Journalist or Heretic? | Bari Weiss | EP 175

[Music] hello everyone i'm pleased today to have as my guest is barry weiss who i haven't seen since she interviewed me for the aspen ideas fair and that was i think three years ago a long time barry is a journalist and the author of how to fight anti-semitism which won a 2019 national jewish book award from 2017 to 2020 weiss was an opinion writer and editor at the new york times before that she was an op-ed and book review editor at the wall street journal and a senior editor at tablet magazine she's the winner of the inaugural pair all mark award in recognition of her moral courage and the winner of the reason foundation's 2018 bastiat prize which honors writing that best demonstrates the importance of freedom with originality wit and eloquence that's a lovely combination in 2019 vanity fair called weiss the times star opinion writer despite that barry now writes on sub stack follow her work at barryweiss.substack.com thanks very much for agreeing to talk to me today mary it's a pleasure to have you here it's a pleasure to see you jordan i've been exceptionally curious about exactly what happened with you since i i was out of sync with the entire world for a good long time but i did know that you left the new york times to start on your own start as a independent journalist on substance and that's quite the turn of events that say especially given that vanity fair called you the time star opinion writer that feels like 100 years ago yeah it's not so long ago though is it but many things have happened in the interim so should we start with something easy like just exactly what the hell happened at the new york times sure okay sure well i guess i should start with um the what drove me to come to the new york times in the first place i came to the new york times following you know the well it was shocking in the context of the new york times the victory of donald trump in the 2016 election there was a brief period of soul-searching that happened after trump won i would say inside the new york times but inside the legacy media in general and there was a sense of wow you know our job is to hold up a mirror to the country as it is and we've sort of failed our readers you know we haven't exposed them let's say to views or to the zeitgeist outside of places like you know the upper west side and berkeley and so in a way i was an intellectual diversity hire along with brett stevens i had been at the wall street journal editorial page um for years um in two different stints and as viewers may or may not know i you know the wall street journal editorial page is conservative it's motto is free people free markets and i was always the squish in the context of the journal's editorial page i was always like on the leftmost flank so you were a diversity hirer at the wall street journal as well i've always just been on a fringe in one place or another and i think a weird to be fringe and in the center well not weird i feel like that's increasingly where anyone who's in the center is these days you're politically homeless and you're sort of forced to choose between one side or another uh it's maybe unique in so far as you know the kind of jobs that i had but inc the the number of people i know who feel that way who feel politically homeless who feel like they have to sort of contort themselves to fit into one of these two tribes is growing by the second and so in that sense i don't think my experience was that unique what so anyway i get to the new york times and i i want to be clear like i didn't go into the new york times naive uh you know i read the paper for years i saw you know what's obviously its liberal bias but i felt fundamentally like the paper was still trying to adhere to what it claims to be all about in its mission statement you know pursuing the truth even when it's hard you know the famous ad that the times has the truth is hard it's all it's all over tote bags um striving for that tells you how hard it is right right exactly striving for objectivity even though we know none of us are objective um you know telling people the truth even when it's inconvenient so wright still nested inside this idea that journalists for example could represent a viewpoint that was actually objectively true rather than expressing inevitably expressing their their association with an arbitrary power structure i mean it was still an enlightenment idea as far as you were concerned that reigned at the times right and and specifically on the editorial page and you know i was an op-ed editor so you know what the public saw that i did was write columns but the majority of what my job was was to commission and edit op-eds from people who wouldn't otherwise think of the new york times as their natural political home so that meant conservatives god forbid it meant libertarians it meant heterodox thinkers it meant high schoolers and first-time writers and dissidents you know across the arab world which is a subject i'm particularly passionate about so my job was specifically to expose our readers to views that would not otherwise naturally appear on the op-ed page of the new york times okay and that was an explicit condition of your hiring everyone knew that that was to become my job description okay so you weren't a fifth column or if you were it was something that everybody had agreed upon yeah the goal was for me to to bring in pieces that would otherwise make maybe my even my desk mates uncomfortable and so why did they pick you do you think and why did the wall street journal pick you to begin with those are very difficult positions to attain and how old were you when you started with the wall street journal so i started at the wall street journal i had a fellowship there the summer that i graduated uh from columbia university the way that i got to the wall street journal is very serendipitous i you know was very much a i would say center left liberal when i was a student in college and but i was very passionate on the subject of israel and fighting anti-semitism which is the book that i ended up writing i sort of had been writing that book for a very long time and i would frequently host debates on campus with the socialist group or the sort of anti-zionist group and there was an uh an older gentleman that would come to some of my events and one day you know he definitely was not an undergraduate and one day he came up to me and said you know my name is charles stevens you need to meet my son brett stevens he works at the wall street journal and they have this amazing summer internship i had never really heard of brett i had never heard of the wall street journal but that was how i ended up getting there it started with a summer internship called the bartley fellowship that's still in existence today um and like anything you know i worked really hard and worked my way up into into a job and so that internship became became my first job what did you study at columbia i studied history i wanted to be a middle east studies major but found that what was happening in classrooms was not um was not was not conducive to uh exploration it was okay so i wanted to i want to do a little diff a little divergence here so i want to tell you a story i spoke with yonmi park about three weeks ago and she wrote in order to live now she wrote in order to live well because she had a horrendous life that's one reason even though one of the things she told me while i interviewed her was that she'd met people who whose life was so much worse than hers that she felt blessed which was quite the bloody catastrophe of a statement i'll tell you and anyways um her book ends in 2015. so i asked her what she had been doing since 2015. and she went to colombia to take a humanities degree i talked to her about this recently too oh okay no but go ahead well she told me yeah well she said i mean i thought that was quite remarkable he had this young woman who was raised under the most horrifying totalitarian conditions well not the most because that's a deep hell hole but bad enough and then was a slave in china along with her mother and then you know managed to get to south korea and then did all her pre-university education basically in one year virtually hospitalized herself with effort and during that time she read um animal farm by george orwell and that sort of motivated her to write but and then she went to university in south korea which is no joke it's very competitive place and and and then she went to colombia to take humanity's degree which in her words was part of her father's wish that she become educated and so she went to this stellar institution in the center of what's arguably the greatest city on earth to pursue the sort of enlightenment to pursue the spark that had been lit in here by orwell let's say and by her introduction to freedom and i said well how was it at columbia and she said it was a complete waste of time and money and like she's a reasonable person she's not actually prone to statements like that it quite surprised me and i said surely that can't be the case i mean you know that's a damning global statement you must have had one professor one course that spoke to you and she said well there was a human biology course where i studied evolution but even it got politically correct by the end and i felt that i was never able to say anything i actually thought and i pushed her and she was adamant it was that it was catastrophe going to colombia and that she felt i hope i'm not exaggerating this but i do believe that this is what she was attempting to put forward she didn't feel any freer in her speech and actions at columbia than she did in bloody north korea and i didn't wasn't dancing with glee hearing that you know noting that my prognostications about political correctness and universities had manifested themselves it's terribly shocking to me and terribly saddening that that's actually the case and i've interviewed some older people recently they'd be my age who look back on their humanities education with nothing but nostalgia and the fondest of memories for the professors that opened up their lives and and started them on their careers great journalists in canada and businessmen as well jacob willink as well who took an english literature degree and was was illuminated by it what was it like for you at columbia you know jordan it was a mix um on the one ha colombia has and who knows how much longer this will be around but it has what's called the core curriculum it's basically a study of the classics freshman year you read classical literature uh sophomore year you study classical philosophy those that was the reason that i went to colombia and those classes for me were exactly what you described that spark that you and me felt when she read george orwell i i absolutely why were they that for you well first of all i had never read those books before um and you know knew who plato was vaguely knew socrates was you know knew go down the line you know had heard who virginia woolf was all of these books like they were soul expanding and the it happened to be that i got extremely lucky especially in that second year course that i described the philosophy course to have a teacher who um was genuinely committed to i think what education is supposed to be about at its best and what is it supposed to be about at its best as far as you're concerned what did it do for you teaching me how to think and think critically and read a text and allow it i mean at the deepest moments have it transformed me rather than what i encountered for example in the middle east studies department which was like more like hearing a preacher i mean it was more just propaganda what do you think the difference is between propaganda and education i mean especially i'm asking you this because the claim one of the claims that is is splitting our culture down the middle is that there is no there is nothing but propaganda essentially and you just think the propaganda on your side is the truth because it serves your purposes to believe that so it's very very important to make a distinction between propaganda and education now you had two different kinds of classes as far as you're concerned one of them you describe as opening yourself up and the other you describe as being preached at okay so what what's the difference there why didn't i just describe the difference well i i not so much on the preaching side what were you being compelled to think in the middle east okay first of all you're making the case that you were compelled to think in one set of classes what were you compelled to think well let me give you an example um the course that i was thinking about in my mind as i just described this was a course called you know topics in middle east studies so it's the entire region of the middle east for going back thousands of years in a sort of general 101 course it was part of a requirement if you wanted to be a to continue on in the major and that course basically you here's what you had to accept that the soul sort of source of maladies in what i think we all can agree is a very complicated and blood-soaked region of the world are all the result of essentially european or american colonialism that everything goes back to that core idea and that even things like let's say in india you know widow burning could be connected to colonialism even things like honor killing could be connected to colonialism everything had to do with this sort of one lens with which you could understand an extremely complicated thing and then the second part and this this is again like i think often times this is the case if you know something about one particular topic like let's say a lot about it and and you don't know a lot about saudi arabia or iran or any of the other places you're studying but you know a lot about this one place and for me that was israel and you hear that what you're being taught about it is so out of line with reality then you start being skeptical about everything else the person is saying and that was very much the case with me that you know first of all israel is one of you know dozens of countries in the middle east but it was obsessed on in the course and the one text we were asked to read about this complicated very interesting place the history that goes back thousands of years which is the cradle of western civilization was a book by um a guy called maxime rodinson i recommend people look it up called israel colon a zionist colonial settler state question mark and suffice it to say the question mark was superfluous and um everything was just sort of driving toward the i felt the political view of the professor that was teaching the course whereas you know in in um contrast the philosophy course that i was describing to you or even i'm thinking about an intellectual history class that i took i didn't really know what my professor thought and we were always obsessed with like what did they really think and that made it um it just felt like they were trying to as much as possible remove their own views to teach texts and ideas to us in the most capacious way possible now it turns out with the intellectual history course you know that professor is now on twitter and i i see what he thinks um and it's very much you know not my view of the world but i really admire the fact that he that i didn't know that when i took his class and that i was able to sort of come to my own positions without feeling like if i wasn't parroting what he said that i would somehow be punished um whether it was you know in my in the grade that i received or in the seminar section part of of the lecture course so to me that's a really important decision okay so so there's a couple of things there that i think might be worth highlighting or there they strike me as worth highlighting anyways is i wrote a chapter in my last book which is beyond order called abandon ideology and one of the propositions that makes up the argument in that chapter is that you have to be aware of unifactorial explanations for complex phenomena is that if you look at anything perhaps you might look at the wage gap say between men and women the purported wage gap well the probability that there's one exactly reason that that occurs well first of all you have to ask the question to begin with is the gap real there's a measurement issue there and so you can take that apart because you don't have to accept the proposition that the phenomena even exists to begin with that happens in psychology all the time where people will use a term in common parlance but not necessarily be able to translate that into some like objective reality like for example we experience an emotion the emotion of shame but it isn't obvious that there's a shame system neurobiologically maybe it's the interaction of a variety of neurobiological systems whereas for anxiety there looks like there's a neurobiological system and for play there's a neurobiological system and so there's not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between a word and the objective world so you can always question that but then when you look at a complicated phenomena the probability that there's multiple reasons for its existence or even if there isn't that there's multiple theories about the single thing that's the cause of its existence that's that's a necessary part of sophisticated thinking and so maybe one thing for people to be aware of is that a totalizing viewpoint all of this plethora of complexity is a consequence of this one thing and that's the hallmark that's one of the hallmarks perhaps one of the hallmarks of propaganda when it's not utilizing just outright deceit and so and then i think there's another um something that you pointed to more implicitly which is that maybe it's also necessary to cast an extraordinarily skeptical eye on totalizing theories that identify a convenient enemy and a convenient enemy would be someone that you're clearly not because it's and and so i've become very leery of conversations for example where people rely on the word they and i don't mean that as a gender-neutral pronoun i mean when you talk about that they that are at fault when they're doing the things they're doing you think well it's kind of convenient that that doesn't include you because a lot of the really complex problems that we face are all our problems and all are doing in some sense in some broad sense or at least all our responsibility so there's the totalizing element there's the over and it's so psychologically rewarding also to do in some sense to develop a totalizing theory that means that you have an explanation for absolutely everything because with minimal cognitive effort you have a map of the entire world and it means you have a community i mean i i don't think we can overstate how comforting it is to feel like you're part of a tribe and that you're aligned against those people over there yeah well the first part of that might be beneficial and positive but the second part which tends to go along with it is the danger of that communal drive you know there is evidence for example that people who are high in empathy are much harsher in their out group evaluations than people who are low in empathy because you know we think of empathy as an untrammeled good well it unites people and it unites them with love essentially it's it's biologically speaking it's a manifestation of the affiliative circuit that bonds mother and child and that's elaborated up into pair bonding for for adult humans but then it extends out to those who are your kin that all sounds lovely and and positive but you know you don't want to get between a mother grizzly and her cubs so so there's that side of it so so the the now the prop the distinction between the propaganda let's say and a real exploration a real class a real education i think hinges on something like exploration so let's think about these podcasts as an example i mean i find a podcast discussion particularly useful when the two people who are involved in the discussion are exploring at the fringes of their knowledge and trying to further what they already know instead of trying to hammer home a point to convince the person they're talking to or themselves or the listener and in my classes you know when they were going well i stepped through a variety of psychological theories in my personality class right so it started with freud and jung and adler and and rogers and all the great clinicians and i would put forward their case as strongly as possible and then trying to explore what they meant but but that wasn't my viewpoint it was it was an attempt to explore and then i could pull the students along with it and that seems to be much different than here's the problem here's the perpetrators it's a soul and and and you experienced like there was a phenomenological experience that you had that made you contrast those two approaches yeah and it was also i mean this this connects it back to your initial question which is what the hell happened at the new york times in a way that answer to that begins in college because that was the first time that i started to encounter what has been called critical social justice or critical race theory or wokeness or what rodriguez called soft totalitarianism or or really cultural and moral relativism to put it more simply i remember very very clearly getting into an argument with another friend also identified as a feminist and she was justifying female genital mutilation to me because that's other people's culture and we need to respect it i'm being crude but that was the basic argument and i remember thinking what the hell how can you possibly call yourself a feminist and believe in defending the rights of women and believe that women should be safe and have equality of opportunity to men and also believe that female genital mutilation can be justified in any universe and so it was the first time and it was very uncomfortable but in a way i'm grateful for it because the ideas that i started to encounter both in classes and also socially at school those are the ideas that have now swallowed the culture and have swallowed the institutions that are meant to uphold the liberal order okay and now let's talk about that for a minute because why are you so convinced that that's true like i mean i it's true that they swallowed everything yes exactly exactly right because this is a major question so our culture is facing this extreme division or that's what it appears and but the question is is it as serious as it as as you might perceive it to be or is that a consequence of the information sources that you're availing yourself of and of course this exactly the same thing applies to me i mean i saw this coming as far as i'm concerned you know well 20 years ago 25 years ago but more particularly five years ago and you know that's got me in all sorts of trouble but it seems to me to be something real and something dangerous and i'm trying to put my finger on exactly what it is and to warn people about it but it's not like i don't have my doubts about you know whether this is just my conspiratorial idiosyncrasy making itself known in the world and so i don't think it's a conspiracy i think the question is whether or not the optimists are right and this thing is a moral panic and it will burn itself out just like you know panic around satanic you know child molesters burned them that that burned out in the 1980s in this country and maybe in canada too i'm not sure yes definitely well we always do things a little less extremely but we follow along in your wake right so the question is like are those people right you know will wokeness i hate that word but i don't know what else to call it will it recede on its own like a fever that burns itself out or will it only sort of um let's say lose the battle over the culture and over sense making and over the elite institutions in america and more broadly in the west if it meets another force that pushes against it i don't see it receding on its own and the more i look inside you know certainly the press i have the front row seat to witness that and we can talk about it let's talk about it but education science the big tech the hr departments of major corporations in this country like it's touching everything and well i got a notification from my university department today they developed a contract for undergraduates who are going to work in labs which seems to me to be completely unnecessary anyways because that was something that was always handled by individual professors but most of it's just you know care of data and and the sorts of things that you might expect that might be made explicit if you were going to work in a lab but of course two-thirds of the way in it there's a huge statement about all the groups that you're not allowed to um be prejudiced against in your conduct and and so and and so forth and so it's just another example of how these ideas these let's call them anti-racist ideas for the time being are anti-group prejudice ideas are there there's an insistence that they manifest themselves everywhere and you might say well you know who isn't anti-racist and so why object to that and my sense is that well they don't come they're not part they're not they don't stand on their own they're part of an entire system of ideas that's the thing that that that's always bothered me is that there's a whole system of ideas here and the and i mean maybe it's best exemplified in critical race theory that's sort of its most extreme experience i i also really don't believe in seeding the language like in saying yeah just call it anti-racism because i'm not seeding that language to an ideology that is insisting on re-segregating the culture why why not seed the language because because because it's a war of language it's a war of language i mean to if you're gonna call what's essentially neo-racism and neo-segregation anti-racism like i'm not gonna go along with the lie of that i'm just not i am going to insist on a version of anti-racism that is rooted in our common humanity and is actually about eradicating racism not on obsessing on the social construct of race and reifying it and making us pitted in a kind of like zero-sum war against each other based on our immutable characteristics i'm sorry i'm not doing that i'm not giving in to their life yeah well then the question is right where do you draw the line i mean i didn't want to use identity politics language in reference to personal pronouns in canada and that's pretty much done in my career as a as a researcher and probably as a clinical psychologist as well so it's it's not a trivial uh battle to undertake and people of course asked well why did you pick that particular hill to die on because what weren't protections that were already built into the law for other groups merely extended to another deserving group but what i saw was a terrible misuse of language at a very fundamental level so part of it was an issue of compelled speech i have to use the terminology that you demand and you claim that it's only about your emotional well-being and your identity but for me it's part and parcel of a complete ideology and then there's also the the smuggling in of a particular view of identity that i don't believe has any credence whatsoever because your identity is by no means only who you feel that you are your identity is a complex game that you negotiate with others and it's it what it is exactly is very difficult to elucidate because it's central to the nature of human existence what your identity is but it's certainly not the simplistic group uh signifier that can be that that you conveniently hang your hat on especially when you want to exercise arbitrary power over other people without them noticing that that's what you're doing so i don't want to see the language either and part of the discussion we can have today is is just about exactly what the language implies we could talk about systemic racism for a minute or two if you don't mind then we'll get back to the wall street journal story and sort of move biographically yeah yeah yeah well so i've been thinking about the phrase systemic racism and it's a very interesting phrase because it's sort of systemic racism systemic racism and you can't hear racism well it's important it's important you can't hear racism like as soon as you hear racism there's a there's a moral issue a major moral issue at stake and the the proposition essentially is if i come up to you and say this is racist i instantly put you in a position where if you disagree with anything that i'm saying you have to defend yourself morally right to the basis of your soul because it's such a terrible thing arbitrary prejudice is such a terrible devastating thing and virtually everyone recognizes that and so and so there's a club that comes along with the use of the phrase right away and the club is well i'm on the right side of history here with my claim about opposing this terrible satanic uh um an ethnocentric viewpoint and then i can say systemic and so i've been thinking about systemic now systemic means pervasive it means everywhere that's what systemic means it has its connotations and its and its explicit meaning but it means that it's the central tendency of the system let's say and that's just wrong the central tendency of functional western social institutions is not racism the central tendency is something like cooperative endeavor towards productive ends and the aberration is deception and power and racism but the central tendency isn't that now and this is this is the crucial issue here because systemic means central tendency and and and if you accept systemic not only do you accept that the central tendency is racist let's say an exclusionary and that also means in support of the privilege of certain groups because that's part and parcel of the entire argument but you also accept the proposition that the motivations that drive people to success in the systemically racist system also have to be power and systemic racism hence the use of tests like the implicit association test so not only are the institutions systemically racist but the psychological motivations of those who are striving to move forward within the systems are all of a sudden now uh tyrannical power and systemic racism and all that's packed into that word systemic and it's just snuck in there because racism is so loud and so vicious and so horrible that you're not allowed to object to anything that manifests itself within its vicinity it's unbelievably what would you call it well it's propagandistic is probably the right word but it just it blows people out of the water because they're hit with this racist issue and and that just you know it rattles them up so badly ethically that they can't stand forward and make a reasonable argument well there's there's a ton there jordan i guess i would say that i think there is a way to acknowledge that for example this country had you know in in the way that let's say black americans were deprived of of building generational wealth because they were deprived of loans they weren't allowed to buy homes or you know redlining or jim crow or we could go all the way back to 1619 or slavery i mean oh we could go back a lot farther than that but it meaning it is true that there were systems in america that were i don't know what other word to say it systemically racist well you wouldn't you could say there were systems in america that were racist without saying the resistance in america so systemically racist there's no doubt whatsoever that arbitrary prejudice is a blight upon mankind and that it manifests itself everywhere but it's not just arbitrary right if you look just at one discrete example like the drug war the disparity between the punishment in the 1980s between being caught with crack and being caught with cocaine i don't know what else to call that you know that but i call it racist sure but that's not just whatever the word adjective you used before was just before well it this we should argue about this a lot because it's the core point so it's a good idea to do this so there are definitely systematic manifestations of racism they in inculcate themselves let's say into the legal system and some of them are more explicit and some of them are more implicit but that's not the issue the issue or that that's yes that's not the issue when you're talking about systemic racism because the there's a tangle of claims in that term and so please do argue with me okay so i think that we need to be able to acknowledge i think as you just did what i just said and acknow and also see that the way that that phrase is being weaponized right now is basically as an argument to tear down liberalism america and the west okay okay so that now okay so now we're starting to unpack that so we're so we'll look at the issue of racism first okay so people are radically ethnocentric and that's a human universal now we're we have a tendency to trade with groups of people who aren't us and we will investigate them and explore them but we're also not so much terrified of them because it's not exactly fear but leery of them and we're leery of them for all sorts of reasons one reason we're leery of them i just talked to a great biologist whose name is going to escape me momentarily he formulated the parasite stress theory of of political belief and so one of the things he points out is that as isolated groups of human beings came into contact with one another throughout our entire evolutionary history we were able to trade ideas and goods and that was greatly to our benefit but we also traded infectious agents and that killed us a lot and so we have this terrible tension at the base of our being between being open to what's new and being killed by what's new and so that's part of what makes us ethnocentric it's not by any means the entire thing so but we have this ethnocentrism built in as well as the desire to trade slavery is a human universal it goes back as far back in time as you can as you can possibly manage and so we can admit that all those things exist and we can admit that their powerful tendencies without having to take this next step which is the one that you pointed to by saying well that's the foundation of our institutions themselves right because of that the institutions have to be torn down rather than saying slavery has been with humanity for eons and the exceptional thing about america is not that we had slavery but that slavery was abolished okay and i would say that's the exceptional thing about britain not america because the brits did it first and they were that's my understanding of the situation now that doesn't take away from the american accomplishment or the canadian accomplishment for that matter right the systemic tendency is the eradication of slavery i'm simply saying that the thing that is being emphasized that i want to push back against that often comes along with the use of the phrase systemic racism is the idea that because the dead white men that created that that that wrote the constitution or that came up with these enlightenment values or any number of other things that have allowed us to live in this exceptional let's say civilization it's beyond just america that because of their moral hypocrisy that somehow the things that they built are ill-gotten and need to be sort of rooted out torn down at the core and and i fundamentally reject that view okay now why why should i presume that your fear of okay you've just characterized the relationship between the idea of systemic racism with a bunch of other ideas okay so right the idea that there's a lot more to the story than the mere emphasis on systemic racism there's an uh a belief that the institutions themselves the fundamental institutions of the west are corrupt right to their core that is the implication often of the people using the phrase but i think one should be able to use the phrase without implying all of that unfortunately right now when you hear it it tends to be that the things i just described come along with the use of that phrase a little bit like anti-racism why are you convinced that your belief that the idea of systemic racism is associated with these other ideas is true because i see it tell me about that i mean i don't know where to start i mean that that is i understand that so help help push me toward what area you're well i i agree with you i mean the reason that i took the stance i took five years ago which i've had plenty of time to think about by the way is because i saw the linkage between ideas i didn't believe that this was just what it appeared to be it was associated with an entire ideology and the ideology seems to me to be i'll lay out some of its features and you can tell me if you think it is in accord with what you see um that inequality of outcome is evidence of systemic discrimination for example oh yes that would be that inequality of outcome conveniently described for the purposes of just justifying the ideology yeah let me describe how i like some of the the features of this ideology and you tell me if you agree that inequality of outcome is necessarily a result of systemic discrimination or systemic bigotry okay and that's part of the equity issue sure but again that's another one of these words that's been hijacked i know well that's exactly why i brought it up is because i've been talking to a group of people in in in la who are liberals and on the left of me i would say but and we've been stuck on this issue of equity because i've been insisting for example that it does mean it's a drive towards equality of outcome defined in exactly the manner that you describe and their insistence is no that's a view that only a minority of the people who are pushing the idea of equity hold well the majority of people that go along with you know equity just think i believe in fairness they're not thinking deeply about this it's like the person that says black lives matter well of course black lives matter but if you look under the hood of what the organizations that are at the forefront of the black lives matter movement believe well they believe in you know abolishing the nuclear family they believe in abolishing or defunding the police they believe that capitalism is evil i mean they believe in all kinds of things but the majority of people that are saying or putting up a sign black lives matter are saying racism is bad the majority of people that are saying i believe in equity and diversity are saying i believe in the dignity of difference and i believe in fairness and i believe in equality of opportunity so when the people in these theoretical people in la when they're saying that is that what they mean or do they mean something else no they meet they well i think what they mean is that the people who are pushing equity believe in equality of opportunity and they don't see the the truth they they're exactly right and these are reasonable people and they're not that they're not that happy with political correctness i i should also say so there is reasonable a group as i can communicate but i have to be honest at this point if you can't if one can't see the way that this language has been hijacked and has been used as a kind of trojan horse brilliant i should say trojan horse strategy to smuggle in um a sort of hardened identity you know zero-sum identity politics view of the world to smuggle in a view of the world in which we either have collective guilt or collective innocence literally based on the circumstances of our birth that smuggle in a you know deeply anti-capitalist position that smuggle in essentially you know a leftist illiberalism then i'm sorry you have blinders on i the evidence for this is so overwhelming at this point i'm really not sure how like if you if you're okay if you don't want to believe it i think it's because the discomfort of believing it outweighs the let me let me say that again i think it's because that admitting that that's true and that that's what's happening is extremely psychologically scary and it's extremely socially scary if you were a liberal because all of a sudden it means that these institutions and the and let's just even say like the social world and the culture that you took for granted as being a certain thing and having certain qualities is no longer what it appears to be and that is the perfect segue to connect it back to the new york times yes okay so let's do that that that i agree with you that let's do that now so now you're at the wall street journal and and you're you're starting to write there uh yeah and let's just fast forward that i get to the new york times and suffice it to say that you know i i was never popular um i had already published lots of things i was known as um being a zionist i i was known for for you know views that put me outside of the let's say the the cool woke kids table and what do you mean by you were never popular that you just you glossed over that very rapidly there's an experience there there was a skepticism of me from the beginning but i mean it was the new york times it's the most important journalistic platform in the world and so i was more than willing to um put up with you know getting the cold shoulder from some of my colleagues because the you you just can't overstate how powerful that distribution system is much more so than the wall street journal and it holds a certain position i would say just not beyond america you know in in in in the west um and and so i i was loathed to give that up and i would be willing and was willing to put up with a lot in order to cling to that position well how do you think people saw you the like because they they they assumed they made a variety of assumptions about that was what was alienating what is it that you represented or were in their eyes heresy heresy someone who lived like them went to the same restaurants as them dated like them um you know by all metrics should have agreed with them on every tenet of this new orthodoxy but right so you're worse because of that see i just talked to uh rimazar professor at mount ellison who's who's an arab um immigrant to canada lebanese and she just got hung out to drive by the pathetic cowards at her university for with her sin she doesn't exactly know but apparently it was something like incitement to sexual violence and also insistence that canada isn't a systemically racist country and and she wrote some of this in her blog which she thought was mostly for distribution to her friends and anyways uh she but she's a heretic like you are because she's female and she's an immigrant to canada and so it's incumbent upon her to adopt the victimized identity that people like her should know is good for them and because she didn't although in quite a minor way she really literally doesn't know what her crime was she doesn't really know who her accusers were they suspended her without pay she's a tenured professor it's a worse case than the case in new york with paul rossi it's much worse it's quite stunning i mean if you met her you'd think really this is the she's the person that all these institutions was were hypothetically designed to protect but but if you think about it in a way it makes sense that it's sort of the the the people at the edges that are more dangerous than the people across the street because if what your goal is is to reshape let's say what it means to be liberal and progressive which is what this is about and if your goal is to sort of remoralize people into that view of the world then you need to make examples of people and sharpen the boundary of who's in the community of the righteous and the good by making examples of people who don't go along with every part of it because right the point of the ostracisms and the point of what it sounds like happen to this professor is to say you know it's not really about the person it's about sending a message to everyone watching it that if you don't fall in line if you don't conform if you don't obey this is what's going to happen to you and you you better believe that that is an extraordinarily effective strategy unbelievably so so so i think what i you know what i saw at the new york times was i guess the only way to describe it is is this kind of ideological excuse me ideological succession and it's not just a story about the new york times it's a story about nature magazine it's a story about bloomberg it's a story about harvard it's a story about the name the institution it's probably about that institution and so what's maddening for someone who's seeing it is that for most people on the outside they're just saying wait it's the new york times it has this like vested authority it has the same font it has the same masthead and you're telling me that really the new york times is no longer the new york times and that's exactly what i'm telling you and it's yeah and so then the question is what is it well it's well what it used to be it basically is if the old version of the new york times was supposed to be you know telling the truth without fear of favor now it's something more like msnbc in print right if you look at fox you look at msnbc it's very easy to see what those things are they're political heroine for their side that's increasingly what the new york times is and you can really point i mean you don't have to believe in uh you know an ideological conspiracy to understand the um push for that to be the new product right go back to the age before the internet when the group that the new york times had to appease were the advertisers that was who you had to fear pissing off well now that advertising's basically a dead letter who do you have to appeal to you have to appeal to your subscribers those are the people that are paying the bills in the end of the day and lo and behold 95 percent might be 92 but it's something along those lines of new york times subscribers identify as liberals progressives or democrats so you better believe that in order to keep your subscribers your readers the people paying the bills happy you have to give them what they want and so we just shouldn't be surprised anymore that fox is doing what it's doing and that the new york times is doing what it's doing it's very good for business it may not be good for democracy but it's extremely good for business and i think that the only reason that it's why did it work before like if if this is necessary to appease your consumer base for example i mean you made a bit of a case there that it was the advertisers and you said that the advertisers in some sense now have been replaced by the direct consumer and they're more arbitrary um but but it still begs the question if the new york times was a reasonable paper of record 20 years ago or time magazine for that matter it's quite shocking to look at a time magazine from the 1970s it's about a quarter of an inch thick and it's all text you know it's a real magazine and that's of course gone by the wayside but why did it work before why was there a market for let's call it objective journalism five years ago or ten years ago and there isn't now well social media has a tremendous amount to do with it i mean because there's no longer what martin gury has called like secret knowledge and for those who haven't read his book the revolt of the public it is the best description of everything that we are talking about you no longer need walter cronkite or you know or the new york times for that matter to tell you about the anti-semitic attack that happened in west hollywood the other night because by the way they're probably not going to cover it all you need to do is follow the right accounts on twitter and so when information becomes democratized and you don't rely let's put to the side for example the times is excellent china coverage or its foreign policy coverage where you really do need an enormous budget and people flying to the other side of the world oftentimes infiltrating closed societies to tell you what is genuinely closed information but for for by and large let's say on domestic issues and a number of and certainly style and opinion you can just get that on the internet and so what am i subscribing what am i what is the reason to pay for the new york times so the reason for that has changed it's no longer so that you can find out what happened in west la the other night increasingly increasingly first of all it's products like crosswords and cooking and documentaries and all these other things that are more like entertainment um but it's also to rah-rah for your team that's that's another enormous reason for it and i'll just add one more thing about twitter i just you cannot overstate the effect that social media has on editors and reporters you know they are people like anyone else and you know very well jordan as i do how bad it feels to get dragged and slandered on on social media by often you know thousands of people and you and if you know that in advance and you know that writing about a certain topic or writing about a topic that's ugly or writing about a topic that has a perspective that the majority of your followers or the subscribers to your paper don't agree with it's like you don't need to be told don't write about it you tuck yourself out of it because you don't want to experience that punishment why is it worth it why should i die on that hill it's easier to commission the 5 000 op-ed about why donald trump is is horrendous and so every incentive just pushes you in that direction the social incentive both social online but social in your real life and the economic incentive and frankly the incentive of the people that you're literally surrounded by and so resisting all of those forces is extremely difficult the only way that it becomes it's like the only way it becomes possible is if you know that the people who are running the paper and the people that are in charge and the people who are in the in the end of the day writing your paycheck believe in that mission that goes against those incentives and supports you and once that falls away and once you see as i did that you could no longer rely on those people to support and sort of defend you including against other colleagues at the paper then you just knew that you weren't going to be protected anymore okay so i want to split this now into two i i want to continue with am i making sense you are you were yes absolutely um i want to continue with the biographical but i want to go back to the to the propagandistic issue too because there's still something that we haven't explored so you and and i in this discussion have fleshed out this structure of ideas that's lurking behind the claim of systemic racism we haven't done that thoroughly but we've done it to some degree we've linked it with such things as propagandistic education and tried to contrast that with the genuine exploration of ideas but what we haven't touched on and something that's quite mysterious to me is well what's driving this like what's in it for the people who are pushing the critical race theories well it's it's strange though because they're the proposition that is being put forth by people who hold these theories is that it's power that's fundamentally driving all social institutions and that's the fundamental manifestation of human ambition and so but then to turn around and say well it's power that's driving the ideology seems to be adopting their theoretical stance to criticize their theoretical stance it's like i still don't get it like well let's let's give them let's try and steel man their argument right the idea that you know for all of human history up until five minutes ago that people like you were at the top of the let's call it the caste system and you know a black transgender disabled person is at the very bottom there is an understandable impulse to say let's remedy that like you've had your day in the sun jordan so is brad pitt and you know jon hamm and all of the other cisgendered white males um and let's give a chance and elevate voices who historically let's be honest have been kept out of the pages of the new york times you think that 70 years ago i would have been able to walk into the new york times wearing a jewish star oh i would have taken it off before i walked in so there there is there is a right but but you could now except perversely and perversely you couldn't for any length of time because of the of the of the influence of the ideas that we're describing well okay so you made a steel man argument there so i would i would first say well let's take it apart carefully all throughout history those who have had shared some of my immutable characteristics have had a higher probability of attaining uh positions of status but those positions can't be confused only with positions of power because status is about much more than power and when systems are working properly status is conferred upon people because they're productive and generous and cooperative and useful not because they're arbitrary uh holders of of tyrannical power and that's so true that it's not just true for human beings it's also true for our nearest non-human relatives like chimpanzees who are often parodied as power mad but if you do the analysis there you see that it's reciprocity that keeps even chimpanzee social organizations going so there's the first thing is that it was not merely the arbitrary uh bestowal of power and the second thing is is that merely possessing those immutable characteristics was in in no way a certain avenue to the top because of course throughout history right but these these of course it wasn't certain but the point is is that if you didn't have those qualities you weren't even allowed to enter the race that's the point no i'm just trying to understand like what is drawing people to these ideas okay good-hearted well-intentioned people and i believe that the thing that is drawing them to these ideas is a sense of historical repair is a sense of um justice is a sense well oh fair okay fair look fair enough and and i mean it's not like reason i think the reason i think it's important to understand what's drawing people to these ideas is because i want to defeat these ideas why because i believe they are fundamentally illiberal and because i do not believe in a world of caste i believe that we should be fighting for a world in which there isn't a caste system not where we reverse a caste system okay well then i would say that the the systems that have privileged people like me in the past are also the same systems for whatever reasons that have in fact led to the freeing of the people who weren't allowed to play the game increasingly across time and that that's a universal truth not a particular truth and that and that's the point right well and you accept that argument you you accept that argument and so then then we have another problem here barry still which is you you're making the case that well-meaning people want this and i i understand your point and it's not like i don't feel for the dispossessed you know and and grasp the argument but my sense is is that the very institutions that are under assault by people who purport to be standing up for the dispossessed are in fact the best antidote to that dispossession that the world has ever produced and it seems to me that if you don't see that then you have blinders on and if you have those blinders on then the question is why are you more interested in tearing down then in building up let let me tell you a brief story okay and you tell me what you think of this i had this debate with slavo zizek and in the beginning of the debate which it was a strange debate because he basically declared himself not a marxist even though that was what the debate was about and i i say that with all due regard for zizek who was very kind to me when i was ill and who seems like a fine person and so this is not an ad hominem attack at all people are complicated and it was a delight actually to have the debate with him but in any case i started the debate with a 15-minute critique of of the communist manifesto and at one point i said it was a call to bloody violent revolution and the crowd cheered and laughed for about three seconds and a substantial maybe ten percent of the crowd and so there were a lot of people there who were on the radical end of the marxist distribution and they had come to hear their purported champion you know give me a good stomping but it was so interesting especially for someone who's psychoanalytically minded because it was a great freudian slip i thought it put me back for about 10 seconds because i thought really you sons of you cheered violent bloody revolution knowing full well what happened over the course of the 20th century with all the absolutely catastrophic horrors that laid out as a consequence of marxist ideas because you're hidden by the crowd you can let your laughter you can let your resentment your desire for nothing but upheaval manifest itself because it's invisible but it wasn't invisible because there were thousands of people there and so they laughed away about bloody violent revolution and so on the one hand and then i've been talking to people i talked to stephen blackwood this week who's who's uh starting a a college designed to teach people liberal arts yeah well and you know he insisted that people are always pursuing the good and i've a number of people on my show have insisted that well that that even if it's warped and twisted in some it's it's an elegance to the argument that you were making and this isn't a criticism of you you know you said look you can see why these ideas are so attractive i know you are i know you are and and i'm not going after your argument i'm i'm just trying to elaborate it it's you know there there is this concern for the dispossessed and that's what gives the radicals the moral high ground so often we're concerned for the dispossessed aren't you it's like well yes as a matter of fact we are and so they start out these the the wielders of these ideas start out with a moral advantage yes but the evidence seems to suggest that the very systems they're attempting to tear down are in fact the best antidote to the problems that they're laying out so then the question pops up again so if that's the case why the hell is there so much force behind the ideas what's driving it and it's it's associated with that laughter at the thought of violent bloody revolution because we're so removed from violent bloody revolution that's why there's a like the l it's a luxury to flirt with these ideas it's that's a good that's a really good that's a really good idea if you think if you are so if you take the fact let's just take an example that i can you know i'm not wearing long sleeves you could see my collarbone and that i can walk down the street here with my wife and go get a falafel at the end of the street and not be stoned to death okay like that's the reality that's a miracle that's right and that's what divides people is whether or not they know that's a miracle yes and if you are so removed from the truth of that miracle and from gratitude for everyone and every idea every piece of scaffolding that allows for that to be that my reality then you will have the foolishness but it's really the luxury and the decadence to flirt with ideas about doing away with it and i just i don't know why some people feel like okay i'm going to steal i'm going to steal men i was going to say one thing okay i am so curious about why certain people feel in their bones how thin the veneer of civilization is and why other people are so nonchalant about it i feel it's a psychological question but i don't know it i don't know either i don't know either you know when i was in graduate school i was obsessed with the finitude of life and with mortality and death i mean i wake up every morning and think there's no time get to it now and i had friends who i would say were more well adjusted than me that's certainly part of it like they were more emotionally stable technically speaking less prone to depression and anxiety so that's part of it and they it was that those ideas never entered the theater of their imagination right it did they they just weren't a set of existential problems for them for me it's always been paramount and i very i read oh i can't he worked for the new york times too a great journalist he wrote of but i can't remember the book anyways he had spent a lot of time in beirut during the catastrophes in beirut and then he talked about going to a baseball game in the united states right and he he was at this baseball game with all these people who were sitting there doing what people do at baseball games chat nonchalantly drink a bit of beer have a hot dog it's like i went to a i've hardly gone to any baseball games and i went to one in boston and i was thinking jesus this is boring nothing's happening why are people here don't they have something better to do and then i started to look around and i thought oh i see i'm so wrong they're here because this is nothing to do it's just leisure it's like you don't really have to pay it but it's deeper it's channeling those human forces that want us to go into tribal warfare and putting it you know into supporting the red sox or the yankees right right which is a miracle yes there's that's exactly but the whole thing is a miracle is that we can go out there and play out these tribal antagonisms at a completely peaceful level and sit there and and and and and have it be benevolent and calm and then i realized well people do this for leisure that's why they're doing this and you're the idiot not them but but the the the commentator the author he had a hard time going to baseball games after he had been in beirut because the thinness of the veneer was always apparent to him after that because he couldn't drive across the city without being stopped by armed gangs constantly and i guess it's also maybe to some degree whether your view of humanity tilts more towards hobbs or more towards rousseau you know and i like to think of myself as balance between the two because i think people do do do have the capacity for good and that you know it's not a war against all um in the state of nature but i certainly am sensitive to the state of nature argument it is always a miracle to me when i go outside and there isn't a riot in the streets and i do think it's a thin veneer and we have to be very careful with it so dostoevsky said in notes from the underground one of the most insightful passages there sections he talks about the flaws in utopian think thinking he said well people are constituted such that if you provided them with utopia the first thing they would do is break it to pieces just so that something interesting would happen so that they could have their own capricious way and that's very much akin to the argument that you're making the luxury argument and so then there's a there's another problem there that we could delve into that i i've talked about with the sort of rational optimist types like matt ridley and bjorn lomberg and so on is that we offer young people this luxury that produces the kind of decadence that you're describing but what they're deprived of is the opportunity for romantic adventure and so part of the positive thing that's driving them to shatter the veneer is the desire for something more than you know the cause yeah yes yes it's a yes i i i completely agree with you yeah it's a desire for it's a disadventure for meaning yeah meaning and you know this is something we could talk about this for a long time but i think that there is a reckoning that that needs to be had with you know the new atheists or what was called the new atheists in a group i've been so why do you say that well only because one well let me back up into it this way when i look at the qualities of the people who have the strength and the fortitude to not go along with the crowd and to be willing to be slandered and to sacrifice for the sake of resisting this illiberalism almost all of them are religious in some way or another almost all of them were deeply deeply anchored i would say to i don't want to say spirituality but like local something deeper is rooting them that's what solzhenitsyn said against the about the people he met in the gulag who could who could stand up to the to the to the soviets and i think that's the thing i'm finding again and again now as i'm sort of making my way through all of these different sectors of life reporting on the spread of this ideology who's willing to talk to me who's willing to speak up um and one of the things that i don't necessarily think that that the atheist group you know who i admire on a lot of levels that they maybe couldn't have foreseen is that robbing people of that religious impulse both sort of soften the ground for the rise of this deeply liberal ideology that functions in many ways like a new religion and also ham like it just deprived it in a way it's deeply connected i think to the rise of this new orthodoxy so i've been thinking about the idea of of rendering unto caesar what is caesar's and rendering unto god what is god's and it seems to me that if we blur the distinction between god and caesar then caesar becomes god it's not that we dispense with god that's the thing and that's that's what's at the core that's what's wrong with the new atheist hypothesis is that so imagine just psychologically that we have a drive towards ethical unity and that would be the same force that drives us towards a monotheism right the idea that all is one is that there has to be a unifying spirit that animates and unites all of our ethical strivings and and we picture that in all sorts of different ways but it tilts in this monotheistic direction and so that becomes a transcendent value and it's the value the transcendent value from which we derive our notions of sovereignty and individual worth and natural law and all of that but it's a psych it's a psychological necessity i would say that rises from the requirement that we build our ethical systems in a manner that's internally non-contradictory because that drives them towards a unity well and then we have to worship that unity or we worship something else that approximates it and that would be one of these totalizing systems that you know that you discussed where instead of there being god who's mysterious and who we can't understand and who we have some relationship with that we can't specify and whom we have to struggle with because that's the meaning of the term israel right to struggle with god we replace it with a an idol we replace it with an idol that has exactly the same totalizing impulse but lacks all the advantages of that of that transcendent that can't be identified with us that's the thing is that you know if stalin doesn't have god then stalin is god and that's not that's and that seems to me to be somewhat independent of whether or not there is a god which is that's a different issue right the metaphysical reality of that unity is a different issue than the psychological necessity of that unity and i do think the new atheists i mean they're getting hoist on their own petard to some degree you see what's happened to dawkins in the last couple of months strip strip of his award by the humanist because he dared to challenge this rising religious orthodoxy and i do think it is that and so now i want to switch a little bit here so and talk about your column you talked about you just showed it to me but i had to come across it before it's a call to what people need to do in order to resist this totalizing um propaganda let's call it and we've started to explore the reasons for its existence now the reason i want to bring it up is because we've also been making the case that we people do need something like a romantic adventure and and toying with catastrophe at the fringes provides that romantic adventure right because you're joisting jousting with the dragon at that edge you can understand if you have any sense if you can remember what it was like to be a teenager at all you can you can understand how exciting it would be yes well that's for sure and confusing but you could also understand how it's exciting to go to a riot and then to sit and drink a few beer afterwards and to talk about the incredible excitement that that generated and especially if that's bolstered by your sense that you're on the moral frontier now you have had an adventure and your adventure at least in principle was a consequence of telling the truth and that to me is the replacement for that romantic adventure is that if you embody the truth in your own life you have that romantic adventure and the thing you straighten out is you not other people so you don't get to have an enemy under those conditions and so you have a call in your column too and i explored this as well with paul rossi who stood up against you know the the incursion of the politically correct agenda into his classrooms so let's go back to the new york times now you're trying to i presume you're trying to explore the truth to tell the truth what are you doing as a journalist i mean all kinds of things i would say the thing that that got me the most national attention in the beginning were some columns that i wrote that i think subsequently have definitely become the commonsensical position the the most on me too so the the biggest one was this piece that i wrote about aziz ansari and i wrote a piece about called the limits of believe all women it was basically saying you know we should just never but it's trust but verify and that someone's gender shouldn't determine whether or not what they're saying is true it seemed to me a very basic point but uh it caused a lot of controversy and you know but i did lots of different pieces i did pieces i wrote that piece about the intellectual dark web of course i did deep features you know like one on the city of david which is the most important archaeological dig in in jerusalem that tells us a lot about what jerusalem used to be and says a lot about its future all kinds of stories but the thing that i love doing more than more than writing was commissioning pieces that other people didn't agree with um and working with writers i mean there's nothing that i love more than commissioning and editing and that's still the case and i'm doing a lot of that why why why do you love that what is it about it when it's working right helping someone first of all the excite like if you've never published before and then you get to be read by people in the world like go back in your mind if you can to the first time that that happens that happened for you maybe in your own life it's extremely exciting the experience of that and getting to engage why do you think why do you think that's so exciting and you're making the case that you were opening up that avenue of opportunity to other people well i was okay so i wanted i want to comment on well i want to comment on that a little bit briefly and then go back to well let me just say this one thing here because yeah i was going to give you i was going to give you an example of do i interviewed someone um i was there there were kind of panels of people that would interview new hires and i was brought in as i always was as the kind of intellectual diversity person and it really struck me because the first thing that this candidate to be an op-ed editor the first thing she said to me was i don't know how you can edit op-eds from people you disagree with and i said that's kind of the point of the job here and it's fun because it not only for the pleasures the personal pleasures of helping someone find their voice and articulate what they want to say in the in the most clear and powerful way possible but why is that a pleasure why is that a pleasure i don't know why it's like going for a swim in the sunshine no no this is more this is a more crucial point i'll tell you why because one of i've been thinking very hard about this proposition that our social institutions are predicated on power and power implies aggressive exploitation that implies forcing people to do things that are against their will and the the proposition that our social institutions are predicated on power implies that there is pleasure substantial pleasure in forcing people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do against their will now what i've seen instead in the functional institutions that i've been associated with is that the best people are fundamentally motivated by exactly what you just said and that's why i'm holding in on it which is that there's something unbelievably intrinsically pleasurable and now you said about helping people find their voice and expressing themselves in the clearest possible terms and that doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not and you love that and that's to see yes yes well that is the opposite of power it's not just that it isn't that power manifests itself in these institutions it's that when they're running properly it's the very opposite of power it's the opening up of the possibility of creative expression for others and we take tremendous pleasure in that i don't think there's a more fundamental human pleasure than that a deeper more fundamental pleasure yeah and then you think you think so oh it's so odd because you you focused on this anecdote how can you do that even for people that you disagree with well it turns out that the pleasure of opening up the possibility of expressing the ideas the thoughts the pleasure in that is so intense that you'll even take the hit to your own beliefs in order to engage in it and it also there's a selfish aspect of it too which is that it sharpens your own beliefs it sharpens them to encounter and actually to help someone with the opposite beliefs articulate them in the most powerful way possible forces you to confront your own and i think that i take a lot of pleasure in that i mean it's it's the kind of pleasure of like going for a run you know it's maybe not like an immediate it's it's it's different than than licking an ice cream cone but it's a deeper kind of pleasure in a way um and i thought well i think that that was the game it's the same that would be allied with the same motivation because imagine that if part of what's giving you pleasure is the ability to foster the um the capacity of other people to communicate to formulate their ideas and communicate while you're doing that you're also fostering that within yourself by you know putting yourself to the test constantly well it's a it's a repetition of the same fundamental motivation and so it seems to me that when when our social institutions are functioning properly then the basis of the relationship between individuals within it at different levels of the hierarchy is actually one of broadened it's more like parenthood than it is like the expression of power well what i'm expressing though is like so old-fashioned like they you know it's not necessarily a gener it's largely a generational divide it doesn't always break down along those lines but i would say for the younger generation of people who don't believe let's say in journalism as embodying the values i just described exploratory and hearing the other perspective and trying in fact to make it as strong as it possibly can be hearing the other person in good faith all of those things that are like fundamental to the liberal world view they don't believe that they believe in journalism as a tool and why why do they believe that now is that a consequence of their education yeah it's completely connected to the ideas that i was describing encountering when i was a student at columbia or that young me park described to you you know it turns out that the there was an idea until extremely recently that was shared by conservatives and liberals in your generation i would say that what happened on largely what happens on campus days on campus the oberlin gender studies major will make her way into the universe and she'll get her job at mckinsey and she's going to leave those silly ideas behind no no that is not what's happened it turns out ideas really really matter ideas are extremely serious and if you're marinating at the most important formative years of your life in basically an echo chamber of this ideology and then all of a sudden you're going into these institutions incredibly important institutions that are our newspapers our publishing houses are hollywood like go go down the line it's not like you're leaving checking those ideas at the door you're bringing them with you and what we've seen is that you don't actually need a majority of people inside an institution to agree with these ideas for these ideas to gain moral for these ideas to gain force no you need a tiny minority a tiny minority and you need cowardice at the top cowardice at the top that is the key ingredient you need people at the top who are willing to sell out the authority of the institution and the values of the institution that have taken decades sometimes centuries to accrue basically for the short-term benefit of not being called a bad name okay so let's delve into that a little bit okay because that's actually pretty bloody awful as it turns out you know i mean we don't want to and look here's what i've learned in the last five years one thing i've learned is that most people will shut up very rapidly and apologize when attacked and a very small minority won't why is that well because it's because it's so horrible to be attacked and not only that because it's so horrible to be attacked but also because if you're a sensible person and you get attacked the right thing to think to begin with is maybe stupid and wrong yes exactly of course exactly natural well it's not only natural it's even been it's beneficial right i mean because you want to be reactive to your social surround and so then the question becomes well the first question is why stick your neck out at all when the cost of sticking your neck out is like extraordinarily high psychologically and practically which it's certain even if you stick your neck out accidentally which so because it's never i guess because i think because it's because there are things that are and i i don't know how to say this without sounding cheesy but like there are virtues that are so much more important than getting ratioed on twitter there just are there again without sounding too like high-minded if you can get in touch with things that are that you're willing to risk your life for or let's say risk your reputation for it's only then will you be able to withstand the pain of the lies and the slander okay so what are you gonna what do you what you gave up your job at the new york times i'm going to return to this point you just i want to run through the biography again now you're working at the new york times you're not the world's most popular person there no so you're you're paying a price now you can obviously tolerate that you're constitutionally built so that you can tolerate that i think that i i i'm not an expert in this subject but i think that i would qualify as highly disagreeable yes according to your definition although it's hard for me to say that because i really care what other people think about me yeah well you might be low higher you should take my personality test and find out because i suspect you i suspect you're low in politeness and high in compassion that splits that splits agreeableness say because then you would care for other people but you'd still be willing to say what you have to say i suspect that's and i also suspect you're probably pretty high in conscientiousness and openness and that makes you a weird political animal because openness tilts you in the liberal direction but conscientiousness tilts you in a conservative direction but it'd be worth taking the test to find out i'll take it i've never taken it i okay in general i'd never take personality i don't know what my myers bring is either but i will take it i guess it's a longer conversation but the question of how to incentivize like i'm obsessed with the idea of courage and what makes people courageous or what makes people willing to be natan sharansky or be andrei sakharov like what is it i think it's fear of god yeah you know they say that's the beginning of wisdom well i kind of i mean that i i mean that genuine genuinely but also metaphorically a lot of courage i think is being afraid of the right thing like i don't think it was courage that drove me to to do what i did five years ago in canada i think it was fear of what was coming as an alternative i could see it it was like well there's a little beast here that i could tackle or there's a great huge beast that's lumbering forward in the distance but why are so many people deluding themselves into thinking that if they just like keep quiet about any number of the issues we're talking about that it will somehow get easier to speak out later like this is going to be the easiest time right now yeah well that's the thing i don't i don't know how i don't know what the conditions are for learning that you see that's one thing i kind of i think i've sort of known that for a long long time that the the time to have the fight is now for me i think being deeply connected to jewish history and feeling like it's not just history but it's like a compass in my life and that i am deeply obligated to its lessons and deeply obligated to all of the people who suffered and sacrificed so that i can live in the freedom and the privilege that i have like that's my anchoring thing and it just i'm interested in how do we incentivize more people to see what this is and to sort of come out of the closet because the thing that is like so fascinating to me about this this strange phenomenon is like by any measure we're living in the freest societies that human beings have ever known and they're rapidly improving yes and that people are acting as if and for very understandable reasons like we're living in a totalitarian society to some degree meaning they are double thinking they are living lives in which they have a private persona and they will tell me in private at dinner totally agree with you but i could never say it out loud like that phenomenon to me is so unbelievably widespread and yeah well that's that's the state well that is the that is the indication of the dawning of the totalitarian state because the totalitarian state depends entirely on the dissociation between the public persona and the private viewpoint and to the degree that each person is willing to swallow that lie that's their contribution to the totalitarian state and so it is a requirement it's interesting that you you know you pose your moral obligation in terms of your responsibility to at least in part to jewish history one and and the fact that so many times people didn't say what they needed to say and the consequences were absolutely catastrophic i mean that's certainly the case in nazi germany to say the least but it also characterized the style the stalinists and the maoists and all of those totalitarian states i mean if people people need to realize that if they're in a position where they can't say what they think that that's the evidence that we're sliding in a direction that's not good it's there's the evidence it's right there and what do you do about that well you say what you think carefully and the reason for that is the uh the alternative is worse that's that's the i also think that it was really hard for me to give up the prestige of working god i bet that i wanted yeah i want to hear about it it was really hard for me and but i think that like putting myself like i have the fact that i had already put myself on the hook so publicly for standing up for certain values made it impossible for me not to follow through with doing the right thing it's a little bit like when i wanted to run the marathon like i insanely because i can't run a half a mile right now but years ago i ran the new york city marathon having never been a runner in my life and the way that i did that was i told everyone in my life i'm running a marathon before i'd even run a step and the pressure to sort of follow through with what i had publicly stated was very good because it forced me to do it and i guess what i would say to nietzsche said every great man is the actor of his own ideal well yeah i guess what i would say to people listening to this is like put yourself on the hook now in front of people that you respect and admire and maybe even do it in a public way because then when the testing time comes it's very embarrassing not to follow through with with living by your ideals well and let's say well the testing time isn't going to come and we're just overstating the danger because that's that that's the rationale right that's the nationals well do you think we're overstating it we could talk about france well i i don't know i don't know right because who knows right i don't know which way history is going to turn it it doesn't look very i'm i'm certainly not happy with what's happening in the universities i'm not happy with what's happening in the scientific journals it doesn't seem to me a great thing that diversity inclusivity and equity is popping up absolutely everywhere that human resources departments have a stranglehold on corporations all i'm saying is that if we're living in a world in which people cannot say their commonsensical views out loud okay i'm not talking about political views i'm talking about are there differences between men and women are you know is is america fundamentally a good place is lincoln a hero like these are basic things that have become taboo if we cannot say those basic things out loud and if those ideas about the fundamental goodness let's say of the american project but really of the western project have become really of i would say more than that i would say of humanity itself because okay this is a fundamental critique the idea that our social institutions are predicated on exploitative power that's not that's a critique of the human spirit sure it goes past even the west yeah if you can't say that looting is bad okay to think about this summer if you can't say that segregation is evil and wrong if you can't say that i mean we all know what the things are the things that have become unsavable and i'm suggesting that that is enough for me to sound the alarm and if it turns out that i was a little paranoid or hysterical but i made these things more sayable in in sounding the alarm i'm okay with that i'd rather be wrong now so tell me tell me you why did what happened when you decided to leave the times well i mean how did you come to i'd like the story what how did you come to that decision well there was a kind of forced ideological conformity that was happening and it became like a battle to get any piece through that didn't conform to the narrative and anything that didn't how would that battle manifest itself so you would commission all stories in all kinds of ways yeah i mean it would be i'd like to do a column on this and me being tremendously ch like having to jump through hoops and get 10 more sources whereas other pieces from other writers would just sail through with like obvious embarrassing errors um not that i haven't had my own share of errors i have and they're horrifically embarrassing and anyone can find them online but i'm saying if you didn't comport with the orthodoxy then you your character and your work were just unbelievably scrutinized in a way that another person's weren't when it came to so the load increased the effort yeah i mean when it came to commissioning things like i'm you know i i remember ion her cle called me the smuggler because early on when i was there again in this very brief good period of self-reflection i was able to get an op-ed that she wrote into the new york times and she was like i can't believe you were able to do that so there was this brief period in the beginning where the humiliation of getting trump wrong i think led to an opening of the overton window but then for reasons i can't really figure out it really really really just closed again and it narrowed much more so like to a sliver in a way it was much narrower than i would say pre the election and of course trump had a tremendous amount to do with it if you believed that you know and i think a lot of my colleagues genuinely believed this that trump was a fundamental threat to america to the republic to minorities we can go on and on and on we know the argument we could read it anywhere else um then you were morally obligated defeat that threat and that meant that anything that flirted with any number of topics where he was on the a particular side of it then the right was all that like the correct position was always to be on the opposite side of it and so you saw this really really clearly let's say in the in the lab leak theory right which was completely of of the wuhan of uh coronavirus um which increasingly it seems like the coronavirus was you know unintentionally let's say leaked from this lab in wuhan well that became unsayable and it became unsayable because people in the trump administration were saying that that was the case and so everything was seen through the prism of this incredibly singular figure of trump so that sped it all up and then you had the summer and you had the killing of george floyd and that just brought every thing that was sort of at a low boil just absolutely bubbling over and the way that it bubbled over most acutely was in the choice in june to run an op-ed by republican senator tom cotton that said not that the national guard should be brought in to quell peaceful protests but that the national guard should be brought in brought into quell violet rioting it was a controversial piece um by any stretch in that really sensitive moment but it was a view frankly that was shared by the majority of americans if you go back and look at polls at that time but inside the context the rarified context of the new york times not only was this op-ed seen as controversial it was seen as literal violence literal violence 800 more than 800 of my colleagues signed a letter saying that this op-ed literally put the lives of black new york times staffers in danger and anyone that knows what was no argument what kind of argument was made in favor of that position that the argument was first of all it was a misreading of his op-ed it was based on a fundamental misreading that insisted that his op-ed was about bringing in the military to put down justified understandable riots in reaction to george floyd so they never made the distinction they collapsed the distinction between bringing in the national guard to put down violent rioting and bringing in the national guard to put down peaceful protests and then they said you know that that because police and the military are systemically racist i'm being crude and just giving you the overview that this move would necessarily result in inordinate amount of black death the death of black americans so that was the so just that was the argument and what happened was not from the top a defense of the op-ed and a defense of all of the various was this an op-ed you had commissioned no i had nothing to do with it okay okay so you're just watching this yeah i ended up being sort of brought in uh as a kind of punching bag because i ended up tweeting out some tweets that i think hold up extremely well about that this was a very very useful litmus test to understand the generational divide inside the new york times but i had nothing to do with the op-ed but the people that did have something to do with the op-ed my 25-year old uh-huh i want to ask you something about that generational divide sorry it's okay well i'm still trying to think through this the the the education of young people to adopt the viewpoint that our social institutions are fundamentally corrupt and driven by power so then i think well how much of that this calls for speculation how much of that is a consequence of the breakdown of family structure i mean so i see the the positive element of our social institutions as something like the positive aspect of of the paternal spirit so it's a father it's the positive father who encourages in exactly the way that you encourage the writers that were under your care to express themselves and develop am i the father in that situation well you would be well you know you're female but you're working in the patriarchy so yes that's a i would say symbolically speaking that that's a manifestation of well the spirit of your jewish ancestors let's put it that way well i mean that i mean that you know uh and and you're the one who said that that tradition has shaped you to such a degree it's like while you're in body you feel you have an obligation to embody that well is it not a paternal spirit that's the tradition and it's the but what if you've never experienced that i don't know if i would call it paternal or not that's not the way i think about things but i i do think i don't know if your family's broken if you've never had a positive relationship with someone who's i think it's different than that i think it's about should corporations which is what the new york times is in the end of the day should they be moral actors that's the big difference like there's a sense among the younger generation that a newspaper or a tech company or or whatever the the place that you work should somehow also not just be about pursuing the bottom line but should also be a manifestation of what you consider to be good politics and good morals and that's why you see you know i don't know if you followed this entire story at coinbase that i think is really really interesting where basically the heads of coinbase said because they felt like rather than pursuing excellence for the company so much of employees energy and attention and time was being devoted to you know using slack to discuss the politics of the day and they basically said look no more politics at work that's not work is not a place for politics work is a place for making coinbase excellent and if you're uncomfortable with that we're going to give you a really really nice severance package you've seen base camp follow suit you've seen and i i suspect that when did this happen this happened um i would say coinbase in the past two months and then base camp another silic another company much more recently and this i i'm really watching that trend because if you're running a company and rather than let's take the case of the new york times you're spending you're not spending your time reporting and editing and commissioning but you're spending your time basically being like an offense archaeologist looking through things that other people have published to decide whether or not an adjective was orientalist or not like that's a bad use of your time if you are supposed to be producing the best newspaper in the world and so that's one thing i'm watching for i'm curious if what coinbase did is gonna take off um because i think it's extremely i thought that was just really really really smart strategy to say no that's not gonna be that's not gonna be what we do with this company but suffice it to say the new york times has not followed coinbase's suit and what happened after so the fallout from the tom cotton episode was that within 48 hours my immediate boss was reassigned my the boss who had hired me james bennett was pushed out of the paper after he was struggle sessioned in front of thousands of employees at the company in tell us about that i will well in slack channels with thousands of people guillotines and axe emojis were put next to his name and my name um and no one said a word about that remember this is an ideology that tells us silence is violence you know and and you know guillotine guillotine emojis aren't exactly but basically what happened was that you know they it's the same script that's happened everywhere else like a normal human being who looked out and saw that 800 of his colleagues felt that he decided to run an op-ed that literally put their lives in danger well the normal human response to that as you explained before is i'm so sorry but unfortunately in the rubric of this ideology i'm so sorry is evidence of your guilt it's blood in the water and that's exactly what happened i mean it was i'm so sorry it's a confession yes confession and yes which means don't apologize if you haven't done anything wrong yes because that's exactly right and so he was pushed out of the paper and perhaps most disgustingly um my colleague is a very dear friend of mine adam rubinstein who was one of the editors one of seven editors who worked on the piece his name was leaked by others of our colleagues to the new side of the paper and a 25 year old editor at the very beginning of his career was sort of the the guy that was thrown under the bus and he ultimately ended up leaving the paper too and i found that to be the most disgusting part of the entire episode because as everyone who works in any organization knows um and he didn't make him there was no mistake that was in that op-ed but generally what happens in a collegial environment is if someone makes a mistake so for example months prior to the tom cotton episode the new york times ran a flagrantly anti-semitic cartoon in which um bibi netanyahu the prime minister of israel is shown wearing a it's shown as a as a dachshund a long wiener dog wearing a um a collar with a jewish star and he's shown leading a blind trump who's wearing a yamacon his head people can look it up now everyone in the editorial staff knew who chose that op-ed sorry that that cartoon and no one in the public knows his name and that's exactly as it should be it's exactly as it should be and yet in this case a 25 year old editor was hung out to dry so essentially what i gathered from this entire episode was risk-taking can get you fired running an op-ed that other people inside the paper considered controversial could get you struggle session in front of the entire company and knowing that that was literally what my job was well that job became impossible and the thing that happened that i it's really unbelievable if you're thinking about like running a large organization this will sound as insane as it is the the new rule became kind of editing by consensus so every single op-ed editor had to say that they were comfortable with every single op-ed well you can imagine that if 9.9 out of people uh 9.9 out of 10 people agree with this view of the world that my job became impossible by the time that i you know sort of the last few weeks of the paper i was told explicitly don't commission op-eds anymore because they're none of them are i mean none of them were able to get through this new gauntlet and i said to myself you know why did i go into journalism i i did not go into journalism to be rich you know i went into journalism because it's it's a it's a job that lets you that allows you to pursue your curiosity which is unbelie which is incredible and if i can't do that anymore and if i need to sort of like become a half version of myself and sit on my hands about an increasing number of topics that i think are incredibly urgent what's the point of doing this and so i felt like you know i could kind of like become a husk or i could leave of my own volition before something similar happened to me and so i decided to leave and left in a very public way and i'm having no idea sort of what i would do next and i will be honest it took me a long time to sort of like get my bearing after i did that have you got your baby and in retrospect i would say to anyone considering leaving an institution have a good plan in place for what you plan to do next because i wish that's no easy thing to manage i mean it's you know you you had well a dream job fundamentally right i mean that's the pinnacle to be an op-ed editor at the new york times that's that's that's a star position have i thought yeah have i gotten my bearing my bearings i i would say very much so and i feel well good for you i feel so much more optimistic now than i did you know if i left in july it was in august and september i mean it was very disorienting at first to feel like wow i've been in institutions for my entire life i've never been an entrepreneur i've never i've never had to figure out all these things for myself you know i've always sort of been in these fancy institutions and what would it look like to try and build one myself and how would i and this is something i'm struggling with a lot right now or not struggle struggling in a good way how do i resist the same forces that i so criticize the new york times for and let me give you a specific example so i'm writing on sub stack now and it's incredible tell us about sub stack too so so sub stack for people that don't know is this new platform for well it's for any writers um but that allows people to subscribe directly to you and so i publish about two things a week often a column that i've written in a column i've commissioned but ultimately i want to build this into a much bigger media company but this is the start of it and it's going extremely extremely well and i'm in the top 10 of you know politics so i just have to go a little bit further to beat you know andrew sullivan and glenn greenwald um so it's going really well but the thing that is um corrupting about it it's the same force that's corrupting at the new york times or any media right now which is to say i know that if i run certain kinds of stories that that's going to be like a heroin hit for my readers and i see you see right away yes and we all know about the temptation of providing heroin hits for our readers yes and it's very i mean and at least at the new york times you have some insulation okay you write one column that is a viral hit great you write one the next month that's only a couple hundred thousand but there is some level of insulation with substack there's none i see every single night how many people are converting to paid subscriptions and i see extremely clearly what kinds of stories make make that happen and i don't want to give in to the same i don't want to radicalize my readers in a certain direction and so you have to be as an editor and as a writer disciplined you know i'm going to commission this story you have to be pursuing something else eh that's the thing is i mean i've struggled with the same thing with with this podcast i mean and what i'm trying to do maybe this is insulation i i don't know as i'm trying to learn things i don't know and so i'm talking to people that i think are interesting and i'm hoping they'll teach me things so that i'm not quite so stupid and if people are happy with that i mean i i read the comments i'm responsive to my audience i respect my audience but the respect is that i'm going to take them along for the journey that and so i'm not tailoring it to an audience at all and that's it but what's so nice about that is it really seems to work like when i'm not tailoring to my audience when i'm engaging in a genuine conversation that's when the responses are the best and so that's so heartening that that's the case i mean what are you seeing with regards to responses what what's the temptation exactly yeah so i think that you know when i resigned from the new york times that letter i think was probably the most widely read thing that i've ever written and i'm really really proud of it but i think in a way i became like symbolic of let's just say like the anti-woke position and on the one hand i think it's extremely important for me to report on that and i'm really proud of the reporting that i've done exposing the way that this ideology for example is taking over k-12 education and one of the reasons i think it's so important that i do it is that the mainstream media is not going to touch it because it's the same ideological succession that they're implicated in so on the one hand i think i have a particular burden to write about this topic that's being untouched and on the other hand i don't want every single piece to be pounding the drum beat yeah yeah one of the problems because because then it's a feeling of like oh my god the world's melting down it's like no you also want to give people a sense of perspective so that's that's my challenge but i imagine for other writers on the site it's a different challenge and yeah the challenge is that you don't want to become a parody of yourself and serve your your previous image i mean that's a very that's a very troublesome thing especially as your image develops so as you said you've become symbolic of something and so then the question is is the power of that symbol so overwhelming that it shapes your entire character and everything that you do and there's there's there's definite incentives in that direction but and it's hard to resist and it's being demanded in some sense by your audience right so right and it's it's really hard also because i i picture my reader as someone who still reads the new york times in the washington post and they're coming to me for the thing they're not getting there but for the readers who are only reading me let's say and only reading a handful of writers that are sort of playing in my same playground that can have a radicalizing effect and so i just want to that's the thing right and it's because you're also not embedded with a bunch of other opinions as you would be in the newspaper right exactly so that's right and so my dream situation and what i'm trying to build toward is creating that ecosystem i'm not interested in like the creator economy whatever that meaning i think i've watched you and i've watched other public figures who have become such potent symbols and on the one hand i'm like look at the effect that they've had it's so powerful and i know just from what when i was you know writing about the intellectual dark rabbit webb and reading 12 rules for life i remember sitting at a hotel and a young waiter a man coming up to me saying like that book saved my life and that's unbelievably powerful and on the other hand it's the burdens of it seem very scary and dangerous to me and so yeah i want to place myself ideally in a in a kind of round table like a kind of group where where it's like a sensibility and i'm not the only one because i don't know am i wrong about no no i don't think you're wrong at all i mean in this in the new book i wrote beyond order i talk about this necessity for social interaction as a as a sanity as the prime sanity maintaining uh process is that sane people aren't saying because they're so organized internally that their psyches are organized properly that's what you might expect to conclude if you are psychoanalytically minded or maybe psychologically minded but what really is the case that what maintains our sanity is constant receptivity to the reactions of other people at least that's part of what maintains it we have a dialogue with our own conscience which is something like that internal spirit that you described earlier the spirit that animates history speaking within us we have a responsibility to that but we have to be open to other people especially people who don't share our opinions because we're stupid and lost and it's it's absolutely crucial so i think that from a psychological perspective i think that's a great idea and i mean it also keeps you alive because then other people are feeding you new ideas all the time right and and and yeah and i think you know for all of the downsides of the new york times i think being around people you know good faith people and there were many good faith people who just disagreed with me and like i you know i had a wonderful editor there who you know was definitely to my left but was such a fair reader and made everything i wrote stronger like i need that yeah everybody thinks that and one of the things that i think is one of the beauties of this sort of like cambrian explosion of the podcast world and newsletter world in the patreon world the locals world and the whatever's going to come before we publish this world it's amazing because we can connect directly to an audience but also like everyone everyone needs an editor everyone and everyone needs a community and you know if your community is only like parroting back to you the things you believe that's not a recipe for growth and it's also a recipe i think for being captive to who you are in a particular moment and i really want to make sure that i'm giving myself the ability to change and grow as hard as that might be able to do in public well that's the but that's the right thing to model i think is that i i believe that when these podcasts work properly the reason they're compelling to the degree they manage to be compelling is because what people are observing and participating in is the process by which two people mutually transform one another towards a higher good and they're like and so we're both struggling to make things clear and to to approach something that we don't have yet but it's in that struggle that's that the motivation arises but you know how you and i before this podcast started both said like i said to you i'm nervous and you said i've been nervous for five years or anxious for five years and i said i know exactly what you mean like that's true to some extent but we both know that we're having this conversation just the two of us right now but that it's going to be in public and that millions of people potentially could see it and that ultimately changes the way that we talk to each other it makes us more careful and i think that's that that's a good thing but the conversation more nervous yeah and more nervous but the conversation you and i might have in private like that's a different conversation and that that to me is the most precious kind because that's like the high trust i mean obviously i have a high level of trust enough to be able to come on this and trust that the conversation is going to be fair and good faith and of course i have that but like it's still in public right and yeah my dream is that you know that these conversations are as close to a private conversation as public can as it can possibly be managed of course of course but but you see it but it is that it is well yeah it's interesting because we've struggled with this a fair bit because often at the end of the interview or the discussion you know we'll close it and then we'll keep talking that me and whoever i'm talking to and then we'll talk about some things that are interesting and then you know we have the decision because we're still recording often it's like well do we include that and generally the answer has been yes although not always i mean it's hard to it's interesting though too because if if you make a private conversation public see that is the truth to do that and then that really shows that you have trust in your audience is that look i'm gonna tell you what i actually think i'm gonna take but then they see barry too that's that adventure that we were talking about earlier that that is being offered by these radical movements is like there's something unbelievably adventurous about telling the truth in public because you don't know you see you have to stake the you have to stake your faith on the truth in that situation because you make the presumption that that's the best possible approach for it even though you don't know what's going to happen you hedge your bets otherwise right and you're more conservative and you're more cautious because well because you want to direct what's going to happen even though you really can't but to the degree that you can throw that off and say well to hell with it so to speak i'm going to say what i think and um but that's also when the when these things really take off when the discussions really take off i agree and i just for for me you know now that i'm doing well in sub stack and i'm building my my company it's like i can tell like i can tell the truth telling the truth has sort of it's good for business for me but what about like the young the young person right who like hasn't even started their career it seems to me that the pr i guess what i'm trying to say is the price of telling the truth is so high well i i've thought about that a lot you know and in my first book i learned a fair bit of this from reading nietzsche i would say but there is an emphasis in nietzsche's thinking on the necessity for an apprenticeship like let's say you're a young person well and you don't really know how to express yourself and you don't really know anything yet and so what you have to do to some degree is subjugate yourself to a disciplinary process and that means that your particular voice is temporarily it's not suppressed exactly it's it's subordinated yeah right but it's subordinated to authority not to power and then you go through that that that apprenticeship process which for you would have happened to some degree in college and then to some degree at the wall street journal you go through that subordination process and discipline yourself and then you can start integrating who you are with the discipline and then speaking well this this is the thing that i think some people in our in like let's say the independent like the wild west universe do not appreciate about what the institutions at their best can do which is exactly what you're describing it's the training and the raising up and the elevation of the younger generation and of other voices and and that's not their exploitation no and i want to figure out how can i do that how can i build a version of an institution that somehow is immunized or inoculated from the the ideological takeover that adheres to the kind of old-school liberal values that we've talked about on this podcast and that allow me to do the thing that i told you i love doing which yes i love writing and i i something about my personality allows me to be in the arena much more so than a lot of other people experiencing an openness maybe sure you'll find out when you take the test yes but but also like i will not be satisfied if that's the only thing that i do like i i just know that the reasons that i'm able to do what i do or be able to put together a column or know how to report or speak in public is because so much effort on the part of other people went into training me to be able to do that yes yes well this is this is something else and our people talk about editing but for people that are like coming up let's say like as instagram influencers or like clubhouse personalities or whatever like that's not that's that's not a substitute for the kind of process that i'm describing it's just really not so you talked about you can get the substitute to some degree i suppose by being carefully responsive to your audience because they will train you to some degree but that then you run into the problem of the echo chamber the potential echo chamber developing the positive feedback loop now there's something here about judgment like in our society the idea that you should become that you should be non-judgmental has become a truism and it's one of those truisms that you have that you violate at your own peril but i don't like that at all because if you're going to be a good apprentice master let's say what you use is your judge judgment's my entire business judgment's discernment saying that some things are worthy and some things aren't some ideas are worthy of being heard by the world and some writers and some voices and some style and certain like you want to tell me that like you know everyone's as good as joan didion and we should have no judgment like give me a give me right well that's it well right right well it's certainly the pathway to insanity because everything but when people say that it's like no judgment it's like good vibes like no yeah yeah yeah it doesn't mean it i don't think people understand the depth of what it means judgment is essential judgment is absolutely essential and certainly essential if you want to be a good writer well if you want the good judgment is inevitable because you have to differentiate between what is good and what isn't now now so how do you construe the relationship between fostering the development of someone and the imposition of that judgment because you're going to impose high standards right and so that means judgment and judgment means criticism criticism means this and not this right it doesn't mean not this it doesn't mean it's all bad it means well we'll keep this and we'll dispense with the rest right it's the winnowing of the wheat from the chaff and so how do you construe that in relationship to mentoring and how do you do that without becoming an like a two imposing force it's very interesting i it's such a delicate good question that really comes down to the trust you develop with someone and whether or not they believe that you're trying to shape them into the best potential not version of themselves that's saying too much but like their talent becoming i don't know if it is saying too much i think i don't think so i think that is and i do think that's an extension of the parental place and that that's the proper way to control construe the social institution i would say to to steal a term you know i do think a safe space is extremely important i have been able to hear incredibly harsh criticism from people in my life mentors in my life i'm thinking now especially back to my early days at the wall street journal and you know people like brett stevens and paul jagot or melanie kirkpatrick when i knew it was coming from a place of genuinely wanting the best for me that's really what i mean and right so you you trusted the sort the judgment was and and uh because i think you were on there because it was connected to like i admired what they were doing i saw that it was impressive and good i saw even if i disagreed with the view right the the crap and i knew that i couldn't do that yet and right so judgment in the service of what's admirable and good is to be devoutly hoped for yeah yeah and just it was that's not power but it was just so obvious to me that i couldn't do what they could do and that if i wanted to learn to do what they could do and what i so desperately wanted to be good at for whatever reasons about my history or the way i was raised or whatever then i needed to like put my ego aside and listen to them and sometimes that meant that the things i wrote they said were like pretty much garbage yeah well that's the case though when you start to write or think is 95 of what you write or think is garbage and even when you're good at it you have to the more you throw away the better in some sense because you only keep what's great if you can manage it and i also think that like there's a mimicry in the beginning that i think is extremely important yes studying what works and literally mapping it out you know i was just yeah that's the humanities by the way yeah like that's very important and that doesn't mean that you're a parrot and that doesn't mean that you're you don't have your own style but like like you know and now why would you make that comment about style well because i think that a lot of people in my generation are and especially younger obsessed with like being singular and being different from everyone that came before and they confused the discipline with the eradication of their style i think yeah yeah well it is a fine discernment it is and i think that you know you can i also think that style has to do with inborn talent a lot of the time and that you can learn to be an excellent like i'm not a great writer i'm a very good writer but there are people who are like just yeah like cirque du soleil writers yeah okay and but being a very good writer and being able to communicate plainly and compellingly and convincingly that's more than most people can hope for i guess i'm saying that like i think a lot of young writers imagine that like they can do something that no one's ever done before and it's like why don't we strive for being able to communicate really clearly and plainly without jargon to someone with only a high school degree so that they can understand a complicated test right so that's the imposition of constraints to begin with just to develop the discipline of the craft and then hopefully you can deviate from that in a stylistically appropriate manner as you become an expert exactly it's just like you're not hunter s thompson maybe you could be that but like let's try and just get the basics down start basics the basics are hard enough the basics are hard enough and like yeah i just think that it sounds so basic but but being able to communicate plainly without the crutch of jargon is something that many people that are coming out of the most celebrated elite prestigious universities in the north america cannot do and i will tell you that when i can find a young person that can do that i will i cling to that person that's how rare it is and why cling why do you say that because it's special and rare it's special and rare to be able to find someone that who's who's frankly world view but then that's reflected in the writing has not been captured by so look so it seems so obvious to me that it's obvious in in a way that is only obvious when you realize it but that when when institutions are functioning properly they consist of people who are looking to young people to find talent in the direction of their interests and to nurture that i mean isn't that your you you've experienced your apprenticeship in this various institutions is there any relationships that you've had that you regard as intensely positive that weren't of that nature that weren't that weren't meant to uh yeah that that weren't so i like to think about it as the best in that person serving the best in you and when you look back at the people who've shaped your development i mean isn't that the nature of the relationship that you had with them rather than the relationship of arbitrary power where they're skimming off say the excess profits of your labor it's not fundamentally exploitative and that's a sec overwhelmingly it's been overwhelmingly it's been the former overwhelmingly it's been positive now that's not to say listen uh as as you've sort of assessed me without me taking the personality test yet i'm also someone that can piss off a boss because i'm someone who can you know swim upstream by my nature now oftentimes though that's been a quality that's appreciated because it's meant sometimes in homogeneous environments that i've been looked to as like a check on it so i think that they're they're you know a good advantage of disagreeable people is exactly that they will actually tell you what they think yeah but sometimes they're right often we are right i will say but it can piss people off that are just trying to kind of like you know let's get through the day let's put out the paper it can be annoying frankly and i know i know that about myself but also i think that it can be a superpower i really do so what's in the immediate future with regard to sub stack and how many subscribers do you have tell me about tell me the re the end of the story so now you're on sub stack oh god there's so much that's happened um we've drawn out like a resignation over two hours but i hope we fit other things that are of interest into it um so now i'm on substance like you know like i think a lot of the a lot of heterodox journalists who don't fit in with a tribe are also on substance and i think it's extremely interesting the thing that i think is a challenge it's like an idw of journalists yeah i mean the thing that i think is is challenging right is if you're like a dentist or an accountant or a lawyer and i meet a lot of these people they say i don't trust the new york times anymore what do i read well it's a really dissatisfying answer because i'm like well you need to subscribe to these 10 sub stacks and listen to these five podcasts and following these 30 people on twitter no like that's not gonna work so i am extremely interested in in what i've been referring to like how do i make a common address for that sensibility that independent independent-minded spirit um that you know is not like centrist in the sense of like just finding the middle path but is able to see truth on on but is able to separate let's say identity from ideas and is able to say yeah that person maybe sucks on this thing but they're really right about that like that's what i'm interested in building and so the way that started off for me and i'm proud of it is you know commissioning op-eds and columns and reported pieces from voices that you know don't have the platform that i think that they should um and trying to elevate them to my readers but it's going to be you know my podcast podcast network and ultimately i hope like a whole ecosystem of journalism and storytelling um that's what i'm interested in building and so i have tens of thousands of subscribers and that's been fantastic and i'm incredibly grateful to it but for me this is just the beginning and and i i really really like in the end of the day the reason that i left the new york times jordan is that you know yes because i was being bullied yes because i couldn't do my job both true things but ultimately it's because i really believe that the fight for liberalism and i i don't mean that in the partisan sense but i mean the kind of values we've been describing during this conversation that like that is more important than any amount of popularity that any amount of accolades on twitter than than anything else than anything else and so i had to leave the the institution in order to fight for for liberalism and that i see as like the like the mission of my life i guess you know the catastrophe of our times yeah but i mean at first especially for someone who's older like me you know i mean i had a dream a while back i i wandered into the backyard of a cabin that i was staying at and there was a dying lion by a fire pit at the boundary of this of this cabin's property and my aunt who who's wait an actual dying lion this is in a dream oh in a dream in a dream yes sorry yes and so so my aunt called to me to warn me about the presence of this lion and i looked at it and it was in rough shape it was mangy and and ill camped and not good but still you know a lion and powerful and then i wandered around to the left side of the house and interestingly enough and there was a whole number of them tigers lions all these predatory beasts all in terrible shape and all hungry and willing to attack and i had to speak in order to keep them at bay and i woke up and i thought well jesus that's pretty bloody obvious i know what that dream means i mean there's all these dying lions the new york times the legacy medias the institutions i'm not happy to see their demise no it's really awful i mean they were still and to hear someone like johan mee park talk about colombia in that way it's so awful and to see what happened with you at the new york times it's like you know one hand the story is well you know you pursued your creative spirit and you established yourself independently and isn't that wonderful but that loss that you described of the institution that has the capacity to apprentice and train that's cataclysmic i will say that i spent months i could kind of cry thinking about it mourning that like it is catastrophic um but there are things in history that have been more catastrophic and that's the kind of perspective that i'm trying to keep because if i spent all day looking at the wreckage and and more than just looking at the wreckage trying desperately to try and like shore up something that is so clearly rotten i would spend my life in grief and i just believe so strongly that not believe i see that people have had to build things in way way way more trying and difficult circumstances than this and so if they could build things from true wreckage believe me we can rebuild new institutions we can and that's what i'm gonna do and i think that's what everyone that comes to me you know complaining about what's going on in their kids school or what's going on in their company sometimes people that are running the companies coming to me complaining about what's happening in their own company that they have control over like enough enough like no more complaining quietly no more anonymous emails like the time is now to out yourself as someone that is opposed to this that is alarmed about it and then spend all of your energy and money and time banding together with people to build new things i wish there was another option because that sounds exhausting i realized but i just don't think there's another option and three years ago if you had asked me i would have suggested something different i i really believe that a lot of these institutions can be saved and by the way some of them and to the extent to which there are ones that can be saved and shored up they should be because it's really really really really really hard to build new things really hard it's so easy to tear things down but that's the conclusion that i've come to and i think the more people that can yes like let's grieve the let's grieve the 20th century institutions that are crumbling let's understand that they are something that they might have the same name but they're no longer what they used to be and then let's get to work building the things that we know we need to build that are necessary for upholding the civilization that we talked about earlier that's what i think the task is thank you very much for talking with me today thank you jordan it was really good to see you barry it was great to see you too [Music] you

Channel: Jordan B Peterson

Views: 800,266

Keywords: Jordan Peterson, Jordan B Peterson, psychology, psychoanalysis, Jung, existentialism, bari weiss, the new york times, new york times truth, new york times interview, bari weiss interview, systemic racism

Id: tFTA9MJZ4KY

Length: 142min 22sec (8542 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 10 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/letsgocrazy]

On this Season 4 Episode 29 of the Jordan Peterson Podcast, Jordan Peterson is joined by Bari Weiss. Bari Weiss is a journalist and author. She has worked as an opinion writer and editor at the New York Times, before that she was an OP editor and book reviewer at the Wallstreet Journal, and a senior editor at tablet magazine. Bari now writes for herself on SubStack.

Jordan and Bari Weiss discussed her career, the circumstances surrounding her resignation from the New York Times, the aftermath of her famous resignation letter which criticized the New York Times, Twitter and social media, the phrase “Systemic Racism”, the work she is doing now, and much more. Find more Bari Weiss on her substack Common Sense with Bari Weiss https://bariweiss.substack.com/, on Twitter @bariweiss, and read her notorious resignation letter at https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation...

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast can be found at https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/ [00:00] Intro [0:18] Jordan introduces this episode’s guest journalist and writer Bari Weiss [2:00] Starting off with Bari's journey leading up to working for the New York Times. The original goal of her position at the Times was to provide a unique perspective through opinion pieces that wouldn't normally be on the radar of a typical Times reader or writer [6:00] Weiss writing career starting with the Wallstreet Journal before moving onto the Times [8:00] Jordan does a small divergence into the undergraduate experience in modern elite universities, specifically in the humanities. Bari speaks on her experience with politically directed curriculum [22:30] Weiss connects the experience of modern universities as her first exposure to an ideal of neo-racism that would cause her future actions as a journalist [30:30] A closer examination of the phrase "Systemic Racism" and what it typically implies for those that use it in western culture [44:30] Weiss talks about the beginning of her experience writing and editing at the Times. She was always the odd one out with her opinions and faced [55:30] Examining the attractive attributes of accepting the system of ideas associated with new systemic racism ideology. The thin veneer of society and the illogical drive to tear down what seems to be bringing the most benefit of anytime in history to the poor and disadvantaged [1:10:00] Jordan critiques the flaw with the new atheist’s destruction of religion. People need something in their lives that is some sort of romantic adventure in their eyes [1:15:30] Going back to the Times. What type of journalist/editor was Weiss trying to be? [1:24:00] The danger of keeping quiet instead of speaking up when it's absolutely paramount to do so [1:34:30] What was the final turn of events that led Bari to see the Time as a place she could no longer work in good faith? [1:40:00] Jordan asks Weiss to comment on the generational divide he sees, should a corporation be a moral actor? [1:44:00] The fallout from the Tom Cotton article on bringing in the national guard during riots in 2020 [1:51:00] The temptation of writing "heroin" for your readers or listeners. The cost of telling the truth and the increased cost for young unestablished people is concerning [2:05:00] Establishing the idea of Judgement as a necessity. How do you foster the next generation to think critically and become a good mentor instead of a tyrant to a younger mente? [2:14:00] Jordan asks Bari what her plans are for the future with substack and writing/editing [2:21:30] Wrapping up the show. Where can you find more Bari Weiss online

[u/jessewest84]

Yeah. I'll admit. After her jre comments on tulsi I was fully against this person.

But this helped see her different.

Still don't trust her at all. But. She will be on radar now.

[u/THE_sheps]

I wasn't sure how I felt about this Bari and didn't would enjoy this podcast. However, I was pulled pretty deep to this one. Just wish that could do this live with each other. They ended up talking over each other a few times. Otherwise I have a new respect for Bari and realize her side of things a bit better now.