even unconsciously. SO, adding some 'otherness' to the mix just helps a thinking person to question their biases.
I also think there is GREAT value for young people to "See" themselves ... women professors, professors of color, etc ...
"Merit" ?? The person with the highest test scores a highest GPAs does not mean they would be good at any given job. The best teachers are not often from the most prestigious schools or Summa Cum Laude.
I offer this interesting exploration:
https://omny.fm/shows/revisionist-history/the-tortoise-and-the-hare
This podcast touches on testing (e.g. LSAT), The Ivy League, "merit", job performance...
The Yale Harvard Cult of SCOTUS.
Question: What is "merit" ?? I'd like to see some discussion of the books written recently that question it.
E.g.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/meritmyth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy
https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you
Please discuss ... oligarchy ... and ethics conflicts of interest.
Financial gain from government 'service'. Trump bitcoin? Clarence Thomas? All the conflicts of interest with these billionaires (Elon Musk, government contracts)? Even the post presidency speaking fees !! (Thanks Reagan.) Leaving congress to be on boards of lobby firms?
Whatever you think of Jimmy Carter, I appreciate that he returned to his humble town, in his humble home and spent his time doing good deeds (including protesting the Baptist church's position on women).
An ex-president gets a generous exit 'pension'. And I don't begrudge anyone who write a book, and makes money from it (Hey, democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, makes money from selling books.) But the Trumps (family included) and the Obamas have taken it to a new level.
They probably don't pay taxes either ... like the Bezos, Zuckerbergs, Musks of this world.
It's a good time to be an expat.
Also, this seems to be a stretch ...
https://www.harvard.edu/task-force-on-antisemitism/
Free speech for some?
DEI for certain religions/cultural minorities?
So, DEI seems to include history?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/25/air-force-videos-tuskegee-airmen-female-pilots?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Has it been over for so long that you both have forgotten the Cold War? Trump very clearly wants to break down the post-Cold War global order of the past 30 years and I sense that both of you or at least Glenn are sympathetic to that. It also seems very clear that Trump has a worldview based on great power competition and spheres of influence. And he seems willing if not eager to step aside and allow Russia and China to rise as global powers by backing away from our long term allies in Europe and Asia. This seems like a return to the global order we left behind in 1989 when we rightly celebrated its demise. Glenn sometimes talks about his concerns of nuclear war, but if we return to another Cold War with three great powers seeking territorial expansion, that seems like it will eventually raise not lower the risk of a nuclear exchange. Are either of you even a little bit worried?
Harvard's announcement of its adoption of a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism as hate speech will have a chilling effect on criticism of Israel, what sanctions will the school take against you.
Below are a few excerpts from Glenn Greenwald’s System Update onJan 23.
Please consider covering the subject if not in the Q&A, then on a separate episode.
As Trump Vows to restore Free Speech, Harvard Just Assaulted It
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/system-update-with-glenn-greenwald/id1669610956?i=1000685156994
There is a transcript at the link.
Since October 7th, dozens of people, if not hundreds, in media, and journalism, and politics, and academia, and entertainment, and other professions, have been fired for statements deemed too critical of Israel. Governors have ordered pro-Palestinian groups banned from campus. And today, Harvard announced its adoption of a radically expanded definition of anti-Semitism as hate speech.
The same definition approved by a bipartisan vote of Congress last year, that would make it prohibited, even illegal in some cases, for anyone to express a wide range of commonly held views about the state of Israel and its supporters. You're allowed to make exactly the same arguments and express exactly the same views about every other country on this planet, even your own government, the United States, just not about Israel.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which long supported the free speech rights of conservatives, wrote in a post on X “ instead of choosing consistent robust protection for free speech, Harvard is opting for consistent censorship”
These are things you may not do from now on at Harvard …
Accusing Jewish students of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide than to the interest of their own nations. People who have the hardest core loyalty to Israel and United States Congress are often evangelicals for religious reasons. You're allowed to say that about them. You're allowed to say Mike Huckabee has more loyalty to Israel than to his own country in the United States. You're just not allowed to say it about Jews.
Denying the Jewish people their right of self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor. That the United States is a racist endeavor. That you're allowed to say. That you hear all the time. Nobody tries to censor that, nobody tries to punish that. You can say that the state of China is a racist endeavor. You can say the state of Peru is a racist endeavor. Pick any country in the entire world at Harvard, and you are totally free to call the existence of that country a racist endeavor, except one country where you fall into the crime of hate speech, and that is the state of Israel under this definition.
Applying double standard, by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Think about what madness that is.
I can criticize China without having to make sure that I'm applying the same criticism that I'm expressing to China, to every other country, so I'm not engaged in double standard. I can criticize the United States freely without having to worry about whether I'm being inconsistent and applying to the United States a double standard because I'm not applying the same to Norway, to the Philippines, to Uruguay, whatever country you want, feel free to apply double standards or inconsistent statements.
But the minute you criticize Israel, you better make sure and you'll be scrutinized for it, that the criticism of your making of Israel is a criticism you've expressed of other countries that deserve it as well, or you are now formally guilty of expressing hate speech and anti-Semitism.”
Finally, the prohibited example, you may not draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. So, if you happen to believe, that what the Israelis did in Gaza over the past 15 months or what they've done to the Palestinians for decades, bears at least some similarities to the mentality and the mindset and the ideology of dehumanization that permitted so many Germans to view Jews as not only justifiably killed, but as deserving of that. You're allowed to compare any other country you want in the world, including your own government, the United States, to what the Nazis did. There is one country and one group of people where it's now prohibited to make that comparison, and that is Israel and American Jews”
Glenn and John - your beat has been really to call out the potential risks of DEI/CRT excesses. Have you guys payed attention to and have any thoughts on the Rape Gang Scandal in the UK?
It seems as though immigrants predominantly from Pakistan and Bangladesh were able to have their way with white working class women. When this was brought to authorities it seems as if it was deflected or downplayed to avoid being perceived as racist. Senior political leaders that pushed multiculturalism and open boarders policies have been keen to suppress it. I am very interested in your thoughts on the story. It seems to be a vivid example of what the costs are of their policies at their extreme.
https://youtu.be/SDGmDjEifus?si=F3Omf8V4zE1kdj-W
Dear Professors Loury and McWhorter, I mentioned this question in another post, but I will present it formally here. Both of you have opposed reparations in the past for slightly different reasons. Professor Loury does not want a hand-out, while Professor McWhorter feels they’ve already been rendered via various government programs, such as affirmative action and the Community Reinvestment Act. However, in my view, reparations serve two purposes. One is to compensate the formerly injured parties, while the other is to expiate guilt on the part of the oppressors. So, supposing a critical mass of people whose ancestors were oppressors said, “We feel a need to both expiate guilt and formally uphold the moral stance that we repudiate the former behaviour and declare that is not who we are as a society any longer." Would you deprive the guilty of the opportunity to redeem themselves?
who are the oppressors in your question? The government or white people? The problem is government is funded by tax payers that had nothing to do with any past transgressions. And I feel no guilt for something I had nothing to with and don't want my money to pay for past transgressions of someone else. Even if my ancestry was linked directly to the oppressors... I would still fight the sins of the father dichotomy.
Hmmm, you bring up a good point; however, I do think there is value in a society acknowledging past mistakes. This is why sometimes posthumous Medals of Honor or honorable discharges are bestowed upon military veterans who were unfairly discriminated against. They are dead and buried, and the medals are given to their descendants, but I still think it’s important as a society to acknowledge wrongdoing and make it right when we can. Same thing with Japanese Americans who were sent to internment camps during WWII, many of them lost their homes and businesses because of that policy. There is also a monument in Salem for the unfair executions of people suspected of witchcraft due to what were essentially property disputes using dubious “spectral evidence” which was soon thereafter made illegal.
To expand a bit on my question here’s a rough analogy. One time I was driving to a campsite and a friend went with me. She insisted on giving me gas money, even though I told her I didn’t need it or want it because I was driving out there anyway. She insisted on giving me some money, and I insisted it wasn’t necessary. Well as I dropped her, she threw a $20.00 bill through my car window. So I take it she deeply felt she had a moral obligation to give me some gas money even though I insisted it wasn’t necessary. I hope that clarifies the nature of my question a little bit.
What's to prevent the guilty redeeming themselves by giving money to particular institutions and causes - either as individuals or as a formal fundraising group? Why involve Congress, the IRS, and all those many citizens whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery? Why involve people who don't want to take your money even if you feel morally compelled to give it? There are many ways to donate to people who really need it.
Q: What is the smartest way to abolish pediatric-Trans, nationwide?
On the January 6th episode of the Glenn Show entitled "Seismic Sociopolitical Shift," you and John discussed the issue regarding immigrants and culture. At one point John actually used the term "white culture." He subsequently modified it by saying "whatever that is." You then responded by saying "all of this discussion about culture gives me the willies." I'll have to admit. When John said "white culture," it alarmed me. Only two groups of people actively define "white culture" today: White Supremacists and Anti-Racists, both of whom assert the belief that race is not malleable and essential. That stated you and John both ascribe to a belief in "Blackness" and what may be defined as "black culture." Here is a little experiment. If you and John were in a room with say five more individuals of African descent, could you all agree on the same definition of "Blackness" apart from just skin tone? For example, let's say the seven individuals were you, John, Al Sharpton, Charles Barkley, Condoleezza Rice, Raven-Symone, and Iman (the super model). Could you all agree on one definite characteristic of "Blackness" and/or "black culture" apart from simply skin tone as a mark of oppression?
Glenn, You recently said in your solo podcast that you did not think Israel's response reflected "Western Values" and that your affinity for Israel and the Jewish people was what led you to offer your critiques. When pressed on what they believe Israel should have done differently, I many critics of the Israel response say something akin to, "They should have done better." This seems like armchair quarterbacking and does not grapple with the fog of war and potential trade-offs that may be incurred. Can you articulate what a more calibrated response should have looked like and if you see any downside to the Israelis from pursuing that response?
Glenn and John, any thoughts regarding the OpenAI whistleblower who was found dead in his apartment and ruled a suicide under extremely suspicious circumstances? This following similar stories involving not one, but two whistleblowers from Boeing. I have a creeping fear that the mask is slipping from the face of our society and we are just beginning to glimpse the terrible truth that is behind it. Check out this interview Tucker Carlson did with the whistleblower's mother for more information. https://youtu.be/Kev_-HyuI9Y?si=yBbLz3wMZd_-DehP
I will also add that I really appreciate your show and it is a respite from all the partisan noise that I find increasingly unbearable to listen to.
Glenn this is another question for you: your longstanding compelling argument on education policy is that the necessary alternative to affirmation action in university admissions is improving early childhood ed, alongside shifting values and norms (making school a priority even if a community culture discourages it). Roland Fryer's proposal to have the universities practicing aggressive levels of AA fund development of charter schools in areas where public education is weak is often dismissed by certain progressives as not the responsibility of private institutions. Should conservative policymakers do more (or should they have done more in the past) to support public pre-college education? I dont take the Democrats counterargument to be fully convincing, which amounts to "if conservatives funded public ed better, we wouldnt need to have Harvard and Yale underwrite charter schools."