tv After Words Ben Shapiro The Authoritarian Moment CSPAN September 8, 2021 5:13pm-6:11pm EDT
>> i have the privilege and the joy of interviewing ben shapiro with his new book. it's called "the authoritarian moment." i want to ask you an obvious question that strikes me as not unimportant, and the title, "the authoritarian moment." it strikes me as chilling. why is your book entitled "the authoritarian moment"? >> they are reason it's entitled "the authoritarian moment" is because what we are experiencing is this moment in time in american history the rise of the militant authoritarian movement inside the united states that
seems to have taken overall for institutions. i wanted to tackle institutional institutional -- because i think when people think about authoritarianism -- the throat to authoritarianism they think of it as pure government. we are all experiencing it together. the government is not controlling every aspect of our life and it's a free country at least for the moment. about social authoritarianism like you see all around us and the water that we are all swimming in and we see it on a day-to-day level from our peers our neighbors and on tv. it's creating a feeling of oppression in the united states that's being held by a broad majority of americans and it's a product of the time we live in. >> i think the older one is the more horrifying current moment
is how un-american it is to feel the way many people feel. i think a lot of younger people just because they don't have the history and that this may seem normal and they don't understand how unprecedented it is for such a wide swath of americans do feel as though they have to be careful what they say. in the book you talk about how some people have tried to silence what you call the majority. i want to ask you about that but before that in the beginning of the book you talk about how we have to define who are the authoritarians. a lot of people on the political left or the mainstream media who have become left mostly they say aviat tory at -- authoritarian loophole is exclusively on the
right in like what happened the january 6 and how do you answer those folks? >> there are clearly people don't like the democratic processes on the right and they also have no institutional support. i do find authoritarianism there's a well-known rule following person authoritarian this is what makes you an authoritarian on the right that there's a lesser-known phenomenon and for a very long time so social scientist said there was no such thing and there were no people and left two offered authoritarian ideology. he might say to yourself that doesn't make any sense. we know there've plenty of authoritarian countries like cuba and china but there's a market attempt to avoid defining authoritarianism broadly enough to allow the possibility.
after several decades of this there was a political scientist who gave it three basic components. one was this idea of anti-conventionalism the idea that everyone who is not a -- is somehow inferior and lesser and on the left the ideas if you don't believe what many people are left think you are a bigot and a jerk and you are not fit company for anyone else. then there's a second element of mets top down censorship the idea from the left that you ought to be censored because of this and we will use a mechanism to shut you up to protect everyone else. and third there's an element of the revolutionary aggression connected to left-wing authoritarianism. you are responsible for all of my ills and you need to be torn down. the democratic party ideology
and now the institutional capture that happens at all the institutions have to be remade and you need to be wished into the cornfield the notion that they need to censor you or fire you or kick you off facebook or reduce your rates. all of these are aspects of what authoritarianism is. >> it's a fascinating to meet cultural memories anybody who's aware of what happened in the 60s in hollywood automatically and i think this is carried through the decades was tend to think of this kind of behavior is a lack listing as fundamentally un-american and used against anyone on the left but you describe in the book and what many of us have observed an american last few years it's precisely the opposite.
there aren't references to the blacklisting and that's just wiped away. >> for sure. the reason for that goes back to an intellectual who suggested in order to preserve democracy and liberalism that had to be something called repressive power. power allows bad opinions to tolerate it and bad opinions might wind so we have to repress certain views in order to be more tolerant. right-wing views are intolerant and when you oppress them you do so on behalf of tolerance. it has become sort of the go-to a argument like so many people in society have these days. in order to be protected from
the evil -- we have to silence use of their feelings aren't hurt. that's tied more deeply to a change notion of what identity amounts to in the united states. identity is a form of coordination with the body politic and in coordination with the rules of society and you use the words civilized. you civilized them into silence and touche in and they civilized member of society. nowadays when you raise a child you have to find a way to help them find their authentic self. all that can be done within and people say we don't like the way you're acting and then it's an infringement of your identity because some people disapprove. disapproval becomes an act of violence and then you require institutions to prevent such an
act of violence. >> what you are talking about floor people who aren't listening to every syllable is this idea that somebody today might say because of my religious views, because i'm a serious christian are the serious muslim what has changed as i hear you describing it is that kind of defense is not only something that somebody on the social left might frown on but feel the need to cancel and force people to be somehow unable in our society to hold those views which has been characterized as out dated and offensive. >> we live in an era of individualism where human being feels they are owed a certain
amount however they choose to live their life. those people have aggressive on them and that justifies the authoritarian measures that we have seen. you have to be forced into compliance and sometimes it does take the form of governmental authoritarianism. people who say i don't wish to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. jack phillips has been persecuted by colorado and he's been taken to the supreme court. if we are going to live in a country together at a certain point you could do think what you want and i'd get to live my life how i live it and think what i want. we'll have to take the perspective that you can wave your fist around until it hits you in the face but the definition of harm has to be
re-vilified. it is not if you feel bad and how i think about the world. >> it's a my contention and they say it on my own radio program that i believe most americans know what you have just described. they understand it's preposterous in america to try to get people this think a certain way or force them to think a certain way. there was great success in forcing this new idea which i would say is not only un-american but somehow anti-americans of how do you define the parameters here so someone tuning in right now will say well why should not be able to persecute them or marginalize them? what are the parameters and what
are the limits of that kind of behavior and when it's a civil un-american when does it become authoritarian? >> we are talking about when his cancel cloture appropriate and it might do when somebody puts their job when the perspective that they hold impacts the doubt that they are doing. if someone holds the view that you don't like you shouldn't as a moral human being -- because you voted for person different than you. let's say for example your perspective -- it's fair for people to say i don't wish to engage with that person because of their their viewpoint to get it directly impacts what i'm doing for women. there is now this threat to basically turn everything private viewpoint into something public so now we pick up a
facebook post and if we don't like what he has to say on facebook and leads to really dark results. because it's particularly egregious when you see institutions of power doing this sort of stuff especially since it's not i would say more natural than we are making it out to be. corp. of a specific point of view that they wish to mirror and if that is not mirrored you could find yourself in serious trouble so you're working for a corporation in the middle of the lives matter movement last year. some say that it's offensive that you didn't post a square on your -- this is the point that
when you look at the institutions the renormalization of the institution which is a term that is used by social scientists the idea that you can take an institution and change the orientation of the institution and with facebook 20% of the people who work they are doing all the work that is led to radical results from the organization. >> this brings to mind two things. the first thing when people started talking about hate speech and i'm not quite sure when it was our hate crime that was the dividing line. if i murder you ben shapiro because you are jewish and i hate jewish people and how is that different if i murder you because you are wider and his crazy and i wanted to murder
someone and what does that have do with anything when we are talking about the law? that struck me as an odd moment in the culture blends why someone who committed murder committed a crime it matters. in terms of frugality of it struck me as fascinating that somehow i don't know how common it would enter the law and that would pave the way to what we are talking about. >> i think that's right and wanted things that happened and you can have that legal debate there's a very good first amendment case this is a hate crime should not be a category and they should not be a specific prosecution for murder based on hatred because again that goes to an additional perspective it may be ugly but
here's the reason why it's been accepted across the united states. that is because people have adopted the perverse view that if somebody misuses the right that means the right is itself to blame. so you see this happening right now on social media. their people are misusing freedom of speech or maybe they are abusing it by posting racist information. there's a hard push because of our ability to post on social media without someone looking over your shoulder. the individual right itself is the problem and this is the core of left authoritarianism. it eventually rights by themselves as a threat the idea that individual rights are threatened as a utopian machine
and individual rights are hierarchies of power there raked into the cake and designed to be against other people. >> we are talking about cultural marxism as a reference the frankfurt school. these ideas which are pretty much relegated by the academy have finally over the decade trickle down so to speak into mainstream culture but the idea that if i don't post at blm square in my social in my social media and the idea that someone may look at me funny to previous generations that would have struck people as fascist and the kind of thing the did if you don't say heil loud enough you are suspicious and that kind of thing most americans knew instinctively. they knew instinctively that was
deeply un-american. many americans particularly younger americans don't seem to knife that is the threat to government. >> a lot of americans because they have grown up with these rights in their back pocket they feel it's fundamentally important. poll after poll says young people are talking about whether they complained to the administration a professor or fellow students said something offensive they believe the speaker should be barred from campus. these are first amendment notions and get a huge number americans don't believe in them or believe that they are individual nature don't appear to them. some of that comes from ignorance. if you grow up and americans never saw our system works you seem to have the view.
especially been taught about all the flaws of american not about its greatness. there's this idea that their duty in life is to find -- and what we really need more than anything else is validation from the people around us and when people don't validate you if the economy doesn't invalidate you that's a problem and it's never problem with you. it's not that we were guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that guaranteed happiness and our own authentic identity so we are redefining the nature of government and its really really dangerous. >> the book is entitled "the
authoritarian moment" and there's something chilling and yet hopeful in the authoritarian moment because it strikes me the authoritarian moment is that the high point of there's a moment and suddenly americans wake up to the significance of what's happening and begin to move against it. i can't help thinking not the least because i wrote a book on the the parallel we are experiencing now. there's a moment in the 30s when people have the freedom to push back against what they saw but they didn't recognized where was going and they hadn't had the historical reference to understand where it might go. so they didn't act when they had that moment to act. i wonder if that's the same today in america when someone
puts on the social pressure you don't realize how anti-american it is and where it's going so you say nothing for now. and the question is will you be able to say something tomorrow or we be totally silent so when you say the authoritarian moment, the tide we have hope that americans are waking up to where we are. >> i like -- i think a lot of americans are waking up to where we are. the consolidation of power. was the final step in hitler's complete takeover of power. because people who are leading the government were not as threatening or dangerous as they were given that go ahead by huge swath of people and the major parties. that's pretty common history that dan sherman of destruction is made available and it's only when someone truly dangerous takes it up it becomes serious.
right now it's being made available. all of institutions of society are being weaponized. there is nothing this is the left won't wield back that power but the left should be scared of that powers being welded. as far as blowback you are seeing it in the broad national movement of for example critical race theory and the newfound willingness to -- corporations involving themselves in political predation. i think there's a burgeoning movement among traditional liberals. i've said before the future of the country is not owing to rely on the hard work but it lies with the left. the country -- the question is that it will lie with the
christian liberals and may agree with the radical left and disagree the left on radical left willingness to assume rights under power. we agree with you on things like higher taxes and individual insurance. but you don't get to destroy people's lives because they disagree. you guys are just so wrong and it's more important that we reach utopia than preserve an open society and then things are going to get really ugly fast and it's not going to end with the complete subjugation of the riper it's going to end with frankly separation by the right. you see more and more talk about it over time and there's a recent poll that showed people in southeast dates which tend to be morbid more red 50% of republicans are saying we'd be happy if you guys kept pushing this. that sentiment is going to get
more widespread. >> your first chapter is called how to silence the majority. talk about that. a lot of people are wondering how would happen and you hear things like the long march to through the institutions which has been happening but recently people are feeling it and feeling that silence now. 10 or 20 years ago it was not something we did take seriously in mainstream america. what happened? >> the answer it's we allowed it with a small minority. if you have a group of people 20% can re-normalize the entire group. you have a family of four and one of the kids in the family say the doctor decides she comes home and says the mom i need a separate begin may also now mom
has the cook two meals or she can cook one vegan milk for the rest of the family. she said it's not that big of a deal we will go vegan for tonight no problem so she goes vegan for the whole family now you have one daughter who keeps our position and everyone else in the family is going along with this particular vision. now there's a barbecue and each of these family have were members. we have been eating began because of our so we just need to vegan option and host of the barbeque says well i understand people want meet but do i really want to go over to the market and buy the meat like those just do it all they can and they do begin for the entire block and now you have 20 people when there were just one person originally. there's a transient and --
minority of people who are willing to go along and be nice. it's a very loud minority who threaten people in middle by saying we will call you racist and sexist and tried it does try and boycott you if you don't just go along. the truth is you're being nice. you really should just be quiet and you should just be cordial. you can see the on college campuses. don't say anything that might offend anybody else. in any political debate there'll be things that offend you so fear talking about race people on campus are like don't mention that or when you talk about sexual values, don't go there because it offends people. can't we just have a nice dinner be cordial? that could quickly turn into
silence. your form of speech is doing something that harms me. so many of us are being nice and why can't we be nice to? your speech is a form of violence. when i went to berkeley and talked about the first amendment they were literally chanting speeches violent. and silences violence. it's not enough just to shut up. you are supposed to shut up and listen. step one is shut up and listen. in step three we must bear what we are saying a become part of the mob. it's completely binary. either you mirror what we say or we are going to speak for the opposition and destroy you. step i step each step doesn't feel like a lot of being asked of you but by the timing at the
end of it you've lost it all. snap the reason that so many americans voted for trump and love to have an emotional connection with trump is he seems in his way to fundamentally understand what is happening and is willing to fight against it. that to me is the problem today. a lot of people who want to be seen as clinical they don't understand there is a time when somebody's shooting at your head and you need to take that seriously. trump seems to have taken mentally somewhat seriously. where do you think this goes today and where are our politics today because i think your average american who is listening to conversation like this doesn't have the time to worry about it. they just know this is horrifying and fundamentally
un-american and they can't explain why but if someone who is fighting for these basic dahlias they want to champion that person is as a leader. >> i think there's a lot to do to that. to a certain extent donald trump was america's pulsating finger who would sit down -- say sit down and shut up. as i've said many times over the course of the trump era trump is a hammer and when he hits the nail is really satisfying. there were a lot of people who were thrilled with the fact that trump would hit the nail was so many politicians. with the republican party and conservatives and frankly merisi
to do is not make the mistake of identifying humility and humiliation. they are not the same thing. you can stand your ground and i'm not going to insult you. i'm going to stand my ground and say no. if you are calling me a racist maybe it's because you have no evidence and you are the last result of a scoundrel and i'm not going to do a pretty people begin to do that whether politically or socially that will make an awful big difference and you seen the politicians are rising on the republicans side of the aisle. they've been quite militant in standing up to the media. you just stand up to them in as republicans get better at this there's a better shot they will be representing the frustrations of the american public that but i don't think any republican ever gets nominated again who is perceived as civility for us but i think that's over and frankly
i think that there should be over because we are long past the notion that the best way to win over people in the middle is by being conciliatory with people who disdain you and want to control some aspects of your life. >> what talk about the media's complicity. i canceled my prescription to "the new york times" because i always knew it leans left but during the trump era i was horrified to see the front page become an editorial. the horror is not that it's an editorial but it is pretending still to be journalism. what do you think happened in american newsrooms? it is strange to me that in the
journalistic class we expect people who really understood that there were fundamental to use it how we see journalism and how easy democracy. no one in the mainstream media the mainstream journalistic classes hasn't talked about these issues at all. >> when you talk about these issues like barry white day and up losing their job or being persecuted by a newspaper she was hired to work at. one of the most grave mistakes made by conservatives when people were warned that say yeah macbook when they hit the real world it will go away. what if they left universities and brought those values along with them and re-mobilized all of the institutions. that's what seems to have happened in the major newspapers. "the new york times" is run by the nicole hanna jones wing
which cancels people routinely and a lot of them one pulitzers for it. we all serve nicole hanna johnson if you don't you may find yourself out of luck. it can be the editorial page 10 bennett and find yourself out of a job because you run an op-ed by united states senator. you can be the science writer for the near times and find yourself out of a job because on the school trip a while ago you said a student there were certain uses of the n word that were not proper uses of the n word and they could essentially fire you. this comes to the animus nature of a bunch of liberals running -- the problem is liberals didn't encourage their own conviction.
you don't get to destroy individual rights and individual freedoms and freedom of the press and you don't get to destroy that even a major agenda. they are the beneficiaries and and -- of "new york times" as yeah i am the beneficiary. i am privy so how can i privilege white person say to nicole hanna jones that my individual rights are correct when individual rights are a reassignment of the hierarchy in the first place? the is the deep level of guilt and what shelby steele calls white guilt that's invaded iraq cetacean a life and there's almost a surrender caucus inside of all of these institutions do we have taken advantage of.
thank you believe in god and i believe in god. do you have hope that we can get through this as a country and as a culture and is your hope limited to the sphere of this world are sure hope anchored in your faith? >> my hope is always anchored in my faith. god makes those promises and keep those promises but as far as hope for country americans are tired of it. boring and irritating and so far it there hasn't been a mask movement to reject it but i think the mask movement is coming. i can't tell you how many people who disagree with me on nearly everything about politics will resonate with the messages that i'm saying. they say it is we can have an open conversation and if they invite me on their show they get
so angry that they will counsel them. i've had this experience many times personally where people on the left will say -- on my birthday i received happy birthday wishes from very prominent left-leaning people but no one will say happy birthday publicly and twitter and the reason is it's acknowledging a person they may disagree with and you can't did knowledge the humanity for all of your friends may say you are sympathetic. it's pretty dramatic and pretty astonishing. i talk about in the book in the introduction of the situation which is a perfect example of this.
and actor writer producer and director in hollywood e-mailed the company maybe three years ago and wanted to do a documentary or a show. he said i want to talk to someone about the first amendment. that's nice that somebody in hollywood cares enough about these issues that he came in for an hour and a half and we talked about the 2nd amendment. a very nice guy and as he's leaving he said listen for your own good as a friendly piece of advice there's just no reason to do it. you got we needed an nice to meet you and all the rest. couple of weeks later he decided he was going to be nice guy so he went on twitter and pleaded i didn't agree with most of what ben shapiro said that he said good hearted guy. he got so hit hard at the left and "newsweek" said i didn't
realize that i don't side with racism and xenophobia and stomach process of learning. all he had to say was -- but that's all he had to do. i just said i don't agree with everything he said said that so what and by the way they are people on the left who are brave enough to do that. i have lots of them to come on my special and i warn everyone on the left who comes to my show will get blowback. they get the blowback and it's over but that's the thing is so amazing about all this. the mirage but the notion that a small group of people should be able to cancel anybody or broader authority that you should lose your job or put your business endangers insane.
anybody shouting the emperor has no clothes especially from the left will end pretty quickly. >> i was think of reagan at the brandenburg gate when he gave the famous speech in the line mr. gorbachev tear down this wall. the reason i think of that as it strikes me a moment of real leadership. they told him over and over again you cannot say that. you must not say that and he said it. he simply did it and there were some blowback and then it was over and he's recognized as a hero and people tremble because when you have a leader like that a leader like that can defeat communism and defeat the evil totalitarianism that was in the world of the soviet empire. it seems to me that individually
we used to have a class that americans who live like that and the reason we are all where we are is because most people today i think would say the folks at foggy bottom can't -- say i can't say this so i better not say. what you think has changed fundamentally and let me say it is 50 years of hollywood singing a different song. we don't have john wayne films but we have a different kind of film and that has had up powerful point of what people think it means to be american. >> the decline of religion there were these objective moral standards and if you are actively harming somebody you
would should consider them a member of your community. essentially what we are talking about right now is this a fair terion movement and its a religion without god. has been for a long time. you must be answerable to an ever moving mob. you must continue to make sacrifices so there is a religious impulse is being filled with authoritarian politics which is really ugly and on a cultural level that's a huge problem. the decline of family is a serious issue here because again families tend to bind and when you have a collapse of the family tents to fragment. social media has decimated it. you had to actually go door-to-door and seek people out. let's go lynch that guy because they are people and let's got into that. now you have a mob on line waiting to coalesce.
it's a lot easier to mobilize when its nationals go. all it takes is one person between them they have 10,000 people tweeting it to them and calling their boss. when you talk about hollywood in the moral merit if i don't think it's necessarily a focus on -- the nature of what hollywood considered a world has changed. the people who were supposed to be -- or people who are victims. victimization and heroism mark sacre the same thing. normally if you're telling a story who might be victimized by circumstance they are supposed to be fighting on behalf of something higher. in our society and i keep going back to the authenticity of
person is victimized anytime their authenticity is threatened living their most authentic life will make them heroic and this is bled over into our politics. tearing down statues of george washington i think what happened to george floyd was awful but the notion that george floyd was a civil rights hero like him okay is insulting. he's a victim of police brutality and that does not mean he -- you build statues of police brutality. the contrast is telling you that the contrast is pretty telling. >> 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 and were not educated to understand where the size goes. you can look at the cultural revolution of china under mao. it's so when you see where it goes and what it does to human beings. anybody with any knowledge of those things would see where we are now that is in fact where it goes. why do you think adults and ivy league educated adults have no idea? >> first of all true author terry nesmith never been tried. and these kinds of things have been used for bad but those are different than those can be good. >> does anybody believe that mao thought he was evil or thought his agenda was the though?
thought he was a good guy and he was doing good. they are in a that? >> no and that's exactly the point. i think for people in the middle the notion of this free and prosperous life that we have all been granted has been building on the shoulders of giants for generations it's incredibly -- the greatest privilege and the world are being an american and that's a privilege. true contextually and all time and all places. but because we take things for granted in the verse in the bible from deuteronomy -- that really what it is. we are happy and lazy way of all the things that we want. normal life is what we have right now which means any movement from normal can be only
good. this is the natural of status of things and you hear this from the left sometimes with a quote from nelson mandela which was one of the dumbest quotes i've ever seen which is poverty is not the natural state of man but that's the philosophy of so many living united states. it's not the product of the individual rights of -- it's this the natural say the world. all the things that are uniquely good about america all the things that are universally bad and a plight to america are unique to america. >> everywhere i go i talk to people from cuba where the former soviet union and they see what we are talking about with crystal clarity.
the only reason i see it more clearly than my friends is because my mother grew up in east germany and my father grew up when economist i did take over with the second world war and they raised me to know how particularly wicked and cruel communism is and therefore you love america because freedom is the antithesis of that. i am kind of amazed what you say that americans are so myopic and so blessed that they think this is normal. they think what we have always had here is normal rather than an idea but shouldn't logically have succeeded the data we should be grateful and keep the republic. dia pope because of where we are now people are waking up? >> i think they are. the other day was speaking with someone a wildly disagreed with
me and a professor at a major university campus and came up to me and said i disagree with everything you say that but i want to have a conversation with you about it. i was shocked by it. i'm getting notes from people that i've never gotten notes for him. they say i disagree with all the things that you're saying but i have to tell you i feel like i'm living in fear. people living in fear of the majority and not the minority. with the exception of people consider themselves far left they are comfortable including mainstream liberals that means there's a broad majority of people who are feeling really uncomfortable at this moment. one is complete surrender and the other is consolidation and push back. i hope that consolidation pushback comes in a positive and useful way. how did the extraordinarily
reactive and we could get a reaction that's uglier and adherence to individual rights. it could be something looks more like you are using corporations to -- we are not going to go neutral. we are just going to go the other way. that would similarly and with the breakup of the country and those who are happy on the right and that prospect and people on the left are happy with that prospect right now the question for a lot of americans to ask is do you wish to live in this country and if the answer is yes you will have to make a concession that there's a default. the harder left pushes the heart of the right will pushback and it's going to come out of the pretty ugly. >> we go's have a few minutes left in the chapter on how science defeated actual science and you have -- so how is it
that science quote unquote defeated science. >> sciences at process. there's no institution called the science in the no person is a republic story of science. they are either verified or not verified. every tiny regina covid pandemic listen to this science and every time you heard during global warming you have to follow the data. they don't mean follow the process of science making they meet -- i mean that you need to agree that if you don't agree that you are science denier. when it came to covid assigned to ridley said you are supposed to get together with each other in larger numbers. you shouldn't go to lockdown
protests because this thing is passed an airborne fashion. we'll assume is true for moment and within a couple of weeks they switch to a cynosure protesting you need large numbers of people and you have a public health duty to support george floyd. it's a public health duty without regard to a vaccine but is obviously to anyone who follows the data -- give it to other people first. people who are older were the people who were the most at risk and would they push inside the biden administration to branch of the vaccine on the basis of racial equity which by the way ends with more dead people. all of this was the hijacking of
the process of science in legitimacy that we all feel. the transition away from science as a process and as a body of people who must be listened to at all points leads to a couple of specific row bums. one is signed to speaking outside of their area of expertise and sign saying sure i'm an epidemiologist but now i have -- and it undermines science and leads to converse what i call -- effect which you have people who are political speaking about scientific issues and this is where scientists start in these politics into their science. you have scientific american clearing -- the impact of the paper or when you have scientist declaring with certainty that
there's no such thing as biological gender and is in the mind but none of this remotely resemble science. >> it horrifies me to think that this is happening in america and the west and begin because i'm familiar with that period. it's exactly what happened in germany. they were airy and social scientists who insisted there was this new science and we don't want to listen to the old science anymore. we want pure variant science so they started pushing preposterous racial theories and so on and so forth. how is it possible that this happening in the west right now? it's astonishing to me that science is undermining
scientists and journalists have undermined journalism. how do we get back to any sense of objectivity? >> powers and unbelievable aphrodisiac and because scientists are the most respected people in america understand this gives them extraordinary power to wield the social change if they want to see. they are acting outside of their purview and that is dangerous stuff and as far as journalism it's the same thing. a teacher will save our job to effect social change. your job is to explain the facts that are happening right now that is literally your job. we are instruments of social change but once you've decided your actual job is not your
actual job your job is to effect social change your real job beckons to the agenda. your decided you're deep important job is to change the world on a social level. this is happened in totalitarian regimes in the past and the willingness to overlook basic laws of economics and your willingness to destroy science in soviet union. there is precedent for it but it doesn't mean when people feel the ring of power -- it's way too much fun to talk to you ben shapiro and congratulations on your book "the authoritarian moment." let me ask a few questions. the first one is with the capital of north dakota? is mark. >> correct.
>> biden everyone. i am brad graham but at politics and prose along with my wife lissa muscatine. we have to accomplish attorneys with high-level government experience. bob bauer and jack goldsmith here to talk about their book reconstructing the presidency. bob worked in the democratic together they have