The suppression of free speech—the cancelation of unpopular speakers and the banishment of counterintuitive ideas—threatens the very foundation of democratic society. There isn’t, or at least there shouldn’t be, anything partisan about that sentiment. I believe that, and so does my guest this week, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch, who serves alongside me on the University of Austin’s advisory board. Jonathan is a man with liberal inclinations, and it is exactly those inclinations that have led him to become a vociferous defender of free speech.
Interesting interview, though Mr. Rauch has some notable, glaring blind spots when it comes to his own side politically. To name only one, the extensive use of pre-bunking and flooding the zone with false information that Democrats also engage in. Perhaps the most notable recent example, the FBI pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop with social media (and likely media) as revealed in the Twitter files, conveniently timed to help Joe Biden win an election. That was election interference. And he is behind the curve wrt the Russia collusion story and the facts of that matter. Perhaps he should more frequently look beyond the Washington Post fact checking operation.
I stumbled across The Glenn Show a couple months ago and thought it would be a space for evidence-based debate. I’m starting to tune out tbh because it appears to be ‘suffering’ from the same confirmation bias as those it criticises. Where are the guests who disagree with Glenn on various topics and can present a coherent, evidence-based, alternative perspective? The content is entertaining but are McWhorter and Loury stuck in the same groupthink as ‘the other side’? Also I don’t believe academic brilliance makes one immune from groupthink. In fact it probably exacerbates it.
It's good to see some of the classical liberals, like Robert F Kennedy jr, jump back into the mix. His campaign could be a signficant victory for American liberty.
Trump had the courage to take on the powerful interests and their 24/7 propaganda machine, which, in and of itself, was incredible to witness. Historians will remember him as a hero: a sane voice in a world of postmodernist thuggery.
But Kennedy jr, like his father, has the crossover appeal and classical liberal values that could finally unite the liberty loving right with the moderate liberty loving left, and remove this radical left disease brewing in academy and industry, along with their "red-book" social justice foot soldiers, once and for all.
I have Kindly Inquisitors on my bookshelf since 2021. Rauch excels at defending “Freedom of Speech.” (McWhorter, Why “Speak” and not “Speek”?). Thank you.
Everything from the moment Glenn asked about "trust the science" on out of Jonathan's mouth doesn't pass the sniff test. What I ended up gathering from this discussion is you can have speech. We're still elitist.
Glenn said John was under the weather this week, but John put out an episode of Lexicon Valley, meaning he wasn't really sick, but also, that Glenn isn't a subscriber to his other podcast. Nah, I'm just kidding. Hope you get well soon, John!
We didn't get a chance to have Glenn and John this week, but we still had Glenn and Jon.
What a powerful conversation concerning free speech. You will never be able to defend your own argument unless you are able to make one from the other side of the table. You have to understand the perspective of your opponent and be able to articulate it well. That is what Glenn and John McWhorter have been teaching us for all of these years. Now some of us, like myself, have been able to become better thinkers as a result. Jon Rauch said at 27:37-"You cannot win minds by silencing people." To take it step further-I think both sides lose from silencing one side.
I am currently a history major, and through my research, I am learning that "free speech" is probably one of the greatest gifts that we take for granted in this country. With free speech comes a trade of ideas and understanding of other people and cultures. This is how a person can grow in many ways.
I am amused but not surprised that Rausch tracks the number of WaPo "fact checks" as a metric of Trump's honesty rather than an indication of how interested WaPo was in discrediting GOP views on the "issue of the day" at that particular time.
In the meantime, Columbia law students are protesting the visit of Justice Kavanaugh to the campus:
"Latinx Law Students Association announced that it would withdraw from student events. The American Constitution Society declared that Columbia Law School "must recognize that there are consequences for its irresponsible and inappropriate actions," calling Kavanaugh a "radical jurist" who has been "credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault."
The Columbia Law Women’s Association, a group dedicated to serving a "diverse group of women and femme-identifying individuals," demanded that "Columbia Law School remove the post; issue an informed apology; and prove that it is capable of more than performative diversity."
The Columbia Human Rights Law Review, a legal journal, again claimed that Kavanaugh has been "credibly accused of sexual assault" and added that he was a key player in the Dobbs decision."
Someone needs to come up with a term and diagnosis for people that allow their beliefs on Trump to distort reality. As much as I like what Rauch had to say... his what "about'isms" when asked about Stacy Abrhams actions about illegitimate elections is telling. Her actions are just as bad and feeds into the narrative that "white people" are out to get us ( which is propagating in society) that is furthering the divide; increasing distrust; and going to eventually boil over. And anyone who says "those Maga Republican's" without defining what they mean by saying "Maga Republicans," is a way of trying to shame (censor) in my opinion any person who supports conservative ideals. Jonathan comes off at times as wanting to suppress thought but knows it is wrong. He veers close to the edge when saying, if we cancel it, it simply amplifies the message and messenger and we should just let it be. It is a small step from that belief to de-amplifying books and articles and movies such as the actions of google, NYT, Amazon, etc...
“The suppression of free speech—the cancelation of unpopular speakers and the banishment of counterintuitive ideas—threatens the very foundation of democratic society. There isn’t, or at least there shouldn’t be, anything partisan about that sentiment.”
You know what the far left says though: If it’s not coming directly from the government it’s not actually a ‘free speech’ issue. (Which is of course absurd: There can be a censorious culture without their technically being a violation of the first amendment.) The Stanford fiasco was interesting here.
I like almost everything Rauch said in general, but as soon as he got into all the stuff about disinformation he sounded really naive. He also seems biased towards a view that Trump is a unique evil for being a lying politician but we shouldn't worry about what the intelligence community is doing to control and limit discourse in the name of stopping disinformation. I think he could benefit from a long conversation with Matt Taibbi, the merger of social and political power to sanction unorthodox thought in the past few years has been amazing to watch.
How can any honest discussion of disinformation fail to examine the Clintons. They make Trump look like an amateur. The term “useful idiot “ comes to mind!
Good high level discussion. However when Rauch says that the CSJ article was wrong without having read it and based on his use of WaPo fact checkers I really have to question his objectivity. Rauch is clearly a dyed in the wool Progressive believing deeply in the rule by experts. None the less a discussion worth listening to.
Jonathan will be the first one to demand, in the name of free speech, for trans pole dancing exhibitions at your 2nd graders class. And conspicuous absent when one tries to voice their displeasure at a school board meeting. His idea of free speech is to get the DOJ involved.
Most of his conversation reminds me of that guy in an old van trying to get me to help him look for a lost puppy.
Interesting interview, though Mr. Rauch has some notable, glaring blind spots when it comes to his own side politically. To name only one, the extensive use of pre-bunking and flooding the zone with false information that Democrats also engage in. Perhaps the most notable recent example, the FBI pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop with social media (and likely media) as revealed in the Twitter files, conveniently timed to help Joe Biden win an election. That was election interference. And he is behind the curve wrt the Russia collusion story and the facts of that matter. Perhaps he should more frequently look beyond the Washington Post fact checking operation.
I stumbled across The Glenn Show a couple months ago and thought it would be a space for evidence-based debate. I’m starting to tune out tbh because it appears to be ‘suffering’ from the same confirmation bias as those it criticises. Where are the guests who disagree with Glenn on various topics and can present a coherent, evidence-based, alternative perspective? The content is entertaining but are McWhorter and Loury stuck in the same groupthink as ‘the other side’? Also I don’t believe academic brilliance makes one immune from groupthink. In fact it probably exacerbates it.
It's good to see some of the classical liberals, like Robert F Kennedy jr, jump back into the mix. His campaign could be a signficant victory for American liberty.
Trump had the courage to take on the powerful interests and their 24/7 propaganda machine, which, in and of itself, was incredible to witness. Historians will remember him as a hero: a sane voice in a world of postmodernist thuggery.
But Kennedy jr, like his father, has the crossover appeal and classical liberal values that could finally unite the liberty loving right with the moderate liberty loving left, and remove this radical left disease brewing in academy and industry, along with their "red-book" social justice foot soldiers, once and for all.
I have Kindly Inquisitors on my bookshelf since 2021. Rauch excels at defending “Freedom of Speech.” (McWhorter, Why “Speak” and not “Speek”?). Thank you.
I think Jonathan should read this article with regards to disinformation.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/guide-understanding-hoax-century-thirteen-ways-looking-disinformation
Everything from the moment Glenn asked about "trust the science" on out of Jonathan's mouth doesn't pass the sniff test. What I ended up gathering from this discussion is you can have speech. We're still elitist.
Glenn said John was under the weather this week, but John put out an episode of Lexicon Valley, meaning he wasn't really sick, but also, that Glenn isn't a subscriber to his other podcast. Nah, I'm just kidding. Hope you get well soon, John!
"Losing Sides"
We didn't get a chance to have Glenn and John this week, but we still had Glenn and Jon.
What a powerful conversation concerning free speech. You will never be able to defend your own argument unless you are able to make one from the other side of the table. You have to understand the perspective of your opponent and be able to articulate it well. That is what Glenn and John McWhorter have been teaching us for all of these years. Now some of us, like myself, have been able to become better thinkers as a result. Jon Rauch said at 27:37-"You cannot win minds by silencing people." To take it step further-I think both sides lose from silencing one side.
I am currently a history major, and through my research, I am learning that "free speech" is probably one of the greatest gifts that we take for granted in this country. With free speech comes a trade of ideas and understanding of other people and cultures. This is how a person can grow in many ways.
Anyone want to challenge my opinion?
I am amused but not surprised that Rausch tracks the number of WaPo "fact checks" as a metric of Trump's honesty rather than an indication of how interested WaPo was in discrediting GOP views on the "issue of the day" at that particular time.
In the meantime, Columbia law students are protesting the visit of Justice Kavanaugh to the campus:
"Latinx Law Students Association announced that it would withdraw from student events. The American Constitution Society declared that Columbia Law School "must recognize that there are consequences for its irresponsible and inappropriate actions," calling Kavanaugh a "radical jurist" who has been "credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault."
The Columbia Law Women’s Association, a group dedicated to serving a "diverse group of women and femme-identifying individuals," demanded that "Columbia Law School remove the post; issue an informed apology; and prove that it is capable of more than performative diversity."
The Columbia Human Rights Law Review, a legal journal, again claimed that Kavanaugh has been "credibly accused of sexual assault" and added that he was a key player in the Dobbs decision."
Someone needs to come up with a term and diagnosis for people that allow their beliefs on Trump to distort reality. As much as I like what Rauch had to say... his what "about'isms" when asked about Stacy Abrhams actions about illegitimate elections is telling. Her actions are just as bad and feeds into the narrative that "white people" are out to get us ( which is propagating in society) that is furthering the divide; increasing distrust; and going to eventually boil over. And anyone who says "those Maga Republican's" without defining what they mean by saying "Maga Republicans," is a way of trying to shame (censor) in my opinion any person who supports conservative ideals. Jonathan comes off at times as wanting to suppress thought but knows it is wrong. He veers close to the edge when saying, if we cancel it, it simply amplifies the message and messenger and we should just let it be. It is a small step from that belief to de-amplifying books and articles and movies such as the actions of google, NYT, Amazon, etc...
“The suppression of free speech—the cancelation of unpopular speakers and the banishment of counterintuitive ideas—threatens the very foundation of democratic society. There isn’t, or at least there shouldn’t be, anything partisan about that sentiment.”
You know what the far left says though: If it’s not coming directly from the government it’s not actually a ‘free speech’ issue. (Which is of course absurd: There can be a censorious culture without their technically being a violation of the first amendment.) The Stanford fiasco was interesting here.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
I like almost everything Rauch said in general, but as soon as he got into all the stuff about disinformation he sounded really naive. He also seems biased towards a view that Trump is a unique evil for being a lying politician but we shouldn't worry about what the intelligence community is doing to control and limit discourse in the name of stopping disinformation. I think he could benefit from a long conversation with Matt Taibbi, the merger of social and political power to sanction unorthodox thought in the past few years has been amazing to watch.
How can any honest discussion of disinformation fail to examine the Clintons. They make Trump look like an amateur. The term “useful idiot “ comes to mind!
Good high level discussion. However when Rauch says that the CSJ article was wrong without having read it and based on his use of WaPo fact checkers I really have to question his objectivity. Rauch is clearly a dyed in the wool Progressive believing deeply in the rule by experts. None the less a discussion worth listening to.
Jonathan will be the first one to demand, in the name of free speech, for trans pole dancing exhibitions at your 2nd graders class. And conspicuous absent when one tries to voice their displeasure at a school board meeting. His idea of free speech is to get the DOJ involved.
Most of his conversation reminds me of that guy in an old van trying to get me to help him look for a lost puppy.