The Daily Signal - #370: Seinfeld Caught Up in Political Correctness

Episode Date: January 6, 2019

Seinfeld is one of the highest grossing sitcom's of all time, but in 2019 it's rubbing some young people the wrong way. Are those concerns justified? We discuss in today's episode. Plus: It’s Week 3 of the partial government shutdown, and the president and Democrats are no closer to an agreement. Democratic leaders are quick to point out the plight of federal workers not receiving pay, but as Heritage budget expert Justin Bogie explains, that's not the full story.We also cover these stories:--President Trump will address the nation amid the shutdown, then travel to the U.S.-Mexico border.--Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses Supreme Court arguments for first time ever.--President Trump modifies his Syria plan, but denies backtracking on withdrawal.--Democrats created a bogus right-wing group in Alabama to scare voters away from the Republican candidate.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal Podcasts for Tuesday, January 8th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, it's week three of the partial government shutdown, and the president and Democrats are no closer to an agreement. Democratic leaders are quick to point out the plight of federal workers not receiving pay, but is that the full story? Today, we'll talk to Justin Bogie, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, to get the facts. Plus, surprise, surprise, Seinfeld is problematic in the age of political correctness. We'll go back to the 90s today and consider some of those famous scenes that are now causing controversy.

But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. Well, with the government shut down and still no wall, President Trump is going on the offense. The White House announced that on Tuesday, he'll speak to the nation from the Oval Office, and then on Thursday he'll travel to the U.S.-Mexico border to meet with border security officials. The president has pressed Congress for $5 billion in funding for the border wall, but Democrats haven't budged. Trump even said that he may declare a national emergency in order to get funding through. For Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it's the end of a streak.

After 25 years without missing a single argument, the justice took a sick day Monday and missed oral arguments. Ginsburg, who is 85, is recovering from a December surgery for lung cancer. Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen R.berg said in a statement after Ginsburg had the procedure that, quote, post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated Monday that Ginsburg planned to read the oral argument transcripts and still rule on the cases. Well, President Trump stunned the nation and even his own staff last month when he announced

the U.S. withdrawal from Syria. But now it looks like he may be modifying that plan. Over the weekend, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced that U.S. forces would remain in Syria until the last remnants of ISIS are defeated. defeated and until Turkey provides assurances that it won't attack Kurdish fighters there. The U.S. currently has around 2,000 troops in Syria as advisors to Kurdish troops. But President Trump denies that he's walking back the withdrawal plan. He tweeted on Monday, quote,

No different from my original statements. We will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary. Two Americans were captured in Syria and accused of fighting for ISIS. The U.S. back Syrian Democratic forces announced five captures, including two Americans, Warren Christopher Clark and Zaid Abed al-Hamid. Clark, who is from Houston, Texas, was reportedly a University of Houston grad and a former substitute teacher. The New York Times reported that if the men are sent back to the U.S., there will then be 16 Americans who have joined ISIS in either Syria or Iraq and have been sent back. The number is minuscule.

Shamis Hughes of the George Washington University told the Times, to put it in context, the Brits are talking about hundreds of returnees. While the Russians have taken lots of heat for creating fake political groups to distort the 2016 election season, but it looks like Democrats may have pulled off a similar stunt in Alabama. Back in 2017, during that special election Senate race between Roy Moore and Doug Jones, Democrats created a fake Facebook group called Dry Alabama. which appeared to be run by Baptist teetotaler supporting Roy Moore.

And yes, that name Dry Alabama meant making alcohol illegal. They also referred to alcohol as the devil's tonic. But the group was completely fake, designed to scare moderate voters into supporting Democrat Doug Jones, who ended up winning by a razor-thin margin. A liberal activist named Matt Osborne worked on the project, and he defended the project, saying Democrats had a moral imperative to do whatever it takes to win.

He said Republicans use similar tactics and that, quote, if you don't do it, you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Well, the Attorney General of Alabama said he's asked the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether any laws were broken. Next up, we'll talk about the shutdown and what's actually being affected. Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share? I'm Rob Blewey, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, and I'm inviting you to share your thoughts with us. Leave us a voicemail at 202-608-6205 or email us at letters at dailysignal.com. Yours could be featured on the Daily Signal podcast. We'll see how long this shutdown goes on. Look, this shutdown could end tomorrow.

And it could also go on for a long time. It's really dependent on the Democrat. That was, of course, President Trump speaking to the media this week. We're now three weeks into a partial government shutdown, which is over a standoff about approximately $5 billion in funding for the border wall. Trump says he needs that funding for national security. Democrats are adamant that they won't give it to him. But what does this partial shutdown actually mean? What's closed and what's not?

Joining us today to break down those questions is Justin Bogie, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Justin focuses on fiscal issues. So Justin, let's start with the basics. What's actually affected during this government shutdown? Right. So just to kind of kick it off here, we're not talking about a huge portion of the federal government. We're talking about about 25% of the discretionary part of the federal budget. And the grand scheme of things, the whole discretionary part of the budget only makes up about a third of all federal funding.

So a relatively small amount of funding here. When you start talking about agencies, this is roughly 10 federal agencies, things like the Department of Agriculture are affected, Department of Commerce, IRS, NASA, housing and urban development. We're seeing TSA and border security being impacted by the lapse in funding. So it really covers a wide range of issues. And, you know, a lot of what we hear in the media, and certainly when Chuck Schumer speaks to the media, is that a lot of folks are hurt by this, affected, not just the people who work for the government, but, you know, those who maybe benefit from those closed parts of the government.

How bad is it exactly for those who are waiting on paychecks, those who are working? Is it as bad as they suggest? I certainly don't want to downplay the effect for 800,000 people who don't know when their next paycheck's going to be. That would certainly cause a lot of angst for people and for those living paycheck to paycheck, I'm sure that's a problem for them. But in terms of the average citizen, it's not really a big impact. National defense is still up and running. Even though border security agents aren't being paid, we're still doing that.

We're still TSA is still working, even though they're not getting paid. So you shouldn't see a big implant pack to your life. But certainly the longer this drags on, the more potential it has to start affecting a broader group of people. But for right now, I don't think we've seen any really impacts that we're not going to be able to come back from or that have hurt people a whole lot. Right. So on the issue of worker pay, my understanding is if the shutdown isn't resolved by Tuesday night, there will be a little under 400,000 workers who don't get a paycheck on Friday. But traditionally during government shutdowns, people have received back pay.

Is that correct? Right. I think really the only question is what would happen to federal contractors, which would be a much smaller number. But for most people who are out of work right now, they will receive their full paycheck once the shutdown ends. I was personally a part of this in 2013 when I worked for Congress and we had the 16, 17-day shutdown. And once the shutdown ended, everyone received their full paycheck. So if it's a short-term shutdown, I don't think anyone has a whole lot to worry about. If this continues to drag out a couple of months, they will eventually get paid, but that causes more problems for people.

And how does this compare with past shutdowns? So right now, we're around the 17-day mark and the longest in history was 21 days. So basically if we make it until Saturday, this will be the longest shutdown in U.S. history. So we're kind of getting into uncharted territories, which, you know, that may help find resolution or we may just have to see what happens. So one other issue, the Wall Street Journal had an article about the IRS, which I've noticed has understandably been trending for a while. And they said that while the IRS is positioned to still take money from you, they may not be able to give you refunds unless the government is open again. So one, I wanted if you could break down the difference between essential and non-essential employees and how that's determined, because that's what's happening here. And secondly, should people be worried about their refunds?

Really, there's a large amount of discretion that goes to the Office of Personnel Management to determine who's essential and non-essential. You know, generally we think of essential services, things like law enforcement or, in this case, you know, TSA, border security, things that. that people really depend on day-to-day. But OPM has a lot of leeway and what they can do with that. So whether or not we should be concerned about our tax returns, you know, I think that's an interesting question. Before New Year's or so, about 18% of the IRS was working. So there was only, you know, that much that was called essential.

Since then, you know, they're ramping back up over 50%. So it's really up again to the office personal management. If they wanted to bring basically everyone back to the IRS and say, you know, You have to work without pay in order to process tax refunds and payments and everything else. And they could do that. Well, Justin, you're also a budget expert. There's always something happening in Congress in terms of the budget. What should we expect in the next couple of months?

Well, the biggest issue right now is what's going to happen with the Budget Control Act spending caps. So we have these caps on discretionary spending, and that's kind of the part of the budget we've been talking about right now. they're run through 2021. We've had these series of two-year deals, the last two-year deal increased spending by about $300 billion. So now we're facing this big cliff. It would take over $120 billion in new funding this year, or in 2020, I should say, just to maintain the current year level.

And so that's really the big discussion. What's going to happen? Will we have caps at all in 2020 and 21 and beyond? Or are we going to see another one of these maybe mega deals that increase the spending by $500 billion over the next two years? And again, this really relates back to our discussion about the shutdown. This just shows you how broken the budget process is. You know, we're already three months into the fiscal year and we're fighting over $5 billion or so, basically.

These are issues that Congress is supposed to take care of in the spring and summer. So I think the fact that we're talking about that and then, you know, the possibility of another big budget deal that will probably be late and we'll see more continuing resolutions and that kind of thing next year. That really just shows you that we're not following the budget process and we've really gone off track. Well, aren't they looking at moving to biennial budgeting to basically do half the work and set the budget for twice as long? Yeah, that was one possibility. There was the last, you know, bad budget deal created a joint select committee to look at budget process reforms. And that was really one of the only proposals that emerged out of that process. And, you know, thankfully from our point of view, it wasn't adopted.

The legislation never made it to the floor. but when you're not doing a good job of budgeting annually and following the process that's in place, you know, why would you budget less often? That really doesn't make sense to me to de-emphasize this very important issue and to, you know, do it less often when it's already broken anyways. So how do we get back to a better budget process? Because it often seems like the personalities enjoy what continuing resolutions bring. They think it forces actions, the shutdown, at least in theory,

was supposed to force Trump to cave on the border wall because he didn't want to deal with that. So is there any solution or do you think, I mean, this is really depressing, does this just get worse and worse? I wish I could say that there are signs that's going to get better. I don't know that there are, as you alluded to, the problem is it's kind of become more of a political exercise than really being about the funding and that type of thing. You know, for one, I think we need stronger enforcement measures in place. There are budget rules out there that say we have these dates where X number of bills are supposed to be passed or the budget is supposed to be done by. Congress has largely ignored them for decades. So, you know, looking at stronger incentives for them to do that, whether it be something like no budget, no pay, or not letting them go into recess unless they've passed all the appropriations bills.

You know, I think that's one way to look at it. But really the scary thing is, you know, where our debt's heading. We're at almost $22 trillion in debt right now. We're expecting over a trillion dollar deficit this year. So we need to find ways to not only get the process moving more smoothly, but also do it in a way that reduces spending and really looks at limiting what the government is doing to that constitutional role and things that are really most important to Americans. So already the Democrats have been fighting amongst themselves about how to spend, et cetera. And one of the issues that came was pay as you go. And of course, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, no surprise, indicated she was very against doing that and talked about almost from a philosophical point of view, if I recall this correctly, how it's not good to be frugal about how you spend that sometimes what the economy needs is more money injected whether we have it or not.

What's your response to that sort of philosophical stance? Well, you know, I don't think, right, however you feel about whether we should be spending more money, which, you know, obviously we think there are ways to. to cut the budget. But usually you would do that in a time when the economy is on a down swing, when you need that infusion of cash to get people back to work and to support these big infrastructure projects, which unemployment set almost a 50-year low. The jobs reports have been strong, month after month, better than expected. So I don't think now would be the time to do that. But for anyone sitting out there in their home, that idea of it's not important to pay for things, we shouldn't worry about how much it costs. I think that runs counter to a lot of people's

values and, you know, why should the federal government be any different than our home budgets where, you know, if we don't pay off our expenses, if we don't budget for things, then eventually we're going to go bankrupt and find ourselves in a bad situation. And, you know, whether people want to admit it or not, that that can happen with the federal government. And we're going to start seeing those negative effects eventually. And you see what happens, you know, in other countries like Greece, things get ugly. We definitely don't want that here. I don't know if we'll have a Greece, you know, they were under different circumstances, but it's certainly, the same type of problem.

We could see, we're already seeing interest rates go up a little bit. That could continue to happen. Inflation is a real risk. And then it makes it harder for you to go out and purchase a car or house or any major purchase. Okay. Well, Justin, thanks so much for being back on and explaining for us. Thank you all very much. Next step, we'll discuss Seinfeld.

Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. The wonderful sound of Seinfeld, the 90s sitcom, which is dear to my heart, even though I was barely alive in the 1990s. It is alive and well today on the airwaves, on Hulu, and I encourage other people to check it out. But you know what? In 2019, the PC police are alive and well, and bringing controversy back to this show, which has been not produced for over 20 years now. And here to join me to discuss is Laura Falcon from Media Relations here at the Heritage Foundation. Laura, thanks for being back on. Absolutely.

You can also call me Elaine Bennis. Elaine Venice, yes, yes. You're the Elaine Bennis of our office here. I was, in fun fact, I was Elaine for Halloween in 2016, I think. Wow. And I was, I'm told, I'm a spitting image of her. Which I'll take as a compliment. Yeah, how about that?

Well, just don't shove me like she shoves every guy in the show. So Seinfeld has been a bit of a controversy. although I think it may have been a bit trumped up of a controversy. The Bustle, the website, Bustle ran an article on New Year's Eve, giving 13 of the, quote, worst offenses from the show, saying that these were now out of date and offensive clips that should not really should not be welcomed in the year 2019. And so we're going to take a look at those.

And we're going to take a look at a couple of clips that were on that list. They're also classics in the show, at least in the way people remember the show. But then we're going to show a couple of other clips that have been left out and that show that Seinfeld actually was quite a bit more progressive than the average American back in the 90s. So we're going to start off with the classic, none other than the soup Nazi. This is a soup store, if you're not familiar, in New York, where the owner is basically extremely rigid and strict about how you order. order, but the soup is amazing, and so everyone puts up with him just to get the soup.

And here's George Costanza, walking in, having just purchased his soup. Excuse me, I think you forgot my bread. Bread, $2 extra. $2, but everyone in front of me got free bread. You want bread? Yes, please. $3. What?

Nothing for you. And next, that's the famous line. So, Laura, this is a bit controversial now because, of course, they use the word. Nazi, your thoughts? Everything's controversial, right? No, but it's funny. I was actually digging a little bit into this episode just to see what people were thinking at the time.

And I came across an article in the Vancouver son that talks to Larry Thomas, who plays the soup Nazi. And he's actually Jewish. I don't know if people knew that. I didn't know that. As is Seinfeld and Larry David. Yeah, all the producers and the writers. And I wanted to read a clip from this article that I found.

and it goes, being called the soup Nazi, he says he being Larry Thomas, does not offend his Jewish background. He says, quote, if someone says Nazi, I don't go there. I don't think Hitler. When I heard I was going to audition for the soup Nazi, I didn't for one second think anybody, anywhere would think anything, but, oh, he must be a really militant food guy. And I think that's a very important distinction to make, that there is a different intention in calling the soup Nazi, the soup Nazi.

It wasn't meant to poke fun at a horrible genocide that happened in the 20th century, but rather this militant figure that we may have probably come across in our lives. I know who hasn't run into. It's like an archetype of a person, right? Right, exactly. And that guy, he's really uptight and he's like, you know, he needs to chill. Yeah. And at the same time, am I going to sit around and say that we should just use the word Nazi very flippant? Flippantly?

No. But. But if Jerry Seinfeld. names a character, and if he's okay with it, I, you know, I'll defer to him. Yeah, and not even that, but the same people who are so, so aggressively anti-use of the word Nazi are also using it anytime they talk about conservatives or they're going to call Trump a literal Nazi or literally Hitler. So at what point is it hypocritical?

I mean, and the fact that we're digging back 20 years to basically indict a show that wasn't even considered controversial back that is it's stretching. And I think that's the real trend here, especially just when you look at the full list of this article, which I mean, you know that when I saw the list, I got so upset. I couldn't believe that people were actually doing this,

but of course there is nothing that is immune to the criticisms of the left these days. Well, and number two on that list was another memorable clip when Jerry is with the girl that he is going on dates with named Winona. She's a Native American. And there's a whole string of, you know, jokes, punchlines about that here is one of the better known. I like your place. It's very unassuming.

Oh, why would I assume? I never assume. Leads to assumptions. Oh, by the way, that TV guide I gave you, I need it back. Why? Well, I'm doing a report. I'm minorities in the media, and I wanted to use that interview with Al Roker. Well, it's too late.

I gave it to Elaine. She's already on a way to give it to George's father. Jerry, I really need it back. It is mine. You can't give something and take it back. I mean, what do you? A person that... A person that what?

Well, a person that gives something, and then they're dissatisfied, and they wish they had given it to the person that they originally gave it to. You mean, like, an Indian giver? I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that term. Oh, man. Laura, your thoughts. So I actually think that the real humor behind this is what Jerry says in the beginning. and that's why would I assume it leads to assumptions? What does he do?

He assumes. Like that's part of the humor of Seinfeld is that it points out the very, very deep flaws that are within, that are in humanity. So I don't, like, I look at that and I'm like, would I want somebody, would I be okay with somebody saying this in every day? Probably not. But part of comedy is pointing out the deep problems with humanity and being able to laugh about it.

And I think that's the end game is we take life so seriously. And I've grown up in the D.C. area, I've been surrounded by people who are so serious about life. Bless you. Yeah. Well, I wear it as a badge of honor. But we need to find times to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves so seriously. And by pointing out our own hypocrisy, I think that allows us to do that. Well, that's one of the funniest things about the characters in Seinfeld, especially like George Costanza, is that they're just, they're so, they have these vices, right?

They're horrible people. They're awful. It's okay to say that. And George Costanza, especially, like, in my opinion, he is just the conniving. He will lie to anybody completely try to con people in order to get what he wants. And part of why that's hilarious, I think, is because there's a, there's a sense in which everyone, I think, can relate to at least that impulse. Even if you don't, you know, no one should do what he does. But he takes it all the way.

Yeah. And that's what makes comedy relevant is we see it in our sense. And we see it in the world around us. So, but in the end, if we're able to laugh at some things in life, then we should be celebrating that and not complaining. Well, I think one of the most, again, one of the most memorable lines from Seinfeld is in this coming clip. This is one that was actually, it was included on the list of offensive things, but, you know, offensive to gay people. But actually in the 90s, it won a glad award for being apparently progressive. So let's play the clip.

We're not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. No, of course not. I mean, it's fine if that's who you are. Absolutely. I mean, I have many gay friends. My father's gay. Oh, man.

So, again, offensive because it suggests that maybe someone might think that it was not okay. Who knows? Yeah, who knows? But, yeah, I know. Telling that they want a glad award in the 90s for that. Yeah, yeah. And as Daniel alluded, they, Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld were both very concerned about this episode when an initial. came out. Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld were both very, they were worried when this came

out. They didn't want to offend anybody, but then it comes out by winning a glad award. And that just shows that if at the time people were celebrating it to the extent that they were giving it an award and now it's offensive, I mean, where is this line that we can draw where something is offensive versus it being socially acceptable? And is it fair to indict people on something that was so widely celebrated. Yeah. Well, the last clip we're going to play is actually about Roe versus Wade, a pretty heavy topic, but a very interesting angle.

Elaine is dating a guy, and she starts to wonder, you know, Elaine is pro-choice, and she starts to wonder what's his position on abortion because, you know, of course, she can't date someone who's not pro-choice because that's, you know, she's very liberal. So let's play the clip. Recently I've been thinking about this friend of mine. What friend? Oh, just this woman.

She got impregnated by her trododidic half-brother and decided to have an abortion. You know, someday we're going to get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law. And because you can't see the picture, basically at the end of that scene, she's just weeping in her palm because of that. Now, what's interesting is, you know, the show, the kind of default position of this show is sympathetic to her because, you know, she's the pro-choice person. And you know, you didn't find that on the list because apparently that's still not offensive. Right. But it was a dig, kind of a soft dig at conservatives.

Right. And it's basically saying that if a guy is pro-life, then he can't get a date. Which, I mean, may very well be true in certain circles, especially in this area. But as a conservative, I rolled my eyes at that. Am I going to go around parading a list of ways that Seinfeld offended me? because of one line that doesn't apply to me now. Yeah. And I think people just need to lighten up and enjoy it.

Well, Laura, it's so good to just play through it. I wish we could play more clips, but we don't have time. But Laura, thanks for being on to unpack the latest controversy. Absolutely. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud,

and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us. us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.