mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: it has been a long day, but we have plowed through, as i have intended, and the cloture motion on the final bill has passed by a very handsome, overwhelming vote. and now we will continue to move forward. on the infrastructure bill, the substitute amendment, which is the text of the bipartisan bill that has been agreed to and

cloture has been invoked on the underlying bill to move forward. no amendments -- amendments are no longer in order. we will move forward to wrap this up as expeditiously as possible, and then move on to the budget resolution with reconciliation instructions. the two-track process is moving along. it's been a process that has been a very good process. it's taken a while, but it's going to be worth it, as hopefully we pass both bills very, very soon. the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the budget resolution with reconciliation instructions. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon monday, august 9. that's tomorrow, in case you have forgotten the days. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date,

the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3684. finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, or period of morning business count postcloture. the clock is ticking on h.r. 3684. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until noon tomorrow. crackdowns.

there is a burgeoning ns. movement even among traditional liberals against some of this stuff. i said i think the future of the country is not going to rely on hard work of conservatives, i think the future of the country lies with the radical left, the question of where the country lies going forward is going live with traditional liberals may disagree with the right on goal agree with the right and may agree with the radical left on their utopian goal but disagree with the left on the radical left willingnessto subsume individual rights on behalf of power . the liberals say to the radical left we agree on things like nationalize care and distribution of income, but you don't get to destroy individual rights, don't get to destroy people's lives simply because they disagree that we can still have country. the liberals say to the right you guys are so long going to move along with the left because it's more important we reach utopia that we

preserve anything like an open society then things will get ugly fast and it is not going to end with the complete subjugation of the right. and separation by the right to see more talk about it over time as people in southeast states which tend to be much more red, 66 percent of republicans are saying we be happy to see if you guys keep pushing this. that sentiment will only get more widespread the harder the left pushes and the middle collapses. >> your first chapter is called how to silence the majority. talk about that because a lot of people are wondering how this happened. you hear about things like the long march through these institutions which has been happening but suddenly it seems recently people are feeling it. they're feeling we're being silenced now. 20 years ago that was not something we had to take

seriously in mainstream america about what happened ? >> the answer is the rudest and loudest triumphs with a small minority. there have been studies that demonstrate if you have a group of people 20 percent of people it takes to re-normalize the entire group and here's an example. let's say you have a family of four and one of the kids decides she's a vegan so she comes home and says the mom you can cook whatever you want but i need a separate vegan meal. now mom has a decision, she has to cook two meals or she can just cook one big vegan meal for the rest ofthe family and she says i don't have time for this, it's not a big deal . we will go vegan for tonight so she goes vegan so not have one daughter and everybody else family is now going along with this particular veganism. let's say there's a neighborhood barbecue and the neighborhood barbecue involves five families and

this family says our daughter is beginning and we've been eating beginning because it's important to her so we're just going to need a vegan option and most of the barbecue says i understand want to meet but isn't that big a deal with denmark do i want to go over to the market and buy meat, let's just do it all vegan so they do begin for the entire swap so now you have 20 people who been re-normalize. all it takes is this move where you take a very entrenched while minority is unwilling to add a bunch of people who are willing to go along to getalong and that's what's happened through so many of our institutions, virtually all of our institutions . a very loud minority basically threatens people in the lysing where going to come after you. we're going to call you racist and sexist and try to destroy you if you don't just go along you're just being nice. go along. you really should be quiet,

you should be cordial and there's been processed you. you can see it on college campuses and it went from the portal to benice, don't say anything that might offend anybody on matters of any political debate going to be things that offend you . so if you're talking about race and then you talk about differential, people on campus they don't mention it, it offends people when you talk about that or if you talk about sexual values and you happen to be a traditionalist don't go there because it offendspeople . we just have a nice dinner, the portal. that turns quickly into speeches violence. your form of speech is aggressive me. doing something that harms the two now where it's not just a reflection where you need tobe nice . why can you be nice to? obviously you're an aggressive person. when i went to berkeley i spoke about the value and they were literally outside chanting speeches violence and you get to the third step which is silence is violence and that here the idea is that is not enough to just try to, step two with is listed, step two was shut up and listen. you don't know, step three is

you must mirror you're saying and become part of the model for beasley your part of the opposition. that's completely binary, either you are going to mirror what we say or where going to destroy you. and it's step-by-step alone process where each step leaves you particularly egregious at each step feels like a lot is being asked of you but just like boiling lobster, by the time you hit the end ofthe lobster is done . >> a i think the reason so many americans voted for trump and why so many americans really love him and have emotional connection is he seems in his way to fundamentally understand what was happening and he was willing to fight against. that to me is the problem today is that a lot of the people who want to be seen as typical, they don't understand there is a gun being pointed at your head

and you need to take that seriously. trump seems to have taken that more seriously than most republicans in the party. where do you think this goes west and mark where are our politics today because i think your average american, maybe not listening to a conversation like this or doesn't have the time to worry about dinesh desousa, they think this is fine. this is fundamentally un-american. maybe they can't explain why but if somebody's fighting for these basic values whether in a cultural wave or not, they want to champion that person. >> there's a lot of truth to that. i think to a certain extent donald trump was basically a lot of americans middle finger to the lead establishment that had said we need to ship sit down and shut up and some think that and trump was punching a lot

of the people they wanted punched and many people have said many times in the trump era trump was a hammer and whenyou hit the nail it was really satisfying . sometimes you hit it wasn't nearly as satisfying but there were people who were thrilled with that trump would hit the nail porcelain republican politicians had set your rights, i'm just going to concede the argument and then at least iwill be perceived as a nazi .what the republican party is doing and frankly what americans need to do is generally not make the mistake of identifying civility with conciliation, they're not the same thing. you can be subtle and stand your ground. you can say i'm not going to use bad words or insult you, what i'm going to do isstand my ground and say no . i'll say no and i don't acquiesce and if you are calling me a racist maybe it's because. maybe this is the last resort on the scoundrel and i'm not going to do this . >> ..

i do think in a republican ever gets nominated again who is perceived as civility first. that era is over and that era should be over because we are long past the notion the best way to win over people in the middle is by being completely civil or conciliatory with people who disdain your lifestyle, you and want to control so many aspects of your life. >> let's talk about the neediest complicity in this. again i canceled my subscriptions to the "new york times" because i always knew they leaned left but during the trump era i was genuinely

horrified to see the front page become editorial. but the horror of course is not that it's an editorial but that it is pretending still to be journalism. what do you think happened in american newsrooms, the culture at large, that it is, it's strange to me of to have so few dissenters. because individualistic class you would expect people who really understood that there are fundamental values about how we do journalism, how we do democracy. i see almost no one in the mainstream media, mainstream journalistic classes who really have talked about this issue at all. >> the dissenters i've heard. the people who you talk about end up losing their job or quitting than your times out of essentially being persecuted. one of the grave mistakes made

by the country, by conservatives was 20 years ago, 30 years ago when people were warning about this, but when they hit the reworked them go away. they will have to pay taxes and engage with the rest of society but what if they left the universities about those values and we normalize all these institutions? that seems to what has happened at these major newspapers. the "new york times" is essentially de facto run by nicole hannah jones which lies about american history in wins pulitzers. everybody is supposed to genuflect at the altar of nicole hannah jones and if you don't you might find yourself out on your butt. if you cross the mildest line which that line can move it into the new find out. you can be the editorial page editor finds out of a job because you run it generic op-ed by united states center. you can be the science writer

for the new york times of what are some of the job because on a school trip a while ago you said to a student there were certain uses of the inward not the same uses of the inward and the newspaper can fire you over that after the groundswell. this comes to the nature of the bunch of liberals who run these institutions. the "new york times" is always liberal. the problem is liberals didn't have the courage of those convictions in saying to the radicals listen, we may agree but you don't get to destroy individual rights and individual freedoms freedom of the press and the ability to think broadly, you don't get to destroy that in the name of your agenda the liberals are embarrassed of a lot of those things. liberals have gone along because a decide the woke have a point which are the they are the beneficiaries. i did inherit this newspaper, i am privileged so how can i it

privileged white person say to nicole hannah jones that my standards of individual rights are correct while she's arguing those standards are merely i re-enshrinement of the hierarchy that gave been my advantage in the first place. there's deep level of gate link to white guilt that has pervaded so much of our institutional life and it means there's almost a waiting and ready surinder caucus inside all these institutions that the woke have taken advantage of. >> you believe in god. i believe in god, the biblical god. do you have hope that we can get through this as a country and as a culture? is your hope strictly limited to this sphere of this world or is your hope anchored in your faith? >> i think my hope is always anchored in my faith. god makes promises and keeps those promises from my point if you but a hope for the country i

think americans are getting tied to this. very tiresome. it is boring, annoying, irritating. so far there hasn't been a mass movement to reject it. the mass movement is kind of coming. i can't tell you how many people who disagree with me on nearly everything on politics i talked to lately who will resonate to the messages i'm saying. it is weird we can't have an open conversation. it is weird if they invite me on their shows that the audience will get so angry that they will cancel them. that is untenable and it can't be carried forward. the problem is they sit behind closed doors and the need to say open. i fed this experience many times personally were people on the left who unfairly with will say to what i call happy birthday problem, on my birthday i receive happy birthday messages from prominent people who are liberal or left leaning. no one was happy birthday publicly on twitter. the reason is this would be acknowledging a person they

disagree with was born a woman. you can't act on the command of some who disagrees with you on politics or all of your fans might think you're sympathetic to their political positions. this really is pretty dramatic and pretty astonishing. what we need is for people to consider themselves to actually save the sort of stuff out loud. i talk about in the book i talk about in the introduction a situation that is a perfect example of this. an actor, writer and producer, director in hollywood, a a buh of indie films and e-mailed our company maybe two years ago, four years ago and he wanted to do some sort of documentary or show having to do with the second amendment. i want to talk to someone so i can get the perspective. that's nice, nice to see hollywood cares nothing about these issues. he came in, i now have, talked about the second amendment. as he's leaving i said listen for your own good don't tweet you were here. just as a friendly piece of

advice. you tweet it you will get a bunch of nonsense. there's no reason to do. you got with ginger and decides to meet you on all the rest. a couple weeks later he decided he was going to be a nice guy and so they went on twitter and tweeted out something like i disagree with what most bench address to say. he's goodhearted person. he got hit so hard by the left that he pulled down the tweet at instead threw up a new tweet saying i did not realize my own sin in doing this. i didn't realize that i don't side with racism and xenophobia in bigotry and it still in process of learning. this happens all the time. here's the truth. all he had to say was right, , ? when people came after him that's only had to do was say and? so unfriendly within. i just that i don't agree with everything he says but so what? there are people on the left who are brave enough to do that. i have lots of leftist guests who come on a which is an hour-long interview show and a

lot, i've award virtually but on the left there will get blowback. the one to come and show say i don't care and they get the blowback and then it's over. that's the thing is so amazing, it's a mirage but the notion that these people, the small group of people should be able to cancel anybody or broad majority of americans care enough about your old facebook posts that you do lose your job or put your business in danger is insane and all it takes is somebody shouting that the emperor has no clothes particularly summit from the left for this to him pretty quickly. >> i always think of reagan as the brandenburg gate, the famous speech and align mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. the reason i think of that is it strikes me as a moment of real leadership in that the folks at foggy bottom told over and over and over again you cannot say that, you must not say that.

and he said it. in other words, the didn't listen to them even though they tried very, very hard and he simply did it. there are some blowback and then it's over and then he is recognized as a hero and a leader and demons tremble because when you have a leader like that, a leader like that can defeat communism, can defeat the evil totalitarianism that was in the world of the soviet empire. it seems to me individually we used to have a class of americans understood that an kind of lived like that. the reason we are where we are is because most people today i think would say well, the folks at foggy bottom say i can't say this, i better not say it. what do you think has changed fundamentally? i guess let me say, i think it is the 50 years of hollywood singing a different song. we don't have frank capra films

or john wayne films. we have different kind of film that involves the antihero and on and on and on, and that has had a powerful cultural effect on what people think it means to be an american. so that's my guess. what you say? >> two factors. one is something you mentioned, the decline of religion. the with these objective moral standards and so long as you were not actively harming somebody then you should consider them a member of your community. use things like forgiveness. what were talking about now and what's left is engaging in, authoritarian movement, is a religion without -- it's a pagan form of religion in which you must be answerable to an ever improving mob. the changes in the line it wd you must make sacrifices or otherwise you will not be declared part of the mob. sort of shifting authoritarian politics that truly ugly. on the cultural level that's a huge problem. the decline a family has been a

serious issue because again families tend -- when they collapsed social media is to be if you want to put together a mob of terrible people you are to come out and go door-to-door and say this thing happen, let's go take advantage of this and is a terrible thing. let's go lynch that guy can get together do that. you would have to coalesce around a particular cause. that you basically have a mob online waiting to coalesce. i mob waiting. it's a lot easier to mobilize and easier to find because it's all international and national in scope at all it takes a is somebody to tweet one bad thing and suddenly get 10,000 people tweeting how terrible the ardent culling of the boston telling them they ought to lose their job. that is a major factor. when you talk about hollywood and moral narratives there something there but i don't think it necessary as a focus on the quote-unquote antihero. it's the nature of what hollywood considers a roll cast change. heroes in our films is not the

summit antiheroes is that your victim. the people we're supposed feel for our victims. victimization and heroism have become exactly same thing. in a heroes in the heh campbell paradigm if you telling the story they hero is the person might be demised by circumstance, an obstacle and then the over, but they are supposed to be fighting on behalf of something higher and something of value. in our society, authenticity is the key value. vim living is what makes them heroic. this has bled over into our politics to the extent that ever hear from our past we we're d and statues of george washington or erecting statues of george floyd. i think what happened to george floyd is authenticity of what he thinks what happened to george floyd is awful but the notion that george floyd was a civil rights hero like rosa parks or mlk is insulting to rosa parks and him okay. the man was a victim of police

brutality. that contrast is telling you if you believe in the statute of george floyd the contrast is pretty telling. >> i have to ask, it seems to me the reason so many people are foolishly drifting along with the zeitgeist so to speak is because they don't seem to have the knowledge, they were not educated to understand where this always goes it when you think about what happened in the french revolution, you can look at the cultural revolution in china under mao was so horrific when you see where it goes, what it does to human beings. anybody with any knowledge of those things we see that where we are now, that is exactly where it goes. why do you think people, adults, many of them ivy league educated adults seem to have no idea of these parallels?

>> first of all, all of them think they are the good guys. in the past these things have been used for bad. we're not in favor of -- >> does anyone believe that mao thought he was evil for the people prosecuting his agenda were evil? hitler thought he was a good guy. the nazis thought they're doing good. these are any question that? >> no. that's exactly the point. the people doing this now think they're doing this on behalf of the angels. that's part of it. for people in the middle the notion the free and prosperous fight we've all been granted because we've been building on the shoulders of giants for generations now, that free prospers incredibly blessed life we all live, the greatest privilege in the world is to be born in america. that's an unbelievable privilege. that's true historically, true

and sexually right now. it is true for all five in all places, like an amazing place to be and a place to live. we take that for granted. the verse from the bible comes to me from deuteronomy that you got fat. there really is what it is. we are fat, happy, lazy, all the things we bought at the click of a button and that's the way normality is. normal life is what we have right now which means any movement from normal can only be good, only toward utopia. this is where the natural status of things, and you do some folks on the left sometimes. i saw a quote from nelson mandela one of them is everything we said something like prosperity is a natural state of maine. poverty is not financial state of maine. i thought that is ridiculous but that is of lawsuits only people living in the united states that all the good things we have in the united states are not the product they despise. to the body of individual rights we'll give it it is the natural state of the world. it's the individual right and the systems that are brought us

all the bad things. all the things that are uniquely good about america are not unique, universal. all the things that are universally bad and also apply in america are unique to america. that seems to be the upside down philosophy. >> everywhere i go i bump into people from cuba or from the former soviet union, they see what we are talking about with crystal clarity. the only reason i think i see it may be more clearly than my friends is because my mother grew up in east germany. my father grew up in greece when the communists try to take over after the second war. they raised me without trying very hard to know how particularly wicked and cruel communism is and, therefore, even without thinking, to love a consumptive because freedom is the antithesis of that. but i am kind of amazed at what you say, that americans somehow are so myopic, so blessed, that

they think this is normal. they think what we've always had here is normal, rather than a wild i give almost shouldn't logically have succeeded but did and so we should be grateful and we should keep the republic. do you have hope that because of where we are now people are waking up to this? >> i think they are. the other day i was speaking to somebody who widely disagrees with me, is a professor at a major university campus and kim at acip i i disagree with everything you say, but i want to have a conversation with you about it. i think michael student should have a conversation about it. i'm getting your some people i've never gotten notes from before forcing i used to really disagree with all the things you're saying and it still disagree with a lot of your politics but i got to kelly i am living in figure a lot of people living in fear. when you realize people living in fear of the majority, i poll data that is correct, every

single american political group except those who consider themselves far left say they are uncomfortable to say things in public. that means there is a broad majority of people are feeling really uncomfortable at this moment and there are only two ways out of discomfort. one is complete surrender and the other is the consolidation at the pushback. i hope the consolidation cons in a positive and useful way. one of the problems with the authoritarian push we're seeing from the left is politics is extraordinarily reactionary and reactive and you could get a reaction that looks uglier than the restoration of classical liberalism and the sort of adherence to individual rights. you could see something that looks more like you're using the auspices of government and corporations to cram down your values. we will go the other way. all the tools you created for yourself we are now going use against you. that would and similarly, in the for the breakup of the country. there maybe people are are happier on the right at that prospect the people on the left.

the question for a lot of americans to ask is do you wish to live in this works if the answer is yes then you have to make the concession that neutrality to be the default when it comes to our institutions as opposed to those institutions being weaponized. the heart of the left pushes the heart of the right will push back and we'll come back in some ugly ways. >> we have three minutes left. talk about the chapter on how science defeated actual science. how is it science quote-unquote defeated actual site? >> cites the self normal science is a process. scientific process and every scientist will tell you this. there's an institution called the science. there is no person who is the repository of the science. there's just a scientific process and are subject to being overturned overtime as the gain new knowledge and data. that's normal science. there's -- every time you heard listen to the science or listen,

every time you heard during the global warming debates, you have to follow the signs. they don't mean follow the data. they don't mean follow the process of science making. they mean there's this guy over here and you need to agree with them. if you don't agree you are a science denier. the science originally said you're not supposed to get together with in large numbers. should go to church, shouldn't have outdoor church. all this is dangerous because this is passed in airborne fashion. either that's true orts network let's assume it's true. within a couple of weeks they switch to as long as you're protesting for george floyd you can be very large number of people, pretend this is no risk of infection for public health duty to go a protest for geore floyd in the middle of the pandemic, 20 million strong. it's necessary. uf scientist saying it is a public health duty to do all of this. you saw it again with regard to the changing out of the vaccines. it was obvious to anybody who follow the data the best way to

trench out the vaccine were to give it to the older people first. people who are older with the people most at risk and yet there was a push inside the biden administration to instead tranche at the vaccines on a base of racial equity which by the way when it with more debt black people because you would been giving vaccine to young black people and that is made to all black people of all black people are much more likely to die. all this was the hijacking of the science and legitimacy we all feel. site is great because it's subjective, has results. the transition away from science as a process to science as a body of the people must be listen to at all points it leads to specific problems. one is site is speaking outside their area of expertise. i'm epidemiologist but now have real thoughts about racial justice. it undermines science and it leads to a converse bleed over effect which is where you have

people who are political speaking about scientific issues and this is an impact where scientists infused politics into the own science. this leads to where things like nature magazine declaring there's no such thing as boys and girls, or "scientific american" declaring there will only publish papers based on the impact of the papers which is totally anti-science, or when you have great scientist declaring for certainty that there's no such thing out as biological sex and gender is all in the mind. none of this is back with anything remotely resembling science but if you don't listen to this size this means you are denier. >> this is always, well, it's horrifying to think this is happening in america and in the west and again because i wrote bonhoeffer and i'm familiar with that time, it's exactly what happened in germany. there was aryan science,

national socialists insisted there's this kind of new science and we don't want to listen to the old site anymore. we don't want any jewish science. science. we want pure arian science. so they started pushing preposterous racial theories as though someone and so forth. how is it possible that this is happening in the west right now? it's astonishing to me that science is undermining science, scientists are undermining scientist convictions have undermined journalism. how do we get back to any sense of objectivity in either of those? >> the power is unbelievable aphrodisiac. scientist because understand their the most respected in america that science is most respected institution in a condensed in this gets an extra day power to wield on behalf of the social change they want to see. naturally dangerous because fast that would scientist do. they're acting outside the area of expertise and outside of their actual purview and that is

a dangerous stuff. as far as journalism you see the same thing. it's our job to hold the powerful to account for its our job to effect social change. your job is to explain the facts happening there that's little your job. that's all thing and you journalists take it upon themselves were instance of social change, instruments of making the world a better place. you can make the world a better place by doing your actual job. once she decided your actual job is not to do your actual job is to affect social change, your real job, second to the gin in the same way for science. your actual job was to follow the scientific job but now you found your real job is to change the world on a social level. you can start perverting things to me that. as you say this has happened in total to -- totalitarian regimes in the past. the willingness to destroy science in soviet union, all of

this stuff there's precedent for it but just because there's president does me when people feel the ring of power instead of casting it to mount doom, i'll wear this around for lazio goes. >> it's way too much fun to talk to. congratulations on the book "the authoritarian moment." five seconds to answer each. first question, what's the capital north dakota? >> bismarck, right? >> correct. second question, will you appear with me on my tv radio program very soon? >> i be happy to do that. >> that was so easy. ben shapiro congratulations on "the authoritarian moment" and all that you are doing. hope to catch up with you again soon. >> thanks so much. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you'll find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books

and authors. it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> during a recent virtual event hosted by haymarket books yet university history professor elizabeth hinton, the history please violence and social unrest. >> the idea that somehow the riots were these moments of criminality and that they were examples of criminal behavior,, again, that sense be very much like johnson because after harlan erupts in 64 after 15-year-old high school student is killed by the newark police department, johnson takes, makes the same steps in those obama did. he said this is not about some rights protest. this is criminal, tied to the crime problem, tied to juvenile delinquency. it's meaningless.