The Glenn Show

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 ReadingsMatt’s newsletter, TK NewsKatie Halper and Matt’s podcast, Useful IdiotsMatt’s mea culpa on the Russian invasion of UkraineWesley 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 theoryLinks and ReadingsGlenn’s Intellectual Origins, a series of interviews with DanielDaniel’s podcast, American PrestigeDaniel’s most recent appearance on Chapo Trap HouseStephen Wertheim’s book, Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. World SupremacyPaul Chamberlin’s book, The Cold War’s Killing Fields: Rethinking the Long PeaceDerek Masters and Katharine Way’s book, One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic BombDaniel’s essay, “The End of Mass Politics”Walter Lippmann’s book, Public OpinionWalter Lippmann’s book, The Phantom PublicGlenn’s book, The Anatomy of Racial InequalityDaniel Markovitz’s book, The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the EliteKenneth Arrow’s book, Social Choice and Individual ValuesPaul Erickson’s, The World the Game Theorists MadeS.M. Amadae’s book, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice LiberalismRobert 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 ReadingsJohn’s NYT piece, “One Graceless Tweet Doesn’t Warrant Cancellation”William Levi Dawson’s Negro Folk SymphonyThe New York Times book, How Race Is Lived in America: Pulling Together, Pulling ApartJohn’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 RaceStanley 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 ReadingsMatt’s book, What’s Next, Chicago?: Notes of a Pissed-Off Native SonCorey Brooks’s Project H.O.O.D.University of Chicago’s Crime LabNorthwestern University sociologist Andrew PapachristosJane 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 ReadingsJohn’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

As many of you know, I’m in the midst of writing a memoir. I’m now calling it The Enemy Within, but its earlier title was Changing My Mind, an allusion both to my intellectual development and to my shifting political orientations. In the course of thinking through my past, I’ve wondered how much the new, more conservative Glenn would have to say to the more liberal Glenn of the ‘90s and ‘00s. So I decided to stage a little “debate” between us. Mark Sussman, my editor here at the newsletter, went through a lecture I delivered at Baruch College in 2000 where I laid out the argument that would become The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. He picked a few clips emblematic of the Old Glenn’s positions, where he thought there might be room for some interesting agreement and disagreement (you can watch the whole lecture here). We then recorded my reactions, with Mark “moderating” between me and my prior self. It turns out that the Old Glenn and the New Glenn agree about a lot of things (though not, of course, everything). If present-day progressives approached problems of racial inequality in the way I recommended then, I still might not sign onto their program today, but there would be much more shared ground where compromise between opposing sides could be reached. Certainly the Old and New Glenns agree about a great deal. It all makes me wonder: Is it too late to abandon the hectoring tone of racial discourse today and have a serious discussion about history, outcomes, and incentives? Despite my own pessimism, I have to hope that it isn’t, and that, at the very least, the Old Glenn still has some allies out there. 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 costsLinks and ReadingsSteven’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 soliloquy13:22 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 ReadingsJohn’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 AmericaDahlia 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 ReadingsLarry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better LifeGlenn’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 ReadingsBill 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