Listen now (67 min) | The 60-year anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom is coming up this summer. That was the site of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, one of the most profound addresses ever delivered on American soil. In 1963, King was fully justified in calling attention to the nation’s failure to live up to the promise of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” where its black citizens were concerned. But now, in 2023, with many of the righteous demands of King and his compatriots in the black freedom struggle met, many black Americans are still languishing, while the present black political leadership (such as it is) denies the very validity of the promises made at the nation’s founding on which King’s aspirations for his people were premised.
You have been on quite a run with recent shows! Many topics and guests that are so very on point for current times. More specifically to this episode: while I have nothing but deep respect for John, in this case I think he is being far too generous with Stacy Abrams and her ilk.
How can one classify as 'brilliant' someone who is clearly willing to sacrifice the truth at the altar of ideology/political expediency? She either knows that to be true and tacitly accepts the inevitable omelets/eggs outcomes, or cannot be all that brilliant?
Conservatives live in a bubble. Blacks voters are politically pragmatic. Tennessee Republicans do everything in their power to silence Black voters in their state. We listen in on Oklahoma Republicans saddened by the fact that they have less rights than Blacks because laws prevent them from openly abusing Blacks. We hear Marjorie Taylor Greene say that she knows whites as lazy as (all) the Blacks she knows. Greene also says Blacks should be proud when they walk past Confederate statues because they are no longer slaves. She sees this as progress. Conservatives as a group do nothing to shut this nonsense down. The rational response of Black voters is to be like Uncle Tom and not like Sambo (as pointed by the commenters below).
Fannie Lou Hamer defied the Mississippi Democratic Party. She did not go along to get along. Winsome Sears, Byron Donald, etc. remain silent as Conservatives push their altered version of history onto Black children. Knowing the true history of the United States is what helped my family thrive. We know what many whites think about Black people and we thrive on knowing we beat them at their own game. Any Black person expecting to aid and empathy from any white Conservative is a fool. Any advice they give will be condescending.
One thing I hadn't known about the 'three name black people': That they attribute their success to 'luck' rather than hard work. Rather than admit they were the 'captain of their own soul'. Going to look into this more.
One problem is white liberals who out of guilt or I don’t know what are big supporters of the BLM view of the world. Another is that the only black voices on tv are those of the likes of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, and until recently, John Lewis. Most people don’t even know of Thomas Sowell and they certainly don’t know of the many moderate voices like yours. In school and college most students are not exposed to a variety of black voices: they get Kendi and Coates and maybe some black writers like Toni Morrison or Alice Walker. Blacks leading successful middle class lives are ignored as your average tv viewer is shown criminals and race hustlers. My kids in their 40s now who have middle class black friends and went all the way through school with them still support BLM. And they live in urban areas where they never hear a dissenting voice from among their peers.
We're so far removed from the Dream speech that it's as if the words were never uttered. Far from elevating character, everything is about color. It's as if no one learned what a bad idea it was to racialize everything the first time that was done. The one-time melting pot has been intentionally Balkanized into a seething cauldron of perpetual grievance where identity serves as the ready made excuse for every time that one's expectations are not met.
This was one of the best episodes of the Glenn show I have ever seen. I have some thoughts on the final question raised by Glenn.
I think there are a couple of significant differences between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas, apart from ideology. Barack Obama is a politician. He is flexible. He is someone who is comfortable (or at least willing) to temper his positions to make them more politically palatable. For instance, Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage until it was safe for his position to “evolve.” He is also an excellent public speaker. Say what you will, but the man can give a speech. He appears to be comfortable living his life in public.
Clarence Thomas on the other hand is a much different, much more private person. I don't know him personally, but I got to speak to him briefly when he gave a speech at my law school. This was in 1997, more than 5 years after his vicious confirmation fight. It was obvious from some of the things he said that he was still angry over it. For instance, during his speech, he said he wasn't allowed to believe the things he believed because of the color of his skin. Up to that point, there had been a tendency for Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to move toward the center over time. For instance, compare the early opinions of Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy with some of their later ones. But listening to Justice Thomas speak, I recall thinking that there was very little chance he would moderate his positions over time. He wouldn't want to give his critics the satisfaction. Justice Thomas has demonstrated that he is unwilling to modify any of his beliefs to be more popular.
One of the fundamental differences between how the public sees President Obama and Justice Thomas is that Thomas generally speaks through his opinions while Obama speaks by speaking. As a recovering lawyer deeply interested in constitutional law, I find it frustrating that the news media, not to mention the public, only seems to care about the outcome of a case as opposed to the reasoning behind that outcome. Add to that the general left-wing bias of the media that results in numerous stories about Justice Thomas' heartless rulings. So most of the public doesn't hear the reasoning behind his rulings. I think that to many people, Justice Thomas is just a Black man that sold his soul to heartless Republicans and doesn't care about other Black people.
There is another difference between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas that might explain some of the differences in how the public sees them. In the early 1990s, P.J. O'Rourke wrote an article titled “100 Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Was A Better President Than Bill Clinton.” One of those reasons was that Jimmy Carter had a much nicer wife. It has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that Barack Obama has a much nicer wife than Justice Thomas. Until the very end of the Trump administration, I would have said that Obama benefited from the high regard the American people have for Michelle, but that Ginni didn't detract from how the public saw Justice Thomas. Well, the public other than racists that objected to his marrying a white woman at least. That is no longer the case. By embracing the stolen election nonsense, Ginni Thomas has made it easier for Democrats to argue that Justice Thomas is all about achieving conservative results rather than following the law and constitution as he understood it. It has also probably made the damage from the allegations that he has had an improper relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow worse than it would otherwise have been. But that story is still in progress. Still, I would advise anyone who has a spouse on a short list for the Supreme Court to NOT pursue a career as a political operative.
As an 81-yr old white American, I am appalled that MLK's "I have a dream" speech has been turned upside down. I watched the televised march on the mall that day in 1963, and still remember the details. Rather than a color-blind society, we now live in a color-dictated society in which individuals are shoe-horned into political niches based on melanin. Progress has been set back decades, often by respected politicians such as the first (half)-black president who should have known better but pandered to the black community for votes by portraying blacks as victims rather than helping them to join the mainstream and make better lives for themselves. He has much to atone for, but certainly never will.
Speaking as an old timer with a long memory: It is significant that none of the above advocates for the exchange of ideas about achieving black progress in America ever mentions the NAACP, even in passing. Not a complaint on my part; in my opinion, it forfeited its advocacy status long ago, when scandals erupted, and Myrlie Evers had to come in and fumigate the place. Since then, from a national perspective, it has become a silent partner in supporting black progress. If they are working on any project(s), it is a well-kept secret. If they are exerting political pressure, it is a well-kept secret.
For a short while, it looked as though former (?) Congressman Kwame what's-his-name, brought in to run things, would elevate its profile and set a new pace. But that didn't happen either. Is it content with the state of black-white relations in America, or is it so hollowed out that it has become a toothless relic; a shadow of its once-mighty self, when Thurgood Marshall set the pace? (Or, perish the thought, have they somehow been co-opted into silence so as not to annoy the political right?)
If they can't find a mission worthy of their effort, most any Republican-dominated state legislature appears to be an easy legal target for gerrymandering and making it harder for non-whites to vote.
These days, it seems fhs NAACP has been superseded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is today's standard-bearer and go-to organization for information and advocacy for racial justice in America. Its founder, Morris Dees, deserves a national award for a lifetime of fighting for racial justice, and usually winning. Yet there is no talk on the grapevine of feting him for his hard work and success for decades. Hopefully he has groomed successors in his organization, because at his age, he is due a rest and accolades galore.
If others have a different assessment of how matters stand, please state your case. The silence on this situation is deafening.
The situation with the Tennessee house was not about race. These 3 clearly had been disruptive for some time and did not follow established rules. What started as something focused on a terrible tragedy here was turned into race by the media and the 2 black individuals. Had republicans done this in a democratic state house, the hue and cry would have been deafening
Next, a great individual who is inspiring people is Winsome Sears of Virginia. First black and woman elected by all Virginians to be Lieutenant Governor of the state. Get her out in the media with her message.
Finally, you can’t simply counter the left with what’s wrong with their message. You need to have the facts as Sowell always says ( and their are plenty of them) and use these as a base for inspirational messages. Not just podcasts, but on other social media such as Instagram. Hire a top rated communications person and develop a strategy and go execute the plan. You 3 are great and so is the show but that is well short of what’s needed here.
John, “what ever worked out for BLM?” A: Every DEI&B mandated corporate training program across the nation. Now, LOOK AT Critical Ethnic Studies. Look at them.
Quick note in response to John's citing Switzerland as an exception to the otherwise universal history of violence: Swiss mercenaries did plenty of fighting in other peoples' wars, so even among the Swiss there was an outlet for bloodlust.
Great show, as always, though it did seem like Glenn wanted the conversation to go a particular way, and wasn't going to be stopped in that effort. Either that, or he was just playfully baiting John and Ian. It was making me laugh out loud, either way.
I had the chance to meet Ian in person. Seems like a great person that really wants to make a positive change through calm, rationale, logical and positive behavior.... No wonder why the mainstream media doesn't give him the time of day!
To continue the discussion of homelessness in California (12:57), I recommend inviting Jerusalem Demsas to the panel.
You have been on quite a run with recent shows! Many topics and guests that are so very on point for current times. More specifically to this episode: while I have nothing but deep respect for John, in this case I think he is being far too generous with Stacy Abrams and her ilk.
How can one classify as 'brilliant' someone who is clearly willing to sacrifice the truth at the altar of ideology/political expediency? She either knows that to be true and tacitly accepts the inevitable omelets/eggs outcomes, or cannot be all that brilliant?
Conservatives live in a bubble. Blacks voters are politically pragmatic. Tennessee Republicans do everything in their power to silence Black voters in their state. We listen in on Oklahoma Republicans saddened by the fact that they have less rights than Blacks because laws prevent them from openly abusing Blacks. We hear Marjorie Taylor Greene say that she knows whites as lazy as (all) the Blacks she knows. Greene also says Blacks should be proud when they walk past Confederate statues because they are no longer slaves. She sees this as progress. Conservatives as a group do nothing to shut this nonsense down. The rational response of Black voters is to be like Uncle Tom and not like Sambo (as pointed by the commenters below).
Fannie Lou Hamer defied the Mississippi Democratic Party. She did not go along to get along. Winsome Sears, Byron Donald, etc. remain silent as Conservatives push their altered version of history onto Black children. Knowing the true history of the United States is what helped my family thrive. We know what many whites think about Black people and we thrive on knowing we beat them at their own game. Any Black person expecting to aid and empathy from any white Conservative is a fool. Any advice they give will be condescending.
One thing I hadn't known about the 'three name black people': That they attribute their success to 'luck' rather than hard work. Rather than admit they were the 'captain of their own soul'. Going to look into this more.
One problem is white liberals who out of guilt or I don’t know what are big supporters of the BLM view of the world. Another is that the only black voices on tv are those of the likes of Al Sharpton, Van Jones, and until recently, John Lewis. Most people don’t even know of Thomas Sowell and they certainly don’t know of the many moderate voices like yours. In school and college most students are not exposed to a variety of black voices: they get Kendi and Coates and maybe some black writers like Toni Morrison or Alice Walker. Blacks leading successful middle class lives are ignored as your average tv viewer is shown criminals and race hustlers. My kids in their 40s now who have middle class black friends and went all the way through school with them still support BLM. And they live in urban areas where they never hear a dissenting voice from among their peers.
It is discouraging.
We're so far removed from the Dream speech that it's as if the words were never uttered. Far from elevating character, everything is about color. It's as if no one learned what a bad idea it was to racialize everything the first time that was done. The one-time melting pot has been intentionally Balkanized into a seething cauldron of perpetual grievance where identity serves as the ready made excuse for every time that one's expectations are not met.
This was one of the best episodes of the Glenn show I have ever seen. I have some thoughts on the final question raised by Glenn.
I think there are a couple of significant differences between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas, apart from ideology. Barack Obama is a politician. He is flexible. He is someone who is comfortable (or at least willing) to temper his positions to make them more politically palatable. For instance, Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage until it was safe for his position to “evolve.” He is also an excellent public speaker. Say what you will, but the man can give a speech. He appears to be comfortable living his life in public.
Clarence Thomas on the other hand is a much different, much more private person. I don't know him personally, but I got to speak to him briefly when he gave a speech at my law school. This was in 1997, more than 5 years after his vicious confirmation fight. It was obvious from some of the things he said that he was still angry over it. For instance, during his speech, he said he wasn't allowed to believe the things he believed because of the color of his skin. Up to that point, there had been a tendency for Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to move toward the center over time. For instance, compare the early opinions of Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy with some of their later ones. But listening to Justice Thomas speak, I recall thinking that there was very little chance he would moderate his positions over time. He wouldn't want to give his critics the satisfaction. Justice Thomas has demonstrated that he is unwilling to modify any of his beliefs to be more popular.
One of the fundamental differences between how the public sees President Obama and Justice Thomas is that Thomas generally speaks through his opinions while Obama speaks by speaking. As a recovering lawyer deeply interested in constitutional law, I find it frustrating that the news media, not to mention the public, only seems to care about the outcome of a case as opposed to the reasoning behind that outcome. Add to that the general left-wing bias of the media that results in numerous stories about Justice Thomas' heartless rulings. So most of the public doesn't hear the reasoning behind his rulings. I think that to many people, Justice Thomas is just a Black man that sold his soul to heartless Republicans and doesn't care about other Black people.
There is another difference between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas that might explain some of the differences in how the public sees them. In the early 1990s, P.J. O'Rourke wrote an article titled “100 Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Was A Better President Than Bill Clinton.” One of those reasons was that Jimmy Carter had a much nicer wife. It has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that Barack Obama has a much nicer wife than Justice Thomas. Until the very end of the Trump administration, I would have said that Obama benefited from the high regard the American people have for Michelle, but that Ginni didn't detract from how the public saw Justice Thomas. Well, the public other than racists that objected to his marrying a white woman at least. That is no longer the case. By embracing the stolen election nonsense, Ginni Thomas has made it easier for Democrats to argue that Justice Thomas is all about achieving conservative results rather than following the law and constitution as he understood it. It has also probably made the damage from the allegations that he has had an improper relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow worse than it would otherwise have been. But that story is still in progress. Still, I would advise anyone who has a spouse on a short list for the Supreme Court to NOT pursue a career as a political operative.
As an 81-yr old white American, I am appalled that MLK's "I have a dream" speech has been turned upside down. I watched the televised march on the mall that day in 1963, and still remember the details. Rather than a color-blind society, we now live in a color-dictated society in which individuals are shoe-horned into political niches based on melanin. Progress has been set back decades, often by respected politicians such as the first (half)-black president who should have known better but pandered to the black community for votes by portraying blacks as victims rather than helping them to join the mainstream and make better lives for themselves. He has much to atone for, but certainly never will.
Speaking as an old timer with a long memory: It is significant that none of the above advocates for the exchange of ideas about achieving black progress in America ever mentions the NAACP, even in passing. Not a complaint on my part; in my opinion, it forfeited its advocacy status long ago, when scandals erupted, and Myrlie Evers had to come in and fumigate the place. Since then, from a national perspective, it has become a silent partner in supporting black progress. If they are working on any project(s), it is a well-kept secret. If they are exerting political pressure, it is a well-kept secret.
For a short while, it looked as though former (?) Congressman Kwame what's-his-name, brought in to run things, would elevate its profile and set a new pace. But that didn't happen either. Is it content with the state of black-white relations in America, or is it so hollowed out that it has become a toothless relic; a shadow of its once-mighty self, when Thurgood Marshall set the pace? (Or, perish the thought, have they somehow been co-opted into silence so as not to annoy the political right?)
If they can't find a mission worthy of their effort, most any Republican-dominated state legislature appears to be an easy legal target for gerrymandering and making it harder for non-whites to vote.
These days, it seems fhs NAACP has been superseded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is today's standard-bearer and go-to organization for information and advocacy for racial justice in America. Its founder, Morris Dees, deserves a national award for a lifetime of fighting for racial justice, and usually winning. Yet there is no talk on the grapevine of feting him for his hard work and success for decades. Hopefully he has groomed successors in his organization, because at his age, he is due a rest and accolades galore.
If others have a different assessment of how matters stand, please state your case. The silence on this situation is deafening.
What does the title even mean? N speaks o one for white, Asian, Taco or Curry America. So why would anyone speak for black America?
Double Standards much?
Fantastic, all around! Thank you.
By the way, I was beyond stunned that Chicagoans voted to go from bad to worse by electing Brandon Johnson as mayor. Black victimhood runs d-e-e-p.
Booker T. Washington was correct. Thank you Ian for reading one of my favorite quotes.
Couple of additional comments…
The situation with the Tennessee house was not about race. These 3 clearly had been disruptive for some time and did not follow established rules. What started as something focused on a terrible tragedy here was turned into race by the media and the 2 black individuals. Had republicans done this in a democratic state house, the hue and cry would have been deafening
Next, a great individual who is inspiring people is Winsome Sears of Virginia. First black and woman elected by all Virginians to be Lieutenant Governor of the state. Get her out in the media with her message.
Finally, you can’t simply counter the left with what’s wrong with their message. You need to have the facts as Sowell always says ( and their are plenty of them) and use these as a base for inspirational messages. Not just podcasts, but on other social media such as Instagram. Hire a top rated communications person and develop a strategy and go execute the plan. You 3 are great and so is the show but that is well short of what’s needed here.
John, “what ever worked out for BLM?” A: Every DEI&B mandated corporate training program across the nation. Now, LOOK AT Critical Ethnic Studies. Look at them.
Quick note in response to John's citing Switzerland as an exception to the otherwise universal history of violence: Swiss mercenaries did plenty of fighting in other peoples' wars, so even among the Swiss there was an outlet for bloodlust.
Great show, as always, though it did seem like Glenn wanted the conversation to go a particular way, and wasn't going to be stopped in that effort. Either that, or he was just playfully baiting John and Ian. It was making me laugh out loud, either way.
I had the chance to meet Ian in person. Seems like a great person that really wants to make a positive change through calm, rationale, logical and positive behavior.... No wonder why the mainstream media doesn't give him the time of day!