0:00

Your data Your data is like

0:02

gold to hackers. They'll sell

0:04

it to the highest bidder.

0:07

Are you protected? McAfee helps

0:09

shield you, blocking suspicious texts,

0:11

malicious emails, and fraudulent websites.

0:13

McAfee's secure VPN lets you

0:15

browse safely and its AI-powered

0:17

tech scam detector spots threats

0:19

instantly. You'll also get up

0:21

to $2 million of award-winning

0:23

antivirus and identity theft protection,

0:26

all for just $39.99 for

0:28

your first year. Visit McAfee.

0:30

This episode This episode is brought to

0:32

you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with

0:34

Shopify, home of the number one checkout

0:36

on the planet. Shop Pay boosts conversions

0:39

up to 50%. Meaning fewer carts going

0:41

abandoned and more sales going to Chiching.

0:43

So if you're into growing your

0:45

business. Yes, get a commerce platform that's ready

0:47

to sell wherever your customers are.

0:49

Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling

0:52

today. And we are back now in

0:54

GMA earlier. We were talking about the Men's,

0:56

the Ben's College Basketball, it's So, Music championship week

0:58

for women though. Good

1:10

evening, it's Thursday, March 20th. Welcome to

1:12

a new episode of System Update, our

1:14

live nightly show that airs every

1:16

Monday through Friday at 7 p.m.

1:19

Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the

1:21

free speech alternative to YouTube. Tonight?

1:23

It is becoming an increasingly common

1:25

view, certainly one that I

1:27

share, that American politics cannot

1:29

really be understood by applying

1:31

traditional labels such as right

1:33

versus left or conservative versus

1:35

liberal as shorthand for modern day

1:37

world views. That's because those terms

1:39

have so radically shifted in terms

1:41

of their meaning and viewpoints and

1:43

agenda over the last several decades.

1:45

I would argue especially with the

1:48

emergence of Donald Trump and the

1:50

anti-establishment sentiments of the Maga movement.

1:52

that they now mean so many

1:54

different things to so many different

1:56

people as to render them more

1:58

obfuscating than enlightening. really come to

2:00

believe that the most relevant dichotomy

2:03

in Western politics generally is

2:05

not left versus right or

2:07

liberal versus conservative, but rather

2:09

anti-establishment versus pro-establishment.

2:11

One reason for this confusion is

2:14

that left liberalism has so often

2:16

become the party aligned most and

2:18

most loyal to institutional establishment institutions

2:21

and dogma, including the U.S.

2:23

security state, the public health

2:25

apparatus and pharmaceutical industry. warmaking,

2:28

regime change, imperialism, and on

2:30

and on and on. Another reason is

2:32

that so much of American liberalism and

2:34

even parts of the left

2:36

now ignore, if not outright

2:38

abandon, most of the political

2:40

values and traditions that long

2:43

define what the Western left was,

2:45

all in pursuit of a monomaniacal

2:47

fixation on academic and niche culture

2:49

war issues. at the expense of

2:52

any substantive challenge to economic power,

2:54

civil liberties abuses, American foreign policy,

2:56

and anything that really determines the

2:58

distribution of power. Our guest tonight

3:01

is Susan Neiman, who's an American

3:03

professor and philosopher and writer. She

3:05

has written extensively on the Enlightenment,

3:08

on moral philosophy, metaphysics and politics.

3:10

She's a PhD in philosophy from

3:12

Harvard. and is now a member

3:14

of the Berlin- Brandenburg Academy of

3:17

Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.

3:19

She's the author of nine books,

3:21

translated to 15 languages. She has

3:24

taught in universities in the United

3:26

States, namely at Yale, in Israel, and in

3:28

Germany, where she has lived for the last

3:30

25 years. For most of her life, if

3:32

not all, she has been, by her own

3:34

description, a leftist, a proponent of

3:37

left-wing politics and philosophy. But in

3:39

her latest book... released last year

3:41

entitled Left is Not Woke,

3:43

she argues that what is

3:45

now referred to as wokism

3:47

or identity politics is strongly

3:49

in tension with if not

3:51

outright waging war against the

3:53

long-standing core values that had

3:55

shaped and defined left-wing political

3:57

objectives for the last century.

4:00

She maintains, and I think makes

4:02

a very compelling case for the

4:04

argument, that by dividing people into

4:06

these little groups, constantly dividing

4:08

them and chopping them up

4:10

based on immutable demographic characteristics,

4:13

then insisting that people can

4:15

be primarily judged and understood

4:17

by those attributes, and most of all

4:19

by denying the human universalism that

4:21

she maintains had long resided at

4:24

the heart of left-wing politics, woke

4:26

has become... has come to utterly

4:28

distort and even sabotage, which she

4:30

believes had long been at the

4:32

heart of the left-wing project. In

4:34

our discussion, we discussed the abstract

4:36

ideals driving her argument, much of

4:38

which is based in the defining

4:40

values of the Enlightenment, which she

4:42

believes the woke agenda assaults. But we

4:45

also apply her thesis and her views

4:47

to the most current and contentious political

4:49

debates in the West. We sat down

4:51

with her just before the show aired

4:53

earlier today, and I found the discussion

4:55

very eliminating. I don't agree with everything

4:57

she says, as I made clear. And

4:59

we have some of that out, but

5:01

by and large, I think her critique

5:03

is extremely worth listening to no matter

5:05

where you fall in the political spectrum.

5:08

Before we show you all of that...

5:10

A few programming notes, we're encouraging our

5:12

viewers to download the rumble app.

5:14

If you do so, it works

5:16

on your smart TV, on your

5:18

television, on your telephone, on your

5:21

Xbox, on... endless numbers of devices some of

5:23

which haven't even been discovered and then once you

5:25

download it you can follow the programs you must

5:27

love to watch on this platform and then if

5:30

you activate notifications which you hope you will it

5:32

means the minute any of those programs begin broadcasting

5:34

live on the platform you'll be notified by email

5:36

or link or text however you want you just

5:38

click on the link begin watching the show as

5:41

soon as it begins airing live on

5:43

rumble and that really helps the live

5:45

viewing numbers of rumble programs and therefore

5:47

the free speech cause of rumble itself.

5:49

As another reminder system update is also

5:52

available in podcast forum you can listen

5:54

to every episode 12 hours after the

5:56

first broadcast live here on the Spotify

5:58

Apple and all the... your podcasting platforms

6:00

where if you rate review and

6:03

follow our program there it really

6:05

does help spread the visibility of

6:07

the show. Finally as independent journalists

6:09

and independent media we absolutely do

6:11

rely on the support of our

6:13

members and viewers and that comes

6:15

primarily through our locals community where

6:17

members of that community get a

6:19

wide range of benefits multiple interactive

6:22

features throughout the week They have

6:24

access to a wide range of

6:26

original exclusive video content that we

6:28

often don't have time to show

6:30

on our main show here on rumble Every

6:32

Friday night now we take questions, we

6:34

do a Q&A that comes solely from our

6:36

local members. We publish written professionalized transcripts

6:38

of every show we broadcast. Here we publish

6:41

those there and most of all it

6:43

is a community on which we really do

6:45

most rely to support the independent journals

6:47

and that we do have every night if

6:49

you want to join. Simply click the

6:51

join button right below the video player on

6:54

the rumble page and it will take

6:56

you directly to that community. For now, welcome

6:58

to a new episode of System Update after

7:00

this message from our sponsor. If

7:10

your dog is constantly itching, scratching,

7:12

or dealing with hot spots, and I,

7:14

having had many dogs and having many

7:16

dogs, know that that's very common to

7:19

see dog experience, you've got to check

7:21

out coat defense. It's an all natural solution

7:23

that really has been helping so many

7:25

dogs. I love dogs. I value dogs.

7:27

There's a hundred part of my life.

7:30

I would never recommend a product to

7:32

you. any of you for your dogs

7:34

that I didn't use on my dogs

7:36

myself and see great benefits from. And

7:38

here's why this caught my attention. I've

7:40

seen firsthand with my own dogs, as

7:42

well as with the shelter we founded,

7:44

how often dogs develop yeast infections, especially

7:46

in their paws, ears, and skin folds.

7:48

It's way more common than people realize.

7:50

But the usual treatments like steroids

7:53

and antibiotics and citipoint and

7:55

apoquel, they might cover up

7:57

the symptoms for a while,

7:59

veterinarians will... prescribe them for that

8:01

reason, but they don't really fix the

8:03

root cause. And in some cases they

8:06

actually make things worse over time. Code

8:08

defense is different. Their daily preventative powder

8:10

works as a dry shampoo, odor eliminator,

8:13

and anti-itch powder. But what makes it

8:15

special is that it eliminates these naturally

8:17

by changing the terrain on your dog's

8:20

skin so that the yeast and bacteria

8:22

can no longer survive. No toxic chemicals,

8:24

no synthetic junk. Just save natural

8:26

ingredients. They also make an aloe-based

8:29

sensitive skin shampoo that calms irritated

8:31

skin preserves the natural oils and

8:33

microbiome and is totally free of

8:36

Parabins and sulfates and anything artificial

8:38

and honestly I've been really surprised

8:40

Reading the testimonial and seeing their

8:43

products firsthand, and these come from

8:45

people who venerate their dogs as

8:47

much as I do, I've heard

8:50

from so many of them that

8:52

this is the only thing that's

8:54

finally worked, after years of frustration

8:56

with dogs who are finally itch-free

8:59

and healthy again, and that's why

9:01

I'm happy to partner with Code

9:03

Defense. So if your dog has

9:05

been struggling and nothing else has

9:08

helped, go to Code defense.com, Promo

9:10

Code Glen. Professor,

9:17

thanks so much for taking the time

9:19

to join us. We have been really

9:21

looking forward to you ever since reading

9:24

your 2023 book, which is The Left

9:26

is Not Woke. And I have a

9:28

lot to ask you about that book,

9:30

about your work, and how as well

9:32

it applies to a lot of current

9:35

day political debates and

9:37

controversies. But let me begin by

9:39

asking you this term. Can I, can I,

9:42

can I just. Move in

9:44

a second. You said 2023.

9:46

The book did come out

9:48

in English in in 23,

9:50

but there's an expanded edition

9:53

that came out in 24.

9:55

That's actually the addition. So

9:57

it's in paperback in English.

10:00

and it's in all the other

10:02

languages it's been translated to, but

10:04

I would urge people if they're

10:06

interested in reading the book to

10:09

make sure they get the English

10:11

paper back, the Brazilian is fine.

10:13

Yeah, no, I write an English

10:16

show, I assume, we saw that

10:18

it was your publication date, but

10:20

I read the English version, I

10:22

think the expanded one, so that's

10:25

the one that interested me in

10:27

talking to you. But what I

10:29

didn't want to ask you about,

10:32

especially because there's so much. discussion

10:34

of what woke means what woke

10:36

is a means without a lot

10:38

of people stopping to define the

10:41

term is you know I went

10:43

to college in the end law

10:45

school in the late 80s and

10:48

early 90s and I think back

10:50

then there were very similar debates

10:52

in this approach that we now

10:55

call woke was referred to as

10:57

political correctness and then for me

10:59

I kind of morphed into identity

11:01

politics and then around the Black

11:04

Lives Matter movement and the like,

11:06

it really started popularizing the term

11:08

woke. So I wanted to ask

11:11

you, do you see those as

11:13

all part of the same tradition?

11:15

And more importantly, is there, what

11:17

is the coherent worldview that defines

11:20

wokism? Well, the problem is there

11:22

is no coherent worldview that defines

11:24

wokism. That's why I... refuse to

11:27

spend an awful lot of time

11:29

defining it. In the very shortest

11:31

version, my argument is that woke

11:34

arises from set of emotions that

11:36

are traditionally left wing. That is,

11:38

we want to... stand on the

11:40

side of people who have been

11:43

oppressed and marginalized, okay? And that's

11:45

an old left-wing emotion that I

11:47

certainly share. What I think most

11:50

of the woke don't realize, and

11:52

what's so confusing for everybody, is

11:54

that they're actually drawing on philosophical

11:56

assumptions that are very reactionary. So,

11:59

look, that's the first answer to

12:01

your question. is the reason people

12:03

have a hard time defining woke

12:06

is that it isn't coherent. It's

12:08

dependent on a contradiction between emotions

12:10

and ideas. Okay, that's the first

12:12

thing. The second thing to say

12:15

is that... I wasn't interested in

12:17

defining woke in this

12:19

book. I wanted to

12:21

define what left is,

12:23

because I think so

12:25

many people are confused

12:27

about what is left

12:29

in an age where

12:31

so many people think

12:34

that woke focus on

12:36

certain questions, takes a

12:39

pronoun question, or the

12:41

bathroom question, or things

12:43

that I've been astonished to

12:46

see our actually internationally

12:48

focuses on political debates

12:50

when we live in

12:52

a world of rising

12:54

fascism, rising inequality, and

12:56

you know, things that

12:58

are, to focus on

13:00

things that are symbolic,

13:02

strikes me, in this point in

13:04

time, almost suicidal. So my

13:07

interest was really to define

13:09

what woke, what left means

13:12

when many many friends of

13:14

mine, colleagues of mine, who

13:17

spent their lives engaged in

13:19

various forms of social justice

13:22

activism, were shaking their heads

13:24

and saying, maybe I'm not

13:26

left anymore, as they would

13:29

tell about the latest form

13:31

of woke enthusiasm. But

13:33

they would only say this.

13:35

private and you know very

13:37

small circles where people were

13:39

alone and you know trusted

13:42

each other and I actually

13:44

when I when I first

13:47

presented the book at Princeton

13:49

I said this book is

13:51

has arisen from conversations that

13:54

you all have been having

13:56

in private and everybody laughed

13:59

and nodded. because most people

14:01

whose hearts are on the

14:03

left, there's a nice

14:06

German expression that's at

14:08

the heartbeats left. Most

14:10

people's hearts are on

14:13

the left, were terribly

14:15

afraid of criticizing it

14:17

for fear of falling into

14:20

the Trump DeSantis form of

14:22

walk bashing, which simply means

14:25

finding an excuse to get

14:27

rid of. every

14:29

progressive political

14:32

action against racism

14:35

against homophobia and

14:37

declare it all

14:39

to be silly

14:42

or wrong. We see

14:44

that happening in

14:46

the US right now

14:48

in a frighteningly fast

14:50

way and I hate

14:53

to say you know, that

14:55

I warned people about this,

14:57

but I did. And I

14:59

started writing this book in

15:01

22, when it seemed to

15:04

me that the left was

15:06

losing steam because so many

15:08

people were put off by

15:10

the woke and deeply confused

15:13

about what it meant to

15:15

be engaged on the left.

15:17

I said, maybe the third thing

15:19

I wanted to say is... I

15:22

don't use the phrase

15:24

identity politics because I

15:26

think it presupposes what

15:29

it needs to argue

15:31

for, namely, that our

15:34

identity is determined fundamentally

15:36

and essentially by two

15:39

features of ourselves that

15:41

we actually have no

15:43

control over, either our

15:46

ethnic background or our

15:48

biological sex. to call

15:50

that our identity already,

15:53

you know, I think

15:55

commits a complete

15:57

error. I didn't know that.

16:00

really seriously in any serious situation

16:02

between human beings or even if

16:05

you're applying for a job or

16:07

admission to a university or whatever

16:09

you're doing, you don't describe yourself

16:11

as a white man and think

16:14

you're done with it or a

16:16

brown woman or whatever it is.

16:18

But the move to call that...

16:21

Identitarianism is already giving away the

16:23

game or prejudging the game. So

16:25

I used the word tribalism. It

16:28

has an old history. I was

16:30

once criticized by former student of

16:32

mine who said he was afraid

16:34

that it was prejudicial or offensive

16:37

to Native Americans. The notion of

16:39

tribes goes back to the Bible.

16:41

And I think it works better

16:44

than talking about identities. Yeah, it

16:46

seems to me kind of foundational

16:48

to how human beings have evolved

16:51

in a lot of ways. But

16:53

only leave that term to the

16:55

side and do a little bit

16:58

deeper into what you said because

17:00

there was a long time that

17:02

I think I was universally perceived

17:04

as being on the left and

17:07

the sort of left with which

17:09

I... identified was shaped I guess

17:11

by my generation I mean it

17:14

wasn't didn't live through the 60s

17:16

but anti-war and civil liberties activism

17:18

of the 60s and the 70s

17:21

heading into what became the kind

17:23

of ideas of liberation and and

17:25

the like in the 1990s this

17:27

opposition to US foreign policy imperialism

17:30

the US security state and I

17:32

look at what is now called

17:34

the left in the United States

17:37

and more broadly in the West

17:39

and I often see not only

17:41

very little of that but sometimes

17:44

an antagonism to it and in

17:46

a way that does seem like

17:48

the left has morphed into what

17:50

it had traditionally embraced as its

17:53

defining values into the agenda it

17:55

now pursues above all else and

17:57

I feel like this is certain

18:00

maybe you wouldn't put it that

18:02

quite that bluntly but I certainly

18:04

feel like that is your critique

18:07

and I'm wondering what you think

18:09

has cause that. You were just

18:11

describing, for example, massive income inequality

18:13

and instead there's this, you know,

18:16

fixation on who uses what bathrooms

18:18

and pronouns and the like that

18:20

have nothing to do with how

18:23

power is distributed or wealth is

18:25

assigned and hoarded and the like.

18:27

Things have had traditionally been concerned

18:30

to the left. What do you

18:32

think explains the changes and the

18:34

focus and the defining values of

18:37

what is called the left? Two

18:40

dates, one is 1991,

18:42

the collapse of state

18:44

socialism, which could have

18:47

gone in all kinds

18:49

of ways. You could

18:51

have moved towards international

18:53

democratic socialism, which is

18:55

certainly what people in

18:57

East Germany were demanding.

18:59

I think less so

19:01

in the Soviet Union.

19:03

There were all kinds

19:06

of discussions about new

19:08

non-alignment movements, about a

19:10

peace dividend that could

19:12

happen if people started

19:14

disarming. And there was

19:16

a very interesting confluence

19:18

between industry finance, governments,

19:20

Western governments, and popular

19:23

culture. all combining to

19:25

convince us that any

19:27

form of socialism would

19:29

lead straight to the

19:31

gulag or at the

19:33

very best, you know,

19:35

a miserable gray form

19:37

of life, okay? And

19:40

I even went further

19:42

than that. And this

19:44

is where I talk

19:46

about some of the

19:48

ideas, one of the

19:50

ideas that I think

19:52

has been... really taken

19:54

for granted and understood

19:57

is evolutionary psychology. I'm

19:59

not talking about evolution.

20:01

science, but evolutionary psychology,

20:03

which purports to answer

20:05

the question, what is

20:07

human nature, by saying

20:09

that our hunter and

20:11

gather ancestors were motivated

20:13

by producing the largest

20:15

number of copies of

20:18

themselves or their genes as

20:20

possible and competing against others

20:22

to do so. Now there

20:24

are a number of problems

20:27

with that. First of all,

20:29

We have no access to what was

20:31

driving our hunter-gatherer ancestors

20:33

200,000 years ago. I

20:35

mean, what archaeology can teach

20:38

us is really very little.

20:40

So this is speculation of

20:42

the kind that philosophers have

20:44

always done. What is the

20:46

original state of... state of

20:49

nature or what's the essence

20:51

of the human being. It

20:53

was just dressed up as

20:55

science in the 90s. It

20:57

came from this earlier movement,

20:59

Sociobiology, which was so discredited

21:02

that when it was revived,

21:04

it had to use another

21:06

name. And I think it's

21:08

not an accident that it

21:10

arose to popularity at the

21:13

same time as neoliberalism was

21:15

telling us that this was

21:17

the only possible form of

21:20

life. And so you have,

21:22

I mean, I'm not suggesting

21:25

a conspiracy thing's come together

21:27

often without there being a

21:30

big brother to plan them,

21:32

but you have it one.

21:35

on the one hand an

21:37

ideology saying we are all

21:39

determined in our genes to

21:42

compete with each other for

21:44

power and material goods and

21:47

that's what our genes

21:49

make us do and

21:51

at the same time

21:53

then a worldview that

21:55

made it look positively

21:57

silly to suggest that

22:00

human beings actually might

22:02

be driven by the

22:04

wish to live in

22:06

a just society, which

22:08

is a premise of

22:10

socialism, that this is

22:12

something that actually, you

22:14

know, the human being

22:16

wants to take part

22:18

in. But all of

22:20

those desires, not only

22:22

a concrete help for

22:24

a different form of

22:26

socialism, and there are

22:28

many forms of capitalism,

22:30

there's no reason why

22:32

they can't be different

22:34

forms of socialism. but

22:37

not only the idea

22:39

of some new form

22:41

of socialism, but any

22:43

form of principle that,

22:45

you know, we might

22:47

be motivated to act

22:49

by, okay? So that

22:51

was discredited, made to

22:53

seem either, you know,

22:55

sort of something for

22:57

old hippies or, you

22:59

know, new Stalinists, and

23:01

those people who were

23:03

still... whose hearts beat

23:05

on the left focused

23:07

therefore on concrete questions

23:09

of discrimination usually in

23:11

their own cases. No,

23:13

I'm not saying that

23:16

It was wrong to

23:18

fight against racism or

23:20

sexism, or sexism rather,

23:22

or homophobia, and I

23:24

think we made some

23:26

important strides in those

23:28

directions. But we did

23:30

lose the sense that

23:32

we might all act

23:34

together towards a common

23:36

goal. We could at

23:38

most be allies rather

23:40

than having... Again, a

23:42

common goal for a

23:44

better world. That came

23:46

to seem very foolish.

23:48

And the funny thing

23:50

is, it came to

23:52

seem like a childish

23:55

wish that human beings

23:57

working together could actually

23:59

create a much more

24:01

livable and more just

24:03

world. And the serious

24:05

part of adulthood we

24:07

were supposed to put...

24:09

those dreams aside and

24:11

get down to the

24:13

adult business of collecting

24:15

toys. That is, the

24:17

newest iPhone, the best

24:19

car, the whatever it

24:21

was. I read about

24:23

this in my book

24:25

Why Grow Up. It's

24:27

quite paradoxical. One doesn't

24:29

see those things as

24:31

toys. One sees them

24:34

as, you know, things

24:36

that are necessary for,

24:38

you know, any serious

24:40

adult who wants to.

24:42

be part of the

24:44

world. But I think

24:46

all of that contributed

24:48

to an ethos that,

24:50

again, produced some genuine

24:52

progress, but let us

24:54

forget what the main

24:56

goal ought to be.

24:58

And I hate to

25:00

say it, but I

25:02

think it's... the realization

25:04

of that entire ethos

25:06

in Donald Trump and

25:08

his second term it

25:10

was it was present

25:13

in his first term

25:15

but it's it's gone

25:17

absolutely crazy in this

25:19

one so that's that's

25:21

the first date that's

25:23

important is 2016 and

25:25

It's important to remember

25:27

that in the 2016

25:29

American election, no one

25:31

used the word woke.

25:33

It's very interesting. It

25:35

just wasn't. I think

25:37

people occasionally talked about

25:39

political correctness, but nobody

25:41

was talking about woke.

25:43

And I think for

25:45

young people who grew

25:47

up in the Obama

25:49

era, one can disagree

25:52

with all kinds of

25:54

things that Obama did.

25:56

But honestly, at this

25:58

moment in time, the

26:00

vision of a highly

26:02

intelligent person of

26:04

integrity, his entire

26:07

family, a beautiful

26:09

black family of intelligence

26:12

talent and integrity in

26:14

the White House who

26:16

were even cool. Yeah,

26:19

whatever you might disagree

26:21

with a particular policy,

26:24

it was a norm

26:26

for anybody growing up in

26:28

that period of time. And the

26:30

idea that the arc of justice

26:33

was slowly bending towards progress was

26:35

something you could believe in. The

26:37

idea that the arc wound up

26:39

in Donald Trump, and I do

26:41

mean to include his whole family.

26:44

I mean, you know, we have

26:46

this saying in the U.S. that

26:48

you don't have in every other

26:50

country. We talk about the first

26:52

family. But the difference between the

26:55

Obama's as the first family and

26:57

the Trump's as the first

26:59

family must have been

27:01

an incredible shock for

27:04

anybody who grew up

27:06

in that era. And that

27:08

is of course where Woke

27:10

began to take over American

27:13

universities. I know

27:15

that you have a big foot and a

27:17

big investment in your work and

27:19

in your life in Germany. I

27:21

find German politics very interesting. One

27:24

of the people I have taken

27:26

a great deal of interest in,

27:28

we've actually interviewed her several times

27:30

on our show is Sarah Vagin-Kenesh,

27:32

who's a long-time leftist who

27:34

has more or less split with the

27:37

left for a bunch of different reasons,

27:39

but one of her primary ones...

27:41

is that she believes this fixation

27:43

on what you might call locism

27:45

or the cultural war has not

27:47

only distracted from class issues or

27:49

class-based inequities, which had been for

27:51

a long time in her view

27:54

the foundation of the left, but

27:56

has even created this kind of

27:58

opening where the last... is not

28:00

talking about class, then right-wing

28:02

populace can. And certainly Donald

28:04

Trump has made a great

28:06

deal, has had a great

28:09

deal of success in making

28:11

inroads with working class voters,

28:13

with presenting himself as a

28:15

sort of anti-corpritous populist who

28:17

you know, wants to protect

28:19

Social Security, Marine La Penn,

28:21

same thing, you know, talks

28:23

about raising the, not raising

28:25

the retirement age, expanding benefits

28:28

for French citizens and the

28:30

like. And I also think

28:32

you saw a lot of

28:34

this in the 2016 Democratic

28:36

Primary, which of course was

28:38

very vitriolic, where you kind

28:40

of had Hillary Clinton heavily

28:42

focused and her followers on

28:44

identity politics and the idea

28:47

of becoming the first woman

28:49

president and all of that.

28:51

And Bernie Sanders, this kind

28:53

of old-style leftist, maybe not

28:55

in 2020, but in 2016,

28:57

certainly saying, look, those issues

28:59

are not what's going to

29:01

solve homelessness and little wages

29:03

and the like, do you

29:06

think that illustrates this kind

29:08

of tension between old left-wing

29:10

values and the modern day

29:12

version? Is there a kind

29:14

of growing sense among parts

29:16

of the left that it's

29:18

time to kind of refocus

29:20

what it means to be

29:23

on the left? So you're

29:25

raising a lot of complicated

29:27

worthwhile questions. First of all,

29:29

I do think the difference

29:31

between Bernie and Hillary absolutely

29:33

illustrates the problem. Woke, as

29:35

other writers, have pointed out.

29:37

deeply amenable to neo-liberal political

29:39

and economic relations. In fact,

29:42

there is a new book

29:44

that's come out by David

29:46

Reef called Desire and Fate,

29:48

in which he actually argues

29:50

that neoliberalism need work in

29:52

order to preserve a sort

29:54

of... moral scheme that it

29:56

didn't take serious. I mean,

29:58

I think there's something quite

30:01

right about that. I make

30:03

children enthusiastic. Bernie supporters, both,

30:05

both campaigns. And I have

30:07

to say, I mean, let's,

30:09

let's look at this seriously.

30:11

A lot of people forgot

30:13

this. 2020, Bernie was leading

30:15

a lot of primaries. And

30:17

coming very close. What happened

30:20

in February 2020. the Republicans

30:22

dug up a speech in

30:24

which he had praised the

30:26

health system of Cuba and

30:28

you know called him a

30:30

terrible communist Bernie doubled down

30:32

and said you know unfortunately

30:34

I think because he had

30:36

to pander to a certain

30:39

kind of very deep anti-communism

30:41

that we've come to take

30:43

for granted. He said, well,

30:45

they're terrible things about Cuba,

30:47

but at least they have

30:49

good health care. He might

30:51

have added, and they have

30:53

the best educational system in

30:55

America, with the possible exception

30:58

of Canada. I've met diplomats

31:00

from Latin Americans. If they

31:02

have children, they all want

31:04

to be posted to Cuba,

31:06

because the educational system is

31:08

the best. So, of course,

31:10

the Republicans were after him

31:12

for that. And, uh... As

31:14

was Hillary. As was Hillary.

31:17

Totally, totally. And at the

31:19

same time, but that's 26,

31:21

I'm talking about 2020. Right.

31:23

2020. So it's right before

31:25

the South Carolina primary, which

31:27

has a large number of

31:29

black voters. And Joe Biden

31:31

did a very woke thing,

31:33

which I think shows the...

31:36

pitfalls of woke. He said,

31:38

I'm going to be the

31:40

president who appoints the first

31:42

black woman to the Supreme

31:44

Court. Now, I am sure

31:46

that Katanji Brown Jackson is

31:48

a qualified justice,

31:50

certainly more qualified

31:53

than many

31:55

people sitting on

31:57

the court

31:59

now. But by

32:01

saying that,

32:03

first of all,

32:05

he's pandering

32:07

to identity politics

32:09

and a

32:12

certain primary. But

32:14

he also

32:16

undermines poor justice

32:18

Jackson's credentials

32:20

forever. But

32:24

that got him the nomination

32:26

and the rest is sad

32:28

history. Now, let me go

32:30

to Sarah Wagenknecht, who I've

32:32

been on, well, once on

32:35

a podium discussion with her.

32:37

She's a very smart person.

32:40

And initially, I

32:43

was quite

32:45

pleased with statements

32:47

like, you know, somebody who

32:49

can't pay their rent

32:51

from their pension, which is

32:53

true of many people

32:55

in the East because their

32:57

pensions were so low

32:59

because they're based on lifetime earnings and

33:01

you didn't have to earn very much

33:03

in East Germany because

33:06

your apartment costs, you know,

33:08

$10 a month. So, so

33:10

a lot of people there are

33:12

really hurting, which is that somebody

33:14

who can't pay their rent

33:16

is not going to be

33:18

helped by what's called gendering,

33:20

correct gender language in German. The

33:23

funny and parochial thing about

33:25

the insistence of these

33:27

language questions is that feminist

33:29

gendering in German is

33:31

the exact opposite of what

33:33

it is in English.

33:35

Okay. So, you know, in

33:37

English, we've moved to

33:40

not noticing gender. We don't

33:42

even call actresses, actresses

33:44

anymore. We call them actors.

33:46

In Germany, you have

33:48

to say, if you're going

33:50

to be politically correct,

33:52

actors and actresses, citizens and

33:55

citizenesses, you know, teachers

33:57

and teacher, and it's anyway. Her

34:00

point that this is

34:02

actually not helping women

34:04

who need something quite

34:07

different was absolutely right.

34:09

What I did not like

34:11

as Vangknek's campaign went on

34:14

and why I wouldn't vote

34:16

for her but the traditional

34:18

left party which is getting

34:21

its act together I hope

34:23

I hope. Is that first

34:26

of all she started playing

34:28

with some... really I think quite

34:31

dangerous anti-immigrant language

34:33

that was moving in

34:35

a direction of nativism and

34:37

that strikes me as a

34:39

dangerous and probably

34:42

tactical move which I

34:44

and many other people were

34:46

not happy with she's also

34:49

somebody who's been highly critical

34:51

of the European Union now

34:53

there many things criticize

34:56

about the European Union.

34:58

you know, there's a sort

35:01

of neoliberal, gigantic machinery

35:03

based in Brussels. One can

35:06

say all of that, but

35:08

right now I think it's

35:10

the only hope for a

35:12

political, and I've thought this,

35:14

by the way, not just now,

35:16

but for a good, you know, a

35:18

couple of decades, for a value-based

35:21

political counterweight to, you

35:24

know, the other possibilities.

35:26

look at Russia or China

35:29

as a particularly good

35:31

counterweight to the United

35:33

States right now. So

35:35

that was troubling and

35:37

then finally she said

35:39

in an interview just

35:41

before the election. She said, journalist

35:43

asked her what she would do

35:46

if she were voting in the

35:48

United States and she said, oh

35:50

I'm so glad I'm not in.

35:53

the United States. That's such a

35:55

hard question. I wouldn't know who

35:57

to vote for. And I just

35:59

thought I'm sorry, if that's how

36:02

little you've perceived of

36:04

Donald Trump, you don't

36:06

deserve to be mayor

36:08

of a small town.

36:10

You have no political

36:12

judgment. And you know,

36:14

here I really stand

36:17

with AOC, who they only,

36:19

the Democrats seem only

36:21

to have allowed, like

36:23

Bernie, to speak in the...

36:26

last week or so of

36:28

the election, she said,

36:30

look, I completely understand

36:32

people who don't want to

36:35

vote for Biden because

36:37

of Gaza. But if

36:39

Harris is president, we can

36:41

negotiate with her. We can

36:44

put pressure on her. There's

36:46

normal political possibilities. With Trump,

36:48

there are none. And I

36:51

think his Gaza video. you

36:53

know, reflects how grotesque his

36:56

visions are. I mean, whatever

36:58

that's supposed to do, if

37:01

that's supposed to be blackmailing

37:03

other Arab countries, you

37:05

know, that's maybe another

37:07

question. But so anyway, I agree

37:10

with you that Roggan tonight

37:12

is interesting, but I think

37:14

she's problematic and I'm not

37:16

sorry that she didn't get

37:18

enough votes to get into

37:20

Parliament. She gave very close, but

37:23

I didn't quite make that 5%.

37:25

Let me just probably a little

37:27

bit on that, because there are

37:29

some things that you said that

37:32

I certainly agree with and others

37:34

that I don't necessarily. But I

37:36

want to just touch on the broader

37:38

point that I think is raised by

37:40

your answer, which is, I think one

37:43

of the core facts of Western

37:45

politics, of the views of

37:47

the citizenry of the West.

37:49

is that they feel as

37:52

though the institutions of power,

37:54

the establishment dogma that shapes

37:56

these institutions have become extremely

37:58

hostile toward and... threatening of

38:01

their welfare, their economic welfare, their

38:03

moral welfare, etc. And I think

38:05

you can make a very strong

38:07

case that that has been true.

38:10

There's a lot of you know

38:12

policy approaches whether it be

38:14

free trade or centralizing

38:17

authority and distant institutions

38:19

where there's less democratic

38:21

control that people perceive

38:23

have become increasingly indifferent

38:25

to their lives instead concerned with the

38:28

sort of elite, the highly educated,

38:30

the highly wealthy. And I think

38:32

there's validity to that, but whether or

38:34

not there is, I think that's a

38:37

big explanation for why people

38:39

are turning to the politicians

38:41

who at least depict themselves

38:43

as sharing their antipathy towards

38:45

these establishments. And obviously in

38:47

Europe, the EU... is sort

38:49

of a symbol of that

38:51

neoliberalism. It's why I think

38:53

the British people voted to

38:55

leave Brexit and the like. And

38:57

so if you're going to

39:00

continuously align with Brussels

39:02

or with the Democratic Party

39:04

and the technocrats who run

39:06

it. Isn't that just going to continue

39:09

to fuel what you say is

39:11

your concern about this rising wing

39:13

populism? Namely that the left liberals

39:15

used to be the anti-establishment faction

39:17

have become sort of the symbol

39:19

of the status quo and the

39:21

establishments who run it. And

39:24

I think what Sarah Vagin is sort of

39:26

saying is that to have success with

39:28

a left-wing agenda, you need to

39:30

abandon that perception that you're on the

39:32

side of of establishment power. What do

39:34

you make of that? Yeah,

39:37

I think there's something right

39:39

about that and I again

39:41

to go back to the

39:43

American case I think that's

39:46

why the Democratic Party

39:48

not only you know made

39:50

fun of Bernie and did we

39:53

even know what went on behind

39:55

the seats I only know what

39:57

one could see to make sure

40:00

that although there was

40:02

overwhelming popular support, I

40:04

mean people talk about

40:07

generational, you know, I mean

40:09

there was some ageist discussion,

40:12

we have to get rid

40:14

of the old guys, you know,

40:16

get my, you know, children in

40:18

the 20s and early 30s, they

40:20

would have done anything to

40:23

like Barney and there

40:25

were millions of other kids

40:27

like that. So, you know,

40:29

I think we can even

40:31

in American terms see a

40:33

real difference between somebody

40:36

like Sanders and somebody

40:39

like Clinton. And also

40:41

see how hard the

40:43

Clintonites pushed back to

40:45

make sure that He looked like

40:47

someone silly. It's very funny, of

40:50

course, now that Trump has

40:52

proved true, basically everything he

40:54

was saying, suddenly the New York

40:56

Times is printing out there. It's

40:59

from Burdie. It's like, you know,

41:01

all if they've mentioned him when

41:03

he was campaigning for the nomination,

41:06

it was only to make fun

41:08

of him. So, you know, I

41:10

just, I, that's the first point.

41:12

The second point, though, is I

41:14

really want to repeat. that

41:16

AOC claim that is,

41:19

and it all depends

41:21

on what your focus

41:23

is. I don't think we

41:26

live in a world

41:28

where a Leninist view

41:30

that the worse it gets,

41:33

the better it is

41:35

for the revolution, is

41:37

something we really want

41:39

a chance. We're talking

41:41

about. not just thousands

41:43

of lives but millions

41:45

of lives that are

41:48

at risk. And I

41:50

do think it would

41:52

have been possible to

41:54

put pressure on a

41:56

democratic administration to

41:59

stop... It's atrocious

42:01

unconditional support of Netanyahu's

42:03

government. I think that

42:06

could have happened. The

42:08

tide is turning. We

42:11

had the most broad-scale

42:13

student demonstrations since the

42:16

Vietnam War, which I'm just

42:18

barely old enough to remember.

42:20

And, you know, it isn't

42:22

simply students. It's a very

42:25

broad swathe of society that

42:27

it's not happy about. genocide

42:29

in Gaza. So, and that's

42:32

willing at this point to

42:34

say it's genocide. So I

42:36

think that there could have

42:39

been pressure negotiation various

42:41

sorts of political

42:43

tools brought to bear

42:45

on that, which would

42:48

have directly benefited the

42:50

people of Palestine. And

42:52

there's clearly nothing we can

42:55

do in a Trump

42:57

administration. Trump is arresting

43:00

and threatening to

43:02

deport an already

43:05

deporting the

43:08

protesters. So,

43:10

you know, there's

43:12

a difference between

43:15

a problematic establish

43:17

problematic neoliberal

43:19

establishment that is

43:22

distance from distant from the

43:24

concerns of so many people

43:26

is a difference between that

43:28

and sheer fascism which is what

43:31

we've seen and in the US

43:33

right now. Yeah I certainly have

43:36

been very vocal about my vehement

43:38

opposition to a lot of that but

43:40

I think the question of how you vote

43:42

and the the lesser of two evils rationale

43:44

that's something we could do a whole show

43:47

on and and and I want to kind

43:49

of focus on your book but I just

43:51

want to note that maybe we should have

43:53

you back on and we can talk about those

43:55

issues more directly by the way let

43:57

me just say in in one sentence

43:59

I think I think the lesser of two

44:01

evils is not a general principle, it's

44:03

something you have to decide every single

44:06

time you make a political decision.

44:08

So. Yeah, and I think, I mean, as you

44:10

know, there were a lot of Arab voters,

44:12

a lot of Muslim voters, Palestinian voters in

44:14

the US, who felt like, given everything Joe

44:16

Biden had done, Carmel Harrison said, even

44:18

refusing to let a Palestinian speak. in

44:20

the convention, even if they were going

44:23

to praise Kamel Harrison, the Democratic Party,

44:25

that it was almost impossible to imagine

44:27

a breaking of the status quo with

44:29

regard to Israel, whereas Trump is such

44:31

a kind of what Seymour Hearst called

44:33

a circuit breaker, and you saw some

44:35

of that potential with... ushering in the

44:37

ceasefire that of course now has been

44:39

abandoned and that was always the plan

44:41

but sort of the ceiling was higher

44:43

the floor was lower and people were

44:45

willing to take that chance but let me just

44:47

go back to your your your I just interrupt

44:50

you for one second one I knew if we

44:52

got to this we were gonna we were gonna

44:54

want to talk about it but go ahead I

44:56

don't want to spend the whole

44:58

I don't want to spend

45:00

the whole time talking about

45:02

it but when you when

45:04

you mentioned the Arab voters

45:06

in Michigan you're doing identity

45:08

politics again I know lots

45:11

of people who were not

45:13

Arab, and not even young,

45:15

and often who were Jewish,

45:17

who were so disgusted that

45:19

they didn't vote. So let's

45:21

again remember it was the

45:23

largest student demonstration in 50

45:25

years, 60 years, 60

45:27

years, almost. And you

45:30

know, it was a

45:32

very broad, certainly under

45:34

50-year-old. Jewish Americans are deeply against

45:37

what's happening in Israel, Palestine. So let's

45:39

just... No, no. Point taken, absolutely. I

45:41

don't think there's been a day in

45:44

my life over the last year in

45:46

however many months that I haven't, you

45:48

know, been vocally pointing out that a

45:51

huge part of these student movements were

45:53

not just participants who were Jewish students,

45:55

but often the organizers and leaders.

45:57

We've interviewed a lot of them.

45:59

and it's very broad based across democratic

46:01

lines. So you're absolutely right about that.

46:04

I was just sort of noting that,

46:06

you know, even people who put Palestine

46:08

as their first issue made that conclusion.

46:10

But let me go back to Wilkism

46:12

for a second in the critique that

46:14

you've voiced of it. And I want

46:16

to do something that I don't ordinarily do,

46:18

maybe not ever do, which is kind

46:20

of give the defense of people who

46:22

might identify. as well because of just

46:24

because neither of us are such people

46:26

and I want to make sure that

46:28

view is presented and then you can

46:30

address it. You know you were talking

46:32

earlier about it's a major part of

46:35

your book that there's often a

46:37

failure to recognize a distinction between

46:39

power and justice. You were talking

46:41

earlier about the kind of predominant

46:43

need to make the society more

46:46

just if that's ultimately a major

46:48

part of politics and our human

46:50

endeavor. And I guess people who

46:52

have this woke agenda who do

46:54

focus on what you might dismiss

46:56

as these limited forms of culture

46:59

war issues, you know, I referred

47:01

earlier to the 2016 argument that

47:03

the Bernie campaign was making, which

47:05

is that even if you

47:08

eliminate racism or homophobia or

47:10

misogyny, you're not addressing the

47:12

core economic deprivations

47:14

and injustices. But the other side

47:16

of that is you can. correct

47:18

all the economic injustices but

47:21

if you're not working to

47:23

eliminate racism and the idea that

47:25

white people should have a supreme

47:27

position or that men should or

47:30

whoever all the other arguments that

47:32

you're not really making the society

47:34

more just except for the group

47:36

of people who have traditionally benefited

47:39

from those kinds of economic improvements.

47:41

And I guess that's their argument

47:43

is no, we are focused on

47:46

justice. We just believe that justice

47:48

can't happen until these demographic inequities

47:50

are finally resolved. What is your

47:52

response to that? Well, thank you for

47:55

that question because it allows me to

47:57

explain why I'm a socialist but not

47:59

a mark. I'm not a

48:01

Marxist because I don't

48:03

believe that class is

48:05

any more our essential

48:07

identity than race or

48:09

gender is. And I

48:11

think the class reduction

48:14

that you get

48:16

in traditional Marxism

48:19

doesn't do justice to...

48:21

Well, first of all,

48:23

it's very hard to

48:25

understand when people want

48:28

to... hold on to

48:30

a conception of

48:32

class that's all determining

48:35

in the 21st century.

48:37

So if it's income,

48:39

you know, you have

48:41

PhDs, sorry, is it,

48:44

is it income, is

48:46

it, is it, is it

48:48

education, is it what

48:51

you called social

48:53

capital, if that were

48:55

the case, you would not

48:57

of PhDs driving ubers for

49:00

billionaires who can't read. I

49:02

mean, we just, we live,

49:04

it seems to me, if,

49:06

if Marx's class theory was

49:08

even correct in the 19th

49:11

century, and there are big

49:13

questions about where Marx

49:15

and Ingalls themselves fit

49:18

in, you know, in

49:20

a sort of traditional

49:22

Marxist understanding of class.

49:24

It certainly doesn't work

49:27

for. the 21st century.

49:29

So that's the first

49:32

answer, which is why

49:34

I don't think focusing

49:37

on class solves

49:39

everything. I think

49:42

that, again, it's the

49:44

idea of justice, which

49:46

is a broader idea

49:48

in all of its

49:51

forms, you know,

49:53

focus on human

49:55

dignity. as something

49:57

that fundamental

50:00

ought to be recognized and

50:02

unite all of us. Now

50:04

I should add that there's

50:06

another point that I think

50:08

is very important that some

50:10

of the principles that I

50:12

list in the book are

50:14

like a belief that it's

50:16

possible to distinguish between justice

50:19

and justice. Those are common

50:21

to liberals, so the difference

50:23

for me between left and

50:25

liberal is that leftist believes

50:27

that social rights are genuine

50:29

rights. And they're every bit

50:31

as important as political rights.

50:33

Take the South African Constitution,

50:35

which is the most progressive

50:38

in the world. I was

50:40

just there for three weeks.

50:42

And among constitutionalists, it's fascinating.

50:44

There's not only a prohibition

50:46

on discrimination on any of

50:48

the grounds that political discrimination

50:50

should be prohibited, but there's

50:52

an insistence that every human

50:55

being has a right to

50:57

health care, housing, education, access

50:59

to culture, and all of

51:01

those things are... They're in

51:03

the South African Constitution. Of

51:05

course, it hasn't been a

51:07

facility. There are people working

51:09

on it. All those things

51:11

are in the 1948 Declaration

51:14

of Human Rights of the

51:16

United Nations, which was actually

51:18

shepherded by Eleanor Roosevelt. But

51:20

for liberals, social rights are

51:22

not real rights. They're benefits

51:24

or privileges. They're things that,

51:26

you know. It would be

51:28

nice to have, if you're

51:30

lucky, but if not, certainly

51:33

the most horrible thing would

51:35

be, you know, freedom of,

51:37

would be to have your

51:39

freedom of speech taken away,

51:41

your freedom of travel. Well,

51:43

actually, the Trump administration has

51:45

started on those rights, too.

51:47

I don't mean to laugh.

51:50

It's just... terrible times you

51:52

know at some point one

51:54

has to what has to

51:56

be a little bit ironic

51:58

about them so does that

52:00

does that answer your question

52:02

why I think that I

52:04

mean I my this is

52:06

why I think that the

52:09

the dichotomy that some people

52:11

have suggested. And sometimes Sanders

52:13

is one of them, although

52:15

I agree with you, I

52:17

think he's evolved, but he's

52:19

still basically in, you know,

52:21

in that mode. The dichotomy

52:23

between social rights and, sorry,

52:26

between economic rights. and you

52:28

know ending discrimination against minorities

52:30

and women doesn't need to

52:32

be a dichotomy it only

52:34

is if you take a

52:36

very Marxist view of the

52:38

world which I don't learned

52:40

a lot from Marx but

52:42

I stay a socialist without

52:45

democracies. All right. I think

52:47

I think I wish people

52:49

especially on the right understood

52:51

that there is that distinction

52:53

and maybe even people on

52:55

the left as well that

52:57

that is an important distinction.

52:59

I think it's one Bernie

53:01

Sanders often makes you know

53:04

he says oh my form

53:06

of socialism is what they

53:08

have in Scandinavia you know

53:10

democratic socialism and not the

53:12

kind that was driving the

53:14

Russian revolution and the like

53:16

but or 20 century communism.

53:18

Let me I just have

53:21

a couple other questions. It

53:23

is ironic to me because

53:25

your critique of what is

53:27

called wokism, whatever it means,

53:29

and we kind of have

53:31

a vague understanding of what

53:33

it means if we can't

53:35

clearly define it, is something

53:37

that a lot of people

53:40

on the right have actually

53:42

co-opted as a way of

53:44

arguing against this more aggressive

53:46

form of race-based or gender-based

53:48

justice. They very commonly cite

53:50

Martin with their kings, defining

53:52

vision of judging people. by

53:54

the content of their character.

53:56

I know all the arguments.

53:59

Let me just lay out

54:01

their case and not the

54:03

color of their skin. I've

54:05

heard a lot of people

54:07

on the right over the

54:09

past decades say there's nothing more

54:11

evil than judging people or dividing

54:13

people up based on the color

54:15

of their skin, which is what

54:18

ultimately wokism does, kind of create

54:20

these divisions that you describe, these

54:22

kind of hierarchies of entitlement and

54:24

power, not based on who you

54:26

are, but. based on these

54:28

demographic characteristics. And they've

54:31

been very vocal about this

54:33

vision of co-opting kind of

54:35

the language of the 60s

54:37

about what social justice is

54:39

to argue against locism. Leaving

54:42

aside questions of motive or

54:44

authenticity or whatever, it has

54:46

been equally ironic to me that

54:48

over the last year and a half,

54:50

especially since October 7th, a lot of

54:52

people on the right. have turned

54:55

to what seems to me

54:57

to be the exact narrative

54:59

that they are, have been denouncing,

55:01

which is, oh, we have to

55:04

look at this one

55:06

minority group as a

55:08

unique victim group, which

55:10

are American Jews, or

55:12

more broadly, Western Jews,

55:14

they constantly, you know,

55:16

complain that anybody... On the left,

55:19

the minute you disagree with them,

55:21

they call them a racist or

55:23

whatever, and the minute you open

55:26

your mouth and express any dissent

55:28

about Israel, you're instantly branded by

55:30

them as an anti-Semite, or even

55:32

turning to speech codes and speech

55:35

restrictions, obviously deporting people who participated

55:37

in protests against them. Do you

55:39

see this kind of new narrative? And it's

55:41

not really so new, but it's kind

55:43

of taken on a much stronger expression

55:45

in the wake of October 7th that... Surrounding

55:48

anti-Semitism and what Chuck Schumer has a

55:50

new book out calling it the grave

55:52

crisis of anti-Semitism is a way of

55:54

defending Israel and the special rights needed

55:57

to protect it is a version of or maybe

55:59

even a rep. of what we might

56:01

call wokism that the right

56:03

has been condemning for so

56:06

long? Boy how many hours

56:08

do we have to discuss

56:10

this question. That's why I

56:13

said I just have two

56:15

more questions because the other

56:17

ones may be even broader

56:20

but go ahead. I mean

56:22

you're talking to if you

56:24

read some of the German

56:27

media you're talking to one

56:29

of the biggest anti-Semites in

56:31

the country. Right I know.

56:34

And I'm very Jewish. So,

56:36

you know, and I have

56:38

with, together with, you know,

56:41

a small group of comrades,

56:43

been trying very much to

56:45

fight that narrative long before

56:48

October 7th. It was clear,

56:50

three years ago, that the

56:52

right was hijacking. The memory

56:55

of the Holocaust and the

56:57

real history of anti-Semitism to

56:59

hide their own racism. It's

57:02

a Steve Bannon trick, you

57:04

know, I mean, it's a,

57:06

I mean, that, of course,

57:08

Trump and other people have

57:11

taken over those. It can't

57:13

possibly be a Nazi if

57:15

I swear unconditional support of

57:18

the state of Israel. And

57:20

it's a... And a lot

57:22

of far-right parties in Europe

57:25

use that, too, as their

57:27

shield. All of them. No,

57:29

I did a conference almost

57:32

three years ago. We had

57:34

people from 17 countries talking

57:36

about the permutations of this

57:39

move in their countries in

57:41

the rising right. It's a

57:43

really pernicious hijacking, we actually

57:46

called it hijacking memory, hijacking

57:48

of, you know, some very...

57:50

Very important criticisms. Is it

57:53

woke? Yeah, of course. I

57:55

mean, and that's actually, I

57:57

should say that my own

58:00

criticisms of the woke were

58:02

being. as I was involved

58:04

in this political activism in

58:07

Berlin where I have lived

58:09

for 25 years and

58:11

more and sort of

58:14

realizing that You know

58:16

I was expected The

58:18

good Jew was expected to

58:21

be a Jew who always

58:23

talked about the Holocaust, always

58:26

talked about anti-Semitism, was tribalist,

58:28

was afraid of, fundamentally afraid

58:30

of other people. and that

58:32

those people like me and

58:34

my friends who consider themselves

58:37

deeply universalist and indeed you

58:39

know you can find support

58:41

of that in the book

58:43

of exodus we were strangers

58:45

and slaves in the land

58:47

of Egypt and that's why

58:49

we have a responsibility to

58:51

stand by the stranger and

58:53

that's how I was taught

58:56

growing up in Georgia during

58:58

the civil rights movement so

59:00

but and I see that

59:02

sometimes in In the U.S.,

59:05

among the African-American

59:07

community, that is

59:10

the Afro-Pessimist school,

59:13

is not very different

59:15

from the Jewish focus

59:18

on anti-Semitism and

59:20

the idea of

59:22

one's own. potential

59:24

victimhood and also the

59:26

idea that it's never

59:28

going to go away. And so,

59:30

you know, and those are considered

59:33

to be authentic black voices,

59:35

whereas someone who says, you

59:37

know, I don't want to

59:40

spend my life focused

59:42

on racism gets called

59:44

a black conservative. and

59:46

often they're not. So

59:49

yes, I think we're

59:52

dealing with many of

59:54

the same philosophical ideas

59:57

and tropes. And

59:59

that's... Yeah, very much influenced my

1:00:01

book. I want to just ask

1:00:03

you this last question about your views

1:00:05

of the Enlightenment. I'm sure you

1:00:07

don't know this, but I was actually

1:00:09

a philosophy major in college. Got

1:00:11

very obsessed, especially German philosophy. Studied German

1:00:13

as my minor. Spent a lot

1:00:15

of time in Germany and Austria after

1:00:17

college. I'm

1:00:20

kind of jealous of the trajectory you

1:00:22

ended up pursuing. I considered it

1:00:24

and sort of fell prey to pragmatic

1:00:26

considerations and went to law school.

1:00:28

But in any event, it's always been

1:00:30

something that I've been deeply interested

1:00:32

in that has formed a great deal

1:00:34

of my outlook and worldview. Obviously,

1:00:36

I've read all the establishment thinkers and

1:00:38

writers and were taught to venerate

1:00:40

them that this was kind of the

1:00:42

context in which our constitution emerged

1:00:44

and the Federalist papers and the like.

1:00:48

And I think you share a certain

1:00:50

admiration for a lot of the

1:00:52

core establishment values, but you also have

1:00:54

a lot of criticisms of what

1:00:56

the Enlightenment is as I understand them.

1:01:01

And I have been of the

1:01:03

view that a lot of left -wing

1:01:05

politics as it has manifested over

1:01:07

the last, say, 10 to 15

1:01:09

years has become increasingly at odds

1:01:11

with the better parts of establishment

1:01:14

values. I

1:01:16

don't know why I keep saying

1:01:18

establishment when I mean Enlightenment. Enlightenment values.

1:01:20

I'm sorry about that, if I've

1:01:22

confused you. I know I've said that

1:01:24

a couple of times. That it

1:01:26

has become sort of at odds with

1:01:28

Enlightenment values. And I'm wondering if

1:01:30

you could talk about, first, your view

1:01:32

of the Enlightenment in terms of

1:01:34

the admiration and the criticisms you had

1:01:36

of it and how it pertains

1:01:38

to the thesis of your book that

1:01:40

left is not woke. Sure.

1:01:43

As a side note, if it

1:01:46

makes you feel any better, I

1:01:48

was in South Africa with a

1:01:50

bunch of anti -apartheid fighters who

1:01:52

were lawyers and justices. And I

1:01:54

started wishing I had gone to

1:01:56

law school. It's always the grass

1:01:59

is always greener, right? So yeah, but here I

1:02:01

am doing what I'm doing. Look, I

1:02:03

think the first thing one has

1:02:05

to understand about the

1:02:07

Enlightenment is they were

1:02:09

left wing intellectuals. First of

1:02:12

all, sometimes people will get

1:02:14

into enlightenment bashing and

1:02:16

they'll talk about people

1:02:18

like Locke and Hegel who

1:02:21

were really not part of

1:02:23

the Enlightenment, as you know,

1:02:25

if you know something about

1:02:27

the history of philosophy. And

1:02:30

I think most of the

1:02:32

criticisms which have come from

1:02:34

post-colonial theory are based on

1:02:37

an astonishing amount of ignorance

1:02:39

about what the Enlightenment was

1:02:41

and what it stood for.

1:02:43

And anybody who's interested can

1:02:46

read just a little novel

1:02:48

by Voltaire called Candide. It's

1:02:50

very famous, but I think

1:02:53

very few people read it. And

1:02:55

you will not find a better

1:02:57

attack on European politics. hierarchies,

1:03:00

slavery, colonialism, it's all there.

1:03:02

But one has to understand

1:03:04

that the great thinkers of

1:03:07

the Enlightenment were left-wing radicals

1:03:09

and left-wing radicals don't always

1:03:12

win all our battles, at

1:03:14

least not immediately, so that

1:03:17

when people say, you know,

1:03:19

well, it was the age

1:03:22

of, that invented human rights,

1:03:24

but it was also an

1:03:26

age of slavery and

1:03:28

colonialism. First of all,

1:03:30

slavery and colonialism have

1:03:32

very long histories. They

1:03:35

were both revved up

1:03:37

towards the end of

1:03:39

the 18th and particularly

1:03:41

during the 19th century. But

1:03:43

the fact that it

1:03:46

happened together with the

1:03:48

sinkers of the Enlightenment

1:03:50

doesn't mean that they're

1:03:53

responsible for it. They were

1:03:55

protesting it and often very,

1:03:57

very, very sharply. you know

1:04:00

So, the very ideas with

1:04:02

which we want to

1:04:04

argue that Europe is

1:04:06

not the center of

1:04:08

the world and all things

1:04:10

good and we ought

1:04:12

to take a look

1:04:15

and learn from other cultures,

1:04:17

that was an enlightenment

1:04:19

idea. They were the

1:04:21

first people to come

1:04:23

up with that. And they

1:04:25

used both genuine interlocutors

1:04:27

from other countries and

1:04:30

also fictitious ones to strongly

1:04:32

criticize European patriarchy, private

1:04:34

property and land, I

1:04:36

mean, all of these

1:04:38

things that some post -colonial

1:04:40

theorists think that they've

1:04:42

just discovered are in the

1:04:45

enlightenment texts, okay? But

1:04:47

they're done not from

1:04:49

the perspective, oh,

1:04:51

you know, the indigenous

1:04:53

or the global south are

1:04:56

always right and the

1:04:58

Europeans are always wrong, sometimes

1:05:00

yes and sometimes no.

1:05:02

They're done from a commitment

1:05:04

to universalism and universal

1:05:06

justice. So I agree with

1:05:08

you, it's actually gone

1:05:10

on longer than the last

1:05:12

10 or 15 years.

1:05:14

I first ran into it,

1:05:16

I remember exactly when

1:05:18

and where, I was actually

1:05:21

writing a book trying

1:05:23

to answer enlightenment criticism, it's

1:05:25

called Moral Clarity and

1:05:27

I ran into this criticism

1:05:29

that the enlightenment was

1:05:31

Eurocentric and colonialist and I

1:05:33

thought, well, this isn't

1:05:35

going to last long, all

1:05:37

you have to do

1:05:39

is look at one text,

1:05:41

it's not true, so

1:05:43

much from my prediction of

1:05:45

that intellectual trends, I

1:05:48

do think it's coming around

1:05:50

and I have been through

1:05:52

my work at the Einstein

1:05:55

Forum, which is a public

1:05:57

think tank, I have actually

1:06:00

collecting really interesting

1:06:02

thinkers from the

1:06:04

so-called global South and

1:06:07

other traditions who themselves

1:06:09

are very critical of

1:06:12

the anti-enlightment thought.

1:06:14

You might want to

1:06:16

sometime invite Olafemi Taioo.

1:06:18

There are two people,

1:06:20

two philosophers named Olafemi

1:06:23

Taioo. the United States, but

1:06:25

the one who wrote

1:06:27

a book called Against

1:06:30

Decolonization, and it's a terrific

1:06:32

book. He's a really interesting

1:06:34

guy, and there are more such

1:06:36

voices. So I don't know,

1:06:39

does that answer your question

1:06:41

about the Enlightenment? I just

1:06:43

wanted to kind of connect

1:06:46

it to your critique of

1:06:48

Oakism as well, like how

1:06:50

it informs that critique.

1:06:52

Deals of the

1:06:55

Enlightenment, which I

1:06:58

take to be the

1:07:00

ideals of liberal leftists,

1:07:03

are all the ideas

1:07:05

that get thrown

1:07:07

out with woke.

1:07:10

So take universalism.

1:07:13

Michel Foucault said,

1:07:15

human being is... an

1:07:17

invention of the 18th

1:07:20

century and it will disappear

1:07:22

with the writing in the

1:07:24

sand. Famous quote of Foucault.

1:07:26

You don't have the red

1:07:29

Foucault who have been influenced

1:07:31

by him. He is the

1:07:33

most influential writer in the

1:07:35

social sciences and humanities

1:07:38

in the world and

1:07:40

of course we've taken

1:07:42

over this concept posthumanism

1:07:44

and so on and so on. When

1:07:46

you actually read the Enlightenment with

1:07:49

an open mind, you realize, oh

1:07:51

gosh, it was an idea that

1:07:53

was invented in the 18th century,

1:07:56

and we ought to really value

1:07:58

their ability. to make

1:08:00

an abstraction, think about

1:08:03

the way things were

1:08:05

in the 17th century.

1:08:07

Not only were people

1:08:10

from different cultures, different

1:08:12

countries, different languages, different

1:08:15

colors, not all considered

1:08:17

to be part of

1:08:19

the same, you know.

1:08:22

genre human being. People

1:08:24

from different classes weren't

1:08:26

considered to be. You

1:08:29

know, laws on who

1:08:31

you could fraternize with

1:08:34

and what you could

1:08:36

wear and who you

1:08:38

could marry were based

1:08:41

on the idea that

1:08:43

people in different classes

1:08:45

did not, were not...

1:08:48

fundamentally human and for

1:08:50

the enlightenment. realizing that

1:08:53

you could abstract from

1:08:55

all of these differences

1:08:57

that we see and

1:09:00

find a common core

1:09:02

that's human, which does

1:09:04

not mean that everybody's

1:09:07

supposed to be all

1:09:09

the same or that

1:09:11

you're not supposed to

1:09:14

enjoy different cultural forms.

1:09:16

On the contrary, one

1:09:19

of the silliest problems

1:09:21

with the woke is

1:09:23

the idea of cultural

1:09:26

appropriation. I mean, it

1:09:28

is through... trying to

1:09:30

enter and interact with

1:09:33

other people's cultures that

1:09:35

we both get a

1:09:38

better understanding of their

1:09:40

humanity, but that we

1:09:42

also understand our own.

1:09:45

So that's the first

1:09:47

enlightenment idea. The second

1:09:49

enlightenment idea really is

1:09:52

the idea that it's

1:09:54

possible to make a

1:09:57

distinction between the desire

1:09:59

for for justice and

1:10:01

the desire for power. They've been deliberately

1:10:03

confused as long as we have recorded

1:10:05

writing. I mean, the Plato talks about

1:10:07

this, but to conclude, because let's say

1:10:09

the Bush administration claimed to be fighting

1:10:11

for democracy in the Middle East when

1:10:13

their real aims were something else, does

1:10:15

not mean that no one ever... tried

1:10:17

to fight for justice, okay, but that

1:10:19

is a conclusion that people make. And

1:10:21

then finally, the idea of progress, which

1:10:23

was also a new idea for the

1:10:25

Enlightenment. You had either the idea of

1:10:27

the fall from grace, you know, things

1:10:29

were good in the Garden of Eden,

1:10:31

and they've gone downhill from there, and

1:10:33

maybe a miracle can save us, but

1:10:35

only after we're dead. I mean, that

1:10:37

was the concept of time, or you

1:10:39

had this sort of Greek cyclical idea

1:10:41

of time. And the idea that human

1:10:43

beings working together could actually construct a

1:10:45

better world in this world was, again,

1:10:47

a new idea that came with the

1:10:49

enlightenment and that I fear, and I

1:10:51

understand the pessimism. I mean, I totally

1:10:54

understand why people can despair of... the

1:10:56

possibility of progress. But we need to

1:10:58

appreciate what progress has been made in

1:11:00

the past in order to make more

1:11:02

in the future. Well, I have to

1:11:04

say I really got a lot out

1:11:06

of your book. I enjoy the writings

1:11:08

and thinking of philosophers for the reason

1:11:10

I referenced earlier, but also it has

1:11:12

so much application. I would say that's

1:11:14

the primacy of the book is application

1:11:16

to our current political debates, especially on

1:11:18

the left. And I think what you

1:11:20

said at the start that you really

1:11:22

said out not to ask what is

1:11:24

woke, but what is the left? is

1:11:26

such an such an

1:11:28

important project To me.

1:11:30

These terms have almost

1:11:32

taken on a

1:11:34

kind of meaninglessness because

1:11:36

of how confused

1:11:38

they are. That's almost

1:11:40

unhelpful to think

1:11:42

about the world through

1:11:44

that way, even

1:11:46

though the world through that kinds

1:11:48

of divisions ought

1:11:50

to be informative and

1:11:52

helpful and you have

1:11:54

a clear understanding

1:11:56

of a clear is. And

1:11:58

I think your

1:12:00

book does a great

1:12:02

job of enabling

1:12:04

that. a really enjoyed

1:12:06

our conversation. I'd love

1:12:08

to have you

1:12:10

back on. I appreciate

1:12:12

you taking the

1:12:14

time to talk to

1:12:16

us. love to have you back

1:12:18

on. I Well, thanks

1:12:20

so much, Glenn. I

1:12:22

enjoyed it as

1:12:24

well. Thank you. Have

1:12:26

a good afternoon. so

1:12:28

much, Glenn.