Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 403 | Pushing Back Against Postmodernism | Guest: Victor Davis Hanson

Episode Date: April 14, 2021

Today we have the honor of speaking with Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Hanson is an expert on postmodernism, its history, and how this progressive way of thinking is slowly but surely working its way into American society. Today he offers tools to spot and combat the lies this destructive philosophy represents. --- Today's Sponsors: Annie's Kit Clubs have the perfect subscription box for both boys & girls: Young Woodworkers Kit Club & Annie's Creative Girls Club. Learn more at AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE & save 75% off your first shipment! Fundrise makes investing in private real estate as easy as investing in stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Go to Fundrise.com/RELATABLE today & see how thousands of others investors are building a better portfolio with private real estate. --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. So excited. I know I said that every time, but I truly am so excited about this conversation with Victor Davis Hanson. He is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is also a military historian. And he is just a fascinating person. Today we're going to talk about how postmodernism and moral relativism have affected not just our view of our country, but also foreign policy. And I learned so much from him in this. And it is going to be. going to not just kind of teach you why American foreign policy is the way that it is and how we got to the place that we are, but it's also going to make you think about your worldview in general and the worldview that is being taught in academia and is being perpetuated by corporate America and in the media. And he also leaves us with some wisdom and some advice that I found like really courage, inspiring and just very fortifying. And I know. that's something that we all feel like we need. So again, just so looking forward to you guys hearing this conversation and sending me all kinds of positive feedback about it because I know

you're going to love it. So without further ado, here is Victor Davis-Hanson. Thank you so much for joining me. First, I think, well, I think a lot of people listening and watching know exactly who you are. They have watched your interviews, you're a guest on Fox News a lot. But I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the Hoover Institution and the mission of the institution and what your role is there first. Well, it's 100 years old, and the institution was founded by Herbert Hoover in 1920. And originally for the first, say, 45 years, it was an archival library centered in the middle of the Stanford campus. And its purpose was, in Hoover's words, to collect all of the documents that he could find in his food relief efforts to feed the impoverished and famished

after World War I, and then to discover the roots and origins of the Russian Revolution. So the practical effect was he brought back millions of documents from war-torn Europe in 19, 19, 2021. And then he got a lot of the white so-called white Russians. That's the term for the anti-red Russians. And to put their papers at Hoover. And then for the next, oh, 50 years, the tower was built, the iconic tower is built 1947. But the point was it would be going to be an archival library for the issues of war, revolution, peace. And then he had a mission statement that the institution was going to promote limited government, free enterprise, and human freedom. Sometime in the 40s to the mid-50s, that changed, or I should say it was augmented to a research center with fellows.

And then it made a, Hoover was in a constant war with Stanford University, Stanford being very liberal, he being very conservative. At various iterations of the institution, it had degrees of autonomy and then subservience. And finally, it was worked out. He felt right before he died in the late 60s with the appointment of a very young dynamic, Glenn Campbell. And the story of the institution for the next 60 years until 2015 were two 30-year directors, Glenn Campbell, John Racin, who created the current Milton Friedman, Robert Conquest, Tom Sol, Shelby Steel, conservative. trademark. And now, because Stanford's got Silicon Valley money, and it's so huge, and it's, as you know, the liberal left has become the progressive hard left. There's a constant struggle to remain autonomous with a lot of pressures in Stanford, and that's where we are today.

Yeah, I've always wondered about that. When you think of Stanford, you don't really think about conservative values. And there are many of you who hold such conservative values that come out of the Hoover Institution. Could you talk about how you got involved with the Hoover Institution? And a lot of you, a lot of people listening know your story. But for those who don't, can you just tell kind of a brief summary of how you got to have the voice that you do and how you kind of got plugged into the circles that you're in now? Well, I graduated with a PhD in Classics at 26 and 1980 from Stanford. And then I had grandparents and parents that were not able to take care of this farm.

So I had a brother who was going to medical school. And the two of us came back and we farmed the 180 acres. I did that full time for about five years. And then in my late 20s, I went to Cal State Fresno, the nearest campus, and started the Latin Greek classical studies, ancient history. program. That got pretty big. I did that for 21 years and wrote books on history, classics, agrarianism, modern and ancient farming, and op-eds. I started write op-eds in the 90s. And then somewhere after 9-11, I became a regular columnist for National Review. So I did that for 20 years,

and I was appointed to the Hoover Institution in 2003, 2002 and three, and I did both. I was professor of classics and I went up to Stanford, which is about 180 miles from where I'm speaking at my farm. And then I transitioned in 2004 completely. And I've been there for the last 17 years at the Hoover Institution. And my responsibility is to, as I was told, my contract is to write commentary on political events, try to produce scholarly books every three or four years. And in addition, books that appeal to popular issues, try to do your part as a Hoover citizen at retreats of the donor and overseer class and promote funding for Hoover.

And then finally, have institutional support. So I run the largest task force at the Hoover Institution called the Military History Working Group. And I edit along with my managing editor-Dermuda. Berkeley, something called an online magazine called Strategica. And the purpose of that group is to bring about 40 scholars world over of all different political persuasions and to discuss contemporary crises, China, the Middle East, Taiwan, Iran, in the context of history, what does history have to tell us about these particular crises?

And you can find that every three weeks online under the rubric strategica. And that's exactly what I want to talk to you about. I saw an interview that you were a part of in a documentary. And I watched this several months ago. And as soon as I started watching it and listening to your answer, you were talking about how the postmodern worldview has affected liberal foreign policy, in particular under Barack Obama. And I found what you were saying so fascinating that I immediately jotted you down and said,

okay, I want to talk to Victor Davis-Hanson about this because I had never heard it talked about in those terms. Obviously, we know as a conservative perspective, we hear the apology tour by Barack Obama and how he kind of desired to lower the ranking of America and kind of do away with what they might call the myth of American exceptionalism or American greatness. But I never thought about it in terms of kind of this larger postmodern movement or world view. Can you talk about that? What postmodernism is and how it's kind of affected in particular liberal foreign policy over the past couple decades? Well, we all know what modernism in. That was the reaction to traditional and classical Western civilization. So it meant in art you could paint something like Jackson Pollock that had nothing to do with what your eyes saw. Or in poetry, you didn't have to rhyme or have a poetic vocabulary. Or in school, you could bring in subjects, you know, like sociology or anthropology that weren't part of the classical curriculum.

So it meant it was a reaction against the mores of the last 2,500 years. People would have sexual congress that were not married. People who were outside the nuclear family would have viable alternatives, except. Postmodernism, it just means after modernism. And what was different about postmodernism, they didn't just reject traditional America. They rejected the means of adjudication, the whole system. So they said to the modernist, your problem is you're reacting to traditional. We don't believe there are facts.

We just think a ruling largely white class created a system and called it rational, but it was rigged because it's not based on truth because there is no truth. Truth is what any particular person says, and it becomes truth only when they have power. So it was a revolutionary, but entirely neolithic idea. And it came from, you know, Fred Wicneccia and Hegel and the German nealists, but it also was imported first to France, Michelle Foucault in the 1960s and 70s, Lacan, Derrida. Now it's here in the university, and this woke culture that we see is a manifestation. And how that works out practically as it says to Americans, you know, you think you have a constitution. It was basically you've been fooled.

It was just a bunch of white slave owners who rigged the system and called it truth, freedom, declaration of independence. But it perpetuated their oppressions. And then they would say, you know, you think you're better than other countries or that your safety or prosperity or freedom is preferable to that in Venezuela. but that's just because you've artificially defined those words, given them false definition. Who's to say that something is not better? So it's a very dangerous ideology because it doesn't reflect reality. The people who promulgated are usually very white, very wealthy, very privileged, and they don't live by it in their own lives. I mean, they put their kids in private school.

They want them to go to the Ivy League. They're professionals. They make a lot of money. They have beautiful homes. So they really do believe in concrete. realities and hierarchies and privilege. And they mask all that by saying that people who do not have privilege, the white working class in particular, they despise, which lacks the culture of the wealthy and the sympathy of the poor in their eyes, they lob that on them. They say,

you have privilege. And that virtual signals an exemption they seek from their own privilege. And how do you think this affects, this kind of view affects foreign policy? How did it affect some of the decisions in your mind that Barack Obama made in his so-called apology tour, even the Iran nuclear deal, what some people would call appeasement towards hostile foreign powers. Do you think that that did have an effect on Obama's administration and the policies that he pushed forth? Oh, yes, and that's a good question. It affects it in so many insidious ways from the pragmatic to the ideological. Let's take the ideological. It basically says when we look at the Middle East and we see that Israel is a constitutional republic, a democracy, and honors freedom, we can't really say that because those reflect artificial values that we put importance or value on that are not fair to other alternative systems, i.e. the Palestinians or the Saudis or the Libyans.

And therefore, we have no right to go into that area and judge one group over the other. And therefore, if anything, we have to apologize to people in the past because our dynamic economic system was built on exploitation and colonialism and imperialism are the only legacy of the West. And so that's one problem. But in a very superficial sense, it sends the signal to our opponents that we are very weak in the sense that they can use our own absurdities as weapons against us. I'll take a good example of from foreign policy. If we know that the Chinese sort of corrupted the World Health Organization to lie about the origins and the nature and the transmissibility of the COVID virus, and if we know that China has a million wagers in camps

or destroy democracy in Hong Kong or destroyed the culture of Tibet, it doesn't really matter because then they come back to us and say, you know what, you're just a typically racist Western country and you oppress Chinese students. And every time you find a so-called, quote-unquote, Chinese military atcheche on your campuses, that's just an excuse for your blanket condemnation of Asian people, just like the 19th century yellow peril. So our enemies look at this and they say, wow, we're just going to mimic the, the complaints of the left and they take it seriously and it disarms them. And so now in the Biden administration, we're losing sort of that edge or that desire we had

to stand up to China's crimes. And it's very, I mean, it can be, it can enter the realm of the absurd. When bin Laden was at his peak, he and Dr. Zawahiri wrote a book. I mean, there was a book published by Raymond Ibrahim, all of their collected writings. And they were accusing us, believe it or not, of decadence because we didn't have campaign finance report. We didn't sign on to radical global warming ideology. So they just read American newspapers and said, half the country is trying to eat itself alive. We're going to join that cannibalistic attack on the West.

And so self-criticism and self-reflection is really important for society. We're the only culture, civilization, the West, that does that. but sometimes it gets to excess and turns from constructive criticism to cannibalistic self-hatred. Yep. And Joe Biden actually recently explicitly said that he had a phone conversation with Xin Ping and that he kind of had to understand that he has different priorities, that it's culturally different, that China, you know, the reason that they are doing what they're doing with Taiwan, or Hong Kong or the Uighur Muslims.

It just has to do with different priorities of the regime. It has to do with, you know, different cultural norms. And I was really alarmed to hear that, but I'm afraid that there's a lot of people in charge, a lot of people in what you might call the elite class. That doesn't disturb them at all. And they're perfectly fine with that kind of mentality, and they actually think that America weakening

or kind of going lower on the totem pole will be better for the whole world. What do you think the consequence is if America does continue to go down this path of kind of shrinking and trying to lessen our power in the name of, I don't know, tolerance or intersectionality? Well, we don't appreciate the fact that the reason that you or I can,

when this epidemic ends, can get on a plane and there's going to be common rules and regulations how it lands and takes off and the safety requirements it must meet, or how we get on a cell phone and who we communicate with Asia or Latin America, or what is legal or illegal in trade. The whole system of global cooperation is based on Westernism after World War II and Western technology. And the enforcer, if I could use that term, of this system,

is to be frank, the United States economy, which is the largest in the world. It's almost in some terms of measurements, twice the size of the Chinese economy, and we do that with one fourth of the population. So it's an astounding achievement, and we're critical to make the world work. When we doubt ourselves, as you pointed out, and then other people see, you know what, the United States doesn't really believe in itself. It doesn't really believe in the system, and we're going to take advantage of it. And we know how to take advantage of it. we just emulate the left's hatred of the system. And then they're kind of befuddled.

They don't know quite what to do. They don't want to be called racist or sexist or homophobes or nativist or xenophobes. And so they become paralyzed. In the case of China and Joe Biden, there's two things going on very quickly. One is that our elite are bipartisan Washington to New York elite and Silicon Valley to Hollywood elite, so many of them are compromised by China, whether it's the NB, who can't say a word in objection, or it's Hollywood who calibrates their pictures on the orders of Chinese to eliminate black actors that they deem too dark and wouldn't be acceptable to the

liquid of Chinese market or the Biden family itself, Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who still has interest in China. I can't believe he still retains interest in the Chinese communist sponsored company, or it's Mr. Blinken, the Secretary of State who has had a lucid, career in Chinese investment, all of them are compromised either financially or ideologically. And what was unusual about Trump, to break that cycle, I guess the only person who could do that was someone who was not only not part of it, but was a little bit uncouth. I accrued at loud and just said, I don't really care. I'm going to go into this glass store of hypocrisy and break everything up.

And of course, he wasn't reelected. And then people said, well, we stopped that. And then now even more emboldened they were than before he came. So I'm not optimistic that we're going to have the wherewithal to resist the Chinese in the way that they need to be resisted. I've been interested to see other countries like Australia and France kind of criticize the United States for the kind of self-loathing mentality that a lot of people in the elite class have taken. on or our softness against China or unwillingness to call out China. Does that surprise you at all that some of these more what you might consider progressive countries are actually stronger in their stances on some of these positions than the United States is? You know, it doesn't, and I can

explain why very briefly. There's two or three reasons why. They have a long colonial and imperial history that other than the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century, we have not really had. And so when we start to become woke or radical, and we did it in the 1930s, they get scared because they're worried that we would become not the stabilizer enforcer of the post-war order, but rather ourselves, sort of a revolutionary society that might join their enemies or critics and saying, you know what, we're woke now. We reject our own Western past. We're no longer a Western country. And you guys colonized Asia and Africa and you're still. have influence in India and North, and we're free of that. We're a revolutionary society, and they're afraid, secondly, because they're very dependent upon us. They have asymmetrical

trade with us. They do not, until Trump came along, the vast majority of the NATO allies did not meet their 2% defense contributions. More do, I think, eight do now out of 23 countries. But my point is that they, for practical reasons, they say, you know what, the U.S. has to be firm. It has to be a protector. Our role are the ancient Greeks. They're the ancient Roman. They're the muscle and the economy. We're the philosophers. We're going to ankle bag them, make fun of them, tweak them. But we only can do that if they stay firm. They're the parent or the whiny juvenile. But when the parent acts like a hippie, then the juvenile says, wait a minute, who pays the bills? Who enforces? Who tell them? And that's where we are right now.

They don't, they're scared stiff. And they're scared stiff because if America goes hard left, it could in theory be as critical of them as it is itself. And they don't want that to happen. You know, that's interesting. I've never thought about it in quite that way. And it doesn't seem to be that it's just kind of our more woke allies like France and Germany and Australia and Canada that you're saying that they rely on American exceptionalism

or American strength, but they like to use America as a punching bag, I guess, to gain their own woke points. And the same thing with the NBA, the same thing with a lot of major corporations. They depend on the American economy, obviously, America being the strongest country in the world. But at the same time, they know that they'll gain points, both here and abroad, by bashing America as systemically racist and, you know, an enemy of social justice or whatever it is. Is that kind of what you're describing? Yeah, I think you described it very well. I would call it the court jester syndrome, where once the court is stable,

then they hire a jester to come in and make fun of them on the pretense that they're not going to be dangerous enough to disrupt the workings of the court. So we have in this system, market capitalism, free enterprise, and the protection of private property. And that makes Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or any of these, leftists very wealthy. And then they have court gestures. These are the people in the universities that make fun of it and they kind of amuse it. They sign under the New Green Deal. They do all these left-wing things. But in the old days, there was an area where you couldn't intrude upon. You didn't go in and break up monopolies like, you know, Facebook. They thought they could control

their capitalist juggernaut and control the court gestures. I don't think they can anymore. Because I think that Biden administration is hijacked by Elizabeth Warren and AOC in the squad. And I think pretty soon the woke Wall Street, woke Silicon Valley, woke NBA, all of these institutions are going to have to deal with real socialist agendas that I don't think even their, you know, their protections that they have from the consequences of their own game plan or ideology is going to help them. And we'll see about that. But yeah, it's very dishonest, and it works on the transatlantic sense in the same fashion. They view us as monolithically capitalist and productive and strong with all these aircraft carriers and this huge domestic consumer market. And then they can kind of make fun of it up to a point.

And up that point has been reached now because when they look at the writing and they look at the name changing and the statute changing, toppling in the school. They think, this is crazy. Wait a minute. We've got a reign of terror in the United States. This is like the Jacobin takeover of the French Revolution. And these people don't understand that if they change this country, we're not going to have a market. We're not going to have a market.

We're not going to have it. We went too far and making fun of it. And now we're starting to see, you know, actually conservative. So Eastern Europe especially is worried. They're much more conservative than we are. And now, as you point out, people in the UK, France, people in Southern Europe, they're very scary because it's not just France going left wing. It's this huge economic and military power. And when they look at retired generals who start lecturing about, as David Petraeus did, about taking down statues or accusing Donald Trump of being an insurrectionist or a Mussolini or Hitler-like, that gets them even more scared.

My God, they think the Pentagon is becoming a national liberal. Army. And so I think they're very terrified. Yeah. And it seems like as they should be. They seem to have a more clear perspective on what's going on here in America than we do. I don't really see an about-faced by these corporations and by the establishment media to say, oh, we're, we've caused or we've helped at least exacerbate some of the chaos in the division and the weakness that we are seeing precipitated throughout the country. And so we're going to, we're going to stop or we're going to, you know, start criticizing the violence or we're going to start, you know, calling Antifa and BLM what they are. I don't really see that kind of correction within the United States in corporate America and in

the media. Do you think that it sounds like they will wake up? That's a very good question. They did not wake up in 1917 when Lenin said to all of the Russian aristocrats that wanted to abandon the czar and did and try to make a deal to be saved and augment and abet the Bolsheviks or the Kaczynskiites, the legitimate socialist opposition to the czars, they all thought they could deal with Lenin. Lennon's attitude was you give a capitalist rope and he'll hang himself because they're greedy. So I think the left's attitude is we don't want to preserve market capitalism. We want to take over these big corporations and make them state-run enterprises and wake them up or have them woke sources of jobs and money for us. And I don't think

the corporations quite understand that. So maybe they're going to fail as they did in Venezuela and Cuba and outsmart themselves. Or maybe they're going to wake up as they did in France in 1793 and, you know, Robespierre ended up on the guillotine or maybe as they did in the 60s. They thought they could handle the 60s revolution, and finally they realize, no, we can't. We got to elect a guy like Ronald Reagan. So there is a pushback right now, but what's different is that we've never seen with this electronic octopus, the control of our means of accessing information and communicating, social media, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and all of that is controlled by the left. So it's much harder to gauge or calibrate whether this grassroots pushback can be

sustained or how big it is. But you're starting to see people on the left, people who've been fired from newspapers, actors that can't get jobs, people who have been canceled out for one word, they're starting to murmur that this is not sustainable because the left is starting to eat its own and they've been eaten and they don't want it. Right. And it's interesting because a lot of, obviously, these people on the left who are advancing these causes and these goals, they, they're soft towards socialism and communism, but isn't the combining of corporate and governmental power also a form of fascism? And these are the very same people who say that they're standing against the fascists, who they say are the conservatives or the Trump supporters?

Yeah, that was the paradigm that fascism did in Europe in the 1930s, whether it was in Spain or Italy or Germany. That is, they went to the industrial class, what they called the industrial class, and they said, look, we're going to give you all these. markets and you're going to have a monopoly on and you're going to make a lot of profits because we have an expansionary agenda overseas. But we don't want communism. We don't want leftism. We don't want freedom. We don't want union. We don't want any of that. But you're going to have these, and they all signed up for it. And notice that there are no unions in Amazon. I mean, Amazon said that they wanted to promote workers' rights and that mail-in balloting was wonderful. And then we

find out that Jeff Bezos is trying to crush a union movement in Alabama by outlawing, trying to outlaw mail imbalance, which he said can't be verified. He sounds like a right-wing reactionary. But they're starting to see that this deal they made with the left that gave them monopolies and cartels an absolute exemption from, you know, federal jurisdiction or oversight, they think the left is a little bit more ambitious than they signed up for. The left wants to control them. And you really saw that after the last election when Mark Zuckerberg and his companies and Twitter, they were kind of saying, well, we're going to slant the news and not report about Hunter Biden and D-platform occasionally Donald Trump, but we're not going to cancel

them out because if we do that, we're kind of a state-run organization and we're going to lose half the country our market. And yet the Obamas came out, Biden came out, Hillary came out, all of these left-wing politicians said, shame on you to give Donald platform 70 million Twitter followers and a huge Facebook audience. You're responsible for all these. So then like a night of the long night, we woke up on, I guess it was January 11th, and they had destroyed Parlor. And then earlier they had de-platform, they being Twitter and Facebook, Trump for life.

And notice the argument they used. It was the 1960s racist lunch count owner or landlord who said to African Americans, we're not infringing on your right to check into my hotel or any hotel. You can go to any lunch. Just don't go to mine. You know, I own it. I have a right to say, you know, the First Amendment doesn't cover me. I just don't want you in my lunch counter.

I don't want you in my hotel, but, you know, drive 100 miles somewhere else. and the courts and the country said, no, that's not realistic. And so they are playing that role of the racist 1960. They're saying to Trump or to the Parlier people or to us. They're saying, you know what? We believe in free speech, but we don't believe in free reach. So if you want to communicate over Twitter, just go get yourself another Twitter, but don't use ours. And then we say, okay, we'll go to Parlier.

And guess what? 1 o'clock in the morning on the 11th of January, they shut it down and you can't get it on any app or any phone. And that's really scary because that gets back to your point about state-run fascism. If you could just leave people with maybe one tip or one piece of advice, you know, the average person kind of feels powerless in the midst of all of this. Do you have any, you know, wisdom or, I don't know, a little bit of optimism or hope for people who are just worried about the direction the country is going? and what they can do. I do. I would say, don't become depressed or disheartened.

But remember that we are in a period where the universities, K through 12, the foundations, professional sports, Hollywood, entertainment, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, they control our culture, our wealth, and our power, and they're woke. But they don't have 51% of the people. And for them to wake up and return to normality and honor the Bill of Rights, it requires all of us. Even though we're one wink, one bad word, one good word, one facial expression from getting canceled, we don't care. We're going to say what we want, when we want, how we want. And the more that we do that is sort of like a screen, and we have a big illusion on it.

And we need to take a sledgehammer and that famous Apple commercial and throw it right through it because there's nothing there because it's not based on ethics, morality, or logic. And we can just, you know, there's no logic in saying you can't name a school after George Washington. He's a racist. You can't. You can't. If you do that, you have no country. So we're going to say, yes, we can. We're going to name whatever we want and then override that.

You call me anything that thing in the world has no effect on it. When we start to do that, sort of like that famous lawyer. Joseph Welch in the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s. McCarthy would come like the modern left and say, I have a list here of all these people that I'm going to go after. And he would do things like that, make up stuff, kind of like the blacklisting, the Lincoln Project, and others have engaged in. And finally, the Army Council said, have you no decency, Senator McCarthy? And as soon as he said that, it was weird. It just destroyed the illusion. And McCarthy was rendered what, he was, kind of an alcoholic has been demagogue. And I think we could do that with a lot of these

woke people. You have no control over me. I'm a free person. Say what you want. It has no effect on me. I don't care what you say about me in the New York Times. I don't care what you say about me at the local school board. And once we all do that in unison, it's our problem just to finish is, remember the Ease of Fable about the mice get together. And they say, you know, these cats are picking us off one by one, this bad cat. And we name. never know he's coming. He's so stealthy, so clever. And so they, the mice get together and say, ah, we got an idea. We're going to go put a collar with a bell on it around that guy's neck. And so every time he comes, he'll be so loud, well, just, he's irrelevant. We can scramble in

plenty of time. And then one person in the crowd says, ah, who's going to bell the cat? And no one's willing to be the beller of the cat. But we need a lot of them. Yes. Yes, that is so good. Thank you so much. is encouraging and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. We'll make sure that people know where to follow you and support you and the Hoover Institution. Thank you so much for talking to us today. Yes.