The Daily Signal - Top 5 of 2021 Day 2: Davis Hanson on 'The Dying Citizen' (Repeat)

Episode Date: December 28, 2021

Top 5 of 2021 Day 2: During this Christmas season, we're sharing some of our favorite interviews of the year to allow our team to take time off for the holidays. What does it mean to be an American citizen today? Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor emeritus at California State University, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to talk about citizenship and other topics covered in his new book “The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America.” A bestselling author and one of The Daily Signal’s most popular columnists, Hanson’s latest book serves as a wake-up call for citizens to take their responsibility seriously. “I think we have to just take a deep breath and say, ‘We have to reassert citizenship,'” Hanson says. “We’re starting to see it with local school boards, where somebody, somehow, thought that either school bureaucrats or locally elected people are not responsible for the will of the voters who either elected them or they were hired by elected officials through that vote. And yet parents are starting to object and hold them accountable.” Hanson also reflects on historical comparisons to the tumultuous year 2020. And he explains why, despite the challenges we face today, he remains optimistic about America’s future. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, December 28th. I'm Virginia Allen. And I'm Doug Blair. We are pleased to be bringing you all some of our and your favorite interviews from 2021. And today we are asking the question, what does it mean to be an American citizen? America's future depends in part on our ability to answer that question. On today's show, Rob Bluie talks with famed author Victor Davis Hansen about his recent book, The Dying Citizen, How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are destroying.

the idea of America. We aren't sharing headlines this week due to the Christmas holiday, but we hope that you enjoy this conversation with Victor Davis Hansen. Victor Davis Hansen is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a professor emeritus at California State University, and a New York Times bestselling author. He joins us today on the Daily Signal podcast to talk about his new book, The Dying Citizen, how progressive elites, tribalism, and globalization are destroying the idea of America. Professor, it's an honor to have you on the podcast. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you. Well, you are one of our most popular columnists at The Daily Signal. We're proud to carry your syndicated column every week. I think

it's a testament to your work and also the topics that you cover. So I'm sure our audience is going to be eager to read The Dying Citizen. Thank you. Let's begin with some basic and foundational questions. How do you define citizenship? And why should we, as American citizens, be so grateful for it? Well, it's an ancient word. It comes from the Latin Kiwis. and it was the Roman version of Polites, and you can see that politics and civilization and civic and all those rich English roots come from that concept of a citizen. And we can start with what it's not. It's not a subject.

It's not a serf. It's not a slave. It's somebody who is empowered to pick their own form of government, their own elected representatives, to dispose of their representatives if they wish, to set their own budgets and expenditures, to choose when and if they would, fight. So it's self-governance, but that power is entrusted into a particular group of people. And in the ancient calibration, it was the middle class that was not the only citizens, but they were considered key to it. They were the largest group. They lacked the envy of the poor toward the rich or the dependency of the poor upon government. And yet they didn't try to leverage

and user influence in money that the rich did leverage government, etc. And they also, it's very clear from history and from philosophical and political science text, that citizens needed a unique space, their own place, a place with borders, whether a city, state, or a republic, or a democracy, that they could inculcate these customs and traditions, this civic education. And when they had open, migratory, vast areas, it didn't work, because people would sweep in late Rome was a good example or even in the American frontier for a while and they were not on the same page as citizens and it was just chaos they also especially in the United States there was the

idea that citizenship is an idea and it's not a blood and soil concept so that your superficial appearance is incidental not essential to who you are and that's a very rare idea I mean and today I think the only large multiracial democracies that have tried to or Brazil and India, they're not doing very well. Citizenship in general is rare. It doesn't come into about 2,500 years ago after 5,000 years of civilization. And in the world today, I think only about half of the 190 nations of the world call themselves republics or democracies.

But even then, they don't have an idea of citizenship like America does. So it's a rare thing. It's very fragile, but it's absolutely good. key to enabling the largest group of people to be self-sufficient and to be washdogs or auditors of government. And out of that matrix, people want to join these types of republics because it ensures personal freedom, material prosperity, allows property to be passed on. And it's sort of the good life, as long as people understand that it's not the norm of human experience.

Well, it certainly does. And you write in the book some fascinating things about how in so many parts of the world, people do strive to move to places where they can be full citizens like we have here in the United States. And yet, we as Americans are experiencing so much change in the world. It's rapidly changing around us in so many ways. Politically, obviously with the pandemic that we've just been dealing with and all of the other changes that government has attempted to impose on our lives. What is at stake for our citizens

here in this country today? Well, you have to privilege citizenship. So we're not going to trust the government that we created, to take one example from contemporary news events, if they allow two million people who are not citizens to cross into the United States and those non-citizens can pick and choose which federal law is a wish to obey. So the first act of an immigrant who's coming in illegally was to break U.S. law that you or I could not do. If we're coming in from a different country and we do not have a passport, we're not going to be able to get past that passport control at an airport or train station. And then second is the second thing they do is violate the law by residing here. And then they're not asked to be vaccinated. And yet the people

who are patrolling the border, are the soldiers who are escorting people from Afghanistan, even if they've had COVID, even if they've had COVID, they are being mandated by the government to get vaccinated. So there's a disequalibium there. And we have citizens also voting in elections in local school board elections. And that won't work either. If you just have residents who are not acquainted with the system, they're not up on the issues, they don't have a stake or responsibilities for this particular sacred space, they're not going to do well. And so just that one issue shows you how tenuous this project is. And when I talk to people in a very poor community in which I live, they'll tell me, Victor, I'm a citizen. My mom's getting in line for her weekly

dialysis, and there's all these people coming in. We don't know who they are. Or Victor, we took seven years to get advanced placement in our schools, and now they don't speak English. And now they don't speak English or not here, and we have to go back to bilingual education. Our victory, you know, I'm trying to hire, I need a good job, but all these people are doing tile work or they're doing roofing off the books and they're diving down wages. So we're not putting the citizens' interests first, and that means the citizen will be anemic, and the citizen will not be able to audit, check, and keep honest their own representatives, and much less the administrative state.

That is true. I'm talking with Victor Davis Hansen, and his book is called The Dying Citizen. Professor, the year 2020 presented a number of challenges for American citizens. We began the year with a global pandemic upending our way of life. We witnessed riots in our cities, a spike in crime, and at the end of the year, a contested election. How can we make sense of all of this and overcome so much of the trauma that we've recently been through? Well, I think we have to just take a deep breath. and say we have to reassert citizenship and the citizens have to audit their representatives.

And we can do that in a manifest number of ways. We're starting to see it with local school boards where somebody somehow thought that either school bureaucrats or locally elected people are not responsible for the will of the voters who either elected them or they were hired by elected officials through that vote. And yet parents are starting to object and hold them accountable. I think we really need a lot of emphasis on our elected officials. One good thing that encourages me, when we see these apparatchezacs in this huge, let's say, to take one example, the military, industrial, investigative, intelligence complex, people with enormous power over all of us that were not elected and how they abused it. So General Millie, just to take one example. a bureaucrat, really, even though he's a military officer, he violates the chain of command and says

he's going to intervene in cases of use of nuclear weapons, perhaps. He calls his Chinese counterpart as if he's a diplomat. Remember, the law says that he's only an advisory, an advisory capacity. And then he breaks the uniform, quote, a military justice by calling his commander-in-chief at the time a Hitlerian figure, Mink, etc. And then he leaks confidential confidential, conversations to key reporters that might treat him more favorably. And so he's now under a lot of audit and criticism. I think he will have to design. James Comey, who 245 times said under oath, I don't remember, yet he oversaw the use of FBI

personnel to do everything from forge FISA document application to lie under oath, to try to disrupt a campaign. I think he's done for. Same with James Clapper, who said under oath, I gave the least untruthful answer. Or John Brennan, who lied under oath and said, you know, I never tapped the Senate Staffers' computers. Or even Robert Mueller, who really abused that 22 months and $40 million budget. So what I'm getting at is that in our recent experience, we've had enormously powerful people acting as judge, jury, and executioner with the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial brands all in one. And the people are sort of, and they didn't have access to the mainstream media or the academic world or the foundations or Wall Street. But just

out of their anger, all of those officials were rendered sort of inert. And they're now suffering for them. And their careers will never be the same. And I think we're going to have to say to the military, we don't think when you retire, you should go right onto a defense contractor board. You're just selling your knowledge of the Pentagon Labyrinth to the highest bidder, and that's not in our interest. You're not going to do it. We don't think if you're going to go on TV and pontificate that you really need a security clearance so you can wink a nod that you know something that we don't. You're no longer a military active officer. We need to say to them, we pass laws. 1947, 53, 2008, 2006, Goldwater Nichols.

And it said that if you're in uniform and a high-ranking officer, retired or active, you cannot disparage the commander-in-chief. So if you call your commander-in-chief Nazi-like or Mussolini or that he should go, even though there's a scheduled election, but go before that, we're going to hold you accountable. You should be prosecuted for that. And I think that's what the citizen has to do. And I think we're starting to get to that point.

When we see a U.S. senator hounded in a bathroom by two people who, apparently by their own admission, are not U.S. citizens, and they're here illegally, and they boast about it. That caused an enormous outrage. And then when we hear that they're going to be exempt, we say to ourselves, wait a minute, this is not symmetrical. The left is excusing this, but when Chuck Schumer goes outside the Supreme Court and says, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, you're going to pay, or Jeff Flake has swarmed after the Kavanaugh hearing in an elevator and almost forced by physical intimidation to back off from his support of voting for Kavanaugh. Or we see Rand Paul and his wife swarmed and intimidated. So that thuggery is not being symmetrically addressed by our officials that report to us. I'm just giving you a few examples.

I can go into Lois Lerner and others, but one of the challenges for the citizen is to say to themselves, 40% of us work for state, local, or federal government, that this federal Washington, New York nexus is where the power that directs these federal employees comes from, and these people are not gods. They're not deities. They have to follow the law,

and they have to be equal in the application of the law. And that's a good example. I think another one is we have to tell these evolutionaries, we have customs and traditions. We're not going to change a 233-year electoral college because you don't like the fact that the blue wall collapsed in one year. We're not going to get rid of the 150-year nine-person Supreme Court on one vote in the Senate. We're not going to get rid of the idea of a 50 state union that's been here 60 years or 180-year filibuster. And so far, I think the citizens, even though they've been under such assault, they've been able to make those arguments and persuade enough senators and House members not to change. And so I'm kind of optimistic.

The same thing with globalization. I know that we have these two elite coastal strips that one looks out at the EU and one looks out at these vibrant Asian economies. And they sort of confuse economic globalism with the next step of integrating our unique constitution. into some kind of Davos, great reset world governance. But even that is experiencing a great pushback. Nobody liked it when Secretary of State Blinken said he was going to call in the UN to adjudicate whether America is in the contemporary period racist or was in its past. Well, thank you for sharing all of those examples.

One that I want to follow up on is what you described happening to Senator Sinema. And then just mere days later, the Attorney General of the United States, United States, following the lead of a left-wing school boards association, came out and said that parents would be investigated if they showed up at school board meetings and, I guess, spoke out and shared their views as taxpayers and citizens. What do you make of this contrast between the left kind of excusing the behavior of what happened to Senator Sinema and yet going after parents who are rightfully concerned about what their kids are learning in school? It's a very good question.

And as I chart these erosions and the power of the citizens, I ask that same question. What's behind it? Why are they doing these things? What is the left? The left is not the Democratic Party anymore. It's not even the Progressive Party. This is a Jacobin out of the French Revolution or a proto-Bolshevik party. And they do believe, and I can tell you, 50 years ago when I was a student, all I heard was any means necessary, that sort of cliché,

from France Fannin and, you know, Malcolm X and Sart. And then it was, the ends justify the means. That was kind of a diluted version of a sophisticated statement, Machiavelli once said. But the point I'm making is they feel that their ultimate goals of radical equity, of quality of result, are so noble and they're so utopian that they should, and they alone should be given the power. to do anything necessary to achieve those goals. And so that means take the FBI and sicken on parents that are critical of critical race theory.

Or that means the FBI can warp its institutions and violate the law to ensure that a danger to equity or egalitarianism like Donald Trump cannot be elected. Or Lois Lerner can deny tax-free status to Tea Party groups that she's suspicious of. But they operate under the principle that they're morally superior to all of us. And therefore, they need to have extra advantages or they don't have to follow the Constitution or that we're too ignorant. And they even have the vocabulary, as you know, for Obama, the people that he surveyed the AP reporters. He didn't even try to excuse it.

Ben Rhodes said, I made an echo chamber, and these guys will believe anything when we sold them the Iran deal. Jonathan Gruber said the same thing, basically. we'd fool the American people, but they do that on the assumption that were clingers, as Obama or in Obama. In Hillary's vocabulary, it was deplorables and irredeemables. Or even Joe Biden's lexicon is chumps, drags, crazies. And so they are at war with us ideologically because they know that they do not have a majority of the population, much less the electorate.

And the issues that they're advancing on the border in Afghanistan, critical race theory, economic policy, interviews do not pull 50%. But to achieve that agenda, then they either want to change the systems like we just talked about, whether it's the electoral college or the filibuster on and on, or they want to change the demography. So we have about 45 million people here in the United States that were not born here, the record high, or we have 27% of the world. the people of California were not born in the United States. Some of them will make great citizens. They follow the trajectory of the melting pot, but a lot won't because they came in under illegal auspices and they were told that they had certain grievances about the history and the nature of their very host that didn't even invite them in.

Well, on that point, let's talk about something you write in the book. Again, it's called the Dying Citizen. It's about immigration and the importance of a similar. particularly how we are failing in many of our current approaches to this issue. What should we be doing differently? Well, you know, if you go back through the history of the United States when we had difficulty with immigration when we did not, or you go back to other countries in history, there's kind of pillars of three or four essentials if you want to be a society that welcomes immigrants.

I think we all do. They keep us on our toes. They compete with us. They bring in new ideas. but one of them is that if you're going to assimilate people, they have to give up their primary identity from where they came and they have to accept a new identity. And that's an American idea.

It's not based on blood and soil or race, but they have to give up their primary identity. And second, for that to happen, they have to come in numbers that are manageable so that one immigrant, when he's walking around New York or Los Angeles, does not see a lot of other immigrants. By osmosis and exposure, they see citizens and they learn protocols from citizens.

They don't just live forever in an enplay. The numbers are important. Diversity is important. So we don't take everybody from Ireland. We take them from all over Europe. Not everybody comes from Poland. Not everybody comes from Colombia. Not everybody comes from Mexico.

But when you have a southern border where people are primarily coming, not all, but primarily coming from Latin American and Mexico, then you don't have a... diversity and you're privileging those people or the people who are waiting legally and they're going to be much harder to assimilate because they may they will constitute a very large tribe whereas we want small tribes that each in and of themselves they don't challenge the major tribes which are people of all different races that are American and then they have to have

legality I mean you can't have an asymmetrical system when people when a doctor is waiting for five years from South Korea to come in and somebody walks across the border and makes a claim on citizenship that we won't give the person played by the rules. And finally, not all of our immigrants, but we expect some ability to be independent so that they're not a burden on the host. So either they have to know English or have some capital or some skills. So when they cross that border legally in diverse fashion, there's also a meritocracy that we say These particular immigrants, either because of their work ethic or their skill sets, will not be a burden on U.S. citizens, because we're worried more about the U.S. citizen than we are about the immigrant. You compare in the book 2020 to 1848, 1917, and 1968.

We believe at the Daily Signal, it's important to look back in history and learn lessons from the past. What do these years have in common? Well, they were years when there were revolutions and people, for a variety of reasons, many of the upper middle class or the upper upper classes that sponsored them felt that the system was broken, but they were not going to work within channels. So let's take 1968. So the baby boomer who had been a boomer generation was very affluent. They'd sort of been pampered by their post-war parents had gone through the Depression,

didn't want them to go through. But they were year-zero revolutionaries. I mean, they said our revolution is not just taking over the country. It's changing our fashion. It's changing the way that people should use drugs. It's changing sexuality. It was a totalitarian cultural, social, political, economic revolution. And in one sense, they failed because they, I guess they alienated the majority of the population.

but they learned something from it. They said, never again will we be throwing rocks at the Pentagon from the outside? Or never again will we be sitting in the president's office yelling at them? Next time we come, we're going to be the president. We're going to be the general. We're going to be the CEO. We're going to be the principal of a high school. We're going to be the major mega Hollywood star.

No more John Wains or Jimmy Stewart's. And that's what they did. And so this time, this revolution is the same. 60s like revolution and its totality, but it's more successful or more dangerous because all of the major levers of influence and power and money are sort of woke. And the other dates are important because it reminds us that if it's 1793 or 1848, they don't necessarily work. The Jacobins were defeated. And the revolutions that swept through Europe and they were defeated for the most part, the anarchist. And the same thing did not happen how we're during the Bolsheviks. Everybody

wrote the Bolsheviks all. They were kind of a cute little thing that the Russian aristocracy thought, you know what, I'll give them money. I kind of like the idea they don't like my Tsarist friends. And even if they did win, I can buy them all. And that was a fatal mistake. So I think we may have to make no mistake about it. I know that these revolutionaries are careerists. I know they come from the top down for the most part. I know that Philis Quellers, that Marxist co-founder, BLM, has four homes. There's an all-white Topanga Canyon. Professor Kendi's charging $20,000 for something that we're doing now, zooming for an hour, half hour. But they're serious. They too believe in year zero. Their year zero is 1619. They too believe in Trotskyization to wipe out the names of streets or schools

are toppled statues in the middle of the night. So they're holistic and they're very dangerous. You mentioned earlier, they also want to change, radically change, our institutions, whether it be packing the Supreme Court, ending the Senate filibuster, abolishing the electoral college. And it seems that the Democratic Party is willing to just go along with a lot of these things. They've embraced them. What has happened to the Democratic Party? Is there anybody left from that side of that political perspective who will stand against?

the left and helped put an end to this. No, because we can see right now that if you're Joe Manchin and you're on a boat, you're going to be surrounded not by right-wing thugs, but by people of your own party. And if you're Senator Sinema, you're not going to get a bunch of people who said, you know, you're too liberal for Arizona. We're going to chase you into the bathroom and take pictures, which is a felony. But we're going to do it. And you know what?

When you get on the airplane, and we know that the federal aviation law is very strict now, during this pandemic, it doesn't matter to us. We're morally superior. And our noble ends justifies any means necessary to achieve them. That was a big 60s idea. Any means necessary. And so we're going to disrupt a flight and go and hector you as you sit. So there's nobody in that party.

Because if there were anybody in that party, these Jacobins would do what they're doing now with Senator Sinema or a mansion. And so that's very important for all of us to understand. that they keep saying, well, the Republican Party is different. No, the Republican Party, 90% of it's the same. The only difference is some of their agenda is more attuned to the middle class than it ever has been. But the left is Jacobin.

It's a Bolshevik party now. And it does not believe in free speech, calls it hate speech. It does not believe in due process. They feel that's racist or sexes. How did it change? Why did it change? I think a lot of it had to do. with 40 or 50 million people coming in the country,

and the left thought that if we can convince them the salad bowl, that the melting pot is inferior, the salad bowl is much better. They can retain their primary cultural identity or racial or ethnic identity. I think part of it was the $1.7 trillion in student debt. And so we had all of these students. I discussed this in the book.

They're not getting married at ages just 30 years ago. They're not having children. They're not buying home. They're doing exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville warned us about their prolonged adolescence. And they feel that after their kind of shoddy education and liberal arts, that they deserve a particular salary, a particular status, and it's not there, and they're angry. So there's a lot of contributors to this weird democratic jacobinism, but it doesn't really matter what caused it.

We have to defeat it because they're very strong. serious that they want to remake America in an image that the founders would have never even imagined. Well, and you living in California see a lot of this before the rest of the country. What is your warning for the rest of America? And by the way, I should mention that when you write about things like this and what you see in California, they are among our most popular columns at the Daily Signal. Well, thank you. I think in California, we're what the left wants everything to be. We had about 7 to 10 million middle class people, entrepreneurs, 7-11ers, who left. And then over the last 30 years, we had about 15 million, many of them illegally, of the poorest people in the world, come into California.

And then we had the largest concentration of wealth in the history of civilization, about $5 trillion of market capitalization. I'm talking about Facebook and Apple and Google and Oracle. And so we put all of that together. And the coastal strip from La Jolla to Berkeley was sort of, we have Caltech, we have Stanford, we have Berkeley, we have USC, we have UCLA, we're the elite, we have perfect weather, we are very densely populated. We're going to make all these rules that utopians never had a chance to. whether it's climate, we don't need to build reservoirs. Oh, we're not going to build those awful highways. Oh, we're going to let the teachers unions take over. So our schools would be more enlightened. And then the middle class was not there to fight it. We got a 13% tax rate. We got

the highest sales tax, highest gas taxes. I think we're in the bottom five of school ratings. We're about rated the worst in infrastructure. So the middle class left. And they were happy they left. And so now we have a medieval feudal society of a very wealthy group of people along the coast in the keep. And then we have the peasants in the north, the foothills, inland empire, and the great Central Valley. And so nobody that is not a member of the keep or the aristocracy can afford a house at $1,000 of spook. And they will not build homes or they will not cut timber, or they will not mine or they will not produce natural gas. They want other people to do that in other states because they've evolved beyond that. But the other people haven't.

And so they say to the peasant, you know, you don't really have any rights. You've got lousy schools. You live out there in peasant land. Here's what you're going to do. You're going to vote this way, this way, this way, this way. Because after all, we give you Medi-Cal, half the births in California, Medi-Cal. We don't mind if you're homeless. We have anywhere from 400 to 600,000 people living on the streets.

and we'll take care of you. It'll be a reduced state, but we don't want you to be a grubby, grabbing, upwardly mobile middle class. That middle class wants things like Winnebago, or Jet Ski, or Snowmobile, or they don't have the romance that you guys do, the distant for, but they also don't have our culture. So when you get a society that hates the middle class, and they do in California, then it's very dangerous.

We don't want to, it's very valuable for the rest of the country because they took paradise and they took it and they turned it into hell. And other countries that Californians said were hell, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, they took those very harsh climates, some case, and turned them into paradise. And that's what's the irony that Californians are leaving paradise to go to former hells that are paradise because their former paradise is a hell. fascinating. One final question for you, sir. Despite all of the challenges we face in California and across the rest of the country, you write in the dying citizen that you are hopeful about the future. Why do you believe our fellow citizens will ultimately make the right choices? Well, I think there's something that an American character that is still there, that we're a frontier people, we're free thinking, we're very independent, and we're very hard to control. And they're trying to control us.

So just very, in closing very briefly, who would have ever thought that Mexican-American communities that for decades supported open borders and family reunification along the Texas border or electing Republican municipal officials and local officials? Because they don't want open borders. Who would have ever thought in the town that I live in? About 50% of all Hispanic males voted to recall Gavin Newsom. And the number of all Mexican-American citizens in California that voted to recover, call was just about where whites were about 43 to 44 percent. So there are this old matrix that if

you are not white, then the wealthy white liberal coastal class will tell you you're a victim and you're oppressed and we're the only salvation. That's breaking down. We're starting to get, and then on the other side, the Republican Party was very easily characterized as Mitt Romney's wealthy white, Bain Capital, golfing, blue stocking party. And that's a very unfair characterization. I understand that. It's a character because he was, in many ways, he was a good man. But people did not want to vote for that. Six or seven million people did not want to vote for that in the Midwest alone. So what I'm getting at is that the Republican Party now is addressing issues like China cheats and we're not under the guise of free market capitalism.

and free trade out of the post-war. We're not going to let them cheat, cheat, cheat, destroy your job. Or we're not going to let in two million people and make sure your mom can't go to the dialysis clinic in Fresno. We're not going to do that to you. Or we're not going to go into an optional war over in the Middle East and target a particular, I shouldn't say target,

but a particular rubric of American is more likely to die there, a lower middle class. and we're going to develop energy, and that energy is going to make us self-sufficient. We're not going to need the Middle East. So there's an agenda developing that is not contrary to Republican free market limited government, but it actually enhances it

because it also adds a new dimension that we're trying to be the party of the middle class and doing practical things. We're not going to be Jeb Bush and say, oh, immigration is an act of love, i.e., my employer friends want cheap labor to undercut American wages. I'm very confident that there's going to be a new populist nationalist Republican Party, and it's going to be very inclusive, and it's going to make the left very scared.

Victor Davis-Hanson, thank you for writing the book. Thank you for sharing your perspective with the Daily Signal. Again, it's called The Dying Citizen, How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization are destroying the idea of America. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And you can find his columns at DailySignal.com if you'd like to read more each week.

The Biden administration has been in power for almost a year. And the radical left has been imposing its dangerous ideology on America. Not only do they want to expand government control and promote cancel culture, but they also want to rewrite our nation's history. indoctrinate American students in our public school system, attack our traditional values of honor, liberty, and justice for all, and implement a Marxist agenda that unleashes socialism throughout our country. Here at the Heritage Foundation, we need your help to finish the year strong

and prepare for the battles that lie ahead in 2022. By making a tax-deductible year-end gift right now, you'll help advance your principles. free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense at a time when our nation needs these principles most. Visit heritage.org slash year end to make your tax deductible donation today. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast.

You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and IHeartRadio. and if you have not done so already, please take just a few moments to leave us a five-star review and a rating on Apple Podcasts. It truly means a lot to us, and we would love to hear your feedback before at the end of the year.

Thanks so much for joining us during this Christmas season. We'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Rob Blewey and Virginia Allen, sound design by Lauren Evans,

Mark Geinney and John Pop. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.