The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 152. Radical Ideology and the Nihilistic Void | Douglas Murray

Episode Date: January 24, 2021

This episode was recorded on January 15, 2021.Douglas Murray and I discuss, among other topics, the collapse of grand narratives on the left and the right alike, the potential for the resultant explanatory and motivational void to be filled by more radical ideological ideas, and the dangers posed by the mutual recrimination that all-too-frequently characterizes relationships across the left-right divide.Douglas Murray is a British best-selling author (The Madness of Crowds and The Strange Death of Europe) and a columnist and associate editor at The Spectator (UK). He is an award-winning journalist that has contributed to many papers and publications in the US and UK.-Thanks to Green Chef for sponsoring this episode. Green Chef is the first USDA-certified organic meal kit company. Visit: GreenChef.com/JBP90 and use code JBP90 to get $90 off including free shipping! This episode is also sponsored by Self Authoring. The Self-Authoring Suite helps you sort through your past to get past trauma, write your present life, and organize your mind for the future by identifying and prioritizing goals. Visit SelfAuthoring.com and use promo code “MP” for 15% off. -For advertising inquiries, please email [e-mail]

Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson podcast. I'm Mikaela Peterson. For episode three of season four, Douglas Murray came on. Douglas Murray is an author and political commentator. Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson discuss the collapse of grand narratives on the left and the right alike, the potential for the resultant explanatory and motivational void to be filled by more radical ideological ideas, and the dangers posed by the mutual recrimination that all two frequently characterizes relationships across the left-right divide. Can you tell those are dad's words and not mine?

Fantastic episode. I hope you enjoy it. The video version will be available tomorrow, Monday, January 25th, 2021, on the Jordan Peterson YouTube channel. This episode is brought to you by Green Sheff. Green Sheff is the first USDA certified meal kit company. They have keto, paleo, vegan, and vegetarian options. If you're not going to try the Carnivore diet, and honestly, you probably aren't, even

though I think you should, this meal kit company is where it's at. Their paleo selection is the best in my opinion if you're looking for a healthy meal kit meal. If you're keto, the meal kits come with 14 net carbs each. If you want to try out a diet like paleo, which is also super healthy, this would be an easy way to do it as the ingredients come pre-measured

and honestly, Ralph could figure out how to cook using their instructions. Go to greenchef.com slash JBP90 and use code JBP90 to get $90 off, including free shipping. That's greenchef.com slash JBP90 and use code JBP90 to get $90 off. I also thought it would be good to mention self-authoring again. Self-authoring is a suite of exercises that my dad spent over 30 years developing that helps people organize their thoughts and map out a life plan with steps so they know where they want to go and end up. I've found it immensely helpful in avoiding futures I don't want, particularly when I was younger

and more foolish, but also now. It keeps me on track. If you're going through something intense, a divorce, a new relationship, kids, a new job, being fired, coronavirus, it can be really useful to help you look at opportunity. Selfauthoring.com code MP, that's me, MP, for 15% off, which I think makes it $25 in total, for the suite that's past, present, and future authoring. It's an absolute steal for how well it helps you organize your future. And sort out your past. Selfauthoring.com, code MP for 15 percent off. Enjoy this episode. And I hope you have an okay week. I have the great good fortune on this January 15th, 2021 of talking to Mr. Douglas Murray, the author of the Madness of Crowds, Gender, Race and Identity,

a Douglas and I met a couple of years ago and got along quite remarkably well. I think we did a, Douglas was gracious enough to mediate a discussion that I had with Sam Harris in the, in what was the Olympic stadium in London, if I remember correctly. And we haven't, we've talked a little bit since then, but it's been a couple of years say. So I've just been reviewing the madness of crowds this week. Again, I read it when it first came out, but I was looking at it again.

I'm looking forward to discussing a whole variety of things with you. Some associated with the book and some not. But let's start with the book. At least some of the themes of the book, if you don't mind, you talked about, you started by talking about the collapse of grand narratives. And that's a theme that's very interesting to me. And I have a hypothesis that I'd like to run by you and see what you think. I've been talking to a friend of mine here, and we've been hypothesizing that maybe there are two

large-scale grand political narratives with an archetypal or mythological basis. And one would be the promised land. So that would be the bright future that we're all headed to. And different versions of that would be put forth by the right and the left. But what the hook is is that something better awaits us and there are certain strategies that we could use to attain that. And if that fails, then we have something like the infidel, which is us versus them. And so one of the things that struck me when I was reading your book was that it isn't obvious that we have a promised land narrative that's functional in the West anymore.

Partly, I think, perversely, because things have improved so much on the material front, that it's not really even obvious how we could extend our mastery of the material world to produce a better future. We've plucked all the low hanging fruit. And so that, for most people, I mean, I know inequality exists. I know there's relative poverty, but there's no straightforward solutions for those either, or even solutions that necessarily would appeal to the imagination. And so maybe we're stuck with some variant of the infidel, which is not a very, which is certainly not a grand narrative that's designed to bring about peace. I don't know what you think about that, but I'd also like your your take on grand narratives as such and why you think they've collapsed. Well, first of all, it's really, really good to see you, Jordan.

Thank you. I can't tell you what a pleasure it is. I've missed you as many people have. So, I really wanted to see you. I appreciate that. I've missed being around. Believe me. And all the things that I was engaged in, hopefully that'll start up again with this as part of it. I really hope so. Yes, it's been on my mind for a long time.

I've written around this subject a couple of books now that the oddity of the position of Western man at this point is he and she lack a grand narrative, lack an overarching explanation of what on earth we're doing here. And I think you and I probably have the same experience that when we were allowed to still congregate in public spaces, whenever you addressed anything around this issue, the whole felt silent. You know, I've noticed for years that there's all sorts of my new shy that our societies are exceptionally good at talking about. But we've become not only poor at talking about, but apparently uninterested in the most important questions of all, such as what exactly we meant to be doing with our lives,

what we meant to be doing with our time. We all know we've got a finite amount of time, so how should we occupy that time well? Well, it's funny, because I would say in the past, to some degree, that question was answered for us by deprivation. That was obvious. What we were lacking. And so when it's obvious what you're lacking, when you're hungry, when you're truly hungry, there's no question about what you should do.

You should eat, and if you're freezing, and if you're overheated, and all of those things, the desirable future manifests itself automatically in front of you. And in some sense, we've been deprived of deprivation and are suffering from an enemy of prosperity. Yes, and I think for some people, have formed an order. And yes, and too much time on their hands, and much more. There are different ways of circling around the same answer

to the problem, but it's been very striking to me for a long time, that particularly in political terms, the left has been really quite interested in this gap. It's recognized the size of it and is sought to fill it in recent years, as I said at the beginning of the matters of crowds, the most obvious way of filling it is with the horrible and dysfunctional and retributive replacement religion, which is identity politics, intersectionalism, and all of this. As I point out, it's in some way,

it's a curiosity, perhaps also in inevitability, but let's say the respectable right at any rate, has been pretty uninterested in answering these questions and hasn't even nodded to their absence. The right has in our lifetimes been very interested in issues of economics and that's, of course, crucial as you alluded to earlier. I mean, if the economics are going well, a lot of other things go well as well when they go bad, absolutely everything goes bad. So in some ways it's understandable that the right has been interested in economic questions. But it has left the, as I say, the sort of respectable bit of the

right, has basically left identity and meaning questions. To say, well, you know, find the meaning of things where you will. If you come across it great, we couldn't be happier for you, but doesn't seek to address these questions. Well, maybe it's partly because the collapse of religious belief hasn't been as thorough on the right as it has been on the left. And so there's still more people who are oriented in the conservative direction who have at least some vestiges

of their traditional religious belief. But you know, well, and I would say too, though, that it isn't the left that's been concerned with questions of identity precisely. I would say more, this is definitely the case in the United States. I think it's true in Britain and Canada too, that it's the radical left,

because the moderate left, I have a friend in LA who's been working on messaging for the Democratic Party. He's been doing that pro bono as part of an independent group of Hollywood writers who've produced about a billion dollars worth of advertisements. They've been attempting to craft a centrist Democrat message. They've been attempting to craft a centrist, democrat message. And it's quite difficult because, well, and the reason they've been doing that is because the radical left has a narrative and regardless of what you might think about it, it has mode of fading power. And in the absence of any other narrative, it tends to dominate.

And the problem with generating a centrist narrative is that it tends to be incremental. And incremental narratives tend not to have much persuasive power. And so you might say that what's happened is that there's still a subset of people who, for whom, for one reason or another, and that might be race or gender or sexual identity, or any of those things, any minority status that would bring about a default sense of alienation, that the narrative is clear, which is to either restructure society so that alienation disappears or to, well, that is the narrative, is to restructure society so that that alienation disappears.

And even though that may not be a narrative that works for everyone, the fact that nobody can construct one that's more compelling leaves a terrible void in the middle. And it isn't obvious at all how that can be solved. Yes, well, by the way, also we get back to one of the problems that always exists for people on the right, or certainly for small sea conservatives, which is that they always end up fighting the next battle they're going to lose precisely because of this phenomenon that the left and the radical left advance its ideas, the right doesn't know, conservatives don't know how to defend things such as precedent, tradition,

things such as precedent, tradition, just doing things the way you've always done them and recognizing that there's a virtue in that. Well, it isn't that easy to sell a story that's well, things are pretty damn good and try not to do anything stupid to muck it up. And the reason for that is that there's no real direction in it. And that's especially true for people who aren't fully ensconced within the society and feeling that they have an integral role to play. So it doesn't work for, conservatism doesn't work for felt outsiders. Yes, it looks, um, other things self-satisfied.

I think it's one of the reasons why a certain radical young person rejects conservative narrative because they say it only works if things are going well for you. I mean, again, I would dispute that, but it's a tendency people have. The other issue there on this is that conservatives in general, which is part of the conservative mind, are resentful of and distrustful of people coming along with grand narratives. This is obviously a Berkian insight

why Berk takes a view he does of the events in France and writes about in the reflections. It's the most common trend throughout conservative thought is a suspicion of thought, a suspicion of thinking and of philosophy and of grand ideas precisely because of an innate recognition that such ideas can go so badly. It leaves and I've always thought that this is a both it's mainly seen as a disadvantage of conservatism. In fact, of course, it can be a very distinct advantage, but it only works as an advantage if things are going very badly wrong in whatever the utopian grant narrative project is that's being proposed. It's only when everything goes badly wrong with the utopianism that people realize the virtues

of the conservative system. It's only after the French Revolution when you've got the famines, because you've ruled all the people who know what to do. It's only after the Russian Revolution, when everyone's starving, because the Bolsheviks don't know how to do the most basic things in food production, that people start to realize the virtue of the kind of conservatism that I'm describing. But until that moment of total collapse, utopian radical left is always going to be at a distinct advantage.

He's got a sexier product to sell. Well, the other problem is, of course, and this has to do with the way people are wired biologically with regards to their emotional responses, is that if everything is going well, everything that's going well is invisible. Yes. Because we're so threats, we habituate to anything that's predictable. And we're very sensitive to threat. So even when many things are going well, we're going to pay attention to those things that aren't, and we're not going to pay attention to everything

that is working to maintain, say, this amazing infrastructure around us, which a conservative would say, well, it's very unlikely that this degree of stability and wealth can exist, let alone be maintained, and we should be very careful with it. But that's, that it's a hard to keep the impulse going for that narrative, because it isn't, that isn't how we work emotionally. Partly, because it's not efficient to constantly be grateful for things that are predictable. It takes too much mental energy. Now that doesn't mean that the grand narrative that's put forth by the left, and you talk about this particularly in terms of, let's say, identity politics and intersectionality,

identity politics seems to be predicated on the idea that certain, and certain rather arbitrarily selected features of individuals constitute the core element of their identity. I've never been sure exactly why it's those, it's the particular elements that are concentrated on race, sexuality, gender, sexual proclivity, say, why those tend to be the hallmark? And maybe it's because you think it's reasonable to pause it, that it's because the leftists look at groups that have, in fact, experienced some degree of prejudice or alienation in the past and then make that, make whatever it was that produced the alienation, the central characteristic of their identity. Yes, and well, there's that.

And there's also the other one, which is the illusion that you can do very much about it. I mean, in our age, and obviously, that issues are right about the madness of crowds. The presumption seems to be, and the selection seems to be something around the idea of there's something you can do about it. Now, by the way, this is a very confused narrative because it both says that there are, as I say in the book, there are hardware issues and software issues,

and it pretends that the software issues are hardware and the hardware issues can be software. And it doesn't really know what to do, for instance, it says that sexuality is definitely hardware, whereas sex is software, that just doesn't run as a simultaneous program. And it says, well, we don't really know what race is. And it gets into a hell of a lot of trouble

and dodges it on race. It says that the only thing people are legitimately born into is an identity as being trans. And so all of this is incredibly messily ill-thought-out. But I have wondered whether it has something to do with this thing of you can do something about it, because if you selected height, which is obviously one of the other ones you could do, which has a profound impact on people's lives. Yes, or attractiveness? Yes, there's just, at some point, you have to come across the thing, that there's nothing you can do

about it. And I would have thought that the age would be grown up enough, or could be grown up enough, to recognize that is the issue on a set of identity questions as well, but when a famous pop star says he did recently, that he'd like to be a mummy by the age of 35, the age treats him as the people doing the Monte Piphon's life of Brian, and say, where's the fetus going to gestate? In a bucket, in a bucket, you know, in a box, in other words, that the age wouldn't simply keep saying, oh yes, that's possible, that's plausible. So it's deeply confused. I'm trying to analyse

it is in some way adding confusion to it. I simply, I'm simply struck by the fact that there are a number of very major issues that occur in people's lives that are ducted by the age. I don't know why they've ducted them. Other than, and this is the best approximation I can do, is that they've chosen the ones they've chosen because they know that they will cause maximal annoyance to conservatives

that they have the best chance of breaking down some of the most reliable structures that we still have in our society and that they baffle and confound people. Well, it could be simpler than that though and maybe less in some sense less conspiratorial is that the identity politics, identity politics coalesces around any group where there's sufficient, where there's a sufficient number of people with at least one thing in common who do in fact feel alienated and resentful about the general culture for valid and invalid reasons. And so it's a crapshoot in some sense. It doesn't matter if there's consistency in category structure across the different categories of identity politics. All that it matters is that

enough people will coalesce around each term. And I think that's reasonable because many, many terms have been generated, like ageism, for example, although we haven't seen much of identity politics emerge around age. But that's probably because it didn't coalesce. You could think about it as a Darwinian process in some sense, is that there's 100 terms of alienation and 10 of them generate enough social attention to become viable, sociological and political phenomena. And they continue to breed, but that's because they

breed whenever there's enough people to garner enough attention. Now the problem I have with that, and this is something else I wanted to talk to you about in detail, is that, because I've been thinking about this for a long time, is the notion of identity that lurks at the bottom of this, because I think part of the problem with the identity politics grand narrative is that partly because of its incoherence, it doesn't offer anything that looks like a real solution. So well, and that's partly because of, it's, it has, it's definition of what constitutes identity seems to me to be almost incomprehensibly shallow, especially for social constructivists.

So the idea, I don't think I'm parodying this, the central idea seems to be that identity is something that you define yourself. And it's a consequence of your lived experience. And so no one has any right to state anything about your identity other than you because they don't have access to your own subjective experiences.

And look, I don't want to make the claim that there's nothing in that because there is a domain of subjective experience that's unique. And like pain, for example, and there's no doubt that it's real and that it's vital and important. But the problem with that seems to me to be is that identity isn't only a consequence of your subjective experience. In fact, it's not even a label for your subjective experience. Identity seems to me to be a handbag of tools that you employ to make your way in the natural and social world.

So it's more like a pragmatic, it's something more pragmatic. It's like the role you might play if you were playing a game with other people. And you can pick your role, you can pick your role, but it has to be part of the game. And that means that people have to accept you as a player and that there are certain functions that you have to undertake when you fulfill that role. And that's actually beneficial to you, right? Because partly what you want from an identity is a set of guidelines for how it is that you should act in the world. And the problem with a lot of these newer categories, and I think trans is a good example of that, is that even if the category was accepted as valid on the grounds of its proposed validity, which is the felt sense of being a man, if you're a woman or being a woman, if you're a man,

it isn't obvious what that buys you. You know, and I just interviewed Abigail Shryer, who wrote irreversible damage, and she talks about some of the consequences. Now obviously her book is quite controversial. In fact, I was terrified to even talk to her to be honest. She's very brave person. And I've had a fair bit of that beat out of me, I'm afraid. But it isn't obvious. It's obvious that adopting the identity of trans

and then pursuing that down the medical alteration route carries with it some vicious consequences. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So let's talk about identity. Yes. I agree. It does.

It provides you with a path. But that's one thing that I've noticed. I've noticed when I've noticed, I noticed when I was interviewing various trans people for the madness of crowds. I noticed that it would provide a path of what you're going to do. And this is one of the things I noticed sort of early about that question. Was it seemed to be an explanation of a kind. For instance, you feel slightly alien in the world. It will be solved in this manner and there's a place you can go. And well, all of us at some level and some people throughout their lives feel great disjunction with the world that we find

ourselves in. It isn't at all clear to me that there is any answer whatsoever to that. No, it's a permanent existential problem, right? Yes. That's man against society, essentially, and we're all crushed and formed by society to our detriment and to our benefit. Yes, and not just what society does, but our experience of life with or without society to the extent that we

can study man outside of society, is what Kierkegaard and others keep going around. What it is that we cannot know, what it is that we intuit about our condition in the world, which we still can find no way of expressing or finding our way to. There are great mysteries about ourselves, which we intuit, and we cannot answer. And obviously it's what philosophy continually returns to, it's what religion attempts to answer. These are the deep questions of humankind. It's why all of this constantly crosses against, it goes across for instance aesthetics because our late friend Roger Scouton often described better than anyone. Our sense of beauty is so important because it gives us a sense of that thing we know and we know we cannot approach. Something which is is telling us something from a realm which we know we cannot access

or can never access fully. These are central aspects of being a human being. One of them, as I say, is the sense which exists in all our lives at some point. And for some people semi-permanently, that the world is totally unknowable to them. And therefore, they are highly vulnerable to anything that comes along and says, this is the answer. And I know. Well, you point out in your book, this is something quite interesting that supports this line of reasoning, which is you talk about the stripping of a particular identity from someone if they events the wrong political platform.

So Peter Teal, for example, can't be gay because he's a Republican. And can he West can't be black because he came out in favor of Trump. And that does argue the fact that that occurs, that stripping of the identity occurs does indicate that the identity has a function and a purpose, right? So it's a way of playing. It has a platform. It has a party manifesto. It's something to sign up to. Yeah, and in the absence of nothing,

or in the absence of anything else, it might be better than nothing. Absolutely. The question is how tenable it is. And the fundamental flaw that I see in identity politics is that even though it's predicated on the idea, at least it's simultaneously predicated on the idea that so that identity is a social construct and that it's a felt sense and it can't be both of those. And it is in fact a social construct with biological, with biological root.

The fact that it's a social construct means that it's something that is by necessity negotiated with others, not imposed upon them by fiat. And it has to be negotiated with others because otherwise they won't play with you. This is one of the reasons why to an extent, I think I say somewhere in the book, that trying to find the exact methodology of the prevailing ideology of our era is to a great extent like trying to find meaning in the entrails of a chicken. And we do just keep coming across we do just keep coming across the same set of unexplainable, inexplicable contradictory, self-contradictory ill-fort out ideas. The most obvious one, I say some ways, and I'm rather even pointing this out now as well, is you must understand me. Indeed, your

primarily role in the world almost is to understand me, if I'm in the right cassette of categories, and simultaneously, you will never understand. Right, right. Now, I mean, as I say, I think actually, it's fairly obvious that if you can never understand where somebody else is coming from, then there's no point in discourse.

There's no point in speaking with other people or reading or of learning. We just, we are in solitude. That's a Hobbesian state. That's a state of war. Absolutely. In conversation, Cease's war emerges. Exactly. And if we can't understand each other, there's no recourse except for force. And this is why this is why worries me so much when I hear this done by, particularly by identity politics people in relation to race, and particularly obviously to do with it, if you happen to be black, is if people say you can never understand my experience, I think. But if a person who is not black can never understand a person who is,

then we're in hell of a lot of trouble. I've stepped back from that. We have to work hard at trying to understand each other, including each other's historic pain, including each other's current situations. But we have to keep open the possibility that we can and will try to understand each other and to speak across these alleged vast divides which I don't think are remotely as big a divide if they are a divide

as the various, as I say people who believe this ethos of our time claim but this is the one that worries me most and it's profoundly anti-human apart for anything else. Because if you say, sign up, be a part of one of these groups, and then you've got this sort of, as I say, party manifesto set out. It completely ignores what most of us find to be our experience, I think, if we're honest as human beings, which is that we like to be able to absorb, we like to be able to understand, We like to be able to understand. We like stories. We like to hear about people who are not like us. From the very beginning,

we read stories about people who have no connection with our kind. Why did children across the world read about princesses and princes and all sorts of other people who are nothing like in the state they are because we like to hear other people's stories. It's not just that they're artists, we want to find out about other people. We do not just want the experience that we happen to have been or been born into. That's because that's because that broadens our identities. Yes. It gives us more tools to use in the world. And we're obviously very good at that.

And it is a matter of throwing your hands up and despair if you say that that's impossible. It's difficult. I mean, we're each a solitude in some sense for multiple reasons, for maybe multiple intersectional reasons for that matter. But that doesn't mean that communication is impossible or that it should be forgotten unless you want the alternative and the alternative is conflict, combat.

Yes. Yes. If I can't understand you, you're nothing like me. And there's no way that we can negotiate any peaceful way to occupy the same space. That's right. And so that's a, maybe that's the catastrophe you're after, but it's not an optimal outcome.

No. And it's one of the reasons why my ears have been particularly prepped in recent years by a certain retributive, rebarrative, deliberately callous discussion of certain groups of people, certain types of voters, and much more, a gleeful, willful desire not to even bother to try to understand their pay, which is of course, as far as I can see it, nothing more than an expression of assumed

generally vengeance. Well, that brings us to another. Okay, so let's dive into that a bit. Obviously, at least to some degree, you're referring to what happened in the United States with regards to Trump voters. And that's basically half the population. Yeah, well, let's start there because that's a good rat's nest to try to investigate. So what I see and have seen happening in the West, but

particularly in the United States in recent years is the beginnings of something that resembles an out of control positive feedback loop. And positive feedback loop, you know this, but I'll just outline it quickly. A positive feedback loop, so loop occurs when the inputs of a system and the outputs are the same. And so you hear this when you hear feedback at a rock concert when a microphone gets too close to a speaker, because the microphone picks up the speaker noise and then transmits it to the speaker and then runs it through the microphone amplifying it each time until the whole system goes out of control essentially. And a lot of forms of psychopathology are positive feedback loops like depression. When you get depressed, your mood goes down and then

you start to isolate yourself and get a strange from the people that you love and your friends and that makes you more depressed and that makes you more estranged and then you start not going to work and that alienates you and makes your depression worse. And you spin downwards and positive feedback loops can erupt in societies too and you get that in societies that are in permanent feuds, which is part of the reason that the state has to exercise a monopoly on violence. It's to stop vengeful retribution from spiraling out of control. It's a real danger. And what I see happening right now is that the right and the left are engaged in a process of positive feedback, where one hits the other and the other hits back slightly harder and then,

well, I don't have to belabor the point. And I think that if you're temperamentally inclined to be on the right, you point to the left and you say, well, they started it. And if you're temperamentally inclined to be on the left, you point to the right and say, well, they started it and you, or and here's how they're contributing to it. And you can point to innumerable examples. And where where it all started, is it rather arbitrary choice on your part? The question for me is how to dampen it down, you know, and conservatives have a real problem at the moment, I believe, because of what happened with Trump in recent weeks. And so let me tell you what I understand, and you tell me what you think, okay. I mean, I regarded Trump as a reaction to Clinton, essentially, and to her playing identity politics.

And I believe that Trump didn't win so much his Hillary lost. And she lost because a sizable proportion of her base, the working class white males, basically, the who were traditionally Democrat, when push came to shove choosing between her and Trump, chose Trump mostly as an up yours to the Democrats. And so I don't see Trump's a symptom, although he's also a causal agent. Now, unfortunately, what's occurred in the last couple of weeks

has made things unbelievably complicated, because it does look like Trump went down the rabbit hole of the stolen election narrative and has caused a substantial amount of grief and misery as a consequence of that. And so, well, so I'd like your opinion about all that, and then we can discuss what might be done about that from the conservative perspective or indeed period. Yes. I would have speaking agree with what you just said. I was in the States for a month and a bit more before the election, traveling around, covering it.

And I hadn't been to the US for a couple of years, as it happened. I travel a lot, as you know, in normal times. But I hadn't been to the US for a couple of years, and I was horrified by the fact that just normal discourse seemed to be impossible across political divides. All dinner tables to be impossible across political divides, all dinner tables erupted in exactly the fashion that you would expect. Everyone's starting to see in their own positive feedback loops. But you did this first, but your side did that. And as you say, you could start from anywhere,

but that was the nature of it. But there was something else, by the way, which was, I mean, my fairest estimation of the critique that the left has of the right is that they hate the right for allowing Trump to happen. And that isn't such a bad, reason to dislike the right at the moment. How did you allow this man out? How did you allow him to win? That seemed to be their criticism. And there is a criticism to make of the American right over that.

I think it could have been a hell of a lot worse, but it's a reasonable criticism for the right to contend with. The problem is- Well, the right has to contend with the potential power of a kind of mindless populism just as the left has to contend with the constant potential to be swamped by intellectual like ideology. And so if the left tends to go out of control in an intellectual direction, an ideological intellectual direction, and a lot of that is explicit in the, in say in the identity politics ideology,

that's paramount now, and maybe it was explicit in the form of Marxism. Earlier, the right can easily respond to that with a pronounced implicit anti-intellectualism. And I think that's exactly what Trump represented. I mean, it's funny because he was a kind of elite, obviously, because of a wealthy background, but he wasn't markedly part of the insider intellectually elite and he was able to express the frustration of the common person, so to speak, with the idiocy of the intellectuals in the manner that he acted, essentially, and in whom he had contempt for, I suppose. And you could blame that on the stupidity of the people who voted for Trump,

but you could equally point to the red flag that was being waved in front of their face by the identity politics types. And again, that's another place where a positive feedback loop can easily become instantiated. The issue is how to dampen this down. What, what, what, what, so, the, one of one of the other things I noticed was, of course, on the right, there was a certain type of voter on the right in America who didn't just make peace with Trump, which was something that you could do, I wrote about this a number of times, you could say, well, these are the things he did, which are reasonable, or, you know, we're in power, so we should try to make sure that we exercise it well and have

whatever impact we can to improve the administration. There was something else going on, which was people recognizing that Trump hurt their opponents, you know, that he was a low tool to get back at the left. Now, I've heard that everywhere over Wiesby. You know, like, they've definitely, there was an element of vengeance on us. Exactly. It was up yours. So the left have kept producing people

who've been provoking us and prodding us. And we on the right in America keep producing sort of, you know, third presses of the Bush family or various other dynastic politics that corrupts America. We keep producing them that and we're just not giving anyone of equal vengefulness, loneliness, willingness to just hit people nastily if Trump was willing to do a lot of that stuff, if not all of it. And a certain type of right-wing voter had had enough and was willing to get the only person willing to play the left on equal terms. And one other thing from that, of course, he did

something that, again, the right historically sort of not been very good at, which is having a program of his own, not just fighting the next battle you're going to lose. You know, if the battle, people tend to think of the battleground of politics as being sort of level, and it isn't, times it tilts more one way than the other. So at times historically, it's harder to advocate left wing proposals on certain things, and then it suddenly becomes all downhill it becomes easy to do it. It's in the same way the right tends to be at a disadvantage constantly having to push up

hill and inevitably what it does is it makes a compromise with the latest left wing demand and therefore the left actually accumulates a bit more power a bit more influence a bit more further, a bit more influence, a bit more further and so inside theology. And that slightly sloped situation had existed in American politics in the views of a lot of people the right for some years. Donald Trump comes along and seems to do that to it.

He seems to be willing to say, no, no, no, no, we're not just going to be on the back foot fighting the next thing the left's going to win. We're actually going to do stuff of our own. And that is a dynamic that had been missing in American politics. And I think to that extent, a certain type of right wing voter was willing not just to make peace with Trump, but actually willing to give him the benefit without, and indeed to allow him to use the tools of government. When I channeled my inner red neck, which wasn't that difficult, given that I'm from Alberta,

which is a rather conservative and sort of self-consciously proud red neck Texas of Canada, I suppose. And I'm not saying that in an entirely disparaging way. There are certain advantages to that. Anyways, when I was channeling my inner redneck, I could certainly come into contact with feelings of exactly that type. It was because I could imagine myself in the belleting chamber, reaching out to put the checkmark next to Hillary's name and saying, oh, to hell with it, which is a hell, which is a hell of a thing to say in the ballot room and putting a check by Trump's name. You know, and you can do that quite easily too when you think, well, it's just your vote.

It's one among, you know, millions of votes. And what difference does a little impulsiveness on, and little vengefulness on my part make? And Trump was definitely a candidate of resentment, although I think you could say exactly the same thing about Hillary. And the fact that we had candidates of resentment is about, that's bad because resentment is a terrible, terrible motivation. Absolutely. One of the worst. It is tended to be identified with the left on politics. And I think now it is equally at least able to be identified with the left on politics. And I think now it is equally at least able to be identified with the right. But here we come to what I regard as being the real challenge

and to answer the deep underlying question of how we try to improve this. In America, the thing that struck me most was this. And I wrote about this in spectator easy. I was very worried by one thing in particular, which is what happens when you don't just have different interpretations of events, but the thing that you've just seen, you disagree on the nature of what it was you saw. Oh, yeah, opinions, nothing, man.

It's disagreement about facts that's everything. Absolutely. And that's perception. Now, in political terms, democratic terms, this is, of course, an absolute catastrophe because, as I was saying to the friends in Britain recently, you know, one of the great things about democratic politics isn't just that it gives you a winner, it gives you a loser.

You know, in the UK, by 1997, the conservatives have been in power for 18 years. Most of them under Margaret Fatcher and then under a weak successor. And by 1997, the British public have had enough of the conservatives. The best interpretation is that they have become weak and they will very, very weak. They also appear to be slightly corrupt around the edges. They seemed to be all sorts, they seem to be hypocritical on morality issues

and much more. The country had had enough of them and they voted them out in a landslide. And for 13 years, I can serve to parties in the wilderness, trying to work out how to be appealing to the electorate again, and it manages it. In the same way, by 2010, the Labour Party, the Labour Left have frankly become a board to the public. They've been in office long enough. We've got the successor to Tony Blair, just like we had a successor to Margaret Factor, we're on the week and falling apart slightly. Slightly, I don't use the word in a real sense, but it's sort of corrupted part of the political system.

It's late in the day and the public vote, the Conservatives back into office, all be it only in a coalition at first. But the important thing about this is, what does the party do in the interim? In the case of the UK, the left after it loses the 2010 election goes slightly further to the left and then crazily far to the left. And then last year, in 2020, the British public in its genius totally rejects the far left wing politics of Jeremy Corbyn. And now the Labour Party is in the process of trying to make itself electable again and coming into the centre. Why do I give this, for most of your viewers, obscure a lesson in the last few decades of British politics? Because the most important thing in a way

it was not who won but who lost and what they did when they knew they'd lost. Yes. And as you know, psychologically, this is one of the most important lessons for Eudwight's about this in the essay on, what's it, in Melancholia, that you have to be able to recognize that the thing has been lost in order to be able to even love again. You have to bury the thing that has been lost

to recognize that it has gone. And what I am horrified by in American politics is the fact that that morning process is not allowed to occur. They cannot bury the dead. They cannot grieve for the loss because they don't think they lost. Half of the, and again, I don't make it. There's a technical problem there too, which is that the margin of victory wasn't much greater than the margin of error. And that's been a problem for multiple elections now, right? Four elections in a row, it's been too close to call.

And there is always a certain amount of corruption in any electoral process. Maybe it's half a percent or a quarter of a percent in a pristine system. But when your margin of victory is of the same magnitude, then, well, then you can make a plausible case that corruption has potentially undermined the validity of the process. Absolutely. And you know, both sides are not simply making an equivalence here, but I mean, both sides have tried this in American politics in recent years. You know, it's not like it was obscure Democrats who pretended that Trump was an illegitimate president

who had not been legitimately voted in in 2016. It was not obscure figures. It was the woman who was defeated by him at the ballot box, who was among the people who played with the idea. First of all, we had that the Russians had actually manipulated the ballot machine. So remember that? You know, they all walked back from it now, or they pretend they didn't do it, but they were literally pretending and claiming that the Russians had managed to get access to the voting machines in America in 2016. And then they sort of slowly stepped it back and they had that the Russians had sort of financed up and then it was Russian

bots. But for four years, the Democrats played with that. Trump then totally reprehensibly takes that even further and says that the election results can't be accepted and he won't even leave office is his is his is his first reaction, which obviously is playing with the most dangerous elements of the democratic process. And so so now nine out of ten Trump voters now still say they believe he won the election. If, in terms of healing this, the first thing I can come up with on this, the first thing, the most basic thing, is that Joe Biden after coming into office,

has to make sure this never happens again. How does that happen? I'm not an America. I can only make, as it were, friendly suggestions. I would just make sure that the next president makes sure this can never happen again, that there is some bipartisan, nonpartisan way in which they agree who wins the election next time round. And at four years from now,

whoever... Hypothetically, that's what the Electoral College was supposed to be doing. Absolutely. And I suppose it did perform that function, but was still I do think again, it's a problem of margin of error, a technical problem of margin of error. You know, you can't expect anything other than for there to be questions about the validity of an election when it's that close, it's going to happen. Well, you know, you can have these questions, but as long as you respect the outcut, I mean, you can have very close selections and still accept them. Yes. In 1997, there was a conservative seat, which I think was lost by nine votes.

And they got recount after recount, and eventually, actually, there was a revote. And the conservatives lost by about 20,000 votes because the voters were so fed up with the conservatives making them vote again. Now, but the point is, is that it was very close, but it wouldn't be respected. It isn't just the closeness of the elections in America. I'll agree it's obviously.

No, I'm not trying, I'm certainly not trying to justify it, either, I'm just saying that this eventuality is much more likely under those circumstances. Absolutely, but this process that they're now stuck in of just not agreeing on what they just saw is lethal. So, okay, so let's talk about that for a minute too, because this brings up another technical issue. And the, because you open the can of worms

by stating that people now don't have differences of opinion about the facts, they have different facts. Yes. And the question is, in part, how is it under normal circumstances that people do see the same facts, but then have different opinions. It means there's a very deep consensus on top of which there's relatively trivial dispute. That's a much better situation. But part of the way that people do that is by using,

well look at it this way, you have five senses, each of which depend on very different physiological mechanism. And that's because you can see things that aren't there, and you can hear things that aren't there, and you can touch things that aren't there, but you can't see here and touch things that aren't there. So you use this multi-dimensional process of triangulating. You actually use pentangulating, I suppose, with your five senses, and you determine what's real. But even that's not enough. Then what we do is we seek consensus.

We say, okay, well, here's what the phenomenon appears to be, to me, what do you see? And then if you see it, and someone else sees it, and this would especially be good if we didn't share the same opinions, but we could agree on what we saw, then we think it's real. Now, the technical problem is now, no matter what you believe, you can find a like-minded group that's discussing this avidly to confirm your confirmation bias and what that means. And I'm seeing this happening, I can't believe how rapidly it's happening. I'm seeing people degenerate into a conspiratorial paranoia. And I'm seeing it in family members and in friends and like, and as well as manifesting itself in broader society. And it's really, I think we're driving ourself insane with

the net. Yes, I absolutely agree. I'm very, very worried about where we are. And I'm in political terms. I mean, it's obviously deeper. But in political terms, I'm worried about it because I think the right is about to go off in America like the left and America has gone off. Well, that was a likely outcome five years ago. It looked to me like that was why I tried to years ago, it looked to me like that was why I tried to, I was concerned back in 2016 that things were starting to degenerate and that the left would wake up the sleeping right, you know, the radicals on the far end of the spectrum who prefer action to words,

let's say, by a large margin and who are truly dangerous, I could see them being large margin and who are truly dangerous, I could see them being prodded into a weakness and it was a very frightening thing. It still is a very frightening thing. One of the things I've thought about for not many years about this is of course is it's not just that there's that possibility of the two sides fighting it against each other but there ends up being no place to trust each other. This seems to me, in my conversations with people of different political types, what I notice is that there is the most important thing if you're actually going to solve a problem. And you know better than anyone how much the political torque, shall we say,

is actually not set up to solve problems. It's set up for a performative thing, it's set up for people to just play their part and read the script and almost none of our political discussion is actually problem solving, or ant, almost none of it. But when you do get close to solving the problem, it exists. The possibility only exists if the other person is able to be trusted by you, not to pull some funny stuff when you're not looking. And I was thinking about this recently. I was talking at one point with Brett Weinstein, his podcast.

And I completely, Brett is from a very different political tradition from me. We have very different instincts on awful lot of things and a lot of very similar entities. But when I talk about problems like, and we talked about poverty and homelessness and things, I completely trust him. And he allows me to concede where I'm not willing often to concede, because I'm slightly worried that, for instance, let me give you the obvious one, I worry about the inequality discussion, like a lot of people on the right, not because I don't believe inequality exists, but I worry that the people who've been thinking about

it most of the ones with the worst possible answer. You know, the people are... Yes, well, that's another thing we should discuss, because inequality is a terrible, terrible problem. It's a society devouring problem. The only thing worse than inequality are the purported solutions frequent. Exactly. It's a it's it's it's it's perfect example of it because every political side has a version of this, you know, what you that I think I think I think we've talked about this bit in the past. I think one of the reasons that the

right find it so hard to persuade the left to talk about immigration for instance is the left just doesn't want to acknowledge it's the serious debate it is because it notices the right is the side that's been thinking about most and it doesn't trust the answer the right has. So it's definitely something that both sides have as an instinct. So how do you solve a problem in this situation? Only by people from across the political divide trusting each other that they don't have something funny they're going to pull when you're not looking or just put it in other way, they're not going to do something when you're beyond your own competency on the subject you're trying to

solve. So that's how you actually solve a problem. Now of course, as I say, we're not solving any problems at the moment. And I noticed this, I said that the last couple of years is like the eye of Sauron. Our society particularly whipped up by the wretched social media companies, the Make Them Rich, have turned our societies into a great eye of Sauron, which scours across the land and it looks one thing dementedly and then it moves on to another thing and the problem about it is it doesn't solve a damn thing none of the things none of the things it focuses on you know it focuses on on on on over what did we have we had we had we had

the green issue in January, it was meant to be a climate emergency of January over last year. Every, every democratic government was meant to announce a climate emergency. Then we have the COVID emergency. Then we have the BLM emergency. You know, it's been emergency after emergency

and we don't seem to solve them. In fact, we seem to, we seem to make them worse when we address them because we can't agree on the thing that we're meant to be addressing. So as I say, if I was to try to come up with the things to solve this, it would be that people from the left and right who could trust each other, and just one other thing on it, the thing about that is the reason why I think we haven't been able to do that, particularly in America is this. In my view, the American left has an incorrect approximation

of the proximity of fascism to the American political system, or white nationalism to the center of the political system. And obviously Trump has given them the heck of a lot of ammunition, but they were willing to use it anyway. They've been using it for years. They wanted to claim they basically that fascism was very, very close. Now you see scenes like the reprehensible scenes of the capital the other day, and you see the ammunition that these reprehensible people have just given the left to continue to pretend that the

American right, all of the right, you know, CNN presenters and others have said, all of the right is now with the Nazis, with the fascists, with the white supremacists. And if that's the case, you can't, if you're an American left, communicate with anyone on the American right, because when you're not looking, they're going to smuggle fascism in and get you all. And the problem is that an element of the right, look, sometimes it's a reasonable critique, distrusts the left because it doesn't trust that its social welfare instincts aren't going to be then subsumed into their socialist instincts aren't then going to be subsumed by a deep desire to have communism. So the right doesn't

trust the left. Now, I think there are elements of the right that have, particularly in a market, deeply overstated the proximity of communism to the American political system. Just to think I'm one of those? No, I don't. No, I don't. Why not? Well, I think there's something I worry about, you know, when I'm looking at this positive feedback loop situation arise, you know, I can't help but see similarities in the social identity movement and the Marxist movement. And I mean, you make that case in your book. So maybe you're one of them too, you know. And I don't know if this is a situation where, you know, the left purports to see fascism lurking

behind every right-wing move. And do you think the right is just as culpable with regards to seeing communism behind every left-wing move? I mean, it's complicated. It's a risk. Let me give you a statistic here, a friend of mine just told me the other day. There's only two self-described democratic socialists sitting in the Congressional House in the United States on the Democrat side. There's only two. The rest of them are

moderates, and most of the moderates are moderate moderates. Now, those two attract a disproportionate amount of attention, partly because they're incredibly savvy social media users, whereas the moderates aren't at all and are technologically in that sense. But I guess I wonder how much conscience scouring. Everyone's asking themselves that I suppose now how much conscience scouring is in order after the events on the hill last last week or two weeks ago. Well, I think that would have been that would have been shocking to a lot of us and should be. And I mean, it's obviously a concern. I understand much more in the European context

because I know it much better. I don't know, I think I have a fairly good idea of what's hiding in the woodshed in America. Use the coal comfort farm analogy. I think I know that there is something nasty in the wood shed on the right, but I've never believed that it's got any chance of persuading the GOP to adopt its platform. I think there are some nasty things in the woodshed in every society and on those political sides.

And in order to make the question of maturity in your political system is the extent to which you keep that woodshed locked. Right. Now, it seems to me that in Britain, for instance, as a country I know best, I've spent more time in than any other country. In Britain, I'm fairly confident to our politics that we have that woodshed very closely locked. You know, when a maniac killed a Labour MP several years

ago, the late Joe Cox, and shouted Britain first, we had nobody in Britain, nobody on the political right who said, I think we've got to understand the grievances of the attacker. We had nobody there. Nobody wants that anywhere near the political system. So we need to be... And what about the grievances?

What do you think's happening in the US on the right with regards to the grievances of the Capitol Hill protesters? Well, here seems to me to be a problem, but on the political left, and I saw this myself, I was in Portland and I was in Seattle, and my travel was before the election, and I saw the emisorated state, the anti-FERM and BLM have turned those cities into. I was disgusted by what I saw. I was disgusted by the fact that I spent several nights with Antifa in Portland and seeing them and being mixed

up with them under cover obviously, seeing what they were doing to attack federal buildings and so on. I was just horrified. I've seen quite a lot of the world. I've seen a number of all zones. I've traveled all across Africa and the Middle East and the Far East. I've seen a lot of things.

I've never seen a first world city like that. I've never seen that in a democracy. Never. And it's horrific. And I was horrified once more by the fact that my left wing friends with noble exceptions, like like Brett who I mentioned earlier My left-wing friends in America didn't want to hear about it or even concede that I'd seen with my own eyes What I'd seen because they just fear that you can see that's happening then you allowed something and

So they've been willing on the American left for years now to excuse and in many cases at a very senior level actually extoll political violence. We have CNN presenters and Democrat representatives willing to say things like the protestors not only, you know, mustn't stop, they shouldn't stop. They should keep going. And these aren't obscure figures. They're people like Kamala Harris, the Vice President-elect, who were willing to play

with encouraging along the protests that were Royaling America last summer. And so in that situation, it wouldn't surprise me for a moment. If there were people on the political right, willing to say, all make all sorts of excuses and say, well, the election is setting up, but that's where the right will go wrong. That's where the right will go wrong.

And I think it has to be totally clear. And instead of just pointing out a double standard, has to actually do something different and say, you know, we are not going to excuse for a moment. People are sorting federal agents and breaking their way into federal buildings and and and causing the death of a policeman. We on our side will not in any circumstances give cover to people doing that. We will say it's wrong and we will say it's wrong even if the left keeps on saying that its form of violence isn't wrong because the

only way out of this is if we show people by demonstrating, by living, by exolding the way out of it. That is the only answer I can ask. So let me ask you another question. I can, I can, I can eat two questions. I guess I can hear the voice of a liberal friend of mine, a good friend of mine in, in my head while you're talking and saying, it's disingenuous at a time like this two weeks after the Capitol Hill assault to talk about the antifa movements in Portland and in Seattle because they're are a different magnitude. What happened in Washington was on the order of an insurrection. And so that's the first objection. And the second one is that I had a brief discussion with my wife about Trump's claim that the election was stolen.

And so I've been running this margin of error problem over in my head and say there was a, he was defeated by a small margin, relatively small margin. Now, the compelling piece of evidence that he lost in my estimation is the fact that, and I believe this is right, that of 90 court challenges that the Trump administration has brought forward forward only one has been upheld. And that includes the decisions of the judiciary where the judiciary was fundamentally

Republican in its in its in its nomination and in its origin. And so but and her response was well, you've been saying for years that the judiciary has become increasingly corrupted by left-wing activists, let's say, which is really something that's happened to a large degree in Canada. How do you know that the judiciary itself don't believe for a moment that republic and nominated judiciary members have been corrupted by left wing propaganda to the point where they overthrew the American election. But, but it's the fact that that idea emerges is a real indication of breakdown in this trust that you've been,

you know, in this fundamental level of trust that we've been describing. All right, so I'm going to let you riff on those. Well, first of all, yes, in order to, I have endless messages, as I'm sure you do now, from people on the American right, you do now from the people on the American right, GOP voters who want to persuade me that the election was stolen, and that everybody has let Trump down. And in order to believe that, you have to not only believe that all of those courts were wrong and were corrupted in some way, but for instance, the vice president Pence was corrupted.

And Mitch McConnell was right. Right, exactly. That's all the senior people who have been arrested. Okay, so it's worth dwelling. It's worth dwelling on this for a moment because lots of viewers are going to have this as a question. They're going to be wavering with regard to the attitude towards the election. So what we're saying is that the fundamental, here's the reasonable perspective.

It was very close. No doubt there were irregularities. However, when Trump challenged the integrity of the vote, even the judiciary that would have been ideological, ideologically tilted towards him and even nominated by him in some circumstances, overruled his objections in the vast majority of cases. Plus, you just said, his objections in the vast majority of cases. Plus, you just said, you also have to hypothesize that Mike Pence was somehow got to and that all of the right wingers, the Republican people on the right who are who refused to go along with Trump's claim that the election was stolen. All those people were subject to the same corruption. So the only person that's allowed to be

pristine from that perspective is Trump himself. Everywhere else there's betrayal. And I would strongly urge people apart from him to look at the absurdity of that idea that the only perfect person in the United States is Donald J. Trump. Really, have you never had any doubts about his character? Have you never wondered about his priorities? And have you never, have you never allowed yourself to succumb to the temptation of gleefully using Trump as a weapon against people who have annoyed you in the past? Some and, and, and is your attraction towards Trump not generated in large part by a kind of resentment that you wouldn't be willing to

probably admit publicly? You have to learn. And now you're in a situation where you have to think that he's the only paragon of virtue. This is not a road that I would recommend traveling down. Absolutely. And I worry that among other things, the opportunity cost to the Democrats of not can not recognize, the Democrats had four years when they could have realized that they lost a Trump

in spite of the American public knowing who he was. Yes, not that they didn't know his character or his flaws, but they knew all of them and they voted for him anyway. That's a hateful lesson to learn from. And they should have spent four years trying to learn from it. And they didn't. And I don't know.

I don't know if they didn't. I think this tangles us back up with the problem that we were discussing to begin with. I've worked reasonably closely with the Greg Herwitz, who did these ads. And that's it with you. That's right. You did. You did. I forgot about that.

And we've talked also about the collapse of the grand narrative. It's not easy for the moderates on the Democrat side to get the stage. Partly, they don't know how. They're not social media experts by any stretch of the imagination, and they may have some of the contempt that is associated with inability with regard to using the new media forms. They're not savvy in that regard, and they may have learned at least in part, but I don't think they know how to control the ideologues on the left, and it's partly because they they don't know how to put forth

an alternative narrative. Well, here's what one very straightforward one that the American left could do. It could recognize you can be proud of your country. And field is broadly speaking, being a great force for good in the world without being a reprehensible person. Yes, absolutely. That's a very good place to start.

Well, I would say the messages, the messages that have been put out by this particular group, and the candidates that they have supported would agree with that statement. And so, but the problem is, and they should have worked more on that. They could have worked to try to make the

deplorables feel somewhat, um, that they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, they, didn't want to make their lives more painful. They wanted to lessen the pain. That could have been, that could have been, but, but, but the point is that now there's the risk of the same opportunity cost on the American right that they're going to spend four years with this obsession over the election that's just passed that a massive amount of attention of voters and of thinkers and of outlets and of money and much more is going to be dedicated, first of all, to this attempt to prove everyone other than the Trump family, let America down in the last few months. And secondly, that of course, it's going to continue to be

caught up with the Trump trade, and that he will haunt not just the American politics, but specifically Republican politics. OK, so let's talk about this impeachment move then. So my sense was that my sense is that in some way, Trump is better ignored than persecuted. Yes. And the reason I believe that is because of this move towards paranoid, conspiratorial

thinking that I see emerging everywhere. And the last thing you want to do to people who are becoming paranoid is to persecute them. And for the Democrats have, if the Democrats are going to prosecute Trump, I shouldn't say, persecute, not in that context anyways. If they're going to prosecute Trump, they need to figure out how to detach the prosecution of Trump from the persecution of people who voted for him. Yes.

Right? That's a very tricky thing to do. And so I think it would be better to let him go with a whimper than to let him go with a bang. Well, here's one way, by the way. I mean, I know when I was writing about the BLM protests last summer, I, any, by the way, I mean, I make a suggestion here by the way, the American media is much, much more corrupting than the British media. You know, we still have a much wider variety of platforms in the UK,

and it allowed people a wider and better array of opinion than the American media, which is almost totally sunk, not completely, but almost totally. In Britain, we don't have quite a simple, why do I say that? Because no editor of mine would allow me to claim that everyone who went on a BLM march looted. No editor of mine would allow me to write that. If I even tried it and I wouldn't, I would immediately have my first edit back saying, you can't claim that because everybody who was upset the death of George Floyd last summer did not go and loot the local Nike store. Some people did.

It was too large a number and there were too many people giving cover for them and so on. But you can't say they all did. Right, so let's play the same standard. Are you allowed to pretend that everyone who attended the Capitol Hill demonstration the other week was responsible for the most reprehensible people in their actions? No, you shouldn't do that.

Are you allowed to pretend that all Republican voters or Trump supporters were responsible for it? No, you shouldn't be allowed to do that. I mean, we could try to encompass you all live with the consequences. Absolutely. We could try to hold people to that standard. It's a perfectly reason. It would have been journalism 101 in America until a few years ago. It's only, as I say, because of the totally corrupted nature of the American media, that it's possible for that to happen. By the way, can I just give a quick, as it were, parentheses on that.

I was just writing a piece yesterday about Andy Know, and his fourth coming book, Unmask, which I've beloved, and is now the number one bestselling book on Amazon happily. But I read one of the reports on the, again, I don't want to get stuck on the antifree because the left wing, the Democrat friend in your head will be saying he's talking about antifree again. I want to get us on. Right. So, yeah, okay. To an example of the corruption of the American media, the American media reporting on the antifree protests outside the bookstore in Portland and other places trying to force them not to stock Andy's book.

The reports on that said things like, and this one, these were unusual fringe publications, that ABC and other networks said things like, Andy know, who claimed to have been assaulted and hospitalized by Antifa in 2019, as it, what is this claimed to be? Either the journalist in question was hospitalized, or he was not. It's not hard to find that out. It's not hard to satisfy it so that you

accurately represent to your readers what happened one day in 2019. You don't need to do these things signal that you don't agree with the interpretation of the individual in question which you believe might be attributed to you if you accurately report the facts. It's in these little slippages that the American media has gone so badly wrong and as a result the American political debate has helped to go so badly. So let me offer something that might be an analog to that, maybe. And this might also be viewed by listeners or viewers, has concentrating on rearranging the deck chairs when the ship is sinking. But in any case, last week, the Biden-Harris

Last week, the Biden Harris organization put out a tweet with a little video, and it was Joseph Biden discussing what he was going to do to small business owners that had been decimated by this terrible pandemic. And then he listed all the identity politics groups that would be preferentially treated. Now he could have, I watched that and I thought, that was a big mistake. He could have, because he's at the height of his ability to set his own agenda and not to pander to the radicals on the left. If he can't do it right now,

he's never going to be able to do it. He should have said, people have been devastated by this pandemic, small business owners. We're going to do everything we can to help them, starting with those who have been affected the most, which is a perfectly reasonable place to start, but he had to list Asians, Latinos, women, people of color. He may not have listed that particular category, certainly blacks. And it seemed to me to be completely super, super, super, superfluous. And one of those small slips of the sort that you're describing that lead to this tip that

you had, pause the feedback loop. Jack, I saw that video as well. I was horrified. I thought, you're the incoming president. You won the election. You have the most important opportunity now to help heal America. And you're pulling this. Well, and you also have something obvious to do in front of you.

All Biden has to do. There's nothing he has to do except immunize the population as fast as possible. It's like he's got the clearest mandate of any president that I can remember because the problem is self-evident. It's like the pandemic is terrible. It's killing people and it's driving them crazy. Well, that's absolutely what you should get on. This is one of my other big fears. The era of the pandemic, pandemic. It's a it's the worst possible time to have an overarching conspiracy narrative introduced to the system by the American president. I mean, the outgoing American president. It's a very bad time. That's for sure. Donald J Trump must know this. It's one of the fears

that conservatives always had about him was that he was going to pull some crap like this at the end. You know, it was one of the reasons why a lot of good people wouldn't join the administration, why they wanted to keep a million miles away from him. And this is a very, very dangerous and reprehensible thing for him to have done in recent years. Yes, well, you can see his, you can see his essential

narcissism manifests itself. Absolutely. Like, it seems to me quite likely that a large, that 75% of Trump believes what he's saying can't conceive of the fact that he lost the election. And I mean, maybe that's not relevant, although I think it's, I'm always trying to understand him from a psychological perspective, but I think his narcissism is so great that he's willing to risk. It appears that he's willing to risk everything in order to maintain his belief in victory. Yes, including the Republic,

including the conservative voters, and he has a more importantly the Republic. I think it's completely reprehensible, and I know there will be people watching who support Trump and all we fear is this. I still think it's very, very impressive. Well, look, we already walked through why supporting Trump at the moment is something that needs to be rethought. Absolutely. And then we should, I want to get back to that just for one moment. Look, the problem is, is that if you want to maintain your support for Trump under the current conditions, that you're going to make yourself a lot more politically radical, then you were last week. Because you have to swallow so much more than you did two weeks ago, say, or three weeks. You have to believe that absolutely every institution in the American life is totally corrupted,

and that the only uncorrupted thing is Donald J. Trump. Right. And both of those, like each of those things is not true and the combined, the combination of them is even less true. Yes. So, so, so it's very, very important that people realize that Donald Trump was in a, in a society that was very close already to conflict ratio. And he started playing with the matchbox in a very dangerous way from the moment of the evening of the election when he said that he thought he'd won it already. And his insistence that he has won it still to this moment is a deeply corrupting influence on all of American politics, and it's going to do enormous damage to everyone on the

right of politics, everywhere in the world, for the foreseeable future. So I think it was reprehensible. However, I add this to the fact that we're already in this era. I mean, since we last spoke, Jordan, if we had, when we last spoke, if either of us had said to the other, that the citizenry of all of our countries will be confined to our houses throughout 2020 and 2021. And made not to see our friends and our closest family in many cases, and not to be allowed to go to the funerals of loved ones and much, much more and that just basic things like shopping for essential goods would become problematic. If either of us had sent this to the other one when we last spoke,

we wouldn't be able to foresee the circumstances in which such a horror show occurred. We've been in the middle of this horror show. We're still in it in our respective countries. And so again, we already have a very dangerous situation occurring, where we are all even more in our solitudes than the social media systems have already made us. We've already lost almost all of our remaining social antennae. We don't have the ability to feel exactly what it is in a normal situation like down the pub or talking with friends in a normal situation over a cup of coffee. We've lost all of that in the last eight minutes. So it's a very bad idea.

I know where that isn't a catastrophe. And so it's very easy to believe that there's catastrophe everywhere, even where there isn't. Because, and in this situation, our most important duty, it seems to me, is to hold on as much as we can in this very, very choppy time, and not fall into conspiratorial thinking or vengefulness or excuse of violence or resentment, resentment, legitimization of extra political or non-political means and much more. That's a good point out. We could point out, you know, that the Democrats are making a conservative argument with regards to the election. They're saying, look, the institutions worked.

Therefore we're the valid government. But before they can make the claim that they're the valid government, they have to accept the claim that the institutions worked. And the conservatives shouldn't object to that because the conservatives believe that the institutions are valid. And so it's up to everyone right now to maintain their faith in the validity of the institutions and to not overreact and to remember that we've all been driven half out of our minds or maybe more by this enforced isolation and the fear that the pandemic has produced

and that that's also opened the door to a political catastrophe on the heels of the biological catastrophe. Yes. Everyone needs to breathe deeply and wait for the damn vaccination. It's only gonna be a few more months before, with any luck before this is brought under control.

We don't want to burn down the ship just before it gets into port. This is one of the reasons why, you know, I've, again, I mean, you know, you get criticism from making this point and largely at the moment from a increasingly conspiratorially inclined right. But, you know, I don't believe that the last year is simply some kind of prelude for democratic governments coincidentally across the entire world to fundamentally reprogram our species or something like that. I don't see it. I think it's all sorts of criticism. I think that we've made the economy to secondary in a discussion on the public health

for my taste. But again, if we had a mature political discussion in any of our countries, it would have involved, as you know, I've discussed this before in Aristotelian terms, to do with immigration, but I can do the same thing in relation to the pandemic which is you have competing virtues of equals serious. You have the public health and you have the economy and for a time in all of our societies we over-prioritize the public health path and under-prioritize the economy and if you don't have an

economy then at some point you don't have a public health system or under prioritized the economy. And if you don't have an economy, then at some point you don't have a public health system or anything like it. And you end up in a situation of a country where the poor and just less, just much more likely to just die. And so we sacrificed, we sell what we're doing is sacrificing long-term public health for short-term term public health for short term gains on the hospital front. And that's actually not surprising. Like I thank my lucky stars many times in the last year that I'm not in a position to be making those decisions because it must be hell. And what we need to all step back and think, look, we might get lucky. There's a dozen vaccines that are that are making their way to market and many that have already arrived.

And a few months is a hell of a long time when you're living through it, but not very long time when you think about it in retrospect. And so if we're smart, we're going to write it out. Here's an example of where the whole thing can both be mended and can go awry. One thing I've tried to alert some people do in the last year has been, are we sure that, for instance, it's worth our GDP's crashing and our state borrowing soaring in this fashion for this virus? The answer might be yes, but if it's yes, then you have to be pretty sure that nothing like it's going to happen again. And I'm not at all sure of that.

I'm not at all sure that among other things because the country that gave us this virus is led by a communist regime that has done everything it can to cover over how the virus came about. And so here's one of the risks we have in the era we're going into. The question of how to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again is likely to be subsumed and forgotten about among other things because a lot of energy is going to be expended by people in fruitless and conspiratorial pursuits, which will include conspiratorial pursuits against everyone in government in their respective countries. And we will lose the opportunity, for instance, to hold the CCP to account, or to make sure

that they don't give us another virus like this in a couple of years' time, because we also know from this last year that we live in societies which are a dominated by risk aversion and a highly litigious, I mean, many of the firms that will not come back, will not come back because they were in fear that one employee might get the virus if they returned too early to the office and then sue their employer.

For instance, all of these are, they're not the deepest problems in a society, but they're in terms of the technocrisy of a society, they are very serious problems and need addressing. I worry that we're going to address none of this because of energies expended in fruitless directions. fru-crest directions. And I wonder if we can't just somehow again come and come across ways to solve problems. And that can be done by trust being built across political divides. Well, that's a big part of this is that I would say another, if one piece of advice is to understand what you're sacrificing by continuing to support Trump under these conditions, another piece of advice would be to risk trust at the present time. You know, we've been through in the West, we've been through crises of various sorts in the past and managed them quite successfully,

all things considered. And you could point to the pandemic response and look at all the things that have been positive about it, the biggest of those being the dozen or so vaccines or more that are in the pipeline and that have been produced with unbelievable speed and and apparent utility. And I'm praying that that's the case, knowing full well that, you know, vaccinating 100 million people with a relatively unproven chemical is a dangerous enterprise.

But I'm praying that it goes well. And I'm praying as well that that trust, I've been thinking increasingly, I wrote about this in my book that's coming out in March about trust as a form of courage, right, rather than because naive trust is useless and anybody who's been hit is no longer naive. And so maybe no longer trusting, but you can replace that with a trust that's born out of courage.

And if you manifest trust even across a political divide, you call to the best in the person across that divide by saying, look, I'm willing to trust you knowing full well that you're as big as snake as me. So that's what we made at the moment. And I'm hoping Biden, well, I mean, he has a great burden and I hope that he can be pragmatic and concentrate on the real problems and help us put. I was reading your book and I kept thinking, this sounds like the past to me because the pandemic has switched things

around so dramatically. It's like, well, this is so 2018 or, and maybe it's not, maybe it's still valid for today, but maybe the pandemic has changed everything too. And, you know, we can put some of these trivial and adolescent preoccupations behind us and concentrate on the real problems at hand. So some people listening will have heard me say this before, but when the pandemic first struck in 2020, I was under the, for a moment, I mean, I thought a lot of things like all of us. One of my thoughts, the second thing I thought was, oh, well,

at least that'll see off all the identity politics nonsense. I thought, well, you know, no one is going to have much time for playing gender games if we're all going to lose the significance way that our loved ones. And I thought for a time, I thought, well, now that will make the subject of the madness of crowds look like a sort of dated a dated book already. Like, you know, one of these books written just before a catastrophe, which wipes out the relevance of the book in question. And I sort of had a few weeks, I had that feeling for a few weeks out of thought. And then I saw all the same stuff coming in,

the same games being played. And then of course, after the death of George Floyd, I saw one of the subjects I take home in the blog, race, just below one. And I say in the updated version, that was my experience of it, was in the way I was hoping my book was going to be a relevant. And then suddenly it seemed to be right over the target again. And, and, and you know, and it's it's strange because

because I felt I felt already that what I've seen and just and and what I've warned about, had just exploded, just after I'd warned about it. And as you know, it had its experience, and it's very worrying, because you see the speed at which things pick up, and the violence that just catches faster than you'd ever feared. That's a characteristic of positive feedback loops. faster than you'd ever feared. That's a characteristic of positive feedback loops. Raspire a lot of control unbelievably quickly. And before we knew it, you know, in Britain, suddenly Winston Churchill was a reprehensible figure.

You're lovely. You're lovely people. Yes, overnight. And I resisted that. As I always do, I resisted the attempt to smuggle in a new narrative about everything in my society and country, in my country's history, under cover of terrible policemen's actions in Minnesota.

But I think most people felt at that moment that they were on the back foot, if they believed as I do, that their society had a lot to be said for it, rather than this horrible hostile rewriting that was being attempted on the back of an incident awful as it was in Minnesota. But I saw the speed and the recklessness with which people tried to push in a new story. And then I suppose one of the things I thought about was, well, what are the things that I suggest in the madness of crowds

being ways out? And are they still working? Would they still be relevant in this situation? And perhaps I would say this, but I do find that the answers I give, I mean, they're not the most specific in a way, but I try not to be specific. I try to give them the deepest, most widely applicable answers I can. You talk about forgiveness, and I figured that would be a good way for us to close out this discussion. And I think that that's, I think that that's a topic upon which much meditation could be expended. And we have to live with each other. The left wingers have to live with the Trump voters

and the Trump voters have to live with the identity politics types. And we have good solid institutions. And I think we need in the next coming months to put out our hands to those who oppose us knowing full well that we might be burnt in the attempt but to do it nonetheless and to keep doing it because the all the alternatives are much worse

unless you wanna see things burn. And most people are moderate and reasonable. Yes. And we'll feel deep embarrassment at some point, if they allow their own political side to run to its extremes. They will, you know, I think this about, I don't get stuck in it again,

but I'll be very quickly. I think this about what has happened in recent weeks on the Republican right. There will be and should be some embarrassment that a president, a Republican president, was able to stand in front of a very large crowd, mainly comprising patriots, and to say words which were not in sightment, direct in sightment, but were real fighting talk and raised the question of exactly what it is he thought the crowd should do.

You know, and I think everyone, you know. He did never want to make that too clear even to himself. I think I read the speech carefully. Yes, yes, they hear. It's, it's, it's here's what I think. This is what I would suggest you do if you were true patriots. Right, and I think this is, this is a reckless, reckless speech.

And I think that people should have the decency on any and all political sides to say that, recklessness, you don't have to go all the way to excitement, that reckless speech you've got to be careful with, and you've got to try to limit it, and you've got to try to call it and you've got to try to call it out where you can and not just enjoy it because at some point it will need to something which will humiliate you and humiliate your side and much much more. It will make you feel shame and you want to try to avoid that. So in the man's account, it's one of the things, as you say, I referred to is, is this, and I write a chapter on, is the importance of forgiveness. And it's quite easy when

you're caught up, as you will know, when you're caught up in the sort of day-to-day fights that are going on and the endless information and new examples and new lows that are always being hit, it's quite easy to lose sight of the deep underlying answers to some of our present performers, but I'm absolutely persuaded that one of them lies in forgiveness. And one of the reasons I go there is obviously we live in this society and the social media has exacerbated it beyond all previous human belief. We live in societies which are very eager to demonstrate us and them instincts without having to leave your bed. You know, you can shame somebody, you can try to destroy them, you can do your bit to

pick up on something somebody said or once and go for them and pummel them and destroy them and everything, every future they've got. You can do that, but you should also know how dangerous it is. And my hope has always been that the more people saw this, the more they were stepped back from this manner of living. But the thing that struck me and made me right about the forgiveness thing in particular actually was something Hannah Arendt and protect her perhaps it isn't a think I think over highly of actually I also as a criticism of how the like a lot of people have but there's a lecture that Hannah Arendt delivered in the 50s it's I happen to read a few years ago it just made an enormous impression on me. Because Aaron says in his

lectures, I'm having a highly pertinent, a lot of people listening, which is that we've always, as human beings, had a one-worry in particular, which is, how do we act in the world? How do we act in the world? How do we put one foot in front of the other? How do we act in the world? How do we put one foot in front of the other? How do we put one word in front of another and say the next one and decide what our actions should be day to day, never mind year to year. And we all have the terror of action

and the young people in particular have it because they haven't tried it out enough. They haven't yet made their mistakes and you've got to make your mistakes in order apart from being else to lose some of the terror of the question of action in the world. But Hannah Arendt says something so interesting, and she says, she says, as human beings,

we only ever really found one mechanism to make the horror of acting in the world less horrific. And that was the mechanism that we know as forgiveness, which in religious terms you can add to is also the possibility of redemption, which perhaps in a highly secularized society we ought to also think about more, not just forgiveness, but redemption.

And I say that this is therefore something that we should all be trying to exercise in our lives, because we sure as hell know that we as individuals do not want to ourselves be treated without ever having forgiven is demonstrated to us by other people towards us. We don't want to live in a situation where when we want to slip, if we once wear the wrong thing or make the wrong move or make the wrong move on someone else or say the wrong thing, we don't want to live in the world where we at any moment can destroy ourselves catastrophically and unmentably. We don't want to live in that world ourselves. So when I would we expect other people to

live in that world or to want to live in that world. And the mechanism therefore that we all have to, in our political and non-political lives, because politics isn't, damn well isn't everything. But in our political and non-political lives, but this is, this is seems to me to be one of the absolute keys in our time that we all need to work on. How can I forgive a person who has done a wrong to me? How can I allow somebody else who may have made a mistake to live again, to live again. It's not it's not the same thing as you well know. I mean, it's not the same thing as being Willfully naive. It's not about just giving people You know second time. It's the nature of the apology matters deeply as well Of course the nature of the seeking for redemption or the seeking for forgiveness matters You know, we know that you can't just sort of say oh oh, well, yeah, sorry about that, and move on,

that it has to be deep and deep-reement, but when a feeling of that is deep-reement and is deeply offered, it should not be retributively and deliberately, willfully, smash the way in order to win a short-term political or other point. And so I think that's a good, I think that's an excellent place to, to end the conversation. And for everyone who's listening to, consider deeply in the upcoming months. You know, we want to extend an intelligent and compassionate hand across the political divide and hope that we don't run into a political divide. You know, we want to extend an intelligent and compassionate hand across the political

divide and hope that we don't rock the boat any further than nature has already decided to rock it. And maybe we'll make it through this dire time and put things back together. And for all the right wingers who've been tossed out of power in the United States as you'll get your opportunity again soon enough. And in the meantime, you better wish your new president well. Good talking to you, Douglas. And very nice to see you. I'm very happy to see you. I can't tell you what a pleasure it is to see you, Jordan. Thanks very much. I hope we talk again soon.

I really hope so. you