Listen Now

This week’s episode is a throwback to 2015, when Daniel Kaufman, professor of philosophy at Missouri State University, editor of the online magazine the Electric Agora, and (at that time) a mainstay on bloggingheads.tv and meaningoflife.tv, invited me onto his show Sophia. I stumbled across this video again last month, and I think it remains an illuminating discussion that addresses some fundamental questions about economics and the social sciences. We begin by discussing the “science” part of the social sciences. I explain that we economists tend not to philosophize about our discipline as much as other social scientists. But many major economic thinkers (think Keynes, Marx, and others) elaborate concepts that do ask fundamental questions about the nature of economics. To call a discipline a “science” implies that its findings are testable and replicable, that its insights are able to predict future conditions from present conditions. Does economics do that? I argue that it does. Of course, since much economic data is drawn from real-world behavior rather than controlled experiments, it can be difficult to isolate variables in a way that would satisfy, say, a physicist. This is because markets exist within particular cultures and under particular social arrangements that are not themselves purely economic in nature. And cultural values are going to affect, at least to some extent, how people behave within markets. The idea that people will try to maximize utility in a rational way is important to economics, but of course we know that humans often behave in ways that seem irrational. How does economics incorporate irrationality into its methodology? And finally, Dan and I were speaking at a time when the (still ongoing) replication crisis was all over the news. Is replication as seemingly dire a problem in economics as it is in psychology? Dan’s training in philosophy helps him to ask some really deep questions here, and I think you can tell I relished the opportunity to answer them. Love to know what you think about this “classic” episode. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 5:44 How scientific are the social sciences? 11:20 Glenn defends the reliability of economic predictions 29:47 The strengths and weaknesses of “natural experiments” 36:48 How much does culture affect economic behavior? 50:06 New insights from behavioral economics 58:12 Dan: We trust the social sciences too much Links and Readings Dan’s website, the Electric Agora The Electric Agora on YouTube Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir’a book, Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week’s plan for the show was to have Edmund Santurri, professor of philosophy and religion at St. Olaf College, join John McWhorter and I to talk about his soon-to-be terminated appointment as the director of the college’s Institute for Freedom & Community. Ed’s situation is the latest instance of a college’s administration folding to pressure from left-wing activists (more on that below). Unfortunately, Ed was only able to join us for the very beginning of this episode before tech glitches had their way with us. Ed’s story is important, and I do wish we had been able to carry on a full conversation, but it was not to be. We do make some headway, though. Ed begins by explaining how, after he invited a series of speakers viewed by some as controversial, St. Olaf’s administration announced that they would remove him from his role as director of the Institute for Freedom & Community a year earlier than had been agreed upon. One might ask: What good is an institute devoted to free inquiry if it refuses to engage with controversial ideas? Ed begins to explain the recent history of student protests at the college, but we’re then forced to whittle our trialogue down to a dialogue. John expresses his disgust for the St. Olaf administrators responsible for Ed’s removal (which I share) and talks about the important work of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. We then debate whether there is a right-wing equivalent to left-wing campus cancel culture. I don’t think there is, but John thinks one can be found in attempts to remove books dealing with gender and sexuality from public grade schools and attempts to remove trans, nonbinary, and gender fluid teachers from classrooms. He’s not that worried about nonbinary gender identity in children. But I have to confess, I think the performative dimension of that sort of expression may be an indicator of a worrisome direction in our society. We then move on to something about which everyone can agree: My house is awesome. John visited it for the first time last week when he was in Providence for my festschrift, a conference held in my honor in which many of my dear and distinguished friends gathered to discuss my work and its impact. It was a moving and humbling event, and we’re hoping to post some video from it here soon. We finish our conversation with an extended debate about the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision that will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade and the political environment that led to a draft of Samuel Alito’s majority opinion being leaked to the press. It’s good to have John back after his absence. I know you’ll all have some things to say about this one, so don’t hesitate to post a comment. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Why Ed is being removed from the directorship of the Institute for Freedom & Community 11:39 The pressure campaigns waged against past Institute events 17:43 John: Administrators at St. Olaf should be ashamed of themselves 19:50 Are right-wing campaigns against openly trans and nonbinary elementary school teachers the equivalent of left-wing cancel culture?  29:05 What are the social determinants of gender identity in young people? 37:53 Glenn’s awesome house 41:18 A festschrift for Glenn  48:08 Can we separate jurisprudence from the lived consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade?  56:12 Do the ends now justify the means in American politics? Links and Readings Inside Higher Ed on Ed’s removal from the Institute for Freedom & Community FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education FIRE’s letter to St. Olaf’s president protesting Ed’s removal This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week, I welcome Briahna Joy Gray to TGS. I’ve appeared on her podcast, Bad Faith, and now she’s here to return the favor. Briahna and I have some pretty pronounced political differences—she’s the former National Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, after all. But we get along anyway, because we both believe in the importance of free speech and open debate. And make no mistake, there is a lot of debate in this episode. [Note: We recorded this conversation at Brown’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, and there was no video equipment on hand. Instead, Nikita Petrov has created an animation version of me to provide some visual stimulation.] I may be uncomfortable saying that I’m a “man of the right,” but I’m certainly “conservative for a black guy.” But Briahna points out that there are many black people who have benefited from America’s economic opportunities and know it. They may vote Democrat, but they’re hardly socialists. Many conservatives say that their voices are shut out of mainstream discourse, and the left has a similar complaint. I point out that the Democratic Party has repeatedly undercut Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns, and Briahna explains why Democrats have been and continue to be hostile toward progressive policies and politicians. She argues that neither Democratic nor Republican policies reflect the actual desires of the majority of voters, as political parties no longer need to vie for broad majorities in order to win elections. After that, the debate begins in earnest. We address three major points of contention: increasing taxes on the very rich in order to expand the social safety net, Medicare for All, and student debt cancellation. I’m skeptical of all of these policies, to varying degrees, while Briahna believes they’re necessary in order to remedy the (admittedly vast) disparities we see all around us. We wrap up by discussing the fascinating convergence between certain factions of the left and right in criticizing what appears to be a march toward escalating US intervention in Ukraine. I enjoy a good debate, and I suspect that Briahna does, too. Maybe that’s why, despite our differences, we get along so well. Let me know what you think in the comments. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Acknowledging the black middle class 14:04 How the Democratic Party works against progressives 21:11 Briahna: The interests of political parties no longer reflect the interests of voters 26:53 Should we increase taxes on the very rich in order to fund the social safety net? 34:51 Briahna makes the case for Medicare for All 43:21 Should we cancel student debt? 54:30 The left-right alliance over intervention in Ukraine Bad Faith’s Patreon page Ben Carson’s book, Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page’s 2014 study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” Vann R. Newkirk II’s Atlantic piece, “The American Health-Care System Increases Income Inequality” This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

Normally I would post one of my bi-weekly conversations with John McWhorter today, but John and I had too many scheduling conflicts to find time to talk this week (he’ll return in two weeks). So in his stead, I’m talking with Greg Thomas, co-founder of the Jazz Leadership Project and senior fellow at the Institute for Cultural Evolution. We begin by discussing Greg’s work with the Jazz Leadership Project, which uses the principles of jazz to train leaders within businesses and organizations. He’s got some big-league clients, so I was interested to know how Greg implements ideas and strategies from an originally African American art form within a corporate environment. Greg was a friend of the great critic, poet, and novelist Stanley Crouch, and I ask him about how they came to know each other. This leads us to discuss the intellectual lineage that runs from Ralph Ellison and Albert Murray through Crouch. These thinkers were deeply rooted in black art, culture, and politics, but they were also, to varying degrees, skeptical of race as a foundational concept. Is there anyone now continuing this tradition? Greg talks about his own efforts in that direction, but he also notes that the modern Enlightenment tradition, which sought a scientific foundation for knowledge and institutions, has been at least partially displaced by postmodern thought, which seeks to critique the Enlightenment. Greg argues that such a critique is fine, so long as we don’t abandon modernity’s gains. He then introduces some ideas from integral theory and from the philosopher Anthony Appiah that he believes can help reconcile the need both to preserve culturally specific traditions and to claim membership in a broader cosmopolitan community. And finally, Greg tells me about some of his daughter’s impressive accomplishments, including building the We Read Too app. I really enjoyed having Greg on as a guest, and I hope to have him back on for an episode with both John and I soon. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Greg’s work with the Jazz Leadership Project 12:35 How does a “black” art form operate within a corporate environment? 17:27 What’s left of the legacy of Ralph Ellison, Albert Murray, and Stanley Crouch? 25:04 Black culture after the postmodern turn 32:45 Greg’s work with the Institute for Cultural Evolution 36:40 Greg’s critique of Black Lives Matter 40:48 Rooted cosmopolitanism and the “Faustian bargain” of whiteness 50:46 Greg’s very accomplished daughter Links and Readings The Jazz Leadership Project The Institute for Cultural Evolution Greg’s Substack post, “Why Race-Based Framings of Social Issues Hurt Us All” Stanley Crouch’s Notes of a Hanging Judge: Essays and Reviews, 1979-1989  Video from Combating Racism and Antisemitism Together Steve McIntosh’s Developmental Politics: How America Can Grow Into a Better Version of Itself Charles Love’s Race Crazy: BLM, 1619, and the Progressive Racism Movement Kwame Anthony Appiah’s, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers Danielle Allen  Resmaa Menakem, My Grandmother's Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies Kaya Thomas Wilson’s We Read Too app  This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

On this week’s episode of The Glenn Show, I welcome my old friend Stephanie Lepp, the Executive Producer at the Center for Humane Technology. I first met Stephanie through her husband, Nathaniel, who was a student of mine at Brown. Stephanie produced a podcast called Reckonings, which told the stories of how people transform their worldviews. I went on the show in 2015 and told the story of the evolution of my own political worldview (links below). Since then, we've been wanting to do another round. It's time! This time, Stephanie joins me on The Glenn Show, to once again help me wrestle with how my views have changed and with my responsibilities as a public intellectual. Stephanie begins by asking me to step back and consider a big-picture question: What is my goal as a public intellectual? It’s not something I often ask myself in such explicit terms, and Stephanie pushes me to articulate a response. Stephanie engages me on the affirmative action question in order to get me to speak not just about my critique of preferences, but to think about whether critique is enough. It’s one thing to criticize a program or idea, she says, and another to propose a solution. I agree, of course, but the critique does have to be made, and not just in the case of affirmative action. I see it as my job to make clear that the systemic prejudices affirmative action programs were designed to ameliorate are largely in the past. When we see large-scale failure in black communities today, the responsibility for those failures rests, to a great extent, on the shoulders of the members of those communities. Stephanie suggests that, given my position as a public intellectual, when I speak about these problems, I not only describe social reality but actually influence it. If that is true (and I’m not sure to what extent it is), should I reorient my way of engaging with matters of public concern? Stephanie says, “Evolution is beautiful, but it’s not pretty.” This leads me to wonder: Is our present political turmoil an ugly but necessary process that will result in improvement over time, if properly attended to? I'm doubtful. Finally, I offer a critique of Stephanie’s own brand of “promiscuous pragmatic pluralism.” It was such a pleasure to reconnect with an old friend and talk through these issues. I’m looking forward to your thoughts! This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 What is Glenn’s goal as a public intellectual? 11:12 Glenn has his critique of affirmative action … 21:57 … but is articulating the critique enough?  27:23 Glenn: My raison d’être is to give voice to my contempt for the failures of my people 36:36 Stephanie: At a certain point, you’re not describing reality, you’re influencing it 43:02 The case for integralism  51:39 “Evolution is beautiful, but it’s not pretty” 1:00:06 Glenn’s critique of Stephanie’s “promiscuous pragmatic pluralism”  1:06:47 A preliminary look into the married life of the Lourys Reckonings, “The Conscience of a Public Intellectual, pt. 1” Reckonings, “The Conscience of a Public Intellectual, pt. 2” Reckonings, “The Enemy Within” Chloé Valdary’s Theory of Enchantment Ken Wilber’s A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week, John and I are talking about the ten-year anniversary of the Trayvon Martin shooting, one of the most politically consequential events of the 2010s. A decade later, are we in a better place than where we started? John and I begin by discussing the New York Times’s recent package commemorating the event, which features a written piece by Charles Blow and video interviews with Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates, and Al Sharpton. All of them reinforce the mainstream narrative about Martin’s death—that he had been senselessly attacked by Zimmerman for no reason. Yet much evidence supports Zimmerman’s story: that he shot Martin in self-defense after Martin assaulted him. John discusses how his skepticism toward the mainstream Trayvon Martin narrative contributed to the end of his relationship with The Root. My own skepticism continues to pose challenges for me, as many of my students resist when I ask them to consider the facts of the case rather than the “poetic truth” the case has come to represent. John suggests that we can learn from recalling how the O.J. Simpson trial unfolded. The public story about the trial had more to do with race and the cops than it did with the brutal murder of two innocent people, even if most people now acknowledge that Simpson’s not guilty verdict was mistaken. There are people contesting the mainstream narratives around Martin and Michael Brown, including excellent documentaries by Joel Gilbert and Shelby and Eli Steele. These counternarratives are vital correctives, but where are the consequences for those who continue to push bogus information? And we end with a bit of a palate cleanser, with John taking us through the life and work of Scott Joplin. Is there a way, at this late date, to turn the narratives about Martin, Michael Brown, and others around? How can we turn back the tide unleashed by these events and their political afterlife? Let me know your thoughts. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 The NYT commemorates the tenth anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death 7:20 What really happened between Martin and George Zimmerman? 14:35 How John’s relationship with The Root frayed 19:33 Learning from the O.J. Simpson case 32:24 Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown on the big and small screen 40:55 Where are the consequences for those who get it wrong? 46:00 Remembering Scott Joplin Links and Readings The NYT’s Trayvon Martin anniversary package Joel Gilbert’s book, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided America Joel Gilbert’s documentary, The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud That Divided America Eli and Shelby Steele’s documentary, What Killed Michael Brown? Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story Jason Riley’s WSJ opinion piece, “Will Amazon Suppress the True Michael Brown Story?” The 2015 DOJ statement announcing the closure of the investigation of the Trayvon Martin shooting John’s NYT piece, “Scott Joplin’s Ragtime Is Ambrosia. Here’s Why It Matters.” This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

Over the last couple years, I’ve been in communication with Noam Dworman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar in New York, which is one of the most influential comedy clubs in the country. He suggested that we collaborate and put together a show that would explore the relationship between truth, free speech, and comedy. After a lot of back and forth, we came up with the idea of putting non-comedian intellectuals into conversation with professional stand-up comics. We weren’t quite sure what would happen, but we both sensed the idea had great potential. And so, last month, The Glenn Show held its first live event. Roland Fryer, Coleman Hughes, and I served as the “serious” participants, and Noam invited the comics Andrew Schulz, Judy Gold, Shane Gillis, T.J., and Rick Crom to come up and offer their thoughts. The event also included special appearances from Nikki Jax and the stellar Sam Jay. Noam and I wanted to know, are there certain truths that only comics can get away with telling? Can delivering a potentially unsettling idea in comedic form make people more receptive to it? The place was packed—tickets sold out in just a few days. The atmosphere was electric. After I introduced the event and kicked things off with an opening provocation, the show took on a life of its own. As you’ll see, the comics took the idea and ran with it. There are moments of chaos, moments of profundity, and a lot of laughs. I couldn’t have asked for a better live debut for TGS, and I am excited to be able to share with all of you who made it possible through your support. We’re planning on doing more of these events in the future, so let us know what you think! Many, many thanks to Noam Dworman for his hard work, generosity, and for providing video and audio of the event. The title sequence was created by our own Nikita Petrov. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Some unspeakable truths 8:07 Are comics now afraid to speak their minds onstage? 19:38 The difference between telling the truth and getting a laugh 28:42 Can jokes actually do harm? 36:50 Nikki Jax on comedy and trans issues 43:34 Who actually “cancels” comics, audiences or corporations? 50:26 Sam Jay on artistic freedom and mob mentality 55:55 Q&A: I’m worried people won’t understand that my one-woman show is satire. What should I do? 58:42 Q&A: Does comedy have real power or is it ‘just jokes’? 1:06:35 Q&A: Do comics sometimes inadvertently reinforce wrongheaded points of view? 1:10:23 Q&A: Why are Ivy Leaguers so unfunny? 1:13:13 Q&A: Are college campuses inhospitable environments for comedy? 1:16:45 Q&A: What got Roland suspended at Harvard? 1:20:20 Q&A: Does the general public need social media training? 1:22:31 Q&A: Is there a way to stop corporations from folding to social media pressure campaigns? This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week I welcome Sam Harris to TGS. Sam is a neuroscientist and philosopher, the host of the podcast Making Sense, and the proprietor of the meditation app Waking Up. He’s a searching, truly open-minded thinker who follows the evidence where it leads, even if that means admitting that he was wrong about a previously held position. We begin by discussing Sam’s uncertainty about how to navigate some aspects of the discourse on race. He wants a world in which race simply doesn’t matter all that much, but he’s unsure of how to bring that world into being. Sam highlights the stakes of the affirmative action question by asking us to imagine that we have to undergo brain surgery at the hands of a surgeon who got through medical school despite relatively low performance. Would we want this surgeon operating on us or our children? (I raised a similar concern in the past.) We then move on to Charles Murray, who Sam has had as a guest on his podcast. Sam was appalled by Charles’s treatment at Middlebury College, where he was violently deplatformed by a group of student protesters. Sam shares my view that nobody, and especially not a figure as significant as Charles, should be prevented from airing their views in public, no matter how wrongheaded we might find them. (For the record, I don’t find Charles to be “wrongheaded.”) If you disagree with a speaker, argue with them. We know that certain groups perform worse on tests and other quantifiable measures of academic performance than others, but we’re not yet sure why. Sam asks an intriguing question: Are there certain things we’re better off not knowing? If we knew that a given group had an inherent, perhaps ineradicable disadvantage on quantifiable measurements of performance, would we want to know? Could the social ill that such knowledge might produce make us worse off than the social good that would come from it? We then consider whether there are still circumstances in which affirmative action is necessary. From there, we pivot to God. Sam is, famously, a critic of organized religion. But religion is one thing and belief in God another. Sam frames the question of belief as one that can be addressed through mindful introspection. But at the level of community, it seems more difficult to find a secular alternative to the networks of support and spiritual sustenance that many find in temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques. I had a great time thinking along with Sam. There is much more that we could have discussed had time allowed, so hopefully he’ll join me again soon. Note: We encountered some problems with Sam’s audio. As a result, the sound quality on his end is less than optimal. Many apologies. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 The principle that race shouldn’t matter and the fact that it does 6:17 The high stakes of affirmative action 17:00 In defense of Charles Murray 25:35 Are there facts we’re better off not knowing? 36:30 When does affirmative action make sense and when is it counterproductive? 48:01 Is belief in God irrational? 52:32 Suffering and the illusion of self 1:00:27 Finding meaning in secular community Links and Readings Sam’s books Sam’s podcast, Making Sense Sam’s app, Waking Up This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week on The Glenn Show, John McWhorter and I are joined by the journalist Matt Taibbi. Many of you are likely familiar with Matt from his many books, his political journalism for Rolling Stone (among other outlets), his Useful Idiots podcast, and now his outstanding Substack newsletter, TK News. Matt lived and worked in Russia and the former USSR for several years, so I thought he’d be an excellent source for some insight into the war in Ukraine. We begin by discussing Matt’s brief career playing in the MBA—that’s the Mongolian Basketball Association. We then move on to more pressing matters. Like many journalists and experts, Matt had been confident that Putin would not invade Ukraine. Unlike many journalists and experts, he issued an apology to his readers for making the wrong call and explained what led him to make it. Even after the invasion, it’s not clear why Putin is pushing as far west as he is—we talk about the difficult of getting inside his head. I ask if the media’s portrayal of Putin as a true autocrat is accurate, and Matt affirms that, while it’s hard to know what’s really going on inside the Russian government, Putin does seem to have more or less total control of domestic and military policy. The best way to deal with Russia is to first understand how it sees the world, so how do we put ourselves in its geopolitical shoes? This exercise leads John to reflect on his own lack of tribalistic feelings, and how tribalism is driving Russian and Ukrainian responses to the war. Shouldn’t all this feel a little familiar to Americans? Can we apply the lessons we learned (or should have learned) in our own disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to Ukraine? Matt was an early and vociferous critic of Russiagate, the discredited idea that Russian interference swung the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. But has the hangover from Russiagate made it difficult to view Russia’s actions clearly? And why have those who were wrong about Russiagate (and many, many other things) continued to exert influence in the media despite never admitting to the kind of errors that would have ended careers not so long ago? Matt argues that journalism is no longer about reporting news but about building narratives, and that media outlets are now rewarded primarily for keeping their viewers angry. We then move on to cultural matters. I’m a great fan of classic Russian literature, and I ask Matt to recommend some modern Russian writers. And finally, the big question: Who’s going to triumph in the NBA Eastern Conference, the Celtics or the Nets? Many thanks to Matt Taibbi for dropping in. Hopefully we’ll be able to get him back on TGS in the not-too-distant future. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Matt’s brief career as a professional basketball player in Mongolia 5:45 What drove Putin to invade Ukraine? 14:54 Are there limits to Putin’s power in Russia? 19:33 Putting ourselves in Russia’s geopolitical shoes 27:35 The appeal of Russian nationalism 30:55 Did we learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan? 36:25 Did Russiagate obscure Americans’ ability to see Russia’s actions clearly? 40:08 The value of public apologies 41:28 Matt: Journalists are now in the narrative business 49:45 The foreign policy language barrier 55:00 Matt’s recommends some modern Russian writers 58:18 Matt answers the most pressing question of our time: Celtics or Nets? Links and Readings Matt’s newsletter, TK News Katie Halper and Matt’s podcast, Useful Idiots Matt’s mea culpa on the Russian invasion of Ukraine Wesley Lowery’s NYT piece, “A Reckoning Over Objectivity, Led by Black Journalists” This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

With the war in Ukraine escalating, I thought it would be a good idea to bring on a guest with some expertise in international relations. So I called on Daniel Bessner, an intellectual historian, associate professor at University of Washington’s Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, and a co-host of the American Prestige podcast. Daniel is a man of the left, so we spend a lot of time here arguing, and we have a great time doing it. Note: We recorded on February 22, 2022. Between then and now, the situation in Ukraine has changed quite a bit. In order to avoid confusion, we have edited out a portion of the conversation that is no longer up-to-date. Daniel and I begin by discussing what Putin’s invasion of Ukraine might tell us about the US’s standing in the world. Daniel argues that Putin’s willingness to ignore the US’s warnings reflects the decline of America’s global hegemony. He compares the present situation to America’s geopolitical position in the wake of World War II, arguing that the US imputed unrealistic hegemonic ambitions to the Soviet Union in order to justify the Cold War. He worries that the lesson many nations will draw from Ukraine is that the best way to forestall aggression from a stronger state is to acquire nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this strategy makes a lot of sense to me. We then take a hard turn away from war to talk about Whoopi Goldberg. Daniel and I agree that the outrage over her remarks about the Holocaust is completely overblown. But he sees in this outrage the sign of a frustrated populace with no other way to express its political will. I’m skeptical of the idea we should want a return to mass politics, though. We shouldn’t throw the fate of our institutions to the political winds. We then debate the role of private industry in administering services to the public. We agree that our public schools are in bad shape, but Daniel thinks that market logic is at the root of the problem, whereas I think the market can help offer solutions. The question of meritocracy emerges, and Daniel argues that real meritocracy is impossible within a highly unequal society. No doubt that’s a problem, but I think abandoning meritocratic principles would be a huge mistake. And finally, we get into a debate over the uses (and possible abuses) of game theory. I truly enjoyed this good-natured sparring match with Daniel, and I hope you do, too! This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Daniel: Putin’s actions in Ukraine demonstrate the decline of American global hegemony 7:02 Did the Soviet Union have the same expansionist ambitions as the US? 16:01 How the war in Ukraine could increase nuclear proliferation 23:46 Daniel: It’s absurd that people got so upset about Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust comment 27:27 Does the US have “mass politics” anymore? If not, is that a bad thing? 34:35 When does it pay to privatize? 38:55 What’s so bad about utopianism? 44:18 Is true meritocracy possible within a highly unequal society? 58:04 The uses (and possible abuses) of game theory Links and Readings Glenn’s Intellectual Origins, a series of interviews with Daniel Daniel’s podcast, American Prestige Daniel’s most recent appearance on Chapo Trap House Stephen Wertheim’s book, Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. World Supremacy Paul Chamberlin’s book, The Cold War’s Killing Fields: Rethinking the Long Peace Derek Masters and Katharine Way’s book, One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb Daniel’s essay, “The End of Mass Politics” Walter Lippmann’s book, Public Opinion Walter Lippmann’s book, The Phantom Public Glenn’s book, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality Daniel Markovitz’s book, The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite Kenneth Arrow’s book, Social Choice and Individual Values Paul Erickson’s, The World the Game Theorists Made S.M. Amadae’s book, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s book, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

It’s John McWhorter time once again here at The Glenn Show. Let’s get into it. John and I are both busy guys, but people might not realize how much juggling it takes to manage life as both an academic and a public intellectual. I talk about why I may soon wind down my role at Brown University and devote myself more fully to public endeavors. We then move on to discuss psychiatrist Jeffrey Lieberman, who has been fired or suspended from several academic and medical appointments after referring to Sudanese model Nyakim Gatwech as a possible “freak of nature” in a tweet. It was a tacky, poorly worded tweet, no doubt. But clearly Lieberman was attempting to compliment Gatwech in the same way one might might refer to an unusually gifted athlete as a “freak.” John and I ask, does Lieberman really deserve to have his life destroyed over this? We then move on to discuss how the word “Negro” is now getting the n-word treatment in some quarters. To me, there is absolutely no justification for eliminating the word “Negro” from our lexicon, especially since it was once used to confer dignity on black people. Relatedly, John reports that efforts to replace “Latino” and “Latina” with “Latinx” are not faring well outside of academic circles. The question of when to capitalize “black” comes up, and I discuss why we don’t do so here at the Substack and why I’m opposed to doing so in general. We ask why children who come from families with highly varied racial and ethnic backgrounds are still often raised as “black” in the US if even one of their parents or grandparents is black. Why does blackness take precedence? We close on two unrelated topics. The first addresses whether or not academic tenure is necessary. The second addresses the very grim situation in Ukraine and Europe more broadly. It’s always a pleasure to talk with John, and I hope you enjoy the conversation! This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Glenn contemplates exiting academia 7:28 Why should Jeffrey Lieberman lose his jobs over a tacky tweet? 15:11 The historical significance of the word “Negro” 24:05 The revolt against “Latinx” 27:49 Why Glenn doesn’t capitalize “black” 34:04 Why does “blackness” take precedence? 40:09 Glenn: Tenure without mandatory retirement can be a problem 49:31 Will the US send troops to Ukraine? Links and Readings John’s NYT piece, “One Graceless Tweet Doesn’t Warrant Cancellation” William Levi Dawson’s Negro Folk Symphony The New York Times book, How Race Is Lived in America: Pulling Together, Pulling Apart John’s NYT piece, “I Can’t Brook the Idea of Banning ‘Negro’” John’s NYT piece, “Capitalizing ‘Black’ Isn’t Wrong. But It Isn’t That Helpful, Either.” Thomas Chatterton Williams’s book Self-Portrait in Black and White: Family, Fatherhood, and Rethinking Race Stanley Crouch’s book, Notes of a Hanging Judge: Essays and Reviews, 1979-1989 This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week, I welcome Matt Rosenberg to TGS. Matt is a journalist who grew up in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood and the author of the recently published book What Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native Son. The book delves into the causes and effects of the city’s recent, alarming rise in crime and also chronicles those who are trying to address the problem. As a native of Chicago’s South Side, I share Matt’s concerns, and I highly, highly recommend that everyone read his book. We begin by talking about Matt’s personal connection to the city, and his memories of the Yippie protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Matt explains what drove him to return to Chicago after leaving the city years ago. He then gets into the deep relationship between street crime and political corruption in the city. He notes that he’s not the only person covering these stories, but there are few journalists making systematic efforts to connect the dots between them. It’s not all bad news from Chicago, though. Matt discusses a few organizations that are making change at the grassroots level, including Corey Brooks’s outstanding Project H.O.O.D. We move on to one the city’s most pressing problems: schools. Matt underscores the necessity of school choice and charter school funding in a city where many public schools are underserving students and parents. One under-discussed but important story Matt covers is Chicago’s sizable and thriving Latino communities. He finds them full of hard-working, family-oriented folks who are making the most out the opportunities afforded them. We then move on to talk about the problem of crime and enforcement. Is a highly punitive crackdown on the crime the best way to combat rising crime? Matt doesn’t think it’s that simple. We know that incarceration is linked to the break-up of traditional family structures, but is it really the primary cause? Matt introduces us to Darryl Smith, a remarkable man who did time in prison but came out and turned his life around while helping out his neighbors in Englewood and staging nonviolent protests that resulted in construction unions opening their ranks to local black laborers. We end the discussion by taking a broad view of the South Side’s decline and talking about what can be done to reverse the damage. This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and one that has broader significance to other troubled communities across the country. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Matt’s new book, What Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native Son 8:48 Piecing together the puzzle of race, crime, and corruption 18:53 Some Chicago success stories 23:19 Matt: Charter schools are a necessity in Chicago 34:16 Chicago’s thriving Latino communities 40:35 Is increased enforcement the best way to solve Chicago’s crime problem? 54:08 What is disrupting traditional family structures in Chicago’s black communities? 59:02 Darryl Smith, the (unofficial) Mayor of Englewood 1:03:43 The decline of the South Side and the efforts to revive it 1:14:42 So, what’s next for Chicago? Links and Readings Matt’s book, What’s Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native Son Corey Brooks’s Project H.O.O.D. University of Chicago’s Crime Lab Northwestern University sociologist Andrew Papachristos Jane Jacobs’s classic book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

John McWhorter is back, just like you knew he would be. This week we’re talking about the future of affirmative action. We begin by discussing Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner’s new film adaptation of the classic musical West Side Story. John argues that people who dismiss the musical as just “something some old white people wrote” are far too simplistic and limited in their view. I haven’t yet gotten a chance to see the new adaptation, but I’m a fan of the music and lyrics, so I’m inclined to agree with him. We then move on to affirmative action. When the Supreme Court takes up the Harvard admissions case next term, there’s a good chance they’ll end up declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. If that happens, John and I agree that we’ll likely see fewer black students admitted to elite universities, though I think administrators unwilling to scale back their focus on diversity will find ways to admit black students who may not be academically on-par with their peers. John and I are deeply concerned that orienting academic standards—from undergrad admissions to the hiring and tenure process—around diversity and identity will have disastrous consequences for the university system, for the long-term health of the nation, and, yes, for black people. As an object lesson, John presents a (rigorously anonymized!) account of a star black academic who, in John’s account, derives their profile more from their ability to represent their race than their scholarly achievements. Is this person respected by their colleagues for the quality of their work? More worrying, will people simply assume that all black students, academics, and professionals—even those who are truly accomplished—achieve their status due to their race? John worries that people will condescend to his young daughters in that way. If I had young children, I’d worry, too. Things get a little heavy this time out, but that’s because the issues themselves are heavy. I want to know your thoughts—tell me about them in the comments. Correction: In the video, I say that Lisa Cook studied under Paul Romer at Berkeley. This is an error. She was David Romer’s student. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 John: Don’t dismiss West Side Story just because it was written by “old white people” 14:59 If the Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, will higher education “resegregate”? 24:34 Are meritocracy and racial diversity initiatives inherently opposed to each other? 35:41 What, if anything, are we losing when we give significant weight to racial preference? 47:19 John: Certain black academics are valued for the way they represent their race rather than their scholarly achievements 56:54 The perils of the DEI industry  Links and Readings John’s NYT piece, “Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them.” John’s NYT piece, “The Gilded Age’ Is Depicting Black Success. More TV Should.” Heather Mac Donald’s City Journal piece, “March of the Revisionists” This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

On this week’s show, I’m talking to the political scientist Steven Rhoads, author of the influential book The Economist’s View of the World, which was recently reissued in a substantially updated edition. Steven thinks the fundamental principles of economics can help even non-economists see the world in a more rational and solution-oriented way, and I have to say, I agree! I begin by asking Steven how a political scientist came to write a book extolling the virtues of economics—why not write one about his own discipline? After all, economists are constantly saying unpopular things that can sound a little heartless (at least if you don’t understand the reasoning). Steven explains what attracts him to economics. We get into the concept where all modern economics begins: the market. Steven asks, if, as some people suppose, only right-wing ideologues champion the efficiency of markets, why do left-wing economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz praise them (with qualifications)? We then approach three ideas fundamental to the study of economics: opportunity costs, incentives, and marginalism. We approach these ideas through practical problems, like why it’s sometimes necessary to make roads and public spaces less safe. (Hint: It’s not because economists are walking calculators devoid of human feeling!) We end the conversation by talking through some pressing questions where economists really should be listened to. Is it a good idea to pay out unemployment benefits to individuals indefinitely? Is it rational to rely on nuclear power when we know the dangers of radiation and nuclear catastrophes? Should individuals be able to undergo as many medical tests and procedures as they want? And, finally, are we overcounting the number of deaths caused by COVID? If you’re wondering how to start thinking like an economist, Steven’s book and this conversation are great places to start. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Steven’s recently reissued and updated book, The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being 5:28 Why is Steven, a political scientist, interested in how economists think? 9:41 The virtue of markets 17:24 Opportunity costs explained 27:07 If everyone needs water and almost no one needs diamonds, why are diamonds more expensive than water? 35:10 Prices, incentives, and compensation 45:43 Would unlimited unemployment benefits help or harm unemployed people? 50:47 Is it rational to expand our reliance on nuclear power? 52:58 The difficulty of reducing healthcare costs 56:58 COVID’s opportunity costs Links and Readings Steven’s book, The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

I’m back with my friend John McWhorter for one of our regular conversations. A lot has happened on the race and politics front over the last two weeks, so we’ve got a full docket of topics to discuss. And speaking of dockets, after overcoming some technical difficulties, we spend a good chunk of time on matters relating to the Supreme Court. Ilya Shapiro, the incoming director of Georgetown University’s Center for the Constitution, was put on leave by the school after tweeting criticism of Joe Biden for passing over his preferred candidate for the Supreme Court in favor of a “lesser black woman.” Shapiro refers to Biden’s promise to nominate a black woman to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court when he retires later this year. Was Shapiro’s tweet racist? Neither John nor I think so, though it was poorly phrased. We go back and forth over the how much representation should play into the composition of the Supreme Court. We’re talking about an extremely elite institution with very few people on it, so I don’t think proportional representation is possible or necessarily even desirable, but it’s a complex matter. I say if Biden had simply nominated a black woman instead of announcing he was going to do so ahead of time, this wouldn’t even be an issue. How much do ordinary black people care about representation on the Supreme Court, anyway? The nomination of Clarence Thomas is an instructive case. We then move on to discuss Whoopi Goldberg’s unfortunate comment about race and the Holocaust. Was she mistaken to say that Nazi persecution of the Jews had nothing to do with race? Absolutely. Do John and I think she should be pilloried for saying it? No. It’s a case of ignorance, not antisemitism. She apologized, and she should be allowed to get on with her life and career. The Joe Rogan affair is next. A montage of the comic and podcast host using “the n-word” several times over the years went viral last week. John raises the point that he wasn’t directing the word at anybody, he was citing it. There’s a difference between hurling a racial slur at someone and uttering a racial slur in order to discuss it. The word itself should not be off limits for the purposes of discussion, and we both think that anyone who simply can’t bear to hear it in any context needs to grow up. As you can see, we take our role as “The Black Guys” seriously in this one. Let us know what you think! This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Ilya Shapiro’s controversial tweet about Biden’s imminent Supreme Court nomination 6:03 John dips out and Glenn delivers a soliloquy 13:22 John returns and clarifies his academic resume 17:40 Why John thinks that Georgetown shouldn’t fire Ilya Shapiro 23:07 Why should race be a factor in Biden’s Supreme Court pick? 33:43 Should Biden have announced the gender and race of his pick ahead of time? 40:55 John: “There’s real ideological diversity in the black community” 47:34 How bad was Whoopi Goldberg’s statement about the Holocaust? 55:07 Glenn and John agree that Joe Rogan’s use of the n-word is not cause for cancelation Links and Readings John’s NYT piece, “Don’t Assume Ilya Shapiro’s ‘Lesser Black Woman’ Tweet Was Racist” John’s NYT piece, “It’s Time to End Race-Based Affirmative Action” John’s NYT piece, “End Affirmative Action for Rich White Students, Too” Glenn’s audio essay, “The Call of the Tribe” John’s book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, “The Nasty Double Standards That Make This SCOTUS Nomination So Toxic” James Scott’s book, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

Here at The Glenn Show, I’m taking a little break from politics and culture to talk dollars and cents. My good friend and former Boston University colleague Larry Kotlikoff is here to discuss his new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life. In it, Larry brings his knowledge and expertise as an economist to bear on the everyday problems of spending, saving, and investing. In this episode, he shares some of that advice with TGS viewers. But, wait a minute. Larry is a serious academic economist. Why did he write an advice book? He explains what he’s trying to accomplish with Money Magic. Larry talks about why investing in stocks may not be the best use of your money even when the market is up (especially if you’re carrying debt). I ask Larry about some of my own recent experiences managing my money, and he breaks things down in a way that non-economists can understand. For example, he says, if someone (including the U.S. government) is trying to sell you on a financial product that seems really, really complicated, it’s probably a swindle. What about major life decisions, like divorce? Even then, Larry says, you’re better off balancing the costs and benefits than making a decision without considering the financial consequences. We then get into education. Millions of people in this country carry unmanageable loads of student debt. But Larry thinks you can get an elite education without going into debt at all, and he explains how. Why does the federal government issue student loans, anyway? And is there a more equitable way it could arrange for repayment? Finally, Larry and I get into our personal history and talk about what makes successful individuals the way they are. Whether you’ve got pressing financial questions or not, you’ll want to hear what Larry has to say. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Larry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life 4:36 Why did Larry, a serious academic economist, write a financial advice book? 14:23 Why investing in stocks may not be as safe as it seems in the long term 24:17 Larry: If a personal finance product is complicated, it’s a swindle 29:34 An economist’s guide to divorce 32:48 Is a free online Stanford education more valuable than a debt-laden traditional degree? 44:20 Why does the government offer student loans? 51:12 Larry: “We’re all self-made people at some level” Links and Readings Larry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life Glenn’s classic 1981 paper, “Intergenerational Transfers and the Distribution of Earnings” This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

John McWhorter and I often find ourselves aligned on the issues we discuss on The Glenn Show. We’ve even received criticism for how much we agree with each other! This episode should please those critics, as John and I actually find ourselves in stark (though productive and friendly) disagreement on a few matters. Let’s get into it. We begin by talking about Joe Biden’s recent press conference. Personally, I think he performed pretty badly, as the White House subsequently had to walk back several of his statements. Are these just more of Biden’s characteristic gaffes, or do his misstatements reflect a deeper confusion within the administration? What values does Biden’s presidency represent, anyway? We go on to discuss voting rights and election legislation. We disagree about proposed changes to state-level voting laws: John thinks they're racist in their intent, and I remain to be convinced of that. We also disagree about the meaning of their effects. I have no problem with voter ID requirements, tightening the enforcement of existing laws, and other reasonable ballot security measures. But John is wary. He seems to be concerned that Republicans’ voting security measures are veiled attempts to increase their relative share of the turnout in certain contested districts by decreasing the participation in elections of (reliably Democratic) black voters. Why, he wonders, has ballot security become such an issue now? Of course, I have my responses! I then ask John what he thinks about New York City Mayor Eric Adams’s performance in his first weeks on the job. John was quite critical of Adams last time we talked, but he’s changed his mind. Finally, we get into the Amy Wax issue. Her recent TGS appearance and its aftermath lead us to discuss crucial questions about speech, platforming, and teaching. My fellow John Stuart Mill fans will want to pay close attention to this section. This is a rich exchange that I’m sure will provoke much commentary, so please do weigh in. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 What political values does Joe Biden represent? 8:53 Do new election laws amount to race-based voter disenfranchisement? 23:00 Glenn: Black people are free. But what should we do with that freedom? 36:06 John changes his mind about Eric Adams 42:21 John addresses linguistic informality and Sidney Poitier in his recent columns 44:28 Amy Wax: heterodox thinker, provocateur, or racist? Links and Readings Bill Maher, “New Rule: First Lady Barack Obama” John’s NYT piece, “Don’t, Like, Overanalyze Language” John’s NYT piece, “On Sidney Poitier, Code Switching and the Black Voice” Amy Wax’s Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week we’ve got Heather Mac Donald on The Glenn Show. Heather is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor to City Journal, and author of several books, including The Diversity Delusion, The War on Cops, and The Burden of Bad Ideas. Heather’s writing combines meticulous research and sharp, uncompromising prose. Her positions on crime and policing have led some on the left to regard her as a bit of a boogeyman. But while she is a fierce critic of failing progressive policies, she’s also a deep and surprising thinker, as you’ll see here. We begin by exploring Heather’s recent readings in African American literature, and her reflections on the behavior of white people in this country through the mid-twentieth century. We then move into one of Heather’s area of expertise: crime and policing in American cities. She points out that those who blame rising violent crime rates on the Covid pandemic are neglecting data from other countries. The virus hit Peru, for example, much worse than it hit us, but they saw their violent crime rates drop. Why? Heather goes on to ask, if progressive activists, politicians, and media figures are so concerned with “black lives,” why do we see so little coverage of black children harmed or even killed by violent crime? You can be sure we’d hear about it if they were white. We then get into the difficult matter of family structure in black communities. Out-of-wedlock births and fatherless households are often extremely detrimental to child development. These phenomena are particularly pronounced in black communities, but they’re a problem everywhere. In fact, it’s such a problem that it seems like virtually no one has the moral authority to try to fix it. We go on to discuss the civilizational threat posed by the dissolution of academic and professional standards, the lack of responsible black leadership in the U.S., and the oft-forgotten fact that the loudest advocates for harsh drug penalties during the crack epidemic were black leaders and voters. Hope you enjoy! Note: When we discuss the work of my friend Alice Goffman, I mistakenly say that she attended graduate school at the University of Wisconsin. She actually went to Princeton. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Heather’s deep dive into African American literature 14:23 The impact of George Floyd on violent crime rates 22:26 Heather: Why doesn’t the mainstream media cover the violent deaths of black children? 28:07 The difficulty of addressing black out-of-wedlock birth rates 39:44 Who has the moral authority to advocate for traditional family structures? 46:17 Heather: Giuliani was one of America’s greatest mayors 51:39 Glenn: Lowering academic standards threatens the foundation of our civilization 1:00:21 Looking for black leadership 1:08:54 Was the reaction to the crack epidemic a “moral panic”? Links and Readings Video of Glenn’s National Conservatism Convention keynote, “The Case for Black Patriotism” The text of “The Case for Black Patriotism” in First Things Gene Dattle’s Reckoning with Race: America’s Failure Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” Alice Goffman’s On the Run: Fugitive Life in America This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

John McWhorter is back for our first conversation of 2022. Let’s get into it! We begin by discussing the death of the groundbreaking black actor Sidney Poitier. Portier was best known for his roles in films like The Defiant Ones, Lilies of the Field, In the Heat of the Night, and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. John puts forward the fascinating theory that Poitier’s Caribbean origins and mannerisms made him acceptable to white American audiences who were unaccustomed to seeing black men in dramatic leading roles. We also recently lost the legal scholar Lani Guinier, who was involved in a political controversy in the ‘90s when Bill Clinton nominated her for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and then pulled the nomination after receiving political pressure from the right. Though Lani and I were on different ends of the political spectrum, she was an important legal thinker, and I think what happened to her was terribly unfair. Of course, while her views were controversial then, John and I note that they’re widely accepted now. We then go on to discuss a question it hadn’t previously occurred to me to ask: Why don’t we see more women in the ranks of heterodox black public intellectuals? (If you know of some I’m forgetting, let me know in the comments!) We then turn to the anniversary of the January 6 riot. John and I agree that it didn’t rise to the level of an “attempted coup” or an “insurrection,” but it doesn’t bode well for the stability of our elections or the country itself. Are we going to see more violence of this kind in future elections? And finally, John we do a quick review of some of John’s prodigious recent output for the New York Times and his podcast, Lexicon Valley. It’s great to be back with John after a month-long hiatus. Let us know what you think of the conversation! This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 The significance of Sidney Poitier’s Caribbean origins  9:27 Revisiting the Lani Guinier controversy  24:09 How Guinier’s views eventually triumphed 29:50 Where are the “heterodox” black women?  38:36 Glenn: I’m worried about the stability of our electoral process 49:12 Are we on the precipice of violent political conflict? 1:01:04 An update on John’s prodigious output Links and Readings “They call me Mr. Tibbs.” Susan Sturm and Lani Guinier, “The Future of Affirmative Action: Reclaiming the Innovative Ideal” Abigail Thernstrom, Whose Votes Count?: Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights Carol Swain, Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress David Brooks’s NYT column, “Why Democrats Are So Bad at Defending Democracy” John’s NYT newsletter post, “I Can’t Brook the Idea of Banning ‘Negro’” John’s NYT newsletter post, “Stephen Sondheim Wrote My Life’s Soundtrack” John’s NYT newsletter post, “Yes, the Classics Make Us Better People” The new home of John’s language podcast, Lexicon Valley This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe

This week I’m honored to have the distinguished Robert Woodson on the show. Since joining the civil rights movement as an activist and organizer in the ‘60s, Bob has dedicated himself to finding solutions to the problems of poverty and dysfunction in America. Through the Woodson Center, Bob helps fund and advise programs that are on the ground and working to solve some of the toughest problems in American communities. He’s got more awards and achievements than I can possibly list here, and there’s no telling how many lives he’s changed over the years. In this conversation, Bob and I talk about some of the problems with large-scale anti-poverty funding. Bob argues that, while big programs and studies may have their hearts in the right place, they are plagued by inefficiency and often vulnerable to misappropriation. Moreover, welfare programs can introduce perverse incentives into vulnerable communities, creating cycles of dependency that prevent recipients from achieving self-sufficiency. Bob emphasizes the importance of working with people from within those communities, especially those who use faith as a starting point for practical reform. I ask Bob how local programs like this can scale up, especially when they’re religious in nature, and he points to a heartening example in Philadelphia. Bob then takes us through some of the programs the Woodson Center is partnered with and describes the phenomenal work they do. Finally, I announce in public something that has been in the works for a while here at TGS. Starting this year, 10 percent of The Glenn Show’s net earnings will be donated to the Woodson Center to help fund programs of the kind Bob describes. I’ll also periodically have some of the people behind those programs on as guests to talk about their work. I’m grateful for all of the success I’m having here, and it feels right to pay it forward. This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below. 0:00 Bob: “There is no monolithic ‘Black Community’” 8:27 How much anti-poverty spending actually goes to poor people? 19:35 Recalibrating welfare’s perverse incentives 25:15 Can community faith-based interventions scale up? 34:37 The moral inconsistencies of progressive policy 42:24 What should we focus on instead of race? 46:54 How the Woodson Center is working to restore communities 1:01:59 Why is there no religious dimension to current racial justice movements? 1:05:00 The Glenn Show gives back Links and Readings The Woodson Center The Piney Woods School Voices of Black Mothers United VBMU’s Sylvia Bennett-Stone on The Glenn Show Project H.O.O.D. Hope for Prisoners This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit glennloury.substack.com/subscribe