38 Comments

John,

I do worry that The NY Times may get in your head too much, so I’m glad you two addressed this. I’ve not been surprised to find I’m not alone in my concern. My worry is it may constrain you too often, have you second guessing yourself and throwing in counterpoint unnecessarily, to where it does impede your flow (and prolong or divert the journey for some to the point you’re really making or prioritizing).

This issue is not limited to your writing for the Times, but the Times brings it to the fore. And I don’t mean being being legitimately unsure of something, like your unsureness about systemic racism, which is an expressed need to delve deeper, question different angles & learn more. Or just weighing or describing different views. All good. But sometimes — and you have gone here so intrepidly & so beautifully — the truth of what we think (I don’t want to say ‘The Truth’) is hard, but hard like a diamond, and to soften and dilute it is to degrade its clarity, and thus its value.

Question: Is it better to convey something clearly and maybe get 5 people to get it, perhaps with discomfort (but so what?) or to mitigate that clarity (that diamond) so that you get the approval of 50 comfortable people?

I’m sure you want to grow the number of people who you can hook into opening up to greater questioning, challenging & understanding by way of undoing the yoke of woke. I imagine this entails a bargaining process in your head of how deep and wide you should go, how much or little to say in order to turn certain people on rather than off, not excluding your peers & bosses. Well, that IS a challenge.

As I’ve listened to you in phases over time (mostly lots of Glenn Show over the past few years) you’ve done an outstanding job of succeeding quite often in going where others dare not, mining those diamonds (Glenn too!) in a very elegant but forthright manner. Water to parched land. Despite this, despite what you’ve said that so many of us have appreciated, it’s ok to change your mind about x or y - I just hope you do it for the right reasons, ie, keep on keeping it real!

Peace out.

Expand full comment

Great talk, guys. Glenn, you went deep. You share the rawness. I saw here where someone said you had to go that screwed up way to get where you are, but as one who has misused my own brain, taken dumb, damaging paths, I recognize, and it should be said, that with such honest self reckoning comes the pain of realizing not just the harm & pain you’ve caused yourself, but also the hurt you’ve done to others while on that path. And that reckoning, at least seriously grappling with it, is loudly implicit in what you say. Therein lies heart. Such honesty is not easy but the bonus is huge. It’s freeing. To be better. I don’t think you can get there without it. What you shared is of great value to us.

Expand full comment

I honestly thought I was the only black person on planet Earth that had an interest in teaching myself to speak Russian. Thank you, Professor McWhorter for enabling me in my "oddball Blackness." :)

(I appreciate the more grand topics you and Prof. Loury talk about, but I also really really love literature and languages, so thank you!)

Expand full comment

Great episode, as it often is. I'm extremely excited to hear that John and Glenn will be tackling "systemic racism" in depth. I tend to agree with Glenn that (nowadays) it is a term used to push an agenda using smoke screens, but I think I does deserve in-depth treatment as it has a lot to flush out.

On one hand, there are certainly examples of policies that have adversely effected the black community; on the other hand these policies often lack INTENTIONAL RACIST animosity (ex. out come of different treatment for crack cocaine backed by the CBC). Still, there is often some truth in the claims such as certain people from the Nixon administration on record as saying some people intended drug enforcement policies to target black people (maybe a good opportunity to discuss the scope of systemic racism).

To name a different example where the impact comes from something that was historically racist, but it would be hard to claim the impact was intentional as far as what the long-term consequences would be. I mean by this police would often not respond to calls in black neighborhoods and as a result of that it became part of black ghetto culture to take justice into one's own hands and not rely on the police. This was born from racism, but the down the road consequences were not born of intent for racial animosity.

Personally, I think the best strategy to address this issue (claim of systemic racism) is to:

a.) Differentiate between what policies were/are harmful to the black community, and what relationship said policies have to INTENDED RACIAL MALICE.

b.) Take on talking points of what the source of said systemic racism come from. For example:

- Founding documentation of the country and the intent of those who composed it.

- Drug laws.

- The "Southern strategy."

- Studies on blacks being treated differently than whites regarding job interviews, etc.

The background coverage of these topics is immense, but so is the necessity to address them in an in-depth and scholarly fashion. I'm looking forward gentleman, if I may suggest this topic deserves numerous podcasts and can maybe be done in segments. Looking forward!

- Michoel Stern

Expand full comment
founding

This episode addresses the background question of all Glenn shows: what could motivate two of the more successful academics in their fields to stand up and be counted against a woke academic consensus when the social cost is so high? Academia is an insular collegial place; if you don't enjoy being in the elite in-group, you don't join academia. Why risk being ostracized from one's peer group and lumped in with Joe Rogan?

I've heard Glenn and John go between 3 answers so far: First is concern that woke orthodoxy may contribute to sidelining research and policies that could benefit the long-term social conditions of the groups concerned, thus causing real world harm - the body counts, the loss of human potential, and the moral imperative to do what we can to prevent it. Second might be the horror at the sight of respected brilliant colleagues joining a bandwagon and wanting to save these friends from inner humiliation while also retaining one's own core belief that PhDs are better at thinking deeply, speaking clearly, and exercising intellectual honesty and courage. Again, if you don't believe this is the case, you don't get a PhD and spend your career in academia.

By far the most compelling answer is Glenn's long night of the soul quest for authenticity. Whether you agree with Glenn or not, it's not mild work to turn your back on your tribe, your friends, so that you can look at yourself in the mirror with a clean conscience. The reference to existentialism is apt - I hope Glenn explores these themes deeply in his book and continues being vulnerable so we can see him not merely as an outspoken giant of black intellectual life, but as a flawed historically brilliant human being with whom anyone in search of truth can identify. I am curious what put him on this very path for following truth at nearly any cost. I also sincerely hope Nikita slips Glenn some mushrooms the next time they hang out.

Thanks for what you do guys.

Expand full comment

Glenn and John, thank you for this episode. I found you both on YouTube last year and became an instant admirer. Your last two conversations have been some of the best Ive ever head. Long past time, but I subscribed to put monetary support behind the podcasts. The discussion about Glenn’s memoir was poignant. Evaluating one’s motivations is a key aspect of living a good life and it is a never ending struggle. I love the Glenn and John conversations because I do think you both say what you think. Thank you for that.

Expand full comment

I have a question for Glenn.

Was the essay you published in January of 2021 "Whose Fourth of July? Blacks and the 'American Project'"for "1776 Unites" part of the assigned reading for Simone's class?

https://1776unites.com/essays/whose-fourth-of-july-blacks-and-the-american-project/

Expand full comment

I love your quest to distinguish between “the cover story and the real story.” Any person (and obviously those in the public) must grapple with questions of presented persona. Any honest and integrous person must question one’s motivations about what is presented and attempt to look for deeper truths. But don’t you think that whatever story any of us comes up with about our lives is always a cover story? How can we possibly tell the “real” story when we are no longer even the person we are narrating about? Our stories are always constructed from the raw material of reality and can be told from many angles. Haven’t you ever had a conversation with someone about something that happened in your lives 20 years ago and found that you have very different memories about the incident? Maybe something that changed her life, but you don’t even remember? We filter out the pieces of our self-constructed story that no longer fit.

Even attempting to tell a story about our present selves is a matter of selection, focus, details. We are in constant flux. Like the Buddhists and mystics from many traditions, I believe that the self is an illusion. And yet, it is an illusion that we must still come to terms with.

As a Glenn fan who will certainly buy your book (no matter what you call it!) what is compelling and important to me about your process is the piece about striving to live in good faith. That is why I follow you—not because I agree with everything you say, not because I want a new tribe to join. But because you strive to be a free thinker, to tell the truth about yourself and about the world as best you can, and because of how beautifully you spin those truths into intellectual art. Consider having your book title reflect this. Something like: The Enemy Within: My Quest to Live in Good Faith.

Expand full comment

Does Professor Sugrue also complain when NHJ or IXK step out of their academic lane?

Expand full comment
Oct 13, 2021Liked by Glenn Loury

Outstanding episode! I really appreciate that (and how) you both share your personal and intellectual struggles, and thereby demonstrate the complexities and challenges of being a human being in search of the truth. That is hard enough to do without a public profile; holding yourselves accountable in the public eye must be that much more difficult. Our country and the world would be a much better place if more of us stepped up to the challenge with the personal integrity and intellectual rigor that you do.

Listening to both of you has opened my aperture, deepened my understanding, and as a result made me think and reconsider my views. Thank you so much.

I’m really looking forward to the next episode in two weeks.

Expand full comment
founding

You guys should ask Simone to appear with you on the podcast

Expand full comment

Glenn’s painfully honest acknowledgements brought to mind the great physicist Richard Feynman, who said: “The most important thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” In the struggle to live in good faith—or to avoid bad faith, which is the same thing—one may ask “Am I being honest with myself?” But that’s a question one can always ask one more time. Unfortunately, the most accurate answer seems usually to be the retrospective. And yet, we endure.

I am looking forward to reading Glenn’s memoir, but I hope he will reconsider the new title, “The Enemy Within,” which I fear may be too easily lampooned by hostile reviewers, if that's a consideration.

Finally, I wonder about Glenn’s undertaking to articulate strategies for eliminating “structural racism”--whether it's worth the effort when the concept itself is so amorphous. It seems to function as a conclusory term applied to sets of economic and sociological metrics reflecting various disparities among races, not all of which have been shown to have an empirical basis in de jure or de facto discrimination. The use of such a nebulous term in fact seems deliberate—an epistemic trap: as disparities are inevitable, proponents of “structural racism” may ever be able to invoke it on the basis of continually revised standards. Isn't that the reason The People With Three Names never identify concrete, practical goals?

Expand full comment
founding

Glenn has repeatedly referred to “my people”, which I assume means black people/black culture. Yet, also repeatedly over many episodes, Glenn has strenuously argued against defining individuals on the basis of skin color or any other criteria of identity-essentialism. Isn’t there a contradiction here? Or, does history and the structure of society compel you into this category of “Blackness”?

If you discuss “systemic racism” next time, it should be done assuming that in theory systemic racism could exist even if all racists died out, because racism was “built into the system” by racists long dead. That is, racists built a racist house, and even after the builders died, the racism they built into the house endures, and the new owners of the house would have to gut it in a radical remodel, like tearing out old wiring and rusty plumbing . So, please identify exactly a) what systems and subsystems would have to be changed and b) how they should be changed. Should such reforms be targeted, e.g., reparations, toward previously disadvantaged groups? Wouldn’t such targeting establish itself as a new systemic racism? IMO if systemic racism exists, the reforms designed to destroy it MUST be “color blind” to avoid this problem.

Expand full comment

Glenn & John, when you consider systemic racism I suggest a lense with which to consider the dilemma.

Western Civilization's structures were formed and built by a european/white cognitive elite. Can we be surprised in the modern world when the outcomes of Western society's structures and systems more highly reward the cognitive elite while also discounting the contributions of those for whom the structures were *not* built?

The racial super-majority at Western Civilization's founding has been unable to maintain the structures they created *for their own good* as their majority fades. This is also unsurprising.

These structures must and will be replaced without doubt. The level at which society's renovation occurs is currently undetermined although recent events suggest that since history cannot be forgiven, it must be erased.

We cannot "start over" and build a more just world that primarily serves only those who have been historically oppressed by Western civilization. If we do, we risk the revolt of the next group of under represented and under appreciated who will certainly find themselves restricted by the institutions and structures which *weren't* created in their best interest -- repeating the history we're currently writing, enduring.

Expand full comment
founding
Oct 12, 2021Liked by Glenn Loury, Nikita Petrov

Thrilled to hear a reference to Godel's incompleteness theorem in a political podcast.

Expand full comment

Glenn, I was so moved by what you said about good faith. It's one of the things I have always appreciated about you. You a seeker of truth, and as difficult as it sometimes is today in the world of intellectual discourse, it is even more difficult when it comes to telling the truth about our own lives. I also found myself laughing a little bit because I too have had moments, most recently in the course of writing my book about Parenting (as a social phenomenon not a how-to) when I found myself writing things that would place me at odds with the conventional thinking and realized that I would take a great deal of flack from my comrades on the left. I'd wake up in the middle of the night literally sweating over it.

But I have to laugh not because I can't get any one to read the damn thing or take the family seriously! I was a little presumptuous in thinking anyone would care, but maybe I was a little afraid of the flack I'd take.

What I'm saying is that these are hard lessons but if we aren't honest about them, we can't really learn from them. I am so looking forward to reading your memoir. You inspire me, and you and John almost always make me laugh out loud, which sounds like a little thing but isn't at all.

Expand full comment