Will Cain Country - Ethan Strauss: A Deep Dive Into Culture, Politics, & Sports 

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

What was initially supposed to be a conversation on why the NBA has struggled to become a watchable product prior to the Conference Finals, Will & former ESPN and The Athletic NBA writer and host of 'House Of Strauss,' Ethan Strauss dive deep into the world of culture, politics, and the complexities of where America is headed as a nation in 2025.  Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers,

you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Spexsavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. Well, I go into it thinking we're going to talk about, I don't know, Nico Harrison and what's wrong with the NBA or USA versus Canada. And before you know it, we're often running on an unpredictable and fascinating conversation, as it always is with Ethan Strauss. It is the Will Kane Show, normally streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel

on the Fox News Facebook page, always available by subscribing on Apple or on Spotify. This is a Canaan Sports edition of the Will Kane Show, and today we're joined by Ethan Strout. he has a substack house of strouse uh com it's at substack he also's got a podcast house of strouse used to be at ESPN then was at the athletic we've had a lot of fascinating conversation he's a really deep thinker thoughtful guy before you know it we're just off and running and we do get to what's wrong with the NBA but i think you're going to enjoy this conversation with ethan strouse hey i'm trey gowdy host of the trey gowdy podcast i hope you will join me

every tuesday and thursday as we now navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. It is time to take the quiz.

It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. How many kids do you have? I have two kids.

You know, how many you got? Two. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm done. You know, it shouldn't be that chaotic. Other people have more kids, but, you know. How old are your kids?

Two and six. Both boys. Have more. Yeah, I mean, the window might be closing age-wise, but I would like a third. What are your ages? What do you got? I've got 17 and 13. Wow, so you've got one that can drive you to the airport.

He does. He drives to school and stuff. Yeah. That's crazy to me. I wish I had more. That's what everybody says. Everybody says, you know, if they have two, I wish I had three. But when you got two in their little, it just seems like three.

I mean, how are you going to even, how, how, but we'll see about it. We'll see about it. Same way they do. Same what they do all over the world. Yeah, make do. The richest society on, the richest society on earth thinks they can't afford or have time for children. Isn't that odd? Isn't that interesting?

We're in the poorest society. yeah it's like what's clearly changes in the economic circumstances it's the priorities i mean that's that's what a lot of it is well that in the pill becoming popularized but yeah it's i just saw a chart yesterday on european population replacement and it's all negative on natural birth rate it's all every single european country um and then if you include you know mass migration a few smattering of countries go into the green, right? So what you're talking about, like when J.D. Vance talks

about whatever, you're talking about a massive cultural shift in Europe that is driven in part by people not having babies. It's so logical, and yet that's very taboo, and there seems to do this insistence on

if you say, hey, within my lifetime, France is going to be majority Islamic. That's just what the chart says. And yet, that's not only it's almost in this different realm it's not even people won't even say that it's untrue it's they'll just go don't talk about it

like don't don't don't mention it don't discuss it and I find that you know there are some very important issues I think this is what we've lived through the past few years there's some very important issues that are just regarded as kooky and outside the sphere of

reasonable person that now are starting to get discussed And I mean, that's one of those where Elon was this kind of weirdo for talking about it, talking about population and retraction. I would look at it and I would just go, this seems like a legitimate issue that we should at least have a conversation about, that people aren't having kids and replenishing the society. It just seems like a real issue. Well, and I think it actually has a sports tie-in. So yesterday on the daily digital version of the Will K. show i sat down with like for 45 minutes with alexie lawless and we talked about we talked about

things like um you know the mls and and the world cup but the lead in conversation with alexie was i had this really fascinating discussion with the guy named wade stott who hosts the wade show and we talked about the difference between settlers and immigrants and we talked about the idea of the united States, the cliched idea of the United States being a melting pot. And his analogy was we're really supposed to be more like a tomato soup. And you can add things to tomato soup. You can add basil, you can add whatever, and improve the flavor. And that's the idea of immigration. But there is a base, and the base is tomato soup. So if you had gummy bears and chocolate syrup, it ceases to be tomato soup. So it's an acknowledgement of the existing cultural buy-in that

exists, that we deny here at home in the United States, but other countries are pretty open about embracing this is who we are. And it was really interesting to talk about how that fits into, for example, global soccer. We have yet to really hone in our identity in the United States. And he argued, Ethan, I think this is fascinating, that with 300 million people and as big geographically as the United States is, it actually gets in our way of establishing a culture, an identity when it comes to soccer, where it's much easier in a country like Spain. But I brought up France, and I brought up Germany and mass migration, because you can literally see it on the soccer field.

If you compared the French national team from 2000 to the one today, it's visibly different with a huge African influence. And in Germany, it's a big Turkish influence. And he said, yes, however, to continue the tomato soup analogy, those countries have an existing identity that immigration and migration fit into. So when a guy, and I don't know how big of a soccer fan you are, like Ilk Gondelan or his family from Turkey immigrates to Germany,

they buy into the German identity of soccer in the German system and improve it. Whereas because we don't have that, specifically when it comes to soccer, it gets in the way of who are we, how do we get good at soccer? it's funny he knows so much more about soccer than I do and I just think that's wrong I don't think that's what's happening I just think that in Europe they do drills with kids

they just drill drill drill drill and we have our kids just roll the ball out there and do games and you just don't get better that way it's a lot more fun to run around the field when you're a little kid but when you see the look at soccer games they're not really getting better the Europeans almost refine those skills they do with basketball too and then they bring everybody together finally when they're older to play these games and I think developmentally that works better but I could be wrong as I know a little about soccer now the melting

pot thing I think that makes a lot of sense I also think you know you never cooked anything where you're just perpetually adding ingredients constantly that's just not how you cook things that's just not how you do it there was a period of mass immigration in the United States

before the Hart Cellar Act and then there was an immigration And then the melting pot actually has time to simmer. I mean, it just seems very logical to me that maybe there are times to add and maybe there are times to pause and simmer. And I don't think that you're a bad person for asking these questions. I'm wondering if the best way to run a country isn't just having all people from anywhere

with no limitations. I mean, this is, I think, one of the issues that breaks the brain of friends of mine because I live in the Bay Area and my friends are by and large progressive, I just on immigration, just go, okay, who, how many, and from where? And you can't get an answer. You just can't get an answer on that. And you'll get some hemming and high and just the way things are, whatever. And I think it's just this conversation that can't be happy is it's literally discriminatory, not in the pejorative sense, but in the descriptive sense that you have to choose, you know, over 300 million people apply to be United States citizens every

year in the lottery. You obviously, you can't add all those people. So you're going to have to pick people and you're going to have to pick people based on some sort of standard that you want. And there is this absolute refusal on one side to even have the conversation of who the people should be. And I think that's one of the major factors of why Donald Trump became. the president in 2016 and is today conversation can't even be had alone have opinions and i love

what you just acknowledged about the word and the concept of discrimination that word everyone flinches everyone is like oh no of course i'm opposed to discrimination when we all discriminate on a daily basis i'll give you another word that is very similar judgment don't judge other people it's just like a truism in a word you're so don't be judgment judgmental. You're judgmental all day long. You're judging things left and right. And you should. Thank God. You're judging what to put in your mouth versus what not to put in your mouth, how to behave versus how not to behave. And discrimination is something that we, it's not whether or not we should or shouldn't. We do and do not. And it's what and how you discriminate is where it actually comes into play of actually what is good judgment, you know? I don't you know Ethan I don't know if I've ever told you this so back in the the days of complete sort of freak out at ESPN I think you were probably still there of what do we do about social media and all the talent posting on social media about about politics you know and

John Skipper called a meeting and I would you know not to be self-congratiatory or whatever how the description is it was probably 20 to 30 selected talent quote unquote talent that's also a fun word uh we're in the meeting right and the discussion was how can we draft a policy and all get on the same page about what you can and can't post and what is culture and what is politics and we draw the line i just remember being in the meeting thinking this is utterly fruitless there's no way that you can craft a policy and i did the one thing i raised my hand on was like John what you're talking about is judgment like how do you codify and try to put into place a system where people can have good judgment and I don't think he'd mind I think Scott Van Pelt agreed with me in that meeting it's like you can't you have a bunch of people and we know the names and we could probably sit here and ban them about with bad judgment on what we're here to do at ESPN what we're here to do like is it truly sports is it purely politics is what you're saying partisan is it advocacy is it agenda driven whatever it may be you can't create a policy to hand someone

good judgment no you can't do that i just wish that there were i almost wish that you could go back in time in some of those days and just get real of these people too and go can we just get real that a lot of what you guys are doing when you jump on these causes is trying to get social media brownie points and not serving the company and that your commitment to these causes is paper thin and we know that now i guess if you said that then they would get all high dudgeon but i will never get over how much these people wrap themselves in causes in 2020 in 2021 that they never brought up again i just i can't imagine living my life that way i can't imagine living my life where i'm posting about how just incredibly important police racist violence is to me

and how everybody needs to talk about it and then I just never revisit the subject ever again in any context ever. I mean, it's the craziest thing to me. How many of them have ever even, you go to these people, you go, hey, what's the date on it? Like, did the police shootings go up? Did they go down?

Did more black people get shot or not? you know, you were just so invested in communicating that you were a good person because you cared so deeply about these things. And that's just one. There are a bunch of things that they did the current thing on. And there's not really a reckoning. I would just love to see one instance of one of these people, many of them talented, many good people, on a podcast, whatever, where there's just this discussion of, can we just talk? talk about how fake you are i mean i know that sounds like an attack but i i just nobody ever has that reckoning they just kind of move on from the present thing that they're into to the present

thing that they're into and i just look at it from the perspective as somebody i feel like i don't do that i'm not trying to be too self-congratulatory but especially now they don't talk about any a lot of them just have dropped it because they know it's i would love an inventory you should write that column at house of strousser i should i should i should i should do that segment and it's going to come off as you pointed out like as an attack as a hit piece but an inventory of yeah the current thing fading away right and that's that's a really fascinating uh you a moment ago when we were discussing immigration you brought up sort of the taboo topics that you can't revisit or you can't discuss

I was going through some of the stuff that you've been writing about you had this really interesting column and it's funny Ethan in some ways it did it kind of made me mad at you

but the other ways I was like I was like well I really respect the self-reflection and it was on the trans it was on the trans stuff

are we just are we doing the podcast right now or are we bantering before the podcast? We're doing it oh this is the podcast we've been doing it Oh, my God.

I've been loving this conversation. What did I say? I hope I, you know, I hope I said everything I did. You were honest. You should have said. We'll see. You were good. I think you were very thoughtful as you always are.

But you wrote this thing and you were like, okay, here's the gist of it. Jennifer Say, who's been on my show several times, who's come on Fox News. And she's a former Levi's executive, the jeans company. And she got ran out. I think she got ran out over COVID, but then she decided, you know, trans issues are really important to her, men and women's sports. And you wrote that she pitched herself to you several times, and you said no, or you didn't accept.

And you were kind of self-reflecting about why you did that, why you didn't accept her on. And you said, look, I'm not into activists, and she was taking on the position of activism. But you were also, and this goes back to the immigration thing, acknowledging that what was characterized as radical in retrospect, and we really even knew at the time, was mainstream. So the idea that men shouldn't play women's sports, we'll call it from about a five, six year period from, let's call it 15 to 21, 22, was like, whoever believed that's cool and the next civil rights movement was really in a radical minority, but they managed to capture in sports specifically the mainstream. And because of that, I think in part, people like Jennifer were marginalized. And you're just reflecting on what was acceptable conversation. Yeah, there's a lot there.

Some of the people listening might know nothing about me. I kind of occupy, I don't know if it would be a Switzerland, but I'm in between worlds. I talk to people from different backgrounds. And you always wonder if you're trying to play it safe because you're worried about backlash. If you're talking to somebody, if you're not talking to somebody because of that. And when I feel that tangibly in myself, I then try to go the other way and go, well, I'm not going to let people tell me who to talk to. I think you're somebody like that. You're somebody where if I have you on my podcast, there's a cohort, and you won't even necessarily see it on social media, but there's just even a cohort of my peers who will be mad about that.

And so it's just so easy not to invite you on, right? that's the easiest thing and i can come up with whatever excuse but the real reason is this fear of ostracism and social sanction and i i'm not saying that that has happened with you specifically but just as an example you've been on my podcast um but with with say i i wondered if there was an element of that you have to kind of you have to do that self inventory but there's this other thing too where she's this very fervent activist for this cause And I agree with the cause. I don't know how interesting that conversation is.

And I think it would be one thing if I had never admitted to agreeing to her cause, but I had in multiple articles said, look, I'm with the vast majority of Americans who think that biological males, there should be a guardrail against biological males playing women's sports. That's how I feel. And indeed, I think it's one of the strangest issues of the era. I can't think of another issue like it actually will, to this degree where now it's 80% of Americans are saying that, are agreeing with that position of biological males should not play women's sports, and still in quote-unquote mainstream media, it's a little stigmatized, it's a little dangerous to join nearly everybody. And maybe I should have had Jennifer on. Maybe I was wrong for that. I have my own system. I have my own process, but that, I, I, I have to give her credit.

I have to give her credit for getting ahead of that issue. I might have a little bit of an aversion to activists on my podcast, but they get stuff done. And I saw Time magazine was 13 women of the year they put out. And Asia Wilson, the WMBA player was one of them. There were some other ones. And I was thinking, man, if you guys were really being real about it, it'd be, J.K. Rowling would be one of those women. I mean, she's been validated.

She's been ahead of this issue. She was way ahead of this issue, had just nearly everybody in her social milieu turn on her and attack her. And now the laws in the UK and now the laws in the United States are all going in her direction. And look, the fervent, the people who, the people who aren't like me, but the people who actually fight these causes, they're the ones. to get stuff done. So I might have this attitude that I resonate more with of people who are a little bit more hemming and highing on the one hand on the other hand. But those of us who sometimes get derided as centrist, I think would do well to admit sometimes that it's the fervent and the passionate who actually gets stuff done. And we're mostly observers well.

Okay. So you want the part that, and I think that you and I have enough honest conversations that it's actually more interesting when we just aired out the part that made me mad at you is not that you wouldn't have jennifer on um it's it's okay and i think i've been through a phase of my life in this in my career i should call it um so you're you're just so thoughtful and and when i read something that you write i can trust that you have considered every angle of it do you know what i mean like and you're presenting every angle of it you're not robbing me of information as a reader and therefore i i can trust where it's coming from but thoughtfulness can get trapped in it's not in in action but it's in conviction i think is the issue and and so so i

think of myself as thoughtful okay am i as thoughtful as you i wouldn't grant myself that type you're very thoughtful well but continue but but but but i think there's a point at which thoughtfulness becomes its own self-serving thing. And not that you're fence-riding, but like when the conclusion is obvious and clear, and I think moral, like on the trans issue, there is a point where you should pound the desk. Well, you should say, this is what I believe.

Now, this is my style, Ethan, and it's not that you should be my style, but, like, once I arrive through thoughtfulness to my conclusion, I pound the desk. Like, this is what I believe. But I do leave open. but I do leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. I will leave that open and I will entertain people who disagree with me to see that

and test that possibility, right? But I don't want to, I don't ever want to get caught in a place where it's like thinking becomes its own gratification. Do you know what I mean? At some point, you have to move beyond sort of the couch of a parlor debate. Yeah, I don't know if it's the stylistic approach. I ran into this where I started writing for a publication and they wanted more of the real me behind it because it was somebody I would have honest conversations with and I don't hide my views. I'm honest about my views, but do I fight for my views? Not necessarily. I'm almost like somebody at my publication where I'm watching a battle take place and I'm giving my take on how the battle is going and I'm even maybe giving my take on which side is correct in that battle, but I'm not on the field. And that's just not how I do it. And

if somebody has a frustration with that, I get it. But for whatever reason, that's just the way that I go about it. And there are things that I'm passionate about. There's the other thing, too, with that issue. It's an issue that I completely agree with the quote unquote right slash all of American society on. It wasn't an issue that I felt personally passionate about. I felt like what was happening was unethical, but there are people who were touched by it. Jennifer Say was a gymnast for Team USA. She'd played in women's sports. She had reason. She had a personal connection. There are people, they have daughters. They feel that connection and they feel compelled. And I've got two boys. I felt like what was happening was wrong, but there would have

been something odd for me to be so passionate when I'm not really necessarily feeling that. on this uh yeah on this sort of in my gut level at the same time now i'm being really wishy-washy maybe i'm just full of it because there are things i'm passionate about i don't talk about either well if i'm totally honest about it there are things where um i'm looking at what's happened with the bebis children and how i feel about that i'm not going to go to house of strouse and talk about it i'm almost wary about that one because of the emotionality so maybe will i'm just uh i'm trying to be too much of a fence riding hedging whatever and it's just because that's that's the way i know how to talk about some of these issues and as long as i'm

not being dishonest i feel decent at the end of the day yeah and you should look when i said mattie i was i mean that's a extremely hyperbolic where it wasn't mad and even if i'm frustrated that's my problem not yours you know so uh i i like that you're bringing it up i i i think think that it's a real observation. I think it's a real observation that there is a bit of distance between myself and how I do it. I think that's a real that that's a real thing. And I think that I'm glad you're bringing it up because there's this tension right now in the culture. There's a tension right now in the culture. It used to be more on the left where when they had the whip hand culturally, they were angry at centrists and centris were the real Nazis.

and now the wind is at the back of the right and conservatives and I'm seeing more frustration on the right with people who might be called centrist who might be called heterodox Barry Weiss

and I get a lot of those tensions I don't necessarily slot in neatly to these particular fights but I completely understand the perspective of people on the right I get why Chris Rufo who might be the most successful conservative activists

since Phyllis Schlafly people have said, I get why he can get angry at centris where there's this dynamic where Rufo can do things that can be criticized, but he's moving the ball forward in ways that a lot of the people who are criticizing him secretly like and secretly want. And there's this anger, I think, from the activist side of the right

at people like myself, who they perceive just trying to maintain respectability. And in some instances, in many instances, distancing themselves from the activists to maintain that respectability and do that whole thing. So I just think these dynamics are interesting. They are, and I don't like that instinct on the right

that's going on, because the whole point in a lot of this is not just activism, but persuasion as part of it. you know, and that's the mistake that was made by the left. It's like you kept making your tent smaller and smaller by pushing people out. And I'm not even talking about a political tent. I'm talking about a persuasion, the effects of human communication, right? But the word that you used, and this is where the tension exists.

And you're right, in your diagnosis, and it makes people mad that this is the truth, or was at least. Respectability is defined by the left. So you want to maintain that respectability. That means you have to continue existing. on this tilt towards acknowledging validity in things that got increasingly insane, right? Yeah.

And like, here's a curiosity, and I'm just curious about this, whoever it is, whatever cohorts, they would say they were mad at you for having me on your podcast, right? Would they have ever listened to the episode? Do they come away from listening to our discussion, mad about what I have to say?

Or is it simply off the branding of Fox News, whatever racist guy on ESPN, whatever is in their heads, I'm just curious, is it mad after hearing me? I think it runs the gamut. There are people going to be reflexively like that. And then there are people who would go, you had him on and you didn't talk about January 6th. You didn't hold his feet to the fire.

So that sort of thing happens as well, where they wanted to do, they wanted to be the podcast they would do as opposed to a conversation. right and i i think that it runs the gamut i hated that impulse so much it's fading out it's things have cracked open a little bit and have loosened but and they won't even cop to the intensity of what it used to be like where if you were with a quote unquote wrong kind of person or associated with them the people would turn their backs on you and i hated that that was one the things i hated the most about the online left during the great away that idea. I remember I had, I went on Jesse Singles podcast and he's a liberal guy. He's

progressive in many ways. You can go on Twitter X and see him ranting and raving about Elon right now, but he had the misfortune, I suppose, or maybe good fortune because he won in the end, but he wrote this cover story on the trans kids some of the issues in the Atlantic. It might have been in 2017. I can't remember when he wrote it. I met

with him when he was working on it. I had no idea it was going to blow up in his life and create such chaos and so many problems. And like JK Rowling, he was attacked viciously. Crazy people were after him all the time. And when he invited me on his

podcast those years ago, He warned me about it. He asked if I was really sure about going on because at that time, at that point, I think I was at the athletic. I didn't have much of a political valence to me. And there's that little twinge. There's that little feeling of, oh, no, am I doing something to my career? But then I thought to myself, I said, I know Jesse's a good guy. I know he did rigorous work.

I think these people are being absolutely insane. Why am I going to let them determine what I'm going to do? Why am I going to let them determine who I'm going to talk to? Why would I live that way? And so I went on and certain people then made me out to be a bad guy. I think I'm on some sort of list because of it, because I've gone on Jesse's podcast online of fobes or whatever. But it's fine. I think what ends up happening, though, a lot of people feel that impulse in themselves.

And instead of actually interrogating it and going, I know the truth about this person, instead they delegate their sense. of morality to the mob and try to convince themselves why the angry outsiders are actually the correct ones because unfortunately a lot of people's sense of morality is just it's determined downstream from their practicality they don't have their sense of morality bump up against what's practical and maintain it they look at what's expedient and then they retroactively rationalize and build, you know, they go, wait a second, those people are right about Jesse. Jesse's a bad person, and that's why I'm avoiding the podcast, right? I think that's how a lot of people do morality.

They don't wake up in the morning and they go, well, they look in the mirror and they go, well, I'm a big coward and I'm a big fraud. No, they find a way to rationalize their sense of morality around what they need to do to get ahead in their social circle and in their professional life. I might be digressing well, but I'm just riffing on the whole. No, I like it. I would encourage you, if you have time, listen, go back that Alexei Lawless episode yesterday on the Will Cain Show with Wade Stotz.

We actually talked about centricism as a concept and how it's a morally flawed concept because it's always situational. Centrist between what and what and when is that defined? Because 2025 is different than 2005. is different than 1965, it's different than 1925, and if the moral high ground is always in the middle, you should know that middle is not constant.

And therefore, it kind of defies. Right, though, because that's been such a, I think that's been such a theme on the left, and it's gotten them into trouble. Really? Because they, well, yeah, because they felt as though history is moving in one direction and always does. And whatever the morality is right now.

Their direction. yes whatever the morality is right now is going to be looked at as sick and horrible and bigotry so we need to get ahead of it and we need to move in the direction of where the puck is moving and they in many instances just did away with their critical thinking or did away with what their sense of what right and wrong was in the moment because of what they assumed the morality would be in the future and it became this huge irony on the trans sports issue and related trans issues that we talked about earlier because they all thought it was going to go the direction of gay marriage. And they didn't want to be caught in the position of being against gay marriage, only to have that become an embarrassing declass A position in short order. So they got way ahead of it. And the big irony to it is that it turned out that the issue that looked more like gay marriage was what Jennifer say and J.K. Rowling were saying. That was the issue where all of a sudden there was a big preference cascade in that in in their direction the direction of save women's

sports that became the issue that went from fringe to mainstream or at least fringe among the elites to mainstream and it's just going that way and so it's just funny to me it's just funny that this assumption i totally agree but i don't think that's an argument for centricism as the the magnet to pull you back to sanity it's an argument and this is obviously this is obviously my conservative nature but it's an argument for eternal principles and common sense well that's what jay rolyton that's what she was relying on go ahead she was relying on right these are my principles this is my sense of right and wrong and i'm staying here i'm saying the whole culture go the opposite direction and i'm not supporting everything she ever said i think she can kind of come in a little hot

in certain issues um she's very passionate but she was saying this is my sense of right and wrong this isn't me putting my finger in the wind and going in a direction. And it turned out that her sense of right and wrong stood the test of time better than a bunch of people trying to update their morality based on their flimsy assumption of where morality would go, based on their flimsy understanding of how history is gone. Right. Yeah. It's really good. What do you think, Ethan of Stephen A. Smith as the Democratic nominee for president. I'm so mad at you, Will. I'm so mad at you because I've been trying to get you on my podcast. And this is the question I wanted to ask you. This is what I want.

Well, I know we've been trying to work out the schedule on that. And I'm ready. I'm available. You wanted to ask me about this. You know, another Strauss called me to ask me about this. The Washington Post, Ben Strauss wanted me on this. This is what everybody loves talking about right now. Stephen A. Oh, yeah. I mean, what I think about it, obviously Stephen A is incredibly charismatic, incredible performer. He was dropping some truth bombs on Bill Maher. That's the question when I wanted you on. I wanted to ask you about, but he was dropping some truth bombs on Bill Maher about how the Democratic Party has been run. But I think a lot of people who saw Trump's rise underestimate the extent to which his issue set mattered. And they thought it was all about. the pizzazz of Trump. And they kind of projected this idiocy upon the voter

that these voters are just, oh, I like he's a rich guy, I like him, and I'm going to vote for it. They didn't understand that some of these issues are resonant, resonant in the way that these other issues we were talking about were, where a lot of people felt a certain way, but it was de-class A in media to really

hold that torch. And I don't see Stephen A with issues like that. I don't see him getting behind issues that are going to connect to a democratic primary voting base. Or to a general electorate. By the way, you just said that, and this is why it's better that you're the guest than me, you said that so much better than I did, in that when I have been asked about Stephen A,

you have to acknowledge his performance masterpiece, like his ability to communicate. it's at i would suggest it's at a higher level than anybody that will run for president from the democrats that being said it's built upon and it simply is divisive by its very nature like bombastic is divisive but you could say so is trump right okay so that's a parallel um like i know people often ask me about stephen a and i will get a lot uh i hate that guy You know, they don't articulate it beyond that. And what they're reacting to is a stylistic thing that Stephen A probably has to be aware of that divides into lovers and haters. And in media, by the way, and in politics, Elliot Spitzer once told me that a 50% approval, a 99% approval rating is not what you want.

Because a 99% approval rating can turn into a 0% approval rating. 50-50 or 55, 45, 65, 60, that's what you want. That's what you want. That's what works. And so performatively, Stephen A is a master, a master. But you said so well his issue set. And I would say Stephen A, and I think I said this to The Washington Post, if you think about one issue, one issue that you would assign to Stephen A, it would be race.

It would be DEI, you know. And although he's moved at times on that position, he's a little unpredictable, he's not, he is. That's not fair. He is unpredictable. I enjoy how unpredictable he is. He sometimes doesn't get credit for that. Absolutely. He is unpredictable, but maybe also inconsistent.

But always does gravitate towards back kind of to an embrace of DEI-type policies. And I think DEI, not unlike the trans thing, in general, it's odd because we all began to accept the progressive premise that we move in a consistent arc in like William F. Buckley, conservatism is to stand authority yelling stop we're actually seeing a re correction now not just a slow down or a stop but a correction and i do wonder if dei is not a blip in time a moment that everybody looks back upon with some level of embarrassment and stephen a is out of touch at least with general electorate on the one issue that i think is assigned to him man there's so much there so much on that particular issue that's an issue that felt alienated me for my peers in many

way in many ways because we talk about our sense of morality or sense of ethics i never thought that census category should be emphasized to this large degree really emphasized at all when it came to filling positions at universities and in the workplace and i grew up in my parents worked for the government my dad was a school administrator my mom was a librarian democrat voting household And you could have that opinion back in the day and not be in favor of affirmative action. You could comfortably fit within the Democratic Party tent with those beliefs, even if they were more on the side of affirmative action even through the 90s. You know, we've rebranded it as the EI. And yeah, it just became such an emphasis and I felt alienated from it.

I just didn't think that that was an ethical or practical way to. run things to constantly say we need this or that census category as opposed to just trying to, I mean, it became right coded or you're some sort of fascist, racist to go, you know, the right

person should get the job, just the best person. That should be the only consideration. And it's this divergent, it's this like chasm between me. I think to steal man the way a lot of my smart liberal friends feel about that topic, I think they just think it

doesn't matter that much in terms of organizational functionality, that they go, look, you've got a few different candidates. One is maybe a 92. The other is a 93. And you're going to just tilt towards the 92 that has the desirable demographic categories. And we can afford to do that. I think that's their sense of it. And unfortunately, that's just not how life is. The way life is in so many organizations is that the margin of air between success and failure is razor thin. If you start making concessions on who you're hiring

and have it divert from the mandate of just getting the best possible, you will fail. Things will go wrong. That's just how it goes. And it's not my fault that whatever the talent pipeline is

is what it is. It's just, it's not. And I think it's fine. to have certain groups want to organize and do better and say that we should have more of whatever. But once you start doing it top down and have the government really put pressure on these institutions to do it as happened, things go wrong. And I think that it not only is an issue that fails a moral test and fails a practical test, but it's more politically powerful under the surface than it is overtly. It's definitely an issue. I think, think people will vote on in the booth more so than they'll represent out in social media

because they don't want to get called names. But deep down, people feel like this is insane. You know, this is crazy. And I think in some instances, if you are the quote unquote wrong census categories at a certain point, you're going, wait, why am I voting to be discriminated against in an official capacity? Like, why would I vote for that? That doesn't make any sort of sense for my life or for my children's life. I don't understand that. And so I think that's one of the reasons you're hearing all this buzz about how democratic officials are saying, we need to just bend the knee on this. We need to, uh, we need to just give up the ghost on this. Yeah. And unfortunately for them, it just seems like so many of the people, they had that meeting, the DNC meeting where it just seems

like everybody is still all in, but quietly the smart people who are trying to reassert control the Hardy understand that this is a loser of an issue. It just is, even if it was all the rage a few years ago. We'll discuss Stephen A. Moore on the House of Strauss podcast. Finally, this is the most overt sports thing we're going to end up doing, but I've just loved every other aspect of the conversation. So I haven't invested a lot in this story, Ethan, but I at least experientially and anecdotally know it. And the story is, what's wrong with the NBA? So I watched a lot of sports last weekend, a lot, and I didn't plan on it.

It wasn't like I, it wasn't appointment viewing, okay? So I ended up watching Texas First Kentucky College Basketball. I ended up watching USA Canada in the round robin round. One thing I didn't watch much of was the NBA All-Star game. And that's got a lot of people, the side by side with hockey, I heard some local sports guys going, You're forcing this. You don't have to always compare these things and going after P.K. Subon, who did that.

But it's unavoidable that we're going to compare the two because they're side by side on the same weekend. And, you know, I don't know. My explanation for All-Star Weekend is the same as any other Pro Bowl or whatever. Nobody cares because the players don't care. There's no investment. And there's just no doubt.

But, like, I mean, it's not partisan or fanboy to go, Trump, honestly, Trump made the USA Canada hockey game. He made it. That's what happened. Like the tariffs and Governor Trudeau and then as a response, them booing the National Anthem and then the fights. And before you know it, we're all invested in it. And we care. And we watch on Thursday night.

And that is how sports works. We need to care. We need the players to care. And we need a storyline that we care about. Who cares about the NBA All-Star game? But it does feel like there's something bigger with the NBA where in general, until, maybe the even conference finals, you know, who cares what happens during a regular season game? And by the way, the players don't seem to care. So why should I care? Yeah. Yeah. And

that's a problem because caring that it spreads. It connects. I mean, that's part of why I do what I do at my site. I don't know every topic I write if it's what my audience wants. I want that then diagram of what I'm carrying about and what they're carrying about. But, What I do know is if I don't care, I'm drawing dead. I have no shot. If I'm just doing, going through the motions, talking about stuff because it's what's in the news, but I don't really care about it. It's not going to connect. Caring is charismatic.

And how do you get people to care when you're paying them $60 million a year pretty soon and maybe even $100 million a year pretty soon? And they don't have to care. And I remember Shay Gilgis Alexander, rising superstar. plays for the Thunder last year at the All-Star game he was asked how do you get

the players to care and he said something of the effect of maybe pay us a cash prize and he's literally wearing a fur coat as he says this

and it's hilarious and I by the way I saw Thunder Warriors watching Shea Gilgis Alexander play basketball in person was one of the highlights of my year I would recommend it to anybody

it was just funny that that was his quote and And it's just this decadence. It's hard to avoid. The NBA is a victim of its own success in a way where the players are now, this is a taboo topic in media too, for whatever reason in sports media. You're never supposed to talk about if the players are making too much money.

You know, you're not supposed to do that. And I don't know if they're making too much money, but they're making enough that it changes their relationship to the sport. I mean, it just can't not. If you're in your early to mid-20s and you're making hundreds of millions of dollars before you've even won a championship, I mean, how is that not going to affect how you go about it? And it is fascinating to me, Will, this topic. And we can talk about a lot of it in a lot of different directions, but it's fascinating to me that the NBA is so obsessed with technology. And Adam Silver, everything with him is like a new TED talk.

And they're going to bring the NBA into the metaverse. and they're going to put these vision goggles on you and you're going to be court side and you're going to do this and you're going to do that and AI is going to be incorporated they can do anything except get the players to try hard. That's just

it's like a fascinating modern problem. It's a fascinating modern problem to me that things that you just took for granted in the past the old broken past with all its deprivations stuff like just trying to give a good

effort an all-star game you wouldn't even have to think about it they now can't even engineer it they can't even get people to do it i'm not giving you a cohesive answer to it i'm just saying that there's just it's bizarre to me that this is the thing that they can't do and even if they're flush with cash and they've got the tv deal yeah it's hurting them in terms of interest and cultural relevance it can't not they've got about half the audience it makes you wonder when it catches up i had this conversation with rsillo i don't know if it ever catches up it will be glossed over because of the TV deal. But if ratings continue to decline, you won't replace revenue on TikTok, you know, from a TV show, which is a game. Maybe you will at some point.

Maybe TikTok is a great revenue generator and Instagram reels of a game. It's a great revenue generator. But let's just acknowledge it's not even close to TV revenue. But if your ratings continue to go down, will your contracts follow? And if your contracts follow, your business model is broken and and then maybe by the way the correction is the players make less and the game rehabilitates because they have to start carrying more I don't know but the NBA

feels like of all the sports leagues the like if you were investing in a bubble it feels like the bubble that is the most unsustainable well yeah in terms of

the culture in terms of just the baseline it's a thing because of this was Apple and suddenly Apple was selling half the products that it sold 10 years ago, its stock would be cratering and people would be going, what the hell is happening? Something must be done about this. That's happened to the MBA and yet their TV revenues are going to go up because of the strange circumstance where these streaming services, they want

some sort of differentiating product to build their content on because they're almost invested in the way that these tech companies will run at a loss with the hope that they become the monopoly that can charge whatever they want in the future. I mean, that's a very basic summary of what's happened with the NBA. God knows how much they would be making if they'd actually maintain their audience from 10 years ago.

I mean, it would be insane. It'd be maybe making more than the NFL. But it does feel like one day it has to stop. I love that economic rule from Herbert Stein, who was the father, of Benstein, of win when Benstein's money, the economic rule,

Herbert's law, if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. I like that law. It makes sense as a law. Should go forward a little bit, but we're going to get to this weird place where guys are going to be making $100 million and 99% of the country will have not heard of them.

And it's difficult to envision that being a sustainable setup. Maybe it will be. It's just hard to envision that it will be. All right, Ethan Strauss. Check him out of House of Strauss substack and House of Strauss pod. Always just a really thoughtful and smart conversation. Thank you, Ethan. Thanks so much for having me, well.

There you go. Check Ethan Strauss out at House of Strauss. That's his substack and his podcast. I'll see you again next time. Listen ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members can listen to this show ad free on the Amazon music app. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas.

Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at foxacrossamerica.com.