One of the main reasons I think a lot of people voted for Trump and the Republicans overall is that, for the first time I can remember, the Republican party has become a solidarity party, a unity party, in that people like Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk and RFK Jr -- lifelong Democrats til now -- have joined with Trump and become Republicans. This says something serious about the Democratic party; as RFK Jr said, knowing that Liz and Dick Cheney are voting Democrat now tells you everything you need to know.
John’s interviews with Richard Dawkins sounds like an incredible experience and must be a great honor for him. I really enjoyed John’s reflection on Dawkins and his interview.
I wish that John would ask Glenn whether he still stands by his statement after January 6th that "I was wrong about Trump" and that John was right. If not, what made him change his mind?
It’s disappointing that Professor McWhorter fails to see that there are any number or reasons, despite Trump, that one would vote for him, not the least of which is the DNC’s overpowering Identitarian ideology, one does not need to be a “Political junky” to see that this ideology comes right out of Rules for Radicals, and most typically ends up sadly in body bags. Or endless soft-on-crime initiatives that, while they may map out well on whiteboards and power points, ignore nearly every bit of reality-based Psychology, and Social Economics one can sink their teeth into, those that has stood the test of time (notwithstanding much of what’s come out and should be questioned in more recent times). I could go on there are many. Nor should he miss the fact that if he was to take a moment and ask any AI for a summary of JFK policies that would be deemed right of center in today’s world as would the “Party of JFK”, let alone Bill Clinton, those days are gone, politically the comedian is more aligned with these, than what we have seen over the last 4 years, and in the prior similar administration. I get where his blinders come in Trump Disgusts him, its clear on his face and I accept that as a reasonable reaction, HOWEVER in spite of the look on his face when speaking of the man being that of "did the dog just fart in here?" it would be beneficial maybe if he traveled the 8.8 miles across Manhattan and had some deep conversations with Haidt about how one might transcend initial triggering of disgust to understand the broader political landscape before you seek any clarity. While you are there Haidt's work on moral foundations theory could provide a framework for why different groups support Trump, beyond the surface-level politics. Sadly, your actually reductive caricature of MAGA as little 14-year-old boy wearing axe fantasy is oddly specific that immediately made me wonder just how much resentment that you have for a hypothetical moment in life where that caricature may have picked on a smug elitest 14-year-old a bit smart beyond his years, with a stated distain for many things that seem so popular among the 14 year old crowd, its a form of projection that did not wear well in this discussion. I am generally a fan of McWhorter, its a good part of why I thought to buy a subscription.
To see him debase himself in this way with a total lack of introspection, while at once also reducing the electorate to their lowest, least complex form and insisting upon that caricature, feels beneath him.
john, i know you don't read these, but i would have appreciated hearing that you had asked dawkins about the evolutionary basis for race consciousness, i.e. racialism or even racism. I know he has spoken to the notion that Race is real from an evolutionary perspective but I'm speaking about race consciousness in building communities. So I'm speaking more to Dunbar's number and whether there is a evolutionary habit that tends to use racial features for community recognition when tribes began to exceed that limit.
evolution seems to scare the trust science people these daze way more than its rejection in the scopes trial era did. they are taking us back to a neo-biblical day where creation is deus ex machina, ex nihilo as completely imprintable neoliberal beings because admitting that humans are of two sexes and that they evolved in tribes that might be identified by what these days we would think of as racial characteristics.
aside from his manner of expression, dawkins is a dean of the evolutionary pyschology neoliberals revile. I'm not looking for excuses, i'm looking for realism. If you can't accept the basis of the problem you can never solve it, inter alia, those who reject these instincts to grow community do so consciously and deserve more credit than we give them.
Coleman went to some of this but not, at least in this clip, to the tribabl solidarity habit:
The discussion with Professor McWhorter regarding the recent election left me wondering what sorts of issues would, in Professor Loury's opinion, disqualify a candidate for the office of President of the United States, an office held by men such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, an office with the power to effect the future of not only the United States but of the entire population of the world.
If a candidate, who was running for reelection to this office, were to refuse to accept the results of a free and fair election and maintain that the election was rigged and stolen, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would that be a problem for Professor Loury? Apparently not.
Would a person be disqualified, in Professor Loury's opinion, for consideration to be president if that person continued, over a period of years, to lie about the result of the aforementioned election, and to encourage his supporters to refuse to accept that result? Apparently not.
Would a person who, on learning the unfavorable result of an election, encourages a mob of his supporters, to stop the process of the smooth transfer of power, and then watches as this mob breaks through security barriers and invades the Capital, injuring police and desecrating the congressional chambers, does nothing for hours to stop his supporters, and seems pleased with this activity, be disqualified from consideration for the office of president? I feel Abraham Lincoln might think so, but not professor Loury. In fact, professor Lowery is “excited” that such a person has been elected president.
The president is responsible for enforcing the laws and upholding the constitution of the United States. Should a person be disqualified from consideration to this office who has been convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by a court of law in a jury trial, and who has been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and fined some 88 million dollars? Not in Professor Loury's opinion. Would allegations of rape, found by a judge to be “substantially true” be a concern? Apparently not.
Would the fact that many senior members of the administration of a former president who worked with him for months, and knew him best, who refuse to endorse that person for a second term, with several going so far as to call that person “unfit to be president” and “a threat to democracy”, with this level of opposition being described as “highly unusual and without historical precedent” be a disqualifying issue for Professor Loury? No problems here.
Would a candidate who has lied about nearly every subject he has ever discussed, and is clearly a moral abomination, who loves to “grab’em by the pussy” and who has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law, be disqualified from consideration for the highest office in the nation? Not in the opinion of Professor Loury. In fact, he is “excited” to see such a man elected, as is half the population of the United States.
Frequently America has been represented on the world stage by persons of high moral character, persons who exemplified virtues of honesty, empathy, and personal integrity. No longer. Now we are represented by an egotist who lies, cheats, steals, and sees nothing wrong with any of these actions, and is a man who does not believe in the constitutional ideals of the American project. And his supporters are “excited” by this state of affairs, as is Professor Loury.
Apparently, the character of the American people has drastically changed in the 80 years that I have been on the planet, character once defined by “the greatest generation”, and now represented by the “orange buffoon”. The whole thing is enough to make a thoughtful person who loves America very very discouraged.
You are probably here because you think some of what Glenn says makes sense. I am decidedly not in the camp that believes our favored public intellectuals walk on water or can say no wrong. Albeit, I think, as does Glenn, that the effort to describe trump's history as disqualifying has to be taken in the context of the years of the resistance and Mueller efforts and impeachments that have been rejected and at least the rhetorical leadership on the country's direction that emerges victorious.
I suspect that unflattering lists were made of the sins of Andrew Jackson who also had a presidential election stolen from him fair and square. Yet he ran again and was elected to stand up to the coastal elites of his day and his vision all but defines the American nation we have come to know–even if his legacy can be fairly challenged on moral grounds. I'm not at all sure I would want to rerun American history without him and that is what Glenn is suggesting we may feel in 50 years regarding trump.
Excellent episode. John stating that he honestly doesn't think that the Democrats did anything wrong (5:18) aside from MAYBE Biden dropping out earlier, MAYBE not anointing a candidate instead of letting voters choose through the primary process is a perfect example of either true denial or absolute disconnect from reality. Stunning, but no longer surprising from those tenured in a life of comfort, wealth and privilege.
I'm ambivalent in my recollection and interpretation of that segment, but I felt this was kind more a tacit admission that they didn't do much wrong given the corner they had painted themselves in, e.g. Biden choosing a vice president to satisfy a checkbox, tacking hard left as if he had a mandate to do so in a close election which was stolen fair and square with the use of ultra-vires rules countenanced as covid necessities (or at least it wasn't crazy to think that), spending like a loon (which trump will too in different ways and it could bite him) and having surrogates tell those dismayed by related inflation that they were hallucinating, and empowering a censorship regime that accentuated the condescension of elites. john has copped to at least some of that list along the way. And i imagine you mean "tenured" figuratively since he is not. I like John, and in his defense, show me another person who would have sat through that tirade–that I also loved–instead of moving to europe, or another podcast :-).
Yes, I definitely meant tenured in the figurative sense of the word. I appreciate your points on the perspective that the campaign was run as well as can be expected given the constraints the DNC forced upon a selected candidate and her would be voters. You also make a good point regarding John weathering the tirade. I imagine that has a lot to do with the mutual respect he and Glenn have for each other but a lesser man would certainly not have had the fortitude to listen to it without storming off, as you say to Europe or a friendlier podcast. Cheers!
John, your work via woke racism is what illuminated people as to what they could feel, but not articulate, that is wrong with woke ism. The economy, immigration, crime, all these things are the stereotypical issues that give to regime change in Washington. The insidiousness of woke ideology, and its political arm, are what made people so aghast and in revolt to the Democrat Party.
Glenn, and many of you, clearly voted to poke the government in the eye, burn it down, or some other destructive metaphor. The government is multiple huge institutions that deeply impact our lives, being poorly run means that they are ineffective and inefficient. It makes no sense to say semi-destruction will somehow make them better. The only conceivable way that makes sense is if 1) after the destruction someone competent rebuilds or 2) you have no idea how the government actually works.
It is as though we are mad that the CDC made mistakes during COVID, so the answer is eliminate the CDC. It ignores the fact that our COVID response was completely different everywhere, entirely because the state and local governments were not constrained but instead guided by the CDC. The instinct seems to be that if the CDC gave *no* guidance the local governments would have somehow made better rules? That doesn’t make sense to me. Besides, lest we all forget, it was Trump in charge when COVID started and made the early divisions that created much of the chaos we struggled with for the pandemic. Mandates, mostly under Biden, didn't go over well — but those were for the most part local choices (exception for airlines and other things regulated federally. )
good points although i don't think it is quite as stark as you make it. putting jay battacharya at NIH and RFKJ overarching at HHS is not the same as eliminating them. it surely means eliminating some of the dogma associated with those agencies. Bari Weiss had a great interview with Peter Theil following the election in which he posited the need to balance skepticism and dogma where the biden adminiatration as operated completely on dogma. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2XuTpRZ7tg2o4V9A4xCtl8?si=dZtNsSeYSNy84G1Ugg1-ww
You got a bull in the china shop, some mistakes will be made but there are some decent people trying to craft effective administration vs. just blow up the ineffective.
Agree trump was in charge at outset of covid and some of the players were already in place, but trump was more open to skepticism to temper the dogma they advocated. this is where biden went off the rails, or perhaps stuck to them too closely. Think of Trump's willingness to associate himself with the vaccine early on but now appointing those who doubt its continuing worth except in highly targeted circumstances.
DOEducation, that's a little different. I would support eliminating it, not sure will happen as he'll need legislative buy-in. maybe you could zero the budget using a continuing resolution and grants or educational support that are rational to continue can be budgeted into other departments who might covet them if there is an effort to reverse.
I'm not convinced it will all work out, but I think it is so superior to the alternative that I'm willing to ride the roller coaster.
Well, we all will be riding that roller coaster. My concern is that people don’t really know about what the government actually does. I have some insight into how the more technical agencies work, but I don’t know about Education. I recently looked it up though, because I have been working in a local public school and was curious… something like half of the department’s funding goes to helping kids afford college. I can’t see that going away. Instead, it would just get moved to a different department. The rest is stuff like giving schools extra resources for teaching kids with learning disabilities and high levels of poverty. I know in my county, there would have to be a big increase in property taxes to cover that (already 50% of my property taxes go to fund the schools, and we spend some of the lowest per pupil funding in the state). What, since you mentioned it, do you suppose the impact of eliminating the Education Department would be? What advantage would that provide?
I love John McWhorter with all of my heart, but he is a fantasist on the issue of Trump.
I remember John recounting how he never participated in sports growing up. Perhaps he was deeply uncomfortable with masculine norms back then, and this memory persists subconsciously in his mind. So he may be constitutionally “allergic” to men like Trump. But he is, oddly enough, part of a socioeconomic stratum that is simply unaffected by anyone who is in the White House, left or right. And for him to state that Trump’s potential failure may result in the folks who voted for Trump (and a break with the status quo) “learning a lesson of some sort” is simply repugnant.
His completely unhinged disdain for Trump, especially the name calling, combined with his championing of the Biden-Harris administration constitutes a clear example of luxury beliefs and the pursuit of high status positions because he truly believes he is better than the average American, and wants to signal to his fellow travelers that he “gets it”. It is almost comically middle-school in nature. He simply has no initial or abiding connection to the working class, contra Glenn.
What is truly odd is that he is mirroring the bad behavior of those he labeled “the elect” in his book Woke Racism, but he is too mired in his own superiority to even understand this.
I think it finally comes down to the fact that John votes for personalities, and their personal discourse and relative level of decorum and assumes everyone else does the same. John wants someone in office that sounds like him and conducts themselves like he would. So much surface thinking. Glenn seems to understand that many voted for Trump as a means of punishing a party, and elites in general, for the current cultural malaise among other things. John is one of those elites, he relishes that status, and is, I believe, deeply offended that “our emperors” have been proved to have no clothes.
There is definitely a subset of woke-hating elite that also seem to despise the schoolyard bully types in Trump. John, Richard Hanania, Sam Harris. A famous speech from the movie Team America comes to mind if you're familiar with it.
One of the main reasons I think a lot of people voted for Trump and the Republicans overall is that, for the first time I can remember, the Republican party has become a solidarity party, a unity party, in that people like Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk and RFK Jr -- lifelong Democrats til now -- have joined with Trump and become Republicans. This says something serious about the Democratic party; as RFK Jr said, knowing that Liz and Dick Cheney are voting Democrat now tells you everything you need to know.
John’s interviews with Richard Dawkins sounds like an incredible experience and must be a great honor for him. I really enjoyed John’s reflection on Dawkins and his interview.
I wish that John would ask Glenn whether he still stands by his statement after January 6th that "I was wrong about Trump" and that John was right. If not, what made him change his mind?
It’s disappointing that Professor McWhorter fails to see that there are any number or reasons, despite Trump, that one would vote for him, not the least of which is the DNC’s overpowering Identitarian ideology, one does not need to be a “Political junky” to see that this ideology comes right out of Rules for Radicals, and most typically ends up sadly in body bags. Or endless soft-on-crime initiatives that, while they may map out well on whiteboards and power points, ignore nearly every bit of reality-based Psychology, and Social Economics one can sink their teeth into, those that has stood the test of time (notwithstanding much of what’s come out and should be questioned in more recent times). I could go on there are many. Nor should he miss the fact that if he was to take a moment and ask any AI for a summary of JFK policies that would be deemed right of center in today’s world as would the “Party of JFK”, let alone Bill Clinton, those days are gone, politically the comedian is more aligned with these, than what we have seen over the last 4 years, and in the prior similar administration. I get where his blinders come in Trump Disgusts him, its clear on his face and I accept that as a reasonable reaction, HOWEVER in spite of the look on his face when speaking of the man being that of "did the dog just fart in here?" it would be beneficial maybe if he traveled the 8.8 miles across Manhattan and had some deep conversations with Haidt about how one might transcend initial triggering of disgust to understand the broader political landscape before you seek any clarity. While you are there Haidt's work on moral foundations theory could provide a framework for why different groups support Trump, beyond the surface-level politics. Sadly, your actually reductive caricature of MAGA as little 14-year-old boy wearing axe fantasy is oddly specific that immediately made me wonder just how much resentment that you have for a hypothetical moment in life where that caricature may have picked on a smug elitest 14-year-old a bit smart beyond his years, with a stated distain for many things that seem so popular among the 14 year old crowd, its a form of projection that did not wear well in this discussion. I am generally a fan of McWhorter, its a good part of why I thought to buy a subscription.
To see him debase himself in this way with a total lack of introspection, while at once also reducing the electorate to their lowest, least complex form and insisting upon that caricature, feels beneath him.
john, i know you don't read these, but i would have appreciated hearing that you had asked dawkins about the evolutionary basis for race consciousness, i.e. racialism or even racism. I know he has spoken to the notion that Race is real from an evolutionary perspective but I'm speaking about race consciousness in building communities. So I'm speaking more to Dunbar's number and whether there is a evolutionary habit that tends to use racial features for community recognition when tribes began to exceed that limit.
evolution seems to scare the trust science people these daze way more than its rejection in the scopes trial era did. they are taking us back to a neo-biblical day where creation is deus ex machina, ex nihilo as completely imprintable neoliberal beings because admitting that humans are of two sexes and that they evolved in tribes that might be identified by what these days we would think of as racial characteristics.
aside from his manner of expression, dawkins is a dean of the evolutionary pyschology neoliberals revile. I'm not looking for excuses, i'm looking for realism. If you can't accept the basis of the problem you can never solve it, inter alia, those who reject these instincts to grow community do so consciously and deserve more credit than we give them.
Coleman went to some of this but not, at least in this clip, to the tribabl solidarity habit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6SQ3mXzZeI
No one knew the virus was going to happen. Except Fauci who said it was going on happen.. https://youtu.be/puqaaeLnEww
I love John describing every leader in the Democratic Party .. the best part is denying there is a deep state.. who is running the country John. 😂😂😂
The discussion with Professor McWhorter regarding the recent election left me wondering what sorts of issues would, in Professor Loury's opinion, disqualify a candidate for the office of President of the United States, an office held by men such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, an office with the power to effect the future of not only the United States but of the entire population of the world.
If a candidate, who was running for reelection to this office, were to refuse to accept the results of a free and fair election and maintain that the election was rigged and stolen, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would that be a problem for Professor Loury? Apparently not.
Would a person be disqualified, in Professor Loury's opinion, for consideration to be president if that person continued, over a period of years, to lie about the result of the aforementioned election, and to encourage his supporters to refuse to accept that result? Apparently not.
Would a person who, on learning the unfavorable result of an election, encourages a mob of his supporters, to stop the process of the smooth transfer of power, and then watches as this mob breaks through security barriers and invades the Capital, injuring police and desecrating the congressional chambers, does nothing for hours to stop his supporters, and seems pleased with this activity, be disqualified from consideration for the office of president? I feel Abraham Lincoln might think so, but not professor Loury. In fact, professor Lowery is “excited” that such a person has been elected president.
The president is responsible for enforcing the laws and upholding the constitution of the United States. Should a person be disqualified from consideration to this office who has been convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by a court of law in a jury trial, and who has been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, and fined some 88 million dollars? Not in Professor Loury's opinion. Would allegations of rape, found by a judge to be “substantially true” be a concern? Apparently not.
Would the fact that many senior members of the administration of a former president who worked with him for months, and knew him best, who refuse to endorse that person for a second term, with several going so far as to call that person “unfit to be president” and “a threat to democracy”, with this level of opposition being described as “highly unusual and without historical precedent” be a disqualifying issue for Professor Loury? No problems here.
Would a candidate who has lied about nearly every subject he has ever discussed, and is clearly a moral abomination, who loves to “grab’em by the pussy” and who has shown that he has no respect for the rule of law, be disqualified from consideration for the highest office in the nation? Not in the opinion of Professor Loury. In fact, he is “excited” to see such a man elected, as is half the population of the United States.
Frequently America has been represented on the world stage by persons of high moral character, persons who exemplified virtues of honesty, empathy, and personal integrity. No longer. Now we are represented by an egotist who lies, cheats, steals, and sees nothing wrong with any of these actions, and is a man who does not believe in the constitutional ideals of the American project. And his supporters are “excited” by this state of affairs, as is Professor Loury.
Apparently, the character of the American people has drastically changed in the 80 years that I have been on the planet, character once defined by “the greatest generation”, and now represented by the “orange buffoon”. The whole thing is enough to make a thoughtful person who loves America very very discouraged.
You are probably here because you think some of what Glenn says makes sense. I am decidedly not in the camp that believes our favored public intellectuals walk on water or can say no wrong. Albeit, I think, as does Glenn, that the effort to describe trump's history as disqualifying has to be taken in the context of the years of the resistance and Mueller efforts and impeachments that have been rejected and at least the rhetorical leadership on the country's direction that emerges victorious.
I suspect that unflattering lists were made of the sins of Andrew Jackson who also had a presidential election stolen from him fair and square. Yet he ran again and was elected to stand up to the coastal elites of his day and his vision all but defines the American nation we have come to know–even if his legacy can be fairly challenged on moral grounds. I'm not at all sure I would want to rerun American history without him and that is what Glenn is suggesting we may feel in 50 years regarding trump.
Excellent episode. John stating that he honestly doesn't think that the Democrats did anything wrong (5:18) aside from MAYBE Biden dropping out earlier, MAYBE not anointing a candidate instead of letting voters choose through the primary process is a perfect example of either true denial or absolute disconnect from reality. Stunning, but no longer surprising from those tenured in a life of comfort, wealth and privilege.
I'm ambivalent in my recollection and interpretation of that segment, but I felt this was kind more a tacit admission that they didn't do much wrong given the corner they had painted themselves in, e.g. Biden choosing a vice president to satisfy a checkbox, tacking hard left as if he had a mandate to do so in a close election which was stolen fair and square with the use of ultra-vires rules countenanced as covid necessities (or at least it wasn't crazy to think that), spending like a loon (which trump will too in different ways and it could bite him) and having surrogates tell those dismayed by related inflation that they were hallucinating, and empowering a censorship regime that accentuated the condescension of elites. john has copped to at least some of that list along the way. And i imagine you mean "tenured" figuratively since he is not. I like John, and in his defense, show me another person who would have sat through that tirade–that I also loved–instead of moving to europe, or another podcast :-).
Yes, I definitely meant tenured in the figurative sense of the word. I appreciate your points on the perspective that the campaign was run as well as can be expected given the constraints the DNC forced upon a selected candidate and her would be voters. You also make a good point regarding John weathering the tirade. I imagine that has a lot to do with the mutual respect he and Glenn have for each other but a lesser man would certainly not have had the fortitude to listen to it without storming off, as you say to Europe or a friendlier podcast. Cheers!
Glenn. I am so glad you are excited. Me too. As for John, denial is said to be the shock absorber of the sole. He needs it.
John, your admission that the cost of eggs going up prohibitively due to tariffs wouldn’t affect you, demonstrates your blind spot.
John, how can you say the deep state doesn’t exist yet we were led right into Iraq?
John, your work via woke racism is what illuminated people as to what they could feel, but not articulate, that is wrong with woke ism. The economy, immigration, crime, all these things are the stereotypical issues that give to regime change in Washington. The insidiousness of woke ideology, and its political arm, are what made people so aghast and in revolt to the Democrat Party.
Great episode, unusually short!
Glenn, and many of you, clearly voted to poke the government in the eye, burn it down, or some other destructive metaphor. The government is multiple huge institutions that deeply impact our lives, being poorly run means that they are ineffective and inefficient. It makes no sense to say semi-destruction will somehow make them better. The only conceivable way that makes sense is if 1) after the destruction someone competent rebuilds or 2) you have no idea how the government actually works.
It is as though we are mad that the CDC made mistakes during COVID, so the answer is eliminate the CDC. It ignores the fact that our COVID response was completely different everywhere, entirely because the state and local governments were not constrained but instead guided by the CDC. The instinct seems to be that if the CDC gave *no* guidance the local governments would have somehow made better rules? That doesn’t make sense to me. Besides, lest we all forget, it was Trump in charge when COVID started and made the early divisions that created much of the chaos we struggled with for the pandemic. Mandates, mostly under Biden, didn't go over well — but those were for the most part local choices (exception for airlines and other things regulated federally. )
I just hope this works out.
good points although i don't think it is quite as stark as you make it. putting jay battacharya at NIH and RFKJ overarching at HHS is not the same as eliminating them. it surely means eliminating some of the dogma associated with those agencies. Bari Weiss had a great interview with Peter Theil following the election in which he posited the need to balance skepticism and dogma where the biden adminiatration as operated completely on dogma. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2XuTpRZ7tg2o4V9A4xCtl8?si=dZtNsSeYSNy84G1Ugg1-ww
You got a bull in the china shop, some mistakes will be made but there are some decent people trying to craft effective administration vs. just blow up the ineffective.
Agree trump was in charge at outset of covid and some of the players were already in place, but trump was more open to skepticism to temper the dogma they advocated. this is where biden went off the rails, or perhaps stuck to them too closely. Think of Trump's willingness to associate himself with the vaccine early on but now appointing those who doubt its continuing worth except in highly targeted circumstances.
DOEducation, that's a little different. I would support eliminating it, not sure will happen as he'll need legislative buy-in. maybe you could zero the budget using a continuing resolution and grants or educational support that are rational to continue can be budgeted into other departments who might covet them if there is an effort to reverse.
I'm not convinced it will all work out, but I think it is so superior to the alternative that I'm willing to ride the roller coaster.
Well, we all will be riding that roller coaster. My concern is that people don’t really know about what the government actually does. I have some insight into how the more technical agencies work, but I don’t know about Education. I recently looked it up though, because I have been working in a local public school and was curious… something like half of the department’s funding goes to helping kids afford college. I can’t see that going away. Instead, it would just get moved to a different department. The rest is stuff like giving schools extra resources for teaching kids with learning disabilities and high levels of poverty. I know in my county, there would have to be a big increase in property taxes to cover that (already 50% of my property taxes go to fund the schools, and we spend some of the lowest per pupil funding in the state). What, since you mentioned it, do you suppose the impact of eliminating the Education Department would be? What advantage would that provide?
I love John McWhorter with all of my heart, but he is a fantasist on the issue of Trump.
I remember John recounting how he never participated in sports growing up. Perhaps he was deeply uncomfortable with masculine norms back then, and this memory persists subconsciously in his mind. So he may be constitutionally “allergic” to men like Trump. But he is, oddly enough, part of a socioeconomic stratum that is simply unaffected by anyone who is in the White House, left or right. And for him to state that Trump’s potential failure may result in the folks who voted for Trump (and a break with the status quo) “learning a lesson of some sort” is simply repugnant.
His completely unhinged disdain for Trump, especially the name calling, combined with his championing of the Biden-Harris administration constitutes a clear example of luxury beliefs and the pursuit of high status positions because he truly believes he is better than the average American, and wants to signal to his fellow travelers that he “gets it”. It is almost comically middle-school in nature. He simply has no initial or abiding connection to the working class, contra Glenn.
What is truly odd is that he is mirroring the bad behavior of those he labeled “the elect” in his book Woke Racism, but he is too mired in his own superiority to even understand this.
I think it finally comes down to the fact that John votes for personalities, and their personal discourse and relative level of decorum and assumes everyone else does the same. John wants someone in office that sounds like him and conducts themselves like he would. So much surface thinking. Glenn seems to understand that many voted for Trump as a means of punishing a party, and elites in general, for the current cultural malaise among other things. John is one of those elites, he relishes that status, and is, I believe, deeply offended that “our emperors” have been proved to have no clothes.
There is definitely a subset of woke-hating elite that also seem to despise the schoolyard bully types in Trump. John, Richard Hanania, Sam Harris. A famous speech from the movie Team America comes to mind if you're familiar with it.