Judging Freedom - Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. | What Ever Happened to the Freedom of Speech?

Episode Date: November 21, 2023

#freespeechABOUT OUR GUEST: Dr. Michael Rectenwald is the author of twelve books, including The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda (Jan. 2023), Thought Criminal (Dec. 2020); Beyond Woke (May 2020); Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom (Sept. 2019); Springtime for Snowflakes: “Social Justice” and Its Postmodern Parentage (an academic’s memoir, 2018); Nineteenth-Century British Secularism: Science, Religion and Literature (2016); Academic Writing, Real World Topics (2015, Concise Edition 2016); Global Secularisms in a Post-Secular Age (2015); Breach (Collected Poems, 2013); The Thief and Other Stories (2013); and The Eros of the Baby-Boom Eras (1991). (See the Books page.)Michael is a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College. He was a Professor of Liberal Studies and Global Liberal Studies at NYU from 2008 to 2019. He also taught at Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Case Western Reserve University. His scholarly and academic essays have appeared in The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Academic Questions, Endeavour, The British Journal for the History of Science, College Composition and Communication, International Philosophical Quarterly, the De Gruyter anthologies Organized Secularism in the United States and Global Secularisms in a Post-Secular Age, and the Cambridge University Press anthology George Eliot in Context, among others (see the Academic Scholarship page). He holds a Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies from Carnegie Mellon University, a Master's in English Literature from Case Western Reserve University, and a B.A. in English Literature from the University of Pittsburgh. (See his C.V. for details.) Michael’s writing for general audiences has appeared on The Mises Institute Wire, The Epoch Times, RT.com, Campus Reform, The New English Review, The International Business Times, The American Conservative, Quillette, The Washington Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, CLG News, LotusEaters.com, Chronicles, and others. (See the Essays and Presentations page.)Michael has appeared on major network political talk shows (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Tucker Carlson Originals, Fox & Friends, Fox & Friends First, Varney & Company, The Ingraham Angle, Unfiltered with Dan Bongino, The Glenn Beck Show), on syndicated radio shows (Coast to Coast AM, Glenn Beck, The Larry Elder Show, and many others), on The Epoch Times’ American Thought Leaders series, and on numerous podcasts (The Tom Woods Show, The Leighton Smith Podcast, Steel-on-Steel, The Carl Jackson Podcast, and many others). (See “Interviews” on the Media page.)Professor Michael Rectenwald has spoken to audiences large and small in many venues: The New York Metropolitan Republican Club (five talks); The Mises Institute (The Austrian Economics Research Conference Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, The Libertarian Scholars Conference Opening Lecture, the Ron Paul Symposium); The NYU Republican Club; the New York Ex-Liberals Group; Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business; The Leadership Institute (several talks); Turning Point USA (several talks); Grove City College; Hillsdale College (several lectures); Regent University; The Austrian Student Scholars Conference (Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture); The Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party (two talks); The Common Sense Society; The Conservative Opportunity Society (a U.S. Congressional caucus); the Republican Spouses Club; the Conservatives and Libertarians at Microsoft (CLAMS) group; American Freedom Alliance; Liberty Speaks; and others. Please write to [e-mail] for fees and availability.A former Marxist, Professor Rectenwald is a champion of liberty and opposes all forms of totalitarianism and political authoritarianism, including socialism-communism, “social justice,” fascism, political correctness, and “woke” ideology.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Friday, November 17, 2023. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure. Thank you for your regular Friday time with us. I want to talk to you at some length on your views about China. Is it a friend or a foe, or could it be both? Is it a trading partner, or does it want to undo our economy? But before we get there, there have been some events in the past week or so that I would like to pick your brain on. The first of which is an absurd story in the Washington Post,

probably leaked by the CIA, that the Nord Stream pipeline was destroyed by Ukrainian forces, which were led by a Ukrainian lieutenant colonel, there he is, who's now in jail on unrelated matters. After the piece came out, he recanted what he is alleged to have said. So my question is not, is this true or not? But we all know that the Washington Post is a notorious mouthpiece for the CIA. Why would the CIA put out this absurd story and put it out now? I don't know why they put it out now. I think that the reason they put it out is in large part because a lot of people believe that the U.S. government was principally involved in this. You know, it's basically the

Seymour Hersh story. And people don't want that story to get out and be seen as legitimate. So over time, they've been inventing all these stories, which are hardly plausible at all, that it's due to some Ukrainian or to some Pole or somebody like that. And of course, people dismiss this, and then they come up with another fairy tale. But the fact is, Judge, if the CIA or the Biden administration wanted to get to the bottom of this, they could easily do it. It's not rocket science. They could figure out who did it. The fact that they haven't figured it out tells you a great deal.

Well, Cy Hersh's reporting, aside from its extraordinary history and his inaccuracy and his Pulitzer Prize is so filled with detail, but maybe one of the reasons that the American public believes the Americans did it, Chris, are you ready with the tape with Chancellor Scholz there, is because of this. CHRISTOPHER SCHOLZ If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. How will you do that exactly since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control. We will, I promise you, we'll be able to do it.

Now, one of your fields of expertise is the communications between nations and heads of state. Next to him, not shown in this clip, but literally standing next to him, not shown in this clip, but literally standing next to him, was Chancellor Scholz of Germany, like a poodle who said nothing. What kind of diplomacy is this? You mean the fact that he didn't say anything? I mean the fact that old Joe threatened to destroy German real estate in front of the president of Germany, that's an attack by one NATO nation on another. And the fact that Chancellor Scholz has yet to say anything about the likely and probable American destruction of this valuable German asset, which affects the comfort of millions of Germans in their homes during the winter? Well, I think it's pretty straightforward, and it has to do with how the Germans and the Europeans more generally relate to the United States. They're basically our poodles,

right? They do what we tell them to do, and they rarely ever challenge us these days. And on the subject of Ukraine, they're with us completely. And the idea that the German chancellor would challenge President Biden and try to make the argument that the Americans are responsible for this at this point in time is just unthinkable. So the Germans go along with this charade. How can he stay in office when knowing in advance this was going to happen? This was the principal source of home heating fuel for a majority of the German population, and he did nothing, as far as we know, to prevent its destruction. Well, he was, I think, committed to cutting off the flow of oil

coming into Germany from Russia. And whether Nord Stream was destroyed or not, the Germans were committed and the Americans were pushing them hard on this front to put an end to their dependence on German oil. So I think the fact that we blew up Nord Stream didn't matter that much to the chancellor. That'd be my opinion. Last subject matter before we segue over to China. One of the leading members of Likud, forgive me, his name is escaping me, says that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in trouble with his own base, his own party. And in this member of parliament or member of the Knesset, in the opinion of this member of the Knesset, there will be a change in prime ministers before the war is even over. Any thoughts on Bibi's stability or lack of stability in office. Well, there's no question that his disapproval ratings have been

very high since October 7th. Lots of Israelis blame him for this, as they should. He was, you know, in the driver's seat. He was the prime minister of Israel. So he's been facing the heat from the get-go. The question of how long he'll last is hard to say. If you say that, you know, he'll go before this war is over or as soon as this war is over, the question is, when is the war going to be over? One could argue that this is going to go on for years. It's hard to see what the ending is. I would imagine if the shooting stops, I mean, there's some end to the shooting, then what will happen is that there will be a significant movement to get rid of him. So I think he's in real trouble. But again, the question is just how does this play out over the next couple months? One of the hard right members of his cabinet, I know there were three and I forget this fellow's name, said on a Tel Aviv radio station that the Israelis would consider using nuclear weapons in Gaza.

And then, of course, Bibi, Prime Minister Netanyahu shut him down. Yes. How reckless is that? Well, it's very reckless. And the fact is that a lot of the rhetoric among the Israeli elite has been reckless in the extreme. There have been all sorts of newspaper articles that have pointed out that Israeli leaders are now talking in ways that they only talked in the past behind closed doors. For example, referring to the Palestinians as human animals and talking about erasing Gaza and so forth and so on. born expert on the Holocaust, wrote a piece in the New York Times, an op-ed in the New York Times that said that Israel had genocidal intent. Just think about this. This is an Israeli-born historian,

right, who's an expert on the Holocaust, who says that after you listen to all these statements that are being made and comments like the one you just pointed to about nuclear weapons being dropped on Gaza, there's enough evidence there to say that Israel has genocidal intent. So this just tells you how much trouble Israel is in today. Are they risking, I know I said I'd be brief on this, but you gave me another thought. Are they risking a wider regional war by their rhetoric as well as by their military behavior? It's hard to say. I mean, there's no question that the rhetoric married to what they're actually doing. I mean, if you look at what they're doing and then you marry that to the rhetoric, it looks absolutely horrible. And a lot of the neighbors

feel that if the Israelis go a lot further or much further, they will have to intervene. And so it is possible that the Israelis' rhetoric coupled with their behavior could lead to a larger war. But I actually have a sense that things are beginning to slow down in Gaza now. The air war today is nowhere as intense as it was a week ago. And I think the Israelis are relying more on their ground forces. And I think once that happens, the number of civilian casualties will go down. The other thing is, as best I can tell, there are about a thousand supply trucks that have now gotten into Gaza. So the people inside Gaza are getting some assistance, minimal assistance at best.

But I would imagine even there, the number of trucks with aid that get in moving forward will increase. And I think if those trends continue with regard to the air war and with regard to the supplies coming into Gaza, that the incentive for other states to get involved will not get ratcheted up and we won't have a wider war. Switching to China, as we indicated we would, my executive producer, Chris Leonard, found this for you. This is one of the world's greatest self-proclaimed experts on China from a number of years ago. Let's understand how Mao and Zhou Enlai looked at China in 1972, at the time this new relationship with the United States took place. Why is it that Mao was to say that he liked right-wing governments? Because right-wing

governments were the very antithesis of what he stood for. The answer is that as far as the Chinese are concerned, their primary interest is China, always China. That's number one. Their secondary interest is philosophy. It doesn't mean that Mao Zedong was not a very dedicated Marxist communist, call him what you want. And the same is true of Zhou Enlai. But where there is conflict between the ideology and their security, their security comes first. What is the current relationship of the United States to China? Can you understand what the Biden administration understands about China, its willingness to trade with us, its danger from the intemperate use of its military? What's your big picture take on this? You can comment on Nixon as you see fit, Professor.

Yeah, let me make two quick points about Nixon. First of all, it shows you how smart Nixon was when it came to foreign policy. And the second point I'd make about Nixon is that his comment about the relationship between ideology and security is music to my ears. States always privilege their own security. And if that means that they have to cache their ideology, they'll do that because security or survival is always number one. And that's what Nixon is saying is how the Chinese think about the world. That is how the Chinese think about the world.

The Chinese are realists to the world. That is how the Chinese think about the world. The Chinese are realists to the core. I often tell people that when I go to China, I start my talks by saying it's good to be back among my people because the Chinese are realists, right? And what the Chinese want to do, and it makes perfect strategic sense from their point of view, is they want to dominate Asia the way we dominate the Western Hemisphere. We have a Monroe Doctrine. We don't like distant great powers in our backyard. They don't like the United States on their doorstep. It makes perfect sense from their point of view. They want to dominate Asia. But the United States has no intention of allowing

them to dominate Asia. And this competition that is now set in has an economic dimension, surrounds mainly high technologies or cutting-edge technologies, and it has a military dimension. We're bent on containing China militarily. And this competition between them and us is not going to go away anytime soon. I want to use a word that you use a lot in your writings and in your speeches, hegemony. We have had hegemony in the West. They want hegemony in the East. Are they a danger to us? Is their hegemony, their dominance, their regional dominance in the East a danger

to the national security of the United States? Now, I wouldn't ask Lindsey Graham that question. He'd say yes before I finish the question. Well, Lindsey Graham would see any country on Earth that he didn't like as a threat to us and want to go to war against it. Right. Right. And want to start the war against it. Yes. But no, the United States has a profound interest in making sure that it is the only regional hegemon on the planet. We do not want another state that dominates its region like we dominate the Western Hemisphere. And in the 20th century, we played a key role in putting four countries that were pursuing regional hegemony on the scrap heap of history. Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan,

Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. The United States does not tolerate peer competitors or peer regional hegemons. The historical record is very clear. We want to be the only regional hegemon, and we want to have power projection capability all across the globe. The last thing we want is for China to dominate Asia so that it is free to roam around the globe with its military forces the way we roam around the globe. Most Americans don't realize this, but the reason that the United States is free to roam around the planet and cause trouble in every nook and cranny of the world is because it is a regional hegemon. We have no threats in our region, so we can move around the globe. We don't want the Chinese to be so powerful in Asia that they're free to roam into places like the Persian Gulf or, God forbid,

the Western Hemisphere. So we go to great lengths to maintain a balance of power in Asia, as we have done throughout the 20th century. Is China a military threat to the United States, or stated differently, do you see in the future the inevitability, Professor Mearsheimer, graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, the likelihood, probability of military conflict between China and the United States? I think it's inevitable that we're going to have, and in fact, we're having it right now, an intense security competition. How likely it is that we will have a war is impossible to say. You can't predict whether or not this security competition will lead to war. As you know,

during the Cold War, we had an intense security competition that almost led to war in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. But thankfully, we never had a great power war involving the United States and the Soviet Union. One hopes that will be the case with regard to the United States and China. The reason to worry more about the situation today than we worried about it during the Cold War is that it's easy to imagine a limited war breaking out over the South China Sea or the East China Sea or over Taiwan. During the Cold War, the scenario that we focused on was Central Europe. And the truth is, because a war in Central Europe would have been so absolutely horrible, right, it probably would have escalated quickly to the nuclear level. It was hard to imagine a war getting started. We couldn't imagine either

the Soviets or the Americans attacking each other in Central Europe. But if you think about China and the United States and where the battles or where the war would take place, it's basically out in the water or involves islands, little islands in the South China Sea, or a big island called Taiwan. But we're not talking about a war on Chinese territory. We're not talking about a war on the Asian mainland. And therefore, war becomes more thinkable today than it was during the Cold War. But again, this is not to say we are going to have a war with China, because I would not predict that with any degree of certainty. It's just a serious possibility. If Joe Biden, strike that, if Tony Blinken called you up tonight and said, give me some guidance, Professor Mearsheimer, are the Chinese

a material threat to the national security of the United States of America? I'm going to guess you could answer that with one word. Yes. Yes. The answer is yes. Yes. How are they a material threat to the national security of the United States? Because if they develop significant military capability and they dominate all of Asia, then they can move into the Western Hemisphere the same way we have moved into East Asia. You want to remember, we're right on their doorstep because we're a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. We have military forces right in their face, and they don't like that. This is the same logic that applies with regard to NATO expansion up to Russia's borders. Great powers do not like

rival great powers in their backyard. But we're in their backyard. Of course we are, but we're the United States. And as the United States- So we're the indispensable empire that can go wherever it wants. No, I wouldn't go that far because as you know, I'm not interested in fighting wars here, there, and everywhere. My principal point to you is that the United States should go to great lengths to prevent China from becoming a regional hegemon. I would have pulled out of Europe when the Cold War ended. I argued for disbanding NATO and leaving Europe because there was no potential hegemon. I was not in favor of the Iraq War or any of these other crazy wars

that we have been fighting. Would you be in favor of picking a fight with China? Absolutely not. I don't like your rhetoric, which is picking a fight. I don't want to pick a fight. And in fact, going back to your point about Tony Blinken calling me on the telephone, I would tell Tony Blinken that he should go to great lengths to develop a serious capability to contain China, but not do anything to provoke China and cause a war. So I don't want to pick a fight. I just want to contain China, much the way we contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If China surrounds Taiwan with a massive military fleet, all aimed at the island,

what, if anything, should we do? Well, the question, think really is whether or not they would try to invade Taiwan. That's the scenario we really worry about. And I think it's unlikely that they will do that. But your question is, what should we do if an invasion is imminent? Yes, exactly. We will go to the defense of Taiwan axiomatically, because Taiwan is an important strategic asset that we cannot afford to lose to China for two reasons. The first reason is if we abandon Taiwan, if we did not defend Taiwan, this would have a devastating effect on our alliance structures in East Asia. The Japanese, the South Koreans, the Filipinos, the Australians, nobody would be able to trust the United States to defend them because we didn't defend Taiwan. So that's the first reason we'll defend Taiwan. The second reason is if you're interested in bottling up the Chinese Navy and Air Force inside the first island chain, that means

not letting them get out into the Pacific Ocean, right? The way to do it is to control Taiwan. If you lose Taiwan, their ability to project power, China's ability to project power out into the waters of the Western Pacific goes up significantly. And we don't want that to happen. And this is why, by the way, Joe Biden has said four separate times that we would defend Taiwan. And each time he said it, the White House walked it back. But I don't think this is a case of Joe Biden's brain slipping out of gear. I think this was done intentionally to send the signal to the Chinese that we would defend Taiwan. And by the way, Judge, my experience talking to Chinese elites is that they understand we will defend Taiwan. And I think that, by the way, makes a war less likely. Agreed, agreed. Is such a defense even feasible, given the distance between the United States and Taiwan and what we would have to do logistically to get manpower and equipment there in the face of the Chinese Air Force and Navy?

Two points. Don't forget, as we were talking about before, we're already there. As you pointed out, we're already on their doorstep. Yeah, one of our 903 foreign military installations is somewhere over there. Yes, yes. But the second point I would make to you, and this is a very important point, China, to get to Taiwan, has to launch an amphibious operation. They have to come across water.

And that is one of the most difficult and taxing military operations you can imagine. And this is a military that has not fought a war since 1979. I mean, the United States military is fighting wars all the time. So it's like a cocked pistol, right? Wars are business and business is good. But the Chinese have not fought a war since 1979. So you're talking about a military that's quite rusty, doesn't have a lot of battle experience, and you're asking it to launch an amphibious operation across a body of water

that is quite large, land on the beaches of Taiwan and secure the island. I think that's extremely hard to do. And the Americans will be there. And by the way, the Japanese will be there as well, because the Japanese care more about keeping Taiwan out of China's hands than we care about it. So the Chinese will run into real resistance. And I think the likelihood of success, we're talking now about an amphibious operation against Taiwan, I think is very low. and watch the look on his face as his boss spoke. Tell me if this is good diplomacy between the United States and China for the president of the United States to say this. Mr. President, after today, would you still refer to President Xi as a dictator? This is a term that you used earlier this year. Well, look, he is. I mean, he's a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs the country, that is a communist country that is based on a government totally different than ours.

Tony Blinken called John Mearsheimer. What do we do about this? I don't think there's anything you can do about it because it's, I believe, hard to talk common sense to President Biden about these sorts of things. I mean, this was in San Francisco and President Xi was still there. He wasn't in the room, but he was still in the United States, in California, when President Biden said that. Look, President Biden has once before called Xi a dictator and it drove the Chinese crazy. And Blinken is a smart enough guy to understand that it makes no sense to call him a dictator again, especially after you had a meeting with him where you were trying to patch up your relations. But Biden just went out and called him a dictator again. And as you say, when Xi was still in San Francisco.

And Biden, I mean, Blinken for understandable reasons, looked disgusted. I mean, he couldn't believe it and who can blame Blinken, right? Biden should, he just should not have done that. What is your understanding, Professor Mearsheimer, of any agreements that were finalized or formalized? We all know they're made in advance by a different level of a governmental official between President Biden and President Xi in San Francisco this week. Well, I think this was mainly an opportunity for the two sides to get together and cool down tensions. And I think it was in Xi's interest to do that. He has a lot of trouble on the home front. And I think it's in Joe Biden's interest because we're in deep trouble in Ukraine.

We're in deep trouble in the Middle East. And the last thing we need is a major league crisis in East Asia. So I think both leaders had an interest in getting together and being nice to each other. And that's really what this was about. I think to the extent that you got a meaningful agreement, I was glad to see that they made significant progress on opening communications between the two sides at the military level. Because I think one of the great dangers here, you talk about the possibility of war between the United States and China. I think one of the real possibilities involves the South China Sea, and it involves an accident, two planes crashing into each other, a Chinese plane, an American plane, or some sort of crisis that breaks out

between the Philippines and the Chinese over naval supplies for that little island that the Philippines claim and the Chinese also claim, and then that escalates and we get involved, dot, dot, dot. We don't want that to happen. You know, open military channels where the two sides are communicating is, I think, all for the good. Do you know or do you suspect that the Chinese were furious when Joe Biden used the word dictator? I mean, can you imagine if President Xi told a journalist from Beijing, I just spent three days with President Biden and his mental incompetence was quite apparent to me. Well, I think the Chinese are sophisticated enough to figure out what they're dealing with when it comes to Joe Biden. I think they understand full well, as Tony Blinken did, did Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth?

And I think publicly they're going to protest and make it clear that they do not like Joe Biden calling Xi Jinping a dictator again. But I think that privately they probably are writing this off as just more evidence that Joe Biden is not playing with a full deck. Got it. With Thanksgiving next week, we have a short week. We'd love to try and squeeze you in. If not, we'll see you the week after. You're a fan favorite. You're a personal favorite of mine.

We all learn every time we listen to you, Professor Mearsheimer. Thank you very much. Sure, sure. All the best to you. Thank you very much. You too. Yes. At four o'clock today, one of our more popular shows, just like the one we just concluded, our Intelligence Roundtable, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. And at 4.30, me and all your questions on Ask the Judge. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.