tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 29, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
what she's doing. i think that, you know, the cultural appropriation question is one that bothers us, absolutely, that cultures are, you know, they are borderless. i mean, we live right next to each other, always cultures informing and influencing each other, and you're right is that there's so much new produced that one of the things that black culture does is it is constantly on guard, constantly creating and recreating something new. you mentioned justin bieber a you mentioned that song thaty was ubiquitous everywhere. is it, you know and this is what you can tell young people, that it's we listen to that and we think that sounds like funkadelic from years ago. you're right there is a constant
mobility and moving and the creativity of what is being created right outside is more interesting and exciting than what happened on that mtv stage which is why i don't watch it. >> at the same time i would hazard to guess that it's by the lack of real culture that is in their heads all the time. so it is something to think about. so in your own efforts to share your knowledge and experience and love is a culture is an important thing. and i think that creating those moments is super important. if it is just your little cousin. there's an incredible archive of everything that has been created and that is also amazing.
>> i find it that so many of them find stuff that i didn't even know about. so i think the work that you do one-on-one and what we all have to do is important and young creative minds are absorbing it all and unlike the kind of commercial sort of regurgitation of something that has already happened, they are going to process it if they have access to it an interesting and exciting ways. thank you so much. [applause] >> please join me again in thinking farah griffin and sharifa rhodes-pitts for this conversation. i want to remind you of their books are on sale at the gift shop and they will be around for the next half-hour to sign. thank you so much for coming.
>> [inaudible conversations] from your newest book "bullies" you write president obama was elected at least in part because he was black. it was a positive many americans believe that if they needed to elect the first black president to move beyond issues of race once and for all. instead they got a champion bully masquerading as a racial unifier. what do you mean? >> guest: president obama came into office on this great wave
of american approval but said he's going to unify the country along racial lines. instead what happened is that the president has really suggested in the multiple ways he's not only the continuation of american racism, but that is one of the most serious problems still facing the country. we see it manifest in everything from the george zimmerman trial to focus on voter id card to paint voter id as a racist thing and caution voter fraud. the question on the motivation of the american people at least his opponents is something president obama likes to do on a frequent basis and it pays tremendous dividends and the only sector of the racial population that showed up in larger numbers than the previous cycle in 2012 is the black community that showed up in numbers far outweigh in the portion of the population which is great they showed up and a lot of folks showed up that they were convinced by voting for president obama they were stopping a great racist tide that has kind of swarmed up to
the surface against president obama and people opposed him politically. >> host: when you hear the term post-racial, what does that mean to you? >> guest: the idea that we live in a country everyone is free to make their own way and the obstacles the space should be identified and targeted on an individual level. i think that we get into ghost hunting pretty quickly when we start talking about institutional racism and the idea that there is a racist conspiracy to keep people around i don't think that is true anymore or for people of my generation and the continued push to resolve her example of the 50th anniversary of martin luther king blank i have a dream speech that it is white racism and not only is it not true but it is tremendously damaging for white folks and black folks. >> host: in "bullies" you have a subchapter anatomy of racial bullying, the smear campaign march 8, 2012. >> guest: what i was talking about when i talked about the
racial bullying is the bully of the trayvon martin case that turned pretty quickly into an attempt by the left to paint george zimmerman as he white guy that had attracted down and murdered a black kid as opposed to what happened, a half white guy, the first time in history that someone said they were a half hispanic, that president obama is half black, but george zimmerman was half hispanic and under circumstances shocke shotn martin after presumably having a jury ruled had his head hit against the ground several times by trayvon martin and it's turned into a clear-cut emmett till attempt to murder a black person by a white person and that isn't what happened at all. not only is it not what happened but it's what they do on a regular basis which is to take controversial situations and turned them into a great referendum on the question in america whether you are talking about o.j. simpson or rod e. king was something that wasn't
in that case. the fbi has been searching for evidence that george is among gs a racist for months now and they've been unable to find anything. he was picked out and targeted and that race was turned into a race case as opposed to what it was coming tragic circumstances, more tragic for trayvon martin because he ended up dead. >> host: use of the associated press wrote a story that seemed racial in nature area is the media part of this bullying? >> guest: absolutely. they are the chief bullies and in the light as an objective. i don't have as much of a problem with media folks who don't portray themselves as objective as, at least they are honest about it but there are a lot of folks in the media that say they are objective and use that objectivity is a baton to wield against others. for example cnn tried to make it out of georges mirman had actually used a racial slur in his 911 call and that isn't true. msnbc edited the 911 call to make it sound like he was a racist saying that georges mirman had tracked trayvon
martin down and said he was black without being prompted by the 911 operator which isn't true. the ap a pretty georges mirman was white when it was actually he was hispanic. that was building up to the racial controversy because that sells newspapers and it pushes forward a certain political line of busy announcement that still prevails all areas and historically the way that has been rooted out his government intervention was unsafe that continues to be the case, if america continues to be a deeply racist country what that is is a call for federal and state and local government intervention into the lives of americans to root out that racism. >> host: back to bullies. feminists want to take over differences between men and women in favor of a bizarre sort of gender androgyny. if there are differences between the sexes, then women might need men and men might need women and that would destroy any semblance of pure quality.
>> guest: according to many women on the left, many of the feminist left it means to the feminists as opposed to equality and i believe that women should have the ability to get a job at the same as men. my mom isn't only a working woman, she does business affairs on reality tv shows like hells kitchen. i'm a big reliever of one of the workplace but i'm not a believer in ignoring the reality of the situation of men and women are not only different in terms of genitalia but how they think. every study has shown that men and women, their brains do not operate in the same way. diversity is a great thing but attempting to pretend that men and women are identical especially with regards to how they relate with one another is a mistake. >> host: ben shapiro, who are some of these other bullies that you refer to? >> guest: i break it down by topic. there are race believes them a sex bullies, environmentalist
believes, anti-israel and all sorts of bullies and american life and what i mean by bullies isn't just folks who disagree political, what i mean is folks who say that you are morally inferior if you disagree with them politically and this is something the left seems to do with frequency. it's not that they disagree with you on a topic. it's that many on the left think that you are a bad person if you disagree with them. it's not because you can have honest differences of opinions or bring evidence to marshall for your argument on its because you are just nasty. this is what i said to piers morgan on the gun-control issue because this was the argument he was making. the reason i support gun control is because if you don't support gun control you don't care about dead kids in sandy hook. i said it is not right to stand on moral superiority. americans want the same thing. i think we all want a better life for our children, a safer
life, laurel. we want a spiritually higher life. we wanted out of the same things. claiming folks on the other side don't want those things and are nasty just because they disagree with you as a way to silence the rebate and it seems like one side of the political aisle has taken a monopoly on that. >> host: q. right we spent decades by the jackboots of the politically correct class warriors how secularists and scare mongering thugs. we have bowed to their whims and tried to be polite but they spit in our faces and blamed us for debasing the level of our national discourse. they tried to minimize the number of voices in the political arena and we have gone along with it because we played for the time when americans can all share their hopes and dreams together rather than quarreling over what separates us. we want a robust -- pluralist. >> guest: for many on the
folks this doesn't mean we can't share the same goals and aspirations and yet still have different cultures and bring all of those cultures to their. it means if you don't think like me then you are intolerant and that has been used to castigate folks and make them feel that they are inferior for taking a certain political position, and that should be unacceptable in the american discourse and unfortunately as a response, the only response politically speaking this is why if you had to sum up why mitt romney lost the election look at how he portrayed barack obama and how he portrayed mitt romney. he portrayed him as a not competent president. somebody that didn't know what to do when the economy, he really didn't know what he was doing in a general manner but he was a good family man and somebody you would want to go out and have a beer with. he would actually say president obama is a good man he's just not very good at being
president. if you would have a campaign against mitt romney including people in the obama campaign, mitt romney was the one who put jobs and had a binder full of women because he hated women, mitt romney was the sort of guy that fired employees that five years later their wives would die of cancer because they didn't have health insurance. he was the guy that's -- all of his money and big shore accounts while singing america the beautiful because he didn't like america. and the polls showed this. in the exit polling of most americans agree with mitt romney on a lot of issues. there's one issue they disagreed when it came to the exit polling that said which candidate do you think cares more about people like you he got blown away. certainly the plurality that barack obambutthat's barack obae about people like them. that isn't the nicest warmest figure. it's because the world's meanest figure you have a choice between
an competent presidenincompetend to mussolini and incompetent president. >> host: this is her fifth book. how old were you when you wrote your first? >> guest: junior year in college. >> host: how did you come up with the idea of writing that both? >> guest: i was 16 when i started ucla. one of the first days of school i picked up the daily brew, the paper they're and it had an editorial comparing the printer of israel to do not see so i walked into the office and i asked if i could write a response and that turned into a counterpoint column that eventually turned into me doing a regular column in after about a year of that i was 17 and i went to my dad and he had been reading my stuff and i said to you think it is good enough to be any regular paper and he said what we do some research so we went on the internet and he found a syndicator for david limbaugh and a bunch of folks on both sides of the political
aisle and i sent him my column with a biography and they didn't even really know how old i was. three weeks later i got a call that they wanted to syndicate my column. so after 17 and became the youngest. my parents had to sign a contract and quickly upon doing that, i'm sort of a go-getter so i proceeded to e-mail a bunch of folks and one of them was david limbaugh on the rush blank brother. he said if you write a book i would be happy to agent it for you so i have been taking notes in class but beyond that i was interested. i took notes on what my professors were saying writing down dates, times, specific quotations and in about three weeks i wrote a whole book with all of my notes between junior
and senior year and they decided to publish it and halfway through my senior year of college it came out and some professors were not particularly happy. they did a spread trying to debunk the book, but it did very well and i stand by it obviously. >> host: the four were too brainwashed was written by david limbaugh. ben shapiro, can you fall into a trap of being selective in the incidences that you picked? >> guest: sure. i do cite a number of polls. i don't think there's any question that any poll ever done of major universities shows that professors are more or less than the general population. ucla was in the 2,000 election they voted almost universally for al gore where the population split about 50/50. so the universities are very much to the left but the stories
are on interesting than statistics. i'm not a gallup pollster to the book isn't just a compendium. it does have the polls to back up what i'm saying as evidence thabut i do call out specific professors and name them by name and anyway it was the first book of its kind because it went insidinspite of the classroom ad staged out a lot of books that have been like that where it's not only experiencing from within the classroom but dirt quotations from professors and what they said and a lot of folks who want to know especially in places like ucla what are my tax dollars funding so it was kind of an eye-opener. >> host: you write the brainwashing of students by the university system is one of the most severe problems plaguing america's youth. under higher education under objectivity lies a grave and overpowering bias that deeply affects the student body. define viable solutions to this crisis we must now answer three crucial questions.
what is the answer to those questions? >> guest: what's good for one at a time. the first one is why are the universities bias in the first place and one of the reasons is because folks at the university level in the 1960s were -- university school infiltrated by folks on the new left. the establishment at the universities decided not to challenge the student body when it ros grows up in the 1960s and he was a very bad ideas that started earlier in the 1930s and 40s and taking over the universities. most professors don't have to live in the real world so to speak. they don't have to get a job outside of the university setting and they live in a kind of eco- chamber where they cannot distinguish between opinions in fact so everything that disagrees with them becomes on factual, nonfactual. it's a lie. george w. bush, we didn't
disagree with him on politics. everybody that disagrees in the classroom when they go back to the faculty lounge everybody agrees with them virtually universally. and then once it became left its self-perpetuating because you have to work with the professors who are there and i can get into you if you are at ucla and you would like to write your thesis on how gun control is ineffective you will have more trouble than if you write your thesis on how gun control is effective and the only solution to solving the problem of gun violence in america so that is the answer to the question. number two why do they have this authority and the answer is simple. they are spending thousands of dollars on their kids going to school. my parents spent a lot of money for me to go to ucla. so that authority is now transferred over to this new group of people of the older generation and we are going to speak to you from a position you go to college to learn.
as a student you know the best way to get an eight is to go in and basically vomits back out everything the professor told you in class. i got good grades in college which is how i ended up in harvard law. if you read my blue book i read like a communist. they are all done with your student id numbers coming out for anonymity. i would speak in class and when it came time to the test i would say don't waste the grade i get an a in the class and then the degree is worth something. so that's the reason for number two. as far as number three how that changes, the bias on the university campus as changes, the most optimistic solution might be that the universities open themselves up. that isn't going to happen because it isn't even malicious and you are in that eco- chamber you think of people who disagree with you as the niners, somebody who denies the power of the keynesian economics are you you're not somebody that disagrees but somebody that denies. the only way to do this would be to exercise the power of the
market and eventually pared to stop sending their kids to schools that they disagree with. they have to instead either take that money at $100,000 start a business for your kid can't have the kid on the business or go to a school you have more agreement with an alumni have to start realizing the money isn't just going to football team helmets. very often it's going to the professors to sit in the front of the class and plate guitar while he things which actually happened when i was in geology class at ucla for there are ways to tackle what i always prefer the market solutions to any other solutions. >> host: from "brainwashed university of michigan holds separate ceremonies for black students. university of michigan has ceremony for black, latino, indian and jewish students with each ceremony focusing on the customs of that group. ucla is the center for separate graduation centers. the university was a graduation
for homosexual students that they call the lavender graduation that commencement students where rainbow tassels. there's also a graduation for latinos, graduation for blacks and filipinos, a graduation for asian pacific islanders come a graduation for iranians and a graduation for american indians. about the only ones who don't have their own graduation are straight white males that they will before long if only by the process of elimination. >> guest: this is the polarization of american society i was talking about that carries over from the universities to president obama blank politics. the separation of the american population away from the melting pot idea and int it is actuallyt is a bag of marbles that we are all separate and its self-segregation that has really done a lot of damage. diversity is supposed to be about associating with folks on campus isn't a lot of diversity going on. if you go to the student group where people hang out with people like you this was the way it was for me.
i hung out with a lot of folks in class but you would tend to gravitate towards the people who are like you. to use the state resources to push that is another idea and that's where i really start to gestarted toget upset because it if we are to learn from one another and experience first rather than blacks or jews or asians than we have tried some point realize we are about to graduate together. that's okay. we can hang out on our own time but when it comes to the graduation lets get in the same room together because after all this is a rite of passage as americans and it's a rite of passage in our growth as human beings. >> host: ben shapiro you were about 18-years-old when you wrote "porn generation." >> guest: i was 18 but i wrote it when i was about 20. it was after "brainwashed" and this came from what i have seen on campus as well as when i was seeing in the culture.
as an orthodox jew and someone that is a deep religious belief or i was upset with the kind of culture that has been washed not only in the basic immorality that in imagery i felt was damaging to teenagers. in imagery that i felt was damaging to young adults and a coach or the trace to inculcate perennial adolescence in the american population that makes you feel that avoiding responsibility is almost a sort of responsibility. you have a superiority if you are promiscuous as opposed to her a virgin. there lot of pressure to participate in culturally approved of activities which generally involve exploring yourself and it invariably ends up being something that your parents wouldn't want you to do and generally involves withdrawing money from your parents atm accounts to do something your parents wouldn't want you to do so that is what i objected to and wrote back and "porn generation" which revolves around the sexual liberation of
the american population ranging from pop music to movies to magazines. >> host: you discussed the monica lewinsky affair. >> guest: it's an interesting test case because there were studies done in the aftermath of awareness about oral sex for example and it was among teenagers because the president of the united states was being talked about on television every night as somebody that participated in oral sex in the oval office. that is something that actually had an impact on the full generation of kids who were suddenly being told that oral sex isn't actual sex, it is fake sex. it's true across the board, politicians and america's celebrities who become politicians and politicians have become celebrities. you are seeing that crossover having a market impact on how young people live their lives
and it is ridiculous. everything that you do in life has some impact on you. we are not just a bunch of ice men walkiniceman walking arounde no impact on us whatsoever. they have a spiritual impact, lifelong impacts in terms of your -- we all do things we regret and things we wish we hadn't done but the more that we have a culture that tries to minimize those things and the wisdom of the ages sometimes it's wrong but a lot of times it's right and throwing it away willy-nilly is an exercise in foolhardiness. >> host: portrayal of sexual activity on screen is not simply about telling a story or enlightening viewers. it's about legitimizing the behavior when increasingly younger teens are exposed to soft porn on the big screen there is a cultural result. >> guest: you have to give permission to teenagers to do something. how is it that they decided suddenly that it's okay to
participate in certain activities when it wasn't okay before? and you subsidize activities get more of it. maybe we decided as a society that it's okay to subsidize some of these activities but there is a term and its impact in terms of that. the most obvious examples you can use for something like this is the impact of the culture's acceptance of for example single motherhood. it's largely accepted motherho motherhood. it's certainly become a more common thing. in the black community when the civil rights act was passed it was near 30% and now in the white community was in the low single digits and now it is up to 40% rated it as an increase in eight period of time and that is due to a coach or in society that is no longer important to regulate the sexual urges. in fact you are almost glorified if you participate. the religious viewpoint was always that sexual activity is a wonderful thing provided that it's within certain boundaries mainly the boundaries of marriage but when it is
liberated from the college and giving his policies out as a person. one of the things i object to in "porn generation" is men shouldn't act like pigs. unfortunately the movement came along and noted rightly and instead of saying that the act morally everyone checked in moral and that has had a ramification especially for young women. anyone it affects young women and men the same way it is blind to the realities of life. >> host: you are watching booktv on c-span2. this is our monthly "in depth" program we invite one author to come on. this month is author ben shapiro of five nonfiction books beginning with "brainwashed how universities indoctrinate america's youth on a" and a "porn generation" how social liberalism is corrupting our future but came out the next year, project president -- kerry
and botox on the road at the white house came out in 2008 20d primetime propaganda the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv and his most recent book this year "bullies" how the culture of fear and intimidation silence as americans. he will be our guest the next two and a half hours and we welcome your participation as well over phone calls. you can file if you have a question or comment. (202)585-3880 and east and central time zones, 585-3881 for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones and of course over social media as well. you can send an e-mail to email@example.com or make a comment on our twitter page @booktv is our twitter handle and facebook.com/booktv you'll see it right there at the top you can make a comment for mr. shapiro.
i want to go to project president. bad hair and botox on the road to the white house. you write many people believe that our style of campaigning is broken. why should the joh a john kerry0 haircut decide who rules the most powerful office on the face of the earthquakes should politics be about politics and policy? what does it matter if barry goldwater looked funny and glasses or michael dukakis looked funny in a tank? it matters. >> guest: this is human nature. people who argue with reality. you can argue against the wind all day long but if people make a snap decision on who you are the science shows they've decided whether they like you are not or whether they want to hang out with you or not it is made within a second and it's pretty rare that somebody actually decides after making that decision but now they want to be your friend if they decide they hate you within that first
moment. it's why the democratic party continues to win. they have no clue how the image making works. barack obama came down onto a stage and he gave a speech in front of 60,000 people and john mccain hunched over a podium and he grips his microphone and whites knuckling matters. people make fun of president obama for the constant prompter. he understands exactly what he's doing when he goes out and he's in a kindergarten and then you take the camera back and he has to teleprompters and a bunch of six-year-olds it easy to mock that at the same time it is in the six-year-olds come his audience is all the folks watching on camera. he's the first candidate to use the iowa caucuses, to counter the iowa caucuses. he was a tv produced candidate for the first fully tv produced candidate in american history that the democrats had for a long time but only tremendous
respect for hollywood and what image making is for but they had a willingness to use it. >> host: suits versus boots. >> guest: george bush was a cowboy and was so terrible. the truth is that they like the feel. that field. president obama is unique. he didn't have any of that. but every president before him for a long time had a ranch. ronald reagan had a ranch and bush senior and clinton had a ranch as well as george w. bush. all these folks you want to get a beer with them because they experienced the rugged life. if you are mitt romney no one wants to -- i don't even know if
ann wants to have dinner with him. i respect him as he might be the moral man that has run for president but nobody looks at mitt romney on that screen with the hair a break would bounce off of fantasy that is somebody that is down to earth and really understands people and that's what hurt him. his image matched people thought of him. your image has to convey something about you. bill clinton conveyed that he was a good old boy from down south and understood at the trouble of folks and george h. w. bush was a bad example because he only won the first election because he was ronald reagan's the five successor that he was a hollywood guy that was originally from illinois and their use chopping wood at the ronald reagan ranch in santa barbara reader that has a impact on how people see you. i would always recommend you might laugh at the image you want to get a better haircut but it's going to matter because when you get on camera that is pretty much all that matters.
>> host: american voters have always understood that they elect complete individuals and that means we worry about hair. we contemplate whether a candidate is a suit or boot and we ponder over military images and we worry about youth and inexperience and age and decrepitude. we wonder about candidates spouses and ask whether they are beer buddies were steps it all seems so trivial it isn't. i want to go back to the point that you made that we make snap judgments within a minute or so of what we think of that person. >> guest: i think that is the problem with american politics and it also is just how human nature is. it's the problem of democracy in general. more often than not we make the decisions. that's why i make the lever as well as winston churchill was. the idea that we make those snap
decisions and it's worthless to ignore it. so if moore would focus on that we could actually get past the image making. this is the irony. if all the candidates got up there and they were equally well kept and thought this stuff through maybe we could get onto the politics of it but even george washington understood this. when george washington walked into the first congress he was the only man that walked in with a full military uniform because he was lobbying to be the first commander-in-chief before there was a commander-in-chief in the country that all of them thought about this and the politicians today are smart they will think about it as well without painting themselves orange looking like an overgrown with them about. >> host: you write about william henry harrison and how he one. >> guest: he was a military leader and associate campaigned on a platform of any military leader and i'm tougher than
nails and it's what ended up really killing him. he went out in the rain to prove how tough he was and ended up dying after 40 days but he bought folks a lot of beer and actually swig of beer at the rallies in the rain swigging beer at the rallies with people and then they would realize he isn't just some old guy. he's like us, somebody that likes ear and in 1840 that only increased in the kind of scope once we reached the age of television where everyone is in your living room all the time so you sort of feel like you want to be friends with a candidate even more than 1841 you probably never saw william henry harrison. >> host: finally, that we haven't talked about yet, "project president" the true hollywood story how the left took over your tv. start by telling us about your experience as a screenwriter. >> guest: i started writing this book before i was interested in doing screenwriting. it was the last thing i wanted to do. both of my parents worked in hollywood.
my mom does business affairs on a lot of tv shows and my dad composes for film and tv support of them were in hollywood. my cousin is the star of care: thirty-fourth street so they were involved in the hollywood industry. that was something i desperately didn't want to do and my parents didn't want me to do. my dad said are you crazy absolutely not. so when i started writing this book with i did and this is kind of funny to show people how they creep up on them without knowing i called a bunch of folks in hollywood and i'd written three books already. i said i'm writing this book about the most prominent people in television and i'm a harvard law school graduate. my name is ben shapiro from los angeles and i would like to interview you. i imagined that for a lot of those folks because they saw a lot of things you ben shapiro is a jewish name from harvard law school, lives in los angeles, has to be liberal.
99% shocked that this person is going to be on the left. so i would do interviews with folks and i would reinforce the impression. i would ask questions from a progressive viewpoint so instead of asking if they were stacking their shows with political propaganda like the right-wing person i would ask if they felt that they were infusing enough social justice perspectives. you pretend to be a friend of the person or at least you act as though you are on their side and this is what is great about being a partisan journalist. i can do all that. and so i went in and did all that. leonard is the other half and he was the one behind charlie's angels and he did a remake of charlie's angels and a real powerhouse in the industry. he and i headed off. he recognized i was pro- israel so he asked me to go ahead and
write up a pilot about law school which i did and we then went through several meetings and like every other project in hollywood, eventually in the meantime i went and i got an agent and the agent started getting some scripts that i'd written around town. one day i got a call from the agent and the agent said we have a problem here. i said what is the problem? we have one of your scripts out to one of the producers and the producer i can't remember which showed was for, but he was one of the major studios called us back and they like your script but then they saw your political viewpoint and survival never work with somebody of that political viewpoint. i was stunned by the honesty. at least they were not lighting, but that is what a lot of the folks in hollywood have to encounter now. it's no skin off my nose.
but it shows the extent to which bias in hollywood is accepted and dealt with i kind of normal day-to-day level. like the university. it is an insular diversity. if you are not invited to the big cocktail parties it is a big shock that you aren't going to get a job on the shows. if there is a spot left in the writer's room is either going to go to a public and jew from the hollywood or it is going to go to a liberal hispanic woman and even close they assumed the republican asking to be more abrasive even if there is no evidence of that. >> host: ben shapiro, how did -- how does the big bang theory contributes to liberalism on tv? >> guest: my wife is a huge friends fan. she is an addict of the big bang
theory. normal politics nobody pays attention to. the other values shaped and tv creates something for you. you tune in every week to hang out with them unlike your family they stop by and bother you but people who you actually are going to change the channel to hang out with and that's what hollywood does he have these people do things that you have always thought they have people engage in behavior that you always thought wasn't particularly appropriate and then comes the point where you say yeah but i like that person so that means i have to approve of the behavior that they are exhibiting. what is fascinating is that when conservatives say that they are portrayed as jerry falwell and dan quayle on murphy brown when he said that she was legitimizing on white brotherhood candice bergen agreed with him and said that is exactly what he did but when joe biden says to will and grace is
the single step for rights in the country's history than everybody kind of accept that because it's true, he's right and dan quayle was right. hollywood has an impact. he said unconsciously it's on the half and have sometimes they do it consciously and they want to put forth a certain narrative. she's doing a fundraiser for president obama. when i talked to her about friends that he had a wedding i think it was either season one or season two of the show and i said what prompted that and she said the next-door neighbors and they had a daughter and we wanted to make the daughter feel good so we specifically wrote that in with politics in mind and she's of course the writer's room was very much to the left to some of it is conscious and some of it is unconscious. some of it is that sometimes the lines work better. but if you are trying to write a villain in hollywood there will
be five -- better off writing a corporate white filling than a government fell in from the liberal government or writing an era of terrorist when they had to run an apology prompted when kiefer sutherland had to get on the tv and explain to americans that they were all morons and not all americans are terrorists. and by watching 24 we are going to go out burning mosques which is an absurdity. it's what hollywood does. it's clever and effective and white people's opinions have changed and the single best argument for marriage isn't even an argument but an emotional appeal. you should allow them to get married but it's not even in arguing that the pros and cons that you love this person therefore you should be okay with what they do. that is what tv does and what it is all about. they identify them as people you hate even if you might like their politics. i think business does a tremendous amount of this
country but i hated the villain on law and order just as any other person if it turns out he's a business person and he murdered someone. so it's very insidious it's clever, it's highly effective and it's something that any informed viewer should know about as well as something the right should engage in. the left predicted the art of storytelling. president obama in a political way is a fantastic storyteller. he likes to tell a story. for folks every political issue is a story but it's not a set of policies were evidence. it's not a pro and con argument. you are the bad guy, you are the villain. by giving that that had a tremendous impact on the voting population because the truth is all american voters voted no. they vote on what they don't like. like when you watch a movie you
sympathize with the character based on who you don't like. skywalker is a whiny teenager that's why they opened the movie with darth vader. you have an interesting villain and then you know he's your hero. this is your fillings of painting the villain is what is effective and the left used but in television and they've also used in politics. the right continues to pretend that none of this matters. >> host: you write i love television. is this a call to action clicks. >> guest: i do love television. i watch a lot of it. i like homeland and there is a great tv show in canada about
shakespeare but yes, conservatives need to get active. it's what works. conservatives need to stop pretending, obama out there with beyonce and jay z and jamie foxx on the mall created so ineffective and silly. storytelling, god uses storytelling. as a biblical jew that's why i told story all of genesis is a story and the five books of moses, those are all a story. doctor uses stories and parables. the stories are evicted and they have an emotional connection. they have more connections and paul ryan reading his budget plan like an accountant. >> host: ben shapiro is our guest for the next two hours and 15 minutes.
(202)585-3880. 585-3881 if you live in a the mountain and pacific time zone. want to begin with this e-mail that we received from bill in washington. since the left will not engage in a serious intellectual discussion with the haters and the media will not call them out on this hell do we played out of the tactics to the broader public without sounding like crybabies? >> guest: the important thing is to expose the tactic is also its not about attacking people as jerks because that is ineffective. what it is about is making it clear with a magic trick is to be arguing character instead of policy and arguing character instead of policy is a nasty thing. if you say someone is a racist and you have no evidence that they are high that is a nasty person and it isn't wrong to say that's nasty of you to say that i'm a racist without evidence. that is a necessary thing. they have to do that on a regular basis. when somebody from the right appears on george the
stephanopoulos they say i appreciated that before we start i just want to point out you are a man of the left and you portray yourself from objective journalist. we understand you have certain principles you be leaving. why can't you be honest, i'm a conservative from a url or parolatthatalways have an honest conversation. problem is that destroys his entire credibility base and he wouldn't accept the premise that there needs to be done in a regular basis. if you portray yourself as an objective journalist and if you are on the right admit i'm on the right. i'm a journalist but i'm on the right and i'm an opinion journalist and that means that i take a certain view of the issues and they make it very clear if you read any of my stuff you're going to get a good angle on who i am and what i believe. it's important to say that this person is race baiting and not only are they but it is a nasty
tactic. if they are calling you nasty event the official evidence as to why it can't just be the left calling you a villain because you support a voter id or because you oppose affirmative action or oppose marriage and this isn't something that is restricted to the broad political world where a big figure fights a big figure and it's romney versus obama and we are all watching. it applies at the dinner table, too. my extended family is liberal. we have all had thanksgiving dinner and if you voted in favor of proposition eight in california the answer to that is that i am not a nasty person and how how dare you suggest that if you think im you have no evidence i am anti-and for you to suggest that just because i disagree with you on a matter of public policy that i'm a bad person that is what makes you a better person. once we get the character off
the table then we can actually get down to the hard business of forging policy that is actually good for americans but if we are going to be stuck in this political trap where one side argues character and the other side argues policy, character is always a more effective argument and policy it almost doesn't matter what the policy is. you are going to win right off the bat and until they understand this and fight back on the same level it sounds like fighting fire it is. once you do that and hopefully there will be a distraction that sets in. let's figure out the best way to do this and made the best argument when. >> host: is your introduction connection to andrew breitbart? breitbart? >> guest: wynette had when i was writing for the daily brew. i think i was 17. i got an e-mail from andrew who didn't even sign his last name. he said i read your column in the newspaper because he has to go down to westwood and he would
pick up the paper industry who is this crazy right-winger writing for the paper at ucla. he e-mailed me and said why don't we get together. i couldn't eat anything so they watched him chow down as he talks about his theory of the media and we were friends for a solid ten years. about three weeks before he passed away when he hired me he called it the longest floatation in history because we were friends a very long time and he had given me advice. he was a wonderful human being leaving aside what he was, he was a wonderful human being and he was also determined as populous and somebody that appreciated people. i don't have anybody left or right spent time. he wasn't political. "bullies" is dedicated to enter because more than anything else, he disliked bullies.
he wasn't that conservative on a lot of policies. he didn't care that much. when it came to fiscal policy he was interested but really not on a supremely deep level. he wasn't somebody that you would invite onto the abc news roundtable. he understood the tactics on the left and how they were making arguments and pop-culture and he understood how regular folks think and why the right is losing all of the regular chose. >> host: did you get your political leanings from your parents? >> guest: i would say absolutely. they have a tremendous impact on them. he's my best friend outside of my wife and my father and i are very close. he and my mom were both reagan republicans and they voted for carter and they voted for clinton in 92 because they
didn't like bush selling to the saudis and then they shifted back to the right side of the aisle after they saw him. also because they saw that he wasn't nearly as pro-israel as he had appeared to be early on in his campaign. so, my friends were conservative and i grew up in a religious household so that means that you can default conservatives. i became more conservative as time went on and i informed myself about the topic areas that were not in my families economics. i would say that they were more foreign-policy and socially conservative than fiscally conservative although just like everybody else in the country they are not on higher taxes but they were not economic to ruse. they didn't sit around the table reading milton friedman but they also brought me and my three younger sisters they've got about a very patriotic way the earliest memories were of watching the musical 1776 my dad writes musicals and i'm still huge musical fan.
it's like the jewish equivalent of halloween and that we all dress up. i used to wear a white way, short stocking, the whole deal. so he grew up with that kind of patriotic sensibility and as i got older -- >> host: is there a split among orthodox jews as you say that you are and non- orthodox? >> guest: absolutely. they don't really have the lead republican. they both solid 80% republican. reconstructionist they vote pretty much the opposite, 90% democrat and there is a reason for that but unfortunately they are not really connected to any of the traditions. there is ethnic you are born to a jewish mother there for you are jewish. then there is you actually care about it as a set of beliefs and values and is a philosophy.
most do not belief in. bbb than going to synagogues once a year and they like being considered a minority. they want to be a minority because you get a special status that they don't have much to do with judaism and particularly the ethnic aspect are not particularly interested in selling people ask why are they liberal the answer is they don't have much to do with judaism it's like asking why are so many people who are born into christian households liberal? because a lot of them are not religiously christian, not evangelical they are not catholic so it is measuring a different measure than the belief. believing the two indicators
usually those are the kind of two behavioral indicators. if you do those two things, then those people are the ones who are going to vote at least 75 to 80% republican and they do it for a variety of reasons ranging from the amazing transition with the republican party becoming the pro- israel party and the democratic party is moving away from the stronger pro-israel position to issues of social morality where the community is much more conservative than the conservative reconstructionist and believe that it's inherently about social justice rather than the mission. >> host: in your columns to talk about the president in a serious. what is your take? >> guest: there are three choices in this area. there's yes and no end of the worst option available. president obama has chosen the
worst available. yes would be taken out of the regime as a warning and that is what this is about because the line was drawn not as a warning to the series because 100,000 people have already been killed and i don't doubt that any of the people that were dead cared about the syrian gas. the weapon of mass distraction was a warning to the iranians. if you go in and break a few things and a solid stays in power, then you do nothing else than you are lined up with them being further emboldened so that is sort of the worst of both positions. i am on the no side by the way. is the argument against iran and my argument is if you want to make it an argument against iran opposed the regime. you don't set a proxy war with the country that you could take in a heartbeat. the united states would defeat them very easily and it wouldn't be a huge bloodbath and there actually is a viable opposition
in iran then whatever opposition there was to saddam hussein and iraq. so i don't believe that we should be fighting a proxy war with a thug like asad. i don't know what the exit strategy is even if we take out al-assad. they showed the rebels despite the fact we have been sending them guns. if al qaeda takes over and we are worried about chemical weapons used were terrorists with chemical weapons and al qaeda takes over a in al qaeda would be in charge of the weapons so we have an ability to take out all of the weapons of mass destruction in this area or have the willingness to do that, then this is a fools errand. >> host: ben shapiro is the guest. beaver pennsylvania, good afternoon to shot. >> caller: good afternoon thank you for taking my call. i am the mother of five and two of them are in college and i am
a republican because the social policies and respect for marriage. i am curious what has been the response of his peers to the books that he's put out there which i think are naming the state that hollywood is manipulating the opinion of the united states through the programming end of that the democrats have been able to work the media because they know the physical appeal that people look for. >> host: patricia, thank you. mr. shapiro? >> guest: the response of young people has been mixed.
you have religious young people that agree with everything i say and others that are more libertarian and liberal in their construction of these issues that i think that what you are seeing overall is that the american public are getting more pro-life at the time they are also getting more pro- marriage. i recommend to the folks that are socially conservative but the issue be totally taken out of the government entirely. straight marriage, marriage, the whole thing. i don't have somebody that got married for the tax benefit. i certainly didn't get married because i thought it would look good on my property record. the whole point of getting married is not only the relationship between you and your wife but the production of children and raising of children and i think that unfortunately the right lost the marriage issue 40 years ago and now they are trying to hold on their fingernails to the marriage issue but it was lost a long time ago and at the statistics proved the only way you will win it back is in the culture. i think that folks on the right are warming up to that as far as young people i think the young
people are young. i'm not of the opinion that every young person knows what they are doing. i've never been a fan of the kind of leftist notion that young people have all the answers yet when president obama talks about gun control my usual answer is i don't understand why seven-year-olds should be making policy where we would have a federal ban on homework. .. impressionable, don't have tremendous faith experience and adolescents is less a month or longer. people now 26 have been called kids. the idea that you're a 26 euros adults have enough homes and your parents basement was found in it is then pushed by the left for a long time. the more dependent you are, the less you have to worry about the consequences of your actions.
when you hit 13, you're not responsible for your own sins. in america come to you hit 30, you're not responsible for your own taxes. >> host: bayside new york on a >> calle would or trentthree. >> caller: i'd like to ask mr. shapiro, it is heatsink bill o'reilly and rush limbaugh are bullies? >> guest: interesting question. i think it depends on the circumstance. for all the talk about how we as a bullies largely was hunting. and then you get into a question that folks like to pose as a cycle of violence. who started it? rash was not the first person to start the attacks on the other side. russia's clever. rush is brilliant. he's also an entertainer. i think bill o'reilly is much the same. i do think both rush and bill o'reilly are opinion is that the right side of the aisle.
i see them as the rights equivalent to the chris mathews and al sharpton on msnbc. that's what they should be. that's okay. they cannot be there. in terms of the bullying and talking about, the name-calling. not only that name-calling, for holding a certain political beliefs. i don't think rush and bill o'reilly are bullies. if you have instances, i'd be happy to talk about that. >> host: >> caller: is ann coulter a bully? i agree with you, but some people on the left are bullies. the right-wingers are bullies. >> host: can you give an example of where you see ben shapiro being a bully? >> caller: i don't know up enough about it. but the three people i cited are bullies to the republican party as well as to liberals.
they're just simply bullies. they've been bullies for many years. for him to not note that, i don't know. >> guest: i truly believe that character attacks have to be mutually assured destruction. the right is losing for specifically that reason. the left started this war and character. if the right refuses to engage in wonkette for that is folks like rush, ann coulter, then the right is going to lose. the right has to understand character arguments matter. we'll end up as a badge of assistant principal candidates from local districts in various states around the country as opposed to a cohesive national party. postcode ann coulter blurbs the writing is smart, informative and incisive. he's wise beyond his years without losing the refreshing fearlessness of youth.
is ann coulter a friend of yours? >> guest: she is. i've known her since i was 18. she is very funny. first-year harvard law school she was what was then hannity and combs right after sandra day o'connor had stepped down from the supreme court. they asked her who she would like and she said me. i hadn't graduated from moscow you. >> host: project resident, my favorite blurb you're simultaneously fascinating and hilarious. tim gunn, project runway. is he a friend of yours? >> guest: i would call him a friend. i reached out for a couple reasons. one, all my sisters love project runway. the second is this market be an apolitical but. it is a book designed to reach out to americans across the aisle and eliminate truth about how politics work in our minds as opposed to how we wish they worked. >> host: was the worst presidential candidate ever
interview? >> guest: horace greeley is definitely up there with the next beard and huge whiskers. he was known as a copperhead. he was a terrible presidential candidate. michael dukakis is obviously a terrible presidential candidate. john mccain was sarandon is. you know, i had my doubts about that romney to begin. i wouldn't put him in the top 10 affordable presidential candidates. adlai stevenson was a terrible presidential candidate. we've seen a lot of that presidential candidates. especially because all of their in front of us all the time. >> host: how to jimmy carter go from boots and 76 to suits? >> guest: once you go from the charming peanut farmer from georgia to the guy who was wearing sweaters in the oval office and lecturing americans on what they should do with air conditioners, you go to be in the face cry very quickly. he was perceived as an honest
show who would come in. he won the 76 election. at a time to hit 1980, it was pretty clear that even if he never lied to the american people, he just wasn't rocket at at his job. ronald reagan provided a market contrast. this is what folks on the rightness. they acted as though reagan was just sunshine all the time. if you watch anything for the 1980 campaign, reagan was far from sunshine. reagan was viciously attacking jimmy carter is an incompetent come as someone who didn't know what he was doing, somebody opening danger to american mice because of what he was doing at the soviet union. he wasn't afraid to make attacks on jimmy carter. that contrast allowed him to win. there's something else people forget about reagan winning in 1980 and this is something conservatives need to take into account. that economies don't help republicans. that economies of liberals.
this is why fdr won four elections will have in the worst economy in american history. that's why it was close. it only ended up being a blowout because of afghanistan. carter was well ahead. carter was leading by a wide margin. in the last election cycle, and people were saying that romney, all he has to do is campaign on the bad economy. look at barack obama and say they are coming back is terrible on economics. more people out of work means more people who need unemployment benefits. everyone working thinks it is not bad because they still have a job. that economies don't hurt democrats. they hope democrats. one thing plaguing his lack of an enemy. before the fall of the soviet union, the soviet union as the cochairing clue in the republican party. it stuck together social conservatism, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy
hawkishness. once the soviet union fell and there's no existential threat, all of a sudden three started to bicker with each other. for the left, soviet union was never the overarching threat. the overarching term is from this tyrannical right there was going to come in and take over the country. so now you see the famous promulgated throughout the bush eras, promulgated throughout reagan eras as well and that is why the left has adopted so easily. now the right doesn't have protecting you from these folks. it's enemy is conservative. they want to take away your comments and remove your ability to go, even though you have the greatest site are not in the election cycle. the evil right wingers will take everything and that's why you have to vote for us. hillary clinton is pushing voter i.d. she is picking up on the same talking points being used to eric holder and barack obama and
members of a certain section of the black leadership. she's picking up on these means and portrayed herself as a crusader on behalf of black is that conservatives don't believe in back rights. the more polarized as a country along racial lines, the easier it is for democrats to win. the moment we say government has done all it can do here, government is not in the business of trying to ensure equal outcomes. it's trying to ensure equal opportunities and rights. nonetheless cannot win. they can't win in that situation. they have to have the ever present threat that if they were not restrained by the behemoth that his government would run amok and heard a lot of folks. post-o.j. is in asheville, north carolina. ben shapiro is our guest on booktv. call code yes, mr. shapiro, i would like your views on why use ink black leadership, especially
in the media never comments on the appalling statistic you quoted the 72% illegitimacy unmarried mothers. it seems to me when a 16-year-old reads at the fourth-grade level, has a child, what chance does a child like that have been a society like ours? i would say very little. i like your views. thank you. >> guest: one of the great tragedies of modern american politics is to the real problems in the face. the attempt to paint some outsiders is by believing that there is this perennial fight racism that is keep him it is veteran 30% to 72% over the last ears. the economic gap has not been
bridged in a better way. the educational gap has not been bridged in a better way. that's a fault a lot of folks in politics. white, black, hispanic and other race to push the notion that you have to stick black kids in failing schools and keep them there. certain behavior is preferable to other behavior. it's the fault of a citizen hunter said a thing if you have a kid out of wedlock as opposed to a husband in the home. if you want to fix problems in the country, we have to relink the idea that his actions and consequences. they separated the notion of consequence is that preceded those consequences. the best thing that happened vital to freedom of choice in the schools they attend but more emphasis on values. by the way, not unique to the black community. charles murray what a good book called coming apart about how the way communities buying into the same values, including
values of unwed motherhood, which is now 40%. it's pervading communities and is a tragedy for the american people in our future and childbearing and rearing, but for the children growing up in a home without a mother or father. postcode eric levin posts on her face but page, transfer keeps talking about the less than lack of facts, but all he hears anecdotes. >> guest: that's a pretty broad criticism. the unemployment rate statistics of the unwed motherhood rates, which i'm happy to tell you about and control. i read incessantly. i tried an extra can argue a position and if i don't know enough about a certain issue, i also try to stay out of it because i truly believe the problem -- one of the big problems in american politics is the continuing focus on having an answer for everything when there is no ready answer to the
problem. >> host: if you can't get through on the phone lines, try to make a comment on twitter, facebook or by e-mail. we will put those addresses up as we take this call from cam ranh and portland, oregon. >> caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i actually wondering how i can get involved. i was a liberal for a long time. i returned to my conservative values. he and portland, oregon, which is a lot like being in california is solid liberal democrats here. i tried to get involved with the young republicans. i tried to leave republicans. i tried going through the county republican party to meet people. i can't find anyone my age to help get involved in the conservative cause.
>> host: cameron, before we have mr. transfer answer, you said you returned to your roots. you were a liberal. why were you a liberal? >> guest: >> caller: well, i went to the university of oregon. it falls very much into what mr. shapiro has talked about. i followed little bit into that. i lost sight of my republican conservative values and starting to become more involved in the art scene and not a lot of communists and socialists and didn't have a strong, i guess, strong enough sense of self. but i didn't feel like i'd ever even learned about any of those things. when i started to learn about communism and socialism, it was very new to me. i guess i needed to really learn
about it and experience for myself what these liberal values -- i felt like it let me down the wrong path. >> host: cameron, we will leave it there and get an answer from ben shapiro. >> guest: if you're not conservative by age 18 is a good shot at the liberal by 21. there's two things most people a campus are interested in. getting good grades and partying. it's easier to party and get good grades if you buy into the mindset that it's considered cool. you don't want to talk politics. conservative offense people because liberalism is the art of being easily offended. i think a lot of folks who go to college don't want to offend anyone. it's easier to get along. for cameron and folks like her, if you want to get involved, you can e-mail us over at breitbart. the gig and people involved the time. i'm also launching truth be told
in a couple weeks, but i've turned in media bias that may be happy to have your help. we love it when young people get involved obviously. i still consider myself a young person. i'm still on the sunshine side of 30. hopefully we can get more young people involved because they think it's a mistake for the republican party to continue targeting folks over 65. by the way, it's also the state for the republican party to assume everyone age 18 to vote republican because they realize they're never going to get social security checks. that is not a winning argument. >> host: here is an e-mail from an 80-year-old woman i believe. mr. schapiro, please talk more slowly. i am 80, come from the totally opposite viewpoint, but love the way you think. we are more alike than our modern society would acknowledge. had he been accused of talking fast? >> guest: that's never stopped.
everyone in my family talks quickly. i've tried to slow it down. i've tried valiant. the musters alcohol, there's not much i can do about it. i apologize. i'll try to slow it down. >> host: dealing in sun city, california. >> caller: hello. thank you, ben come your breath of fresh air. i wholeheartedly agree about barack obama being the first fully media trained president. in mountlake, i think he calls them plays cards such the people disassociate him from his policies. in that regard, you were speaking on syria. i am wondering whether this relates to hillary clinton and benghazi. he is creating a story in the public that these issues are more complicated than people realize, that coming up with decisions is difficult and therefore they couldn't have made any other choices.
that way he can paint people on the right who want it to look at the facts and factual accounting portrayed as racist who just want to bring down the first but president. >> guest: i think there is truth to that. the idea president obama has avoid culpability is eminently true. when it comes to benghazi, there's a lot we don't know, including the president's own actions. we also don't know what is going on at the cia annex and benghazi. that is information we have to find out. information is clear that president obama's middle eastern foreign policy is a tremendous failure. it is a failure that has enabled the muslim brotherhood to make tremendous roads as well as al qaeda and syria. is one unifying factor. unfortunately everybody who opposes america's interest is now in power. the admitted taking over in tunisia. the muslim brotherhood ended up taking over in egypt.
al qaeda is associated with the rebels. in turkey, the islamist powers, which took over during the bush administration has only become more radical in the iranian mullahs seem to be better entrenched than ever. we've been in the process of surrendering afghanistan back to the taliban and. he's consistent terms of not serving american interests. as for as president obama been so image-conscious he can campaign as an outsider, even as president of the united states is a brilliant move. to be the president and never to be held accountable for your own actions, but blame congress and the media and tea party and everybody else in the world except for you, to blame the people that surround you in the media to sit there, were beginning to see the first glimmers of the media unhappy with that. it took the obama administration directly assaulting my typing james rosen in order for the media to start caring because the media is an institution of
folks in the media care most than people in the media are being attacked. i think the american people are starting to wake up to this. what i fear is the personality built up around president obama and that was a purposeful attempt to build up the personality. the 20 told democratic national convention was one of the thickest political events have ever seen. when i say save, it was almost like a political elements. people can support president obama. that's fair. but the person worship is frankly quite frightening. the democratic donkey was nowhere to be seen. the obama symbol appeared everywhere. it is crazy and all the t-shirts. there's a statue of president obama. personal selling president obama has devoted his 40% of the population, 35% of the population are back in the matter but he does. when jimmy kimmel asks the average obama voter whether they
support all of mitt romney's physicians and they say yes they think they are obama's positions. that demonstrates how little folks think about this stuff. that's a problem for american democracy with the bad people set of policies. it is our obligation as voters to get more informed about this, especially the dangers we face in the world. >> host: ben shapiro, either closeted conservatives working behind the scenes? >> guest: yes, absolutely. they are discriminated against when they come out. it is much harder to be conservative hollywood to make a person in hollywood. there's still some latent racism, but not a lot of. there is tremendous anti-conservative sentiment. it was interesting. i remember when i wrote "primetime propaganda," one of the folks i talked to, patty was talking to me and i said, have you ever been discriminated
against in hollywood? patti is the star of everybody loves raymond. now she's on the middle and abc. he said have you ever been discriminated against? she's been working consistently for 15 years. >> host: ishii conservative? >> guest: she's very, very pro-life. in fact, people have attacked her. mark harris of entertainment weekly attacked her specifically for being pro-life and suggesting conservatism somehow perverting the show. it was quite interesting. patty said to me that she didn't feel she been discriminated against. she then called me back later and said i called around town to ask if anyone had heard anything in turned out i lost several specific jobs because i'm pro-life and open a conservative. she called him back a few days later and said would you cite me as an unnamed source because i would like not to feel that
discrimination again. she came out later and talked about it. but to protect rice editor is on named actor in the boat. even the big name actors in hollywood are discriminated against. although, it is easier -- once you are big enough, if you're clint eastwood you're not going to lose were good if your low-level, builders work. low-level is easier to come by than lint eastwood. postcode is your political advocacy hurt your parents of entertainment? >> guest: not so far. my mom is very, very political and my dad -- i can't say that it's hurt them too much. i've largely try to keep my families separated for my career. i get that thread on a fairly regular basis that necessitates getting security systems and such. i try to protect my family's privacy as much as they possibly can. politics is a rough business. that's why don't talk about what my sisters do or who they are.
>> host: why do you get death threats? >> guest: i've got death threats because my political positions. after the piers morgan interview, for example, which would bhairon and i suggested he stood on the graves of the sandy hook political agenda. a couple folks came to my home address. people don't like it when you're particularly outspoken. there's nothing more vile to me that threats of violence based on someone's politics. it's just discussed. it goes with the territory. you accept the risk and put a shotgun in your bed. >> host: and e-mail. the left doesn't appear to be bullies. in my opinion, there were is the helpful party. question, how can i write change their perception likability when many of the policies they seem to want to regulator changed are deemed to be helpful to the masses i.e. food stamps sectioning? >> guest: the language there
is really telling because the democratic heartiest helpful party means that by default, what is the republican party become? the anti-hopeful party. they not only don't call people, they hurt people. that's a dangerous position for a party to be appeared the republican party used to make a case on a regular basis. not only are democratic policies not hopeful, they're harmful. what the republican party for a republican party for a long time as time as an associate press have been tensions. you're just wrong. the democratic or he makes a case which are evil and hate poor people and black people and that's why you believe all these crazy things. if you didn't hate people come to believe what we believe. it's time for the republican party and conservatives to start recognizing folks on the left don't necessarily have good intentions. if you're one of these folks in los angeles and are upholding the inability of my kids in the system, which i went to school there. if you upload the inability to move schools, get a voucher and
get out of the situation. if you are suing the state of louisiana in city of new orleans because you think 500 black kids getting vouchers somehow destroys the racial composition of a 40,000 student school district in new orleans, not only are you not hopeful, there's a nasty malicious element. at a certain point, ignorance becomes then. you can claim your policies don't work and you just made a mistake, but after 40, 50 years and communities remain devastated economy and have to start wondering about the intentions. is it willful blindness or maliciousness? in neither case are public and need to argue a carrot there and stop running away. you republicans say we need to recast ourselves, there is no way to recast yourself. you can't. you are what other people say about you. same for democrats. if it's democrats but republicans say about them, they're well-intentioned people who aren't very good at their jobs. if republicans are a democrat
say, they're a bunch of warmongering thugs who want to kill people and harm children. the normal american voters more concerned about miley cyrus to working onstage, about the latest provision of obamacare regulation is going to go with just a general field and that is how most people vote, based on how we feel about this guy, which we think think about this guy? sometimes there's a post back to justification and sometimes not. >> host: should miley cyrus be allowed to do work and be broadcast on television? >> guest: i think that it is time for conservatives to use their market strength against the vma. i have never been a huge fan of government involvement and regulation or censorship. i talked a little bit about the power of local communities. that is different than federal censorship. when it comes to tv, the most obvious target should be the advertisers.
the leftist of the summer routine basis. they went after rush limbaugh, sean hannity, blue dogs, multiple people on the right are going after their advertising base. this is one of the things we are going to be doing a truth rufo, an organization i work with david horowitz, which is we will be looking at services like the vma and the companies that target viewers they are and say to them, you don't understand. there's an actual counter effect to you putting up the cash the miley cyrus can shake her booty on national television about granbury probit pic. there's an effective that can affect on your terms of your stores. this is what happened in hollywood between 1930 and 1960. with the voluntary post. what does it occur again. it was voluntarily imposed by hollywood because the catholic legion of decency was boycotting hollywood and hollywood decided they understood rather proud of his battered bearded time for conservatives to use market power as opposed to ignoring the
power of cultures and draft opinions. >> host: ben shapiro, in prime "primetime propaganda," you say that the people who rate the programs don't tell us who those people are. we have no idea who is on the board. >> host: >> guest: we don't know who's actually making a call. when you see the y seven on the screen, they used to have it. worse as the age that's appropriate. that is made by some arbitrary group. we have no clue who the folks are. that's maurice unawareness point. parent should be aware the ratings system is only as good as the reagan body that provides the system. produces better than the dogcatcher reading your stocks and bonds. it's worthwhile recognizing that trust in hollywood to police itself is probably not the best way to go about doing things. the left has created a market structure that causes hollywood
to censor yourself on a pretty regular basis. one of the most important group is the gay and lesbian because they don't want god boycotting networks. this is something the right is to be picked up on. market power is an impressive tool and the right, a market based solution instead is looking to government to more seems counterproductive. postage is immoral, maryland. u.n. booktv on c-span2 with ben shapiro. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. appreciate it. the thing i wish he would address is the hypocrisy i see with types like obama. for instance, the admitted drug use in someone and yet they still maintain policies that are locking people up. i see this from a lot of the higher-ups. i think clinton was involved in a lot of this stuff. at least in the book, no one left to lead to, said he was
basically a. higher-ups get away with crimes that if a normal person did would be locked thread. and yet, they are not held accountable. it goes back to vietnam and everything else and johnson was never held accountable. both he and mcnamara. the other thing i wanted to know if you ever heard of a book called reading obama by james kupperman. i think a harper props. this is a very positive spin. i haven't read it, but the reviews claimed five. poster jim, thanks for calling in. >> guest: i don't know that the good as far as the other question about various politicians getting away with crimes that they themselves condemned, i am never a big fan of the hypocrisy argument. whenever people say so-and-so is a hypocrite, the question to me
is -- hypocrisy is not what people think it is. it's okay for me to do it, but not for you to do it. if president obama were taking cocaine and locking people up for it. the fact he did in high school is of no relevance to you, the same way if somebody was great around during woodstock in 1969, that is of no relevance to their perspective on teenage sex now. you can even maintain the belief that what you're doing is wrong and sinful at the same time you're doing it. i don't like the hypocrisy argument general. as far as the idea of politicians to get away with things normal folks don't, that is absolutely true. the obama administration -- is the obama administration existed, they would've been prosecuted multiple times already for the scandal they been involved in. the obama administration has gotten out from under that. a lot of presidents have done that.
obama has taken that to a new level. as far as the criminality of the obama administration, certainly fast and furious, all of these things speak to his level of executive power pushed by the administration and they brush it off of low-level employees who just never magically exist as soon as anybody finds out about it. the obama administration runs very much like a mafia organization. all he has to do is ask somebody to read about the meddlesome priest and he's gone. postcode and is in bridgewater, new jersey. hi, dan. >> caller: hi. i was raised on communism and then came here and join the young americans for freedom, became an officer in their injuries in the 60s during the student uprising there. i am very familiar with the left. i am very familiar with the
right. i have to point out to you that your problem is that same about is the left. you speak the same way by venting the other person comment by attributing motives and ideas and everything for the other person to suit yourself. for example, the president of the energy deprivation leg were saying christians are anti-semitic because they are jealous of the jewish being god chosen people. now, he could just say that. it could be his opinion on it but he publishes that in the name of an organization he calls the anti-defamation league. in the same way, as much as you guys are pushing these images of the other side, under stalinism, exactly the same thing. but for others no more meaningful dialogue. we had a meaningful dialogue between the left and the rate in the 1960s ended all deteriorated because students
became in situ other things. we're not investing a culture of understanding complexity, on her standing at the in-depth matters. the u.s. position right now you would be a criminal. but if you really understood the depth of the need for dialogue, you wouldn't be speaking like a leftist. >> host: i think we got the point. let's get an answer from author ben shapiro. >> guest: besides the fact berkeley was the wellspring of debate, i would say the you did. the idea there is a tremendous debate between left and right in the 1960s is nonsense. governor reagan took over what would essentially be quote, unquote terrorist methods to take over government buildings and they were expelled by force. the democratic uprising. the truth is a the political
system. the idea people have been calling each other names and going after each other is certainly the case. jefferson and adams were going at each other to the nail, all the way back in the elections of 1800. nothing new to suggest character attacks are going on in america. they been largely relegated to one side. i'm not one of these folks who believes someone starts despite infamous punches back, those are equivalent. i will say that responding fire with fire is not the same as starting a fire in the first place. somebody about about bill o'reilly, rush limbaugh and seven. one of the things my father if it it is never certified. if you start a fight, you finish it. >> host: tranter is the author of five books. "brainwashed," how universities indoctrinate the youth. "porn generation" came out in 2005, how social liberalism is cooked in our future. "project president, battier bowties on the road to the white
jeanette e.? >> guest: my fourth grade teacher. she was really an inspiring teacher. i skipped their great. i skipped third and ninth. when she was the fourth grade teacher whose class i skipped into, she really gave me maybe the best single piece of advice that i've ever received, which was she turned to me one day and said don't let potential be written on your tombstone, and the we know you are smart. they know you're talented yet we know you can do a lot of things, but it's hard work, turning potential into something relevant that matters. be somebody who does something beyond just being smart at nine or 10 or 15 or 18. to me that was something that matter deeply because i was as a syndicated columnist at 17 i never try to make a big deal because i always nail the nice but not to us you will not be 17 for very long. at a certain point outgrow about
name the prodigy at a certain point i work at pakistan on its own merits as opposed to curiosity level as the george vergara damascene 17 euros right as a shock. as a poster at the ideas in a good? >> host: public or private schools? >> guest: back and forth. to cater for that within -- nla is that addison elementary from two to four, skipping three. then at a jewish private school five and six. public schools having to wait reid junior high. also nla. i skipped ninth grade of high school in 10th, 11th and 12th read up private jewish school caught you at each university of los angeles in ucla as a college, a public-school obvious way. >> host: how old were you when you started at ucla? >> guest: 16. it was fun. it's never bothered me too much. most of my friends now are 50.
i get along well with folks of all ages. it's only now that i'm about to hit 30 diaphragms of my own age group. i spent most of my own life friendly with people significantly older. >> host: harvard law school right out of ucla? >> guest: yeah, i went for an from one to the other. >> host: you graduated from harvard law? >> guest: i was 23. >> host: is writing books your main moneymaking occupation? >> guest: is one of them. i have several. i get up at 5:30 every morning and do the radio show in los angeles on kla 87 he called the morning answer. there's a liberal guy on one close friends with any conservative gallon i'm the guy who holds down the intellectual forte because it's a conservative station. i do that from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. i finished my shift, drive home and an editor at large for
breitbart.com. i do that for most of the rest of the day. i also am just starting a truth revolt, which unmentioned a couple times. truth revolt.com will, mind in the next two or three weeks. when that happens i'll split time between breitbart.com and truth revolt feed each other in both companies are semi-working together in friendship. at night i write books and go straight books and take my wife out to dinner. >> host: postcoital business about your wife as well. >> guest: she's pregnant. that's very exciting. she is due january 24th. i'm struggling right now to get your manifesto, which should come out early january. to find it was august 1 in the due date is october 1. that's moving out fast. i want to get it out before the babies born because once it's born i'm going to be a home, with my baby and wife in my life will be changed demonically. now is the time to work 17 hours
a day because when the baby is born i predict i will be dealing with the baby 17 hours a day. >> host: what is your next book about? >> guest: the title is yet to be decided. the tentative title is abusive powers about the obama administration. it's essentially the thesis that the obama administration is in many ways a criminal enterprise and it's responsible for criminal violations ranging from incitement riot to probably term involuntary manslaughter if you're looking that fast and furious were certainly espionage under benghazi if you believe as i do those big gunrunning routine as grandpa has suggested. the united states was running guns to the consulate in men ghazi to syria. september 11th, the consulate of benghazi was attacked. the single largest shipment of arms bound for syria landed from
libya in turkey, which is the go-between. there's many theories as to why it was attacked, but there's pretty solid evidence that god was there ever been sought by the terrorists who attacked the ghazi consulate. as far as the coverup afterwards, that's typical of not wanting to let the cat out of the bag. we don't want to look as though we are weak or al qaeda is still a functioning for spirit we really don't want anybody to look at our general middle eastern policy emboldening areas all over. >> host: who is your publisher for your newest book? victor crist several publishers. >> guest: the next one is with simon & schuster. they're wonderful. i'm glad to be working with them again. i started off with thomas nelson, harpercollins, simon & schuster. >> host: do you do while you're riding at home? computer? >> guest: in some cases i do research that requires me to go out of the house.
for "primetime propaganda" i get a lot of on-site interviews, but i'm very happy to work from home. this is the lead in the future game. everyone is going to be working from home and it's going to be fabulous. to spend time with your family. view on how to set in the office and wait for the next irrelevant meeting. >> host: did you push on prime "primetime propaganda"? >> guest: no, not too much. they were kind of test i didn't tell them i was conservative upfront but i felt obligation to do that because it's the same regardless of who is asking it. i tried not to vary my answers. they are typically as articulated in the way you want them to be, whether that strident or not as strident, regardless of who is asking the question. i didn't think i was a particularly relevant criticism from folks. i'm very meticulous about keeping all the interviews i do
in getting permission. i understand two-party consent. i actually insist that the interviews are taped because i don't want to be misquoted. tape is the best friend of anyone who wants to quote correctly or be quoted correctly. >> host: mr. transfer, was harvard law school like for you? >> guest: i had a great time right there. not only did i enjoy it harbor law, i felt there was tremendous of minutes to diverse points of view, even at the faculty was very much left. one of the people who wrote me a recommendation for my first gig why worked in a law firm before he quit because i hated it was the secretary of labor attempted nominee by bill clinton who was still far left that she was tossed out by a democratic senate. lonnie and i got along really well. she was open to other opinions and opinions inescapably nice gal. i was close to the professor there named richard parker was a leftist populist.
i love talking with folks on the left. it's fun for me. it's enjoyable. usually you can have a good conversation with folks. i can't speak have enough about my time at harvard law. i had to run with future justice kagan. she was a good team. she doesn't i skate rink outside. the first time i talked with dean kagan, we're sitting on introductory dinner in one of these typical hubs at harvard law school. everything looks like it's mahogany. it's ridiculous looking. she sat down at the table. and she said, is this a beautiful room? as it looks like the haunted mansion before it was haunted. she gave me a look like i killed a kitten and then we sort of moved on. every couple of minor run-ins with dean, seem to be justice taken when she's tried to fight against the solomon amendment. she tried to throw out off
campus basically. so i made that public and we got a era. good deed, that justice. >> host: michael posts on our facebook page. please ask mr. shapiro about shirley sherrod's lawsuit against his so-called new site, breitbart.com. >> guest: i don't want to comment for legal reasons. i know the lawsuit i believe believe is still ongoing. i am not personally involved. i was involved with the company at the time. i'm happy to talk about shirley sherrod in my own opinion because i need entry at the time. and the legal status, i'm going to leave that to the president and ceo of the company and the folks that bright art involved at the time. >> host: what is your personal opinion? >> guest: the facts are relatively clear, which is in your posted what was a bit of a longer video. his original column escapade in and talked about how she redeemed herself in that story. the point of interest original
story with you is going after the naacp, folks cheering in the crowd when shirley sharad was talking about how she was once discriminated against white farmers. when andrew did this, he was focused completely on racism against the tea party and so that was -- one of the ways he was coming back was to say the naacp, claiming tea party races and has members who are racist. that is what most of the piece was about. that's my opinion on what is happening to shirley sharad. >> host: back to the calls, charles and which outcome in new jersey. you are on with shapiro. go ahead. >> caller: hello, ben. you mentioned limbaugh and o'reilly. on the talkshow host you you also have handy and michael savage. with the exception of rush limbaugh, all the others, when they buy colors, the entry of these people who have good remarks. you can even get the point of the callers. you invite people on, let them
talk. rush limbaugh was very polite. about a month ago, somebody wrote in an e-mail, which he published. apparently he had no answer and he does not like to be vested. he comes out with this cold remark. you need help. to me that was the ultimate. after that, i shut him off and will not listen to o'reilly. i want to know what you think. by the way, just for the record and i'll cut right off. my last name is shapiro. i have at least three novels in print. we won't go into those details. it's your show, not mine. that thing o'reilly is too much. he doesn't like to be vested. that's about it. >> host: mr. shapiro, any response for carl? >> guest: no other response other than the entertainment business is also the intent entertainment business. i didn't happen to hear that call. it definitely differs by host. i don't want to comment on any
one specific coast, especially when i don't know the particular circumstances being discussed. when i talk with folks, we take calls on our show in los angeles when i had ability, i enjoy engaging as much as possible. it's no fun if anybody gets to say anything. >> host: this is a treat from john armstrong. what kind of stories can a conservative film producer tell to respond to the hollywood juggernaut without being preachy? >> guest: good stories. i've always had with the left us and they are smart about this, they let their worldview come under the stories they tell us opposed to trying to force it. when they're making promised land, basically anything involving matt damon. anytime they get preachy and angry and it turns into a diatribe about politics in america, that's where stuff. some of the most effective is when they're trying to tell a story that happens to involve a
bunch of leftist values. "avatar." for the right, the most effective is great stories that happens to be conservative. if you're not watching for it, you won't notice it. the dark knight rises, fabulous example. probably not even meant to be a conservative movie. it is about the diatribe of the marxism and the french revolution. there's a mock trial scene. it's fantastic. there are folks who said the dark knight was a conservative movie. one of my favorite movie is the lives of others, not meant to be a conservative movie that talks about the dangers of an overarching government monitoring. a german movie. wonderful film. said the key is to tell a good story make the politics secondary is supposed to start off with i'm going to get this point across and here's the story of going to build around this particular point. even when the left is that, they're not good at it. when you watch all in the family on tv come a show written as an
issue show. we're going to do abortion this week. race relations this week. it doesn't hold up. you watch it now and it's not funny. you watch the van dyke show and it's so funny because he wasn't trying to be political. family ties is better than all in the family. the key is to tell a good story for us, entertain people first and allow politics to flow into it in a natural fashion must opposed to trying to ram it through. conservatives are like dolphins. they have two halves of their brain. there's the half that's political and hot but as entertainment. the godolphin who has won half of its brain on comments like that. when the entertainment site is gone, they will call home and watch the same stuff everyone also watch. the big theory and all these other shows. when you go to a lecture and you talk to conservatives and the entertainment side, don't watch anything but bible stories and ronald reagan biopic.
it's not realistic. it doesn't produce any comment. as much as we may love ronald reagan biopic, it's not how you reach a 21-year-old. dark knight rises hit weimar people about the evils of communism than any movie ever produced about ronald reagan. >> host: this e-mail is from david. he says the liberals have taken over the vast majority of universities. how did that happen? how did american conservatives allow themselves to be overwhelmed, surrendering so much ground to the left. what are they, helpless? >> guest: i do think they are incompetent. i think they are mostly incompetent. when it comes to the university system, the move toward the left started in the 1930s when there is tremendous socialist pressure within the university system. fdr drew from his administration
the progressive movement which started early 20 century was an import from germany. leftism university started off very early. it got worse in the 30s. it really started off all the way back during the teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson era. you have to go back a long ways to when conservatives really give it up. at that point, progressivism is under the banner of populism. it wasn't the same divide it is now. as far as why they haven't taken aback, the answer is folks on the right typically don't see politics as a business. this is why when you look at folks on the left, if you just look objectively at folks on the democratic platform in the 2008 campaign in the open primary, you are looking at the best and brightest. look at al sharpton, the best and brightest from a group of folks highly educated and intelligent. iraq obama is a smart guy. hillary clinton is a smart
woman. joe biden is not an by any stretch of the imagination. a lot of folks are very, very brave. you go to the right side of the aisle and you're looking not a bunch of folks who were at rest everybody a second pick. nobody dared is what you would call brilliant, somebody who you couldn't wait to vote for, somebody was going to spend their entire life. even that romney didn't spend his entire life in politics. he was a businessman first. the difference between liberals and conservatives can be sent some do. most conservatives that they could be left alone by the government and everybody else would be happy to do that. if they were conservative countries and will do our thing and you do your thing, leave aside the pro-life issue, but we'll do our thing can you do your thing. don't ask us, don't come after us, don't regulate us. were not going to care. conservatives will be happy with that. liberals attack conservatives because government is the
business. government is what is right. the growth of government is in and of itself an inherent good because rights don't spring from god will broberg view. the government gives you rights. your rights come from a vast government that is decided which are allowed to do and not allowed to do. it's a hop cd of what constitutes right is supposed to the john locke view. natural rights to protect. government gives you rights because of the government would dare come to be other. the left has a very almost self-contradictory view of human nature. on one hand if the government weren't there, we'd all be a bunch of racist murder each others. on the other hand, humanity is eminently protectable and we can all be turned into perfect human beings. the right has a clear view of human nature because it's biblically sound, which is human beings have the capacity for good and evil. sometimes good, sometimes evil. this is what the founders talked about. and the federalist papers are
not a sin his men were good, no government would be necessary. if men were evil, no government could stop people from doing what they want to do anyway. that is a crystal-clear view of human nature. unfortunately, what is lost in america is the view of human nature. people have been termed by the left either completely bad or completely good and really unable to shake their natures. .. treating sexual orientation the same way as race or treating sexual behavior the same way as race. if you are engaged in de activity, as the same thing as being black which it absolutely is not. in a democracy no one cares about what is in your head. the talking about behavior. and not talking about what's in your mind. a lot people want a lot of things. it's not a crime. so the difference between lt