I agree. There is no justification for taking an “Any Means to an End” approach under these circumstances. It flies in the face of the morality that Sam Harris purports to stand for.
Saul Alinsky, in his book, Rules for Radicals, he discussed eleven (11) rules of the ethics of means and ends. The third (3) such rule is that “in war the end justifies almost any means.” This is not war. People like Sam Harris that don’t like Trump overstate the danger that he represents. We are now 18 months into the Biden Presidency and the single most important determinant of any nation’s sovereignty - the economy - is in shambles.
I have to apologize to Glenn. Before my comments I didn't listen discussion, I just read the transcript. I listened to the discussion today and I miss read what Glenn said. I apologize.
Alot of folks seem heavy on assertions that Trump was not just "maleficent", "appalling", "an existential threat", but was uniquely so. They are also usually light on facts or ignore history, recent and otherwise.
That you, they, or I didn't like Trump, or Obama, or Clinton, or Bush, or Biden, or whomever does not warrant blowing up the Constitution. Instead it points to first, reducing the power of the Presidency to its Constitutional limits. And second insisting that both parties run better candidates.
I've been doing it since 1976, and can tell you that holding your nose while voting for the least worst is getting really, really old.
I am a Sam Harris paid subscriber. I have no intentions of cancelling but I am not sure I am in agreement with his comments. Personally, I’m not pleased with the direction of either political party. I’m tired of the half truths and spins in order to score points in the football game we call our country’s future. And I’m tired of friends and family pressuring me to concede to their “religion” (right or left).
I’m strongly considering changing to Andrew Yang’s new party. He doesn’t have firm positions, but (like me) understands the complexity of the issues we face. I’d rather not give either major party my support and let the chips fall where they may (even if it’s Trump in the end).
I’m staying a SH subscriber as I want to hear the conflicting views so that it helps me stay out of an echo chamber. If I cancel, I’ll pick up Coleman Hughes. I haven’t listened to Coleman as much as I desire but there is only so much time in the day and I need Lex Fridman with his science and technology to offset my frustration with politics lol.
Once again, Glenn, thank you for a voice of reason about Trump. You mentioned a few reasons that Trump had value for the country, and I think there are more. Like you, I am not fond of him but there are things he did that needed to be done and things he said that needed to be said. And I am weary of the Democrats in Washington blaming him for all their problems and weary of others putting so much energy into hating him.
I am reading Jared Kushner's book "Breaking History", because books about the details of a Presidency reveal many facets of a President that the public does not know, like what he was thinking about specific issues, what his priorities were and why, and how did he see his role as President in the time he served. Trump becomes more complete and more human in this book and I am glad to know what I am finding out about him. The people who hate him will never see that there is much good in him despite his character flaws. As have we all.
I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. I did not vote for Clinton in 2016. I did not vote for Biden in 2020. I voted for other candidates. That said, I can not see the "great catastrophe" that both John and Glenn attribute to Trump's administration. John seems to have the TDS. I would like to hear Glenn's justification of his belief that another Trump administration would be a catastrophe. Is there something I am missing?
"If those who oppose Trump—especially those in positions of power in the media and the government—decide that it’s permissible to lie, obfuscate, disseminate misinformation, quash legitimate news favorable or helpful to Trump, and do whatever else is necessary to keep him out of office, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations,..."
I normally agree with just about everything Professor Loury "says." I agree up to this point.
"...then they will have committed a greater crime than anything you could lay at Trump’s feet."
I'm sorry, anybody should be able to see that the crime of trying to overthrow the election makes him unfit for the office of President. There aren't a whole lotta crimes that could even be as bad as, let alone worse, than for a sitting President to try to overthrow the election.
The fact that the plan failed, because-a Pence, doesn't in any way, shape of form absolve Trump of the crime, right?
Ooops. My mistake. I didn't see this on first read:
John: "Well, it's a matter of degree between us on this one. Trump didn't appall you. He never really did, did he? Or at least he didn't until January 6th."
So Professor Loury probably agrees with me, which is another reason why I don't get why he doesn't see the danger that Trump is. I'll admit Trump did a number of good things but, to me anyway, trying to overthrow the election wiped out *all-a* that in one fell swoop.
And Eastman's plan *might-a* worked, if Pence had just gone along with it is the thing, too.
John and Glenn both sound to me like the certain kind of person out there who is no more amenable to reason than the woke racists that I talk about. It's a religion. Institutions are their religion and possible it is clouding their reason. Some institutions are democratically elected. Some institutions are not. Both seem to be sacred to John and Glenn.
Sam Harris had a character-revealing moment. He's not the only one. When people do that, believe them. They are telling you exactly who they are, the living embodiment of the "principals over principles" mentality that will justify anything so long as their team wins. More recently, we've learned that the FBI lied to Zuckerberg's face about the laptop story, knowing full well that it was true but also knowing full well that Zuck and FB would be useful idiots in suppressing the story.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, is life today better or worse than it was under him? The numbers - which don't have party affiliations or care about feelings - could not be more clear in providing an answer. The most ironic thing re: Trump and the pearl-clutching he sometimes inspires is that he's always been this way. He has always been loud-mouthed New Yorker with relatively thin skin. He also showed the GOP that it was not necessary to prostrate itself at the feet of the media and be forever apologetic about its mere existence. Yes, he sometimes went overboard and again, that should have surprised no one.
While people were appalled at mean tweets, what did crime look like? How about the border and the recent profile in hypocrisy from the Martha's Vineyard crowd? Inflation maybe? And recall that no foreign leader was attacking a neighbor for any reason, least of all the leader who supposedly had Trump's number. For all the accusations of Trump being fascist, he never delivered a speech declaring hate toward half the country, he never had the DoJ treat parents like terrorists, he never colluded with Big Tech to silence speech, and he did not weaponize federal agencies against political opponents.
I have no idea if he'll run again. My preference would be DeSantis, though the same people who cannot get past their obsession with Trump will call the Florida governor the same names. They did it to people like Romney, McCain, Bush, and Dole, too, because it's who they are. The party of oligarchs and plutocrats that cannot handle it when someone plays by the left's rules. That is Trump's small sin; his bigger one is not being part of the DC grifter's club, though multiple members of Congress had no problem going to him hat in hand to beg for money.
I love this. Thank you for this wise response. I've followed Sam Harris for years. I love his "Lying" book and thumbed through his "Moral Landscape" book. It is quite the irony that the author of these books throws all his moral principles away because of hatred for Trump. (I don't like the Trump either, but my moral standards are higher) It appears that a master of atheism has succumbed to a cult of hatred.
I see Trump as two people. The blowhard and the pragmatist. You both are appalled by Trump but you offer no specific examples of what makes him appalling. Were you appalled by his judicial appointments? Were you appalled by his attempt to secure the southern border? Were you appalled by his making the US energy independent? Were you appalled by the Abraham accords? Were you appalled when he sent hospital ships to NYC during the early days of the pandemic? Should Trump not have pressed for vaccines? Should voters choose a leader based on his “likability” quotient? This isn’t some campaign for high school president. The US is currently leaderless. If Trump turns out to be the nominee to run against lousy democrat policies, I’ll be holding my nose while voting for the blowhard. At least, I know that candidate isn’t afraid to take on the career politicians who populate Congress.
I think opposing Trump "at all costs" is a terrible idea, and not likely to happen either. But, I was, to be honest, taken aback by Dr. Loury's vehement declaration that this fantasized misinformation campaign would be worse than anything Trump has done, so I had to comment. "Those in positions of power in the media and the government—decide that it’s permissible to lie, obfuscate, disseminate misinformation, quash legitimate news favorable or helpful to Trump, and do whatever else is necessary to keep him out of office, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations, then they will have committed a greater crime than anything you could lay at Trump’s feet." Really? The crimes listed are just what President Trump has done: lie, obfuscate, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations. Maybe I've missed it but I don't remember hearing Dr. Loury express the same level of outrage about Trump's lies about the election, not to mention Trump's inciting an armed riot at the capitol. The mainstream media have faults, and biases, no doubt, and a tendency to look down on people who are not like them. And Dr. Loury doesn't like them, and neither do I some of the time. That's fine. But it's obvious they have been steam-rolled by Donald Trump and his supporters. To consider them an equal threat to the country as Donald Trump is laughable. Ask yourself: Who is the anti-democrat? Listen to the justice department officials, the poor Arizona election official, the threatened election workers, the shocked White House aides testify to the Jan. 6 committee and you will have your answer. Save some of that outrage and scorn for Donald Trump, he deserves it. (This will likely be my last comment on your show. Enough is enough.)
I’ve never understood the “hair on fire” people who are Never Trumpers which includes almost all the Left and a subset of the Right. We were all taught in school that our government was set up, wisely, by our founding fathers to have checks and balances. Our government is not an autocracy. A rogue President can’t go rogue. With Trump, he was handicapped immediately with the pressure and blackballing of anyone who would think of working with him. They should have thought of the good of the country and the will of the people and held their noses until they could legitimately beat him at the ballot box. The media selectively promoting and censoring to affect a certain outcome, the irregularities coerced on voting precincts in the Covid period was not really winning with a winning argument. Biden is a puppet and the extreme Left with their dystopian vision owns the Democratic Party. That is the bigger threat. I’ll vote for anyone over a Democrat.
I agree. There is no justification for taking an “Any Means to an End” approach under these circumstances. It flies in the face of the morality that Sam Harris purports to stand for.
Saul Alinsky, in his book, Rules for Radicals, he discussed eleven (11) rules of the ethics of means and ends. The third (3) such rule is that “in war the end justifies almost any means.” This is not war. People like Sam Harris that don’t like Trump overstate the danger that he represents. We are now 18 months into the Biden Presidency and the single most important determinant of any nation’s sovereignty - the economy - is in shambles.
I have to apologize to Glenn. Before my comments I didn't listen discussion, I just read the transcript. I listened to the discussion today and I miss read what Glenn said. I apologize.
To those who ask why I can support Trump after January 6th, I will say this:
Every Executive Branch employee who declared themselves part of "The Resistance" was an Insurrectionist. They should have been summarily fired.
The same people outraged by J6 cheered this movement on. That shows you how much they care about Democracy.
Alot of folks seem heavy on assertions that Trump was not just "maleficent", "appalling", "an existential threat", but was uniquely so. They are also usually light on facts or ignore history, recent and otherwise.
That you, they, or I didn't like Trump, or Obama, or Clinton, or Bush, or Biden, or whomever does not warrant blowing up the Constitution. Instead it points to first, reducing the power of the Presidency to its Constitutional limits. And second insisting that both parties run better candidates.
I've been doing it since 1976, and can tell you that holding your nose while voting for the least worst is getting really, really old.
I am a Sam Harris paid subscriber. I have no intentions of cancelling but I am not sure I am in agreement with his comments. Personally, I’m not pleased with the direction of either political party. I’m tired of the half truths and spins in order to score points in the football game we call our country’s future. And I’m tired of friends and family pressuring me to concede to their “religion” (right or left).
I’m strongly considering changing to Andrew Yang’s new party. He doesn’t have firm positions, but (like me) understands the complexity of the issues we face. I’d rather not give either major party my support and let the chips fall where they may (even if it’s Trump in the end).
I’m staying a SH subscriber as I want to hear the conflicting views so that it helps me stay out of an echo chamber. If I cancel, I’ll pick up Coleman Hughes. I haven’t listened to Coleman as much as I desire but there is only so much time in the day and I need Lex Fridman with his science and technology to offset my frustration with politics lol.
Once again, Glenn, thank you for a voice of reason about Trump. You mentioned a few reasons that Trump had value for the country, and I think there are more. Like you, I am not fond of him but there are things he did that needed to be done and things he said that needed to be said. And I am weary of the Democrats in Washington blaming him for all their problems and weary of others putting so much energy into hating him.
I am reading Jared Kushner's book "Breaking History", because books about the details of a Presidency reveal many facets of a President that the public does not know, like what he was thinking about specific issues, what his priorities were and why, and how did he see his role as President in the time he served. Trump becomes more complete and more human in this book and I am glad to know what I am finding out about him. The people who hate him will never see that there is much good in him despite his character flaws. As have we all.
I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020. I did not vote for Clinton in 2016. I did not vote for Biden in 2020. I voted for other candidates. That said, I can not see the "great catastrophe" that both John and Glenn attribute to Trump's administration. John seems to have the TDS. I would like to hear Glenn's justification of his belief that another Trump administration would be a catastrophe. Is there something I am missing?
"If those who oppose Trump—especially those in positions of power in the media and the government—decide that it’s permissible to lie, obfuscate, disseminate misinformation, quash legitimate news favorable or helpful to Trump, and do whatever else is necessary to keep him out of office, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations,..."
I normally agree with just about everything Professor Loury "says." I agree up to this point.
"...then they will have committed a greater crime than anything you could lay at Trump’s feet."
I'm sorry, anybody should be able to see that the crime of trying to overthrow the election makes him unfit for the office of President. There aren't a whole lotta crimes that could even be as bad as, let alone worse, than for a sitting President to try to overthrow the election.
The fact that the plan failed, because-a Pence, doesn't in any way, shape of form absolve Trump of the crime, right?
Ooops. My mistake. I didn't see this on first read:
John: "Well, it's a matter of degree between us on this one. Trump didn't appall you. He never really did, did he? Or at least he didn't until January 6th."
So Professor Loury probably agrees with me, which is another reason why I don't get why he doesn't see the danger that Trump is. I'll admit Trump did a number of good things but, to me anyway, trying to overthrow the election wiped out *all-a* that in one fell swoop.
And Eastman's plan *might-a* worked, if Pence had just gone along with it is the thing, too.
John and Glenn both sound to me like the certain kind of person out there who is no more amenable to reason than the woke racists that I talk about. It's a religion. Institutions are their religion and possible it is clouding their reason. Some institutions are democratically elected. Some institutions are not. Both seem to be sacred to John and Glenn.
Sam Harris had a character-revealing moment. He's not the only one. When people do that, believe them. They are telling you exactly who they are, the living embodiment of the "principals over principles" mentality that will justify anything so long as their team wins. More recently, we've learned that the FBI lied to Zuckerberg's face about the laptop story, knowing full well that it was true but also knowing full well that Zuck and FB would be useful idiots in suppressing the story.
Whatever one thinks of Trump, is life today better or worse than it was under him? The numbers - which don't have party affiliations or care about feelings - could not be more clear in providing an answer. The most ironic thing re: Trump and the pearl-clutching he sometimes inspires is that he's always been this way. He has always been loud-mouthed New Yorker with relatively thin skin. He also showed the GOP that it was not necessary to prostrate itself at the feet of the media and be forever apologetic about its mere existence. Yes, he sometimes went overboard and again, that should have surprised no one.
While people were appalled at mean tweets, what did crime look like? How about the border and the recent profile in hypocrisy from the Martha's Vineyard crowd? Inflation maybe? And recall that no foreign leader was attacking a neighbor for any reason, least of all the leader who supposedly had Trump's number. For all the accusations of Trump being fascist, he never delivered a speech declaring hate toward half the country, he never had the DoJ treat parents like terrorists, he never colluded with Big Tech to silence speech, and he did not weaponize federal agencies against political opponents.
I have no idea if he'll run again. My preference would be DeSantis, though the same people who cannot get past their obsession with Trump will call the Florida governor the same names. They did it to people like Romney, McCain, Bush, and Dole, too, because it's who they are. The party of oligarchs and plutocrats that cannot handle it when someone plays by the left's rules. That is Trump's small sin; his bigger one is not being part of the DC grifter's club, though multiple members of Congress had no problem going to him hat in hand to beg for money.
I love this. Thank you for this wise response. I've followed Sam Harris for years. I love his "Lying" book and thumbed through his "Moral Landscape" book. It is quite the irony that the author of these books throws all his moral principles away because of hatred for Trump. (I don't like the Trump either, but my moral standards are higher) It appears that a master of atheism has succumbed to a cult of hatred.
Glenn, you're a national treasure.
Agree!
I see Trump as two people. The blowhard and the pragmatist. You both are appalled by Trump but you offer no specific examples of what makes him appalling. Were you appalled by his judicial appointments? Were you appalled by his attempt to secure the southern border? Were you appalled by his making the US energy independent? Were you appalled by the Abraham accords? Were you appalled when he sent hospital ships to NYC during the early days of the pandemic? Should Trump not have pressed for vaccines? Should voters choose a leader based on his “likability” quotient? This isn’t some campaign for high school president. The US is currently leaderless. If Trump turns out to be the nominee to run against lousy democrat policies, I’ll be holding my nose while voting for the blowhard. At least, I know that candidate isn’t afraid to take on the career politicians who populate Congress.
I think opposing Trump "at all costs" is a terrible idea, and not likely to happen either. But, I was, to be honest, taken aback by Dr. Loury's vehement declaration that this fantasized misinformation campaign would be worse than anything Trump has done, so I had to comment. "Those in positions of power in the media and the government—decide that it’s permissible to lie, obfuscate, disseminate misinformation, quash legitimate news favorable or helpful to Trump, and do whatever else is necessary to keep him out of office, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations, then they will have committed a greater crime than anything you could lay at Trump’s feet." Really? The crimes listed are just what President Trump has done: lie, obfuscate, regardless of ethical or democratic considerations. Maybe I've missed it but I don't remember hearing Dr. Loury express the same level of outrage about Trump's lies about the election, not to mention Trump's inciting an armed riot at the capitol. The mainstream media have faults, and biases, no doubt, and a tendency to look down on people who are not like them. And Dr. Loury doesn't like them, and neither do I some of the time. That's fine. But it's obvious they have been steam-rolled by Donald Trump and his supporters. To consider them an equal threat to the country as Donald Trump is laughable. Ask yourself: Who is the anti-democrat? Listen to the justice department officials, the poor Arizona election official, the threatened election workers, the shocked White House aides testify to the Jan. 6 committee and you will have your answer. Save some of that outrage and scorn for Donald Trump, he deserves it. (This will likely be my last comment on your show. Enough is enough.)
John and Me….sheesh
I’ve never understood the “hair on fire” people who are Never Trumpers which includes almost all the Left and a subset of the Right. We were all taught in school that our government was set up, wisely, by our founding fathers to have checks and balances. Our government is not an autocracy. A rogue President can’t go rogue. With Trump, he was handicapped immediately with the pressure and blackballing of anyone who would think of working with him. They should have thought of the good of the country and the will of the people and held their noses until they could legitimately beat him at the ballot box. The media selectively promoting and censoring to affect a certain outcome, the irregularities coerced on voting precincts in the Covid period was not really winning with a winning argument. Biden is a puppet and the extreme Left with their dystopian vision owns the Democratic Party. That is the bigger threat. I’ll vote for anyone over a Democrat.