tv After Words Jonah Goldberg Suicide of the West CSPAN June 10, 2018 10:00am-11:00am EDT
unfolded daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies, and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. .. postcode john of gold or, in your book, everything that we
take for granted, every freedom that we have, ever economic advantage that we possess as americans and people of the west, all of these are actually a radically new development in the history of humankind, number one and number two, are unnatural to western civilization as we can to our contemporary american western democratic civilization is unnatural here and what you mean by that? >> well, first of all, great to see you, john. following to brian lamb model of acting as if we've never met each other and we are old friends and do a podcast together and constantly exchange
insults on twitter and all of that. but i did want to adhere to the c-span model. so part of what i'm trying to do in the book is not so much to say i have all the right facts. i have a perfect version of what happened in human history and all of that. i'm not claiming that appeared in doing something different and asking people just to tilt their head a little bit and maybe take a step back and look at the world around them with fresh eyes come assertive aliens from another planet eyes. a big part of my argument is just to simply say that human nature is a theme. it is a constant. one of my favorite definitions of conservatism is human nature has no history. by that i mean if you take a baby from today, a baby from the rachelle and send it back a thousand years to be raised by
vikings, yellow corp. to be a viking and if you send it into the new rachelle, it would grow up to be unorthodox. and that is because every generation western civilization is invaded by barbarians. and so, children are born into at first the family and that symbolizes them into our kind of culture. other institutions play that role. but if you just take it as the human species, and this is not our natural environment. our natural environment for 200 years to 300,000 years, fighting for food, killing each other with spears and rocks. we wanted an apex predators until fairly recently. if you take a jar of an indian dump it on virgin soil come on
some alien planet, and the ants will instantly start behaving like him. he'll set up colonies, whatever ants do. if you take humans and clear them up all of our civilizational education and put them in their natural environment, we wouldn't be having conversations about books or podcasts. we would be teaming up into billions of troops, defending ourselves against animals. that is what our nature is. he had these kids are the pinnacle of civilization when you put them in an environment, they start becoming attacking each other. that is humanity. if capitalism or national natural.
if democracy were natural, they would've showed up a little earlier in the evolutionary record than 300 years ago. in the late 1600s england and coming to america. >> so you say in the epilogue of the book, you make the point that for thousands of years according to every serious economic student, for thousands of years, there is effectively 0% economic growth on the planet earth and the people lived in equipment is somewhere between $2.3 a day everywhere on the planet. subsistence existence was what it meant to be human being. and they're the of creativity,
moments of intellectual creativity. >> they have all this wonderful hiss or a about china and all the rest. the rich people left cool stuff. they were living off of the wealth created by subsistence farmers and all the rest and they were a small stratum. around the league cited a hundred basically if you were to drive chart at the beginning of sapiens, goes like this and then like this. 96 of people on earth were living on $2 a day and that
number is 9% on earth today said that we have humanity of course now three times, i believe three or four times more people on the planet and there were in 1750. so we have this, and we think because it is in our nature as her parents, grandparents, everything else, we think that what it means to be humane, who lives the free speech coming you have a certain level of income, even if you're poor, how the poorest person in america today, it is not clear that the richest person in america in the year 1900 would want to change places because you could get a septic infection and just die. where that is unlikely to happen just from walking down the
street. but we think that this is the natural order of things. this thing, this period of 300,000 years is what people really are and that we have built, and this thing has been built to undergird our wealth, our freedoms and its precarious in part because it is new and its precarious because it is a construct of ideas and within it and against it, there is a construct of ideas that looks at this instead does he do, do, this is unnatural. and it is the main theme and its astounding and the greatest thing that's ever happened. it makes me really uncomfortable. i don't feel like this is authentic, this is real. and you call that romanticism.
you want to sort of lay out this conflict. >> one of the people i'm deeply indebted to is the economic historian deirdre pawlowski. and she ns, in her book, veral them, brochure virtues, pushrod dignity, rent throughout the various theories about the miracle happen. i should start by saying the reason why i say these things are a natural in the first sentence of the book, there is no god in this book is not because -- it is to say that part of what i'm trying to do is actually persuade people, which is something you and i both probably agree on this. the art of persuasion is something being lost on our political discourse these days. i'm trying to model that behavior by trying to persuade
people and you can't appeal -- you can't say well, we have of this great stuff. we have america because god wanted us to have it. among other things and you can only appeal to authority and the progressives and liberals, so much of their touchstones are secularly some common evolution, these kinds of things. arguments from god, i don't need to listen to you. i'm trying to argue on their terms. according to the most generous understanding of the left, what is the left care about? they care about income inequality. they care about the material condition of the court. they care about conflict tolerance and inclusivity sincet about the things they care about because they are liberal, they witnessed these things.
the purpose of society is to enrich and allow people to live authentic, natural lives. there is a famous scene as he describes himself where he is on his way to visit his friend in jail and define him and sometimes the translations are different, but he finds a fire, an advertisement for essay writing competition, asking the question, how does our improved morals in the state of man or something like that. the essay title osama surely rhetorical. kind of like finding an essay competition at renoir say in the diversity makes us stronger. of course, another way of saying
yes. the art and science has made us better and he has basically like a road on damascus moment. he wakes up drenchenis own tears. he's a bit of a drama queen. it occurs to him, all of a sudden, that we've got it entirely backwards. it is very coming very much inspired by his christianity. he is at the start of classic religious tale that we started in the golden age where we were rugged individuals, totally not true in society is corrupt and science corrects us. everywhere using chain. the first person to put up a fence say this is mine is the
original sin of mankind is private property. and so the whole orientation, but he certainly deserves as much as anybody else is the whole argument is from his own personal feeling to say that my feelings are more authentic in that personal authenticity is the highest bar and devotionals tell us so much more. embracing the wild side of our nation but then he makes another lieben says we can only be realized when everything is in perfect harmony. the society come everybody has to be working together.
the contrast is very strong. citizens not subject to the frits of our labor belong to us. and morality can be determined by the group. but the reason i bring this up is because i reject the idea of doing this is intellectual history because we don't get these ideas and that they represent impulses en masse. the beginning of the miracle that describes this desire fast and i wrote about the book that something happens in the late 17th century, were a door opening to human possibility in human creation and 300 years
later we are flying to the moon. we've invented a worldwide communication system. the things we can do, who we are, how long we live, we have been unthinkably unimaginable to anybody before the doors open. it was, cavanagh married. and the counter miracle or argument happens almost simultaneously because these are the two sides of human times. and it is really straight through the human heart. we all want to have a sense of belonging are part of the group is more important than the individual. we all want to have and subscribe to things beyond our
own individuality. we all want to be recognized as unique person in this universe that makes unique contributions and is free to burst new happiness as we see it. and it's inherent intention in our hearts and civilization. part of the suicide part is that romanticism never really went away. this compulsion to the smithsonian idea thinking all that is unnatural. it doesn't feel right. we need something more authentic pitta comes up in every generation in diffent forms and it can take the form of populism, nationalism, rationalism or a radicalism. these are all reactionary tribalism and the fact they are trying to restore the solidarity that we missed you this is a
fundamental flaw of capitalism. it is inevitable because capitalism is the greatest system ever created for peacefully improving mankind in a cooperative nonviolent way. it doesn't feel like it. it is so unbelievably efficient on the cooperation that we don't notice the cooperation. leonard read points out there are two takeaways that every college kid should read and take away from it. one, he says you have all of these people appeared my rubber from indonesia. mike tan comes from argentina. my think comes from sinclair and. all of these people, different
gods, faith, language, custom, heritage, working seamlessly from all around the world to produce a pencil at a fraction of a penny or whatever it costs. in the second point you should take away from it is no one knows how to make a pencil. even pencil manufacturers don't know how to make pencils. they put together the last bits of ingredients to make a pencil. there is a guy, an exhibit in england a few years ago called ipos there where he made a toaster from scratch. galvanized rubber. and it was a really toaster. that's the beauty of capitalism could get someone to work together. marx was right about this, and for so they talk about alienation. capitalism is inherently
alienating. and so, this is where i go to show it can only work if you have institutions of civil society and the family that can provide the kind of meaning for people because if they are not fair, we start yearning to look for meeting in politics, tribalism and human nature comes renamed. so we came to call these in the poster sociology can a mediating institutions. there is government said the individuals. and then, if there's nothing between them, government bully their inherently drive to restart and tyrannize the individual in using institutions to create both richness, personal richness and involvement in connection and to provide you from being swamped
by the mass and as many institutions that the one which is an institution that perceives society and then you have your church, neighborhood, union, communal organizations, bowling late, whatever. so the suicide of the left that she lay out, the weakening of these institutions partially as a result of an ideological assault on them that is hardly from the day of the crazed romantic authenticity addicts, who say it is these institutions that are robbing us of our
account excels. the family abuses us, the church abusess or does these terrible things to us and all of these things. so they are bad. it turns out you attack them and you go after them into some pretty lousy things can start to happen. so part of the problem is we essentially have an autoimmune syndrome in this country, with antibodies that the body of politics are attacking all of our healthy just as chum better, economists who predicted the end of capitalism because he predict the day would become intellectuals and dedicated to destroying capitalism. he got it much closer. but he makes this point that capitalism, the relentless efficiency of capitalism is kind
of like water seeking it own level. destroying back customs and institutions. they can withstand capitalism pretty well. the other part that comes partly from his prediction is this romantic thing with the way we teach western civilization today, the way we teach american history today is this negative stuff. he says -- >> this is the most assigned him away the used. it is a deliberately ideological reading of the united states that suggests from its very origins, the government was more oppressive than it was
liberating. a systemic persecution. he says openly, i'm running my history from the two of the slaves in the carolinas, and it's always these guys who are quick demise. i have no problem teaching that stuff. but here's the thing about flipping people's to. it is hugely important to talk about how we had slavery in western civilization. but the fact is every civilization had slavery. we got rid of it. slavery did not actually natural defense we been talking about. it only comes after the agricultural revolution because when they lived a nomadic tribes, and you kill the men, but there wasn't a lot of slavery when you couldn't put them to work great slavery comes
to the agricultural evolution. since then, there's been a lot of slavery everywhere. what people don't seem to understand is the reason why we should be horrified and teach about slavery in america is because of the grotesque moral hypocrisy of it. we preached about all of this be equal in the eyes of god, that all men are created equal. we didn't live up to it. so the reason we should teach about it is because that hypocrisy illuminates the ideal. instead what we did today from the romantics is the argument that the ideal is that was oppressive and enclave people and the idea that if there are lots of people, and lots of people who think it is somehow racist for conservatives to quote dr. king that we should
judge people by the contents of the character, not the color of their skin. the amazing thing about the founding wasn't that they got a perfect day one. it is that they dropped the mental algorithms, but the intellectual logic of this idea of human equality and dignity in the declaration of independence took time for it to work at way through american consciousness. lincoln, gettysburg, he rewrites the understanding of our country to be living up to those ideals. martin luther king said the founders wrote this country a promissory note that all men, including white men in black men are created equal. what he was doing there was he was appealing to that ideal. he was appealing to the best self of white america. civilization, all rhetoric is the story we tell ourselves
about ourselves. the best version of ourselves yet he was appealing to the best version of ourselves and that was incredibly compelling. today, double vision is in tatters because the identity politics of this is people are basically saying you can never get past your whiteness. what a privilege, white supremacy, demonizing the way people are celebrating all these other difference is insane assimilation is evil, melting pot is evil. the essence of identity politics as i can reduce a vast diverse population of people to a single historical grievance based on their skin color. one of the things i found fascinating while working on the book is trying to find all the things that you were a visitor from mars you would see more continuity today than you would be change. this identity politics bit of it is deeply human and normal hear
people say you have to be taught to hate. no, you need to be taught not to hate. we have an inherent distrust of strangers. babies are born with accented cry. they almost instantly like people of the race of their own mother. paul bloomingdale has done amazing work about how much of this stuff comes encoded in just babies. but hugely wired announces the friend versus welcome the stranger versus ken. and so, identity politics is another variant of the natural human tendency because one of the greatest things the founders did, what never gets taught as a big deal anymore, they got rid of the notion of a blooded aristocracy. even though with audible comeback, they didn't think
because the your birth he considered better or worse than somebody else. simply by virtue of your birth, and these people are more deserving or less deserving than other people. that is deeply pernicious to sort of the core principles that make the miracle wonderful. >> the suicide dead is the overlay of a set of ideas that uni and people like us would read this book, and say we think are to start to, overlaid on top of a system that is an extraordinary achievement. that's 250, 300 years old.
it's an amazing thing. or you can say 250 years old. as you say in the book, if you took all of humankind and sad all of humankind lifespan were a year, that all human progress within the last 14 hours on december 31st of that year. .. people believe it's okay for people to express their part of this group. america can take it.
you can take this criticism. they don't think it's fragile. they just assume that individual liberty, they will get to keep their stuff. there will be a revolution, whereas in the revolution there always the first to go. this is sort of the fall of one, the fellow traveler is a first to face the chopping block. this is is the interesting aspt of the suicide question, is you are saying there these ideas up, we don't respect her history, we don't teach our history, we don't teach the glories of a miracle. we don't say this thing that you have something that happened because a bunch of people at a certain point in time saw something about how life could be constituted, and so the forgiving of that will lead inevitably to its disintegratio
disintegration. or you know what, we can take it. it. you know what, it will be okay. so we're going through a bad patch now we will come out of this and it will all be fine. i think we all bounced olympic between, depending on the day, benny was it some poor story where we go we are done. we are finished. somebody beat up charles murray, charles murray's escort on a college campus. okay, the dark ages are upon us. or you know what, look at this, this is amazing. to have 3% unemployment and the united states. >> guest: i agree with all that and if you like -- there's a reason why judaism has survived for these thousands of years. what is the official number? >> 3000 i think.
>> guest: they worked really hard to keep memory alive. you read the passover and it is, it's thousands of years later and we're still expressing gratitude for deliverance. gratitude is part of my argument, first of all i think conservatism is gratitude. you look around and say visa thinks ungrateful, grateful, these other things i'm blessed for and you want to preserve, conserve them, pass them on to your children. i also think a lot of liberalism properly understood is based on the fact that liberalism seems to be, having troubles these days. not to say our conservatism is in. i start to say this before, deirdre mccloskey, she deals with a lot of the expeditions people use for capitalism comes
from. she is overwhelmingly persuasive in knocking them down. less than 100% bought in to her explanation but it's better than almost anybody else's, which is it was the way we talk about ourselves, but with a talked the world around us, rhetoric here for almost all of human history, certainly almost all of european western history, , innovation ws considered a sin because of economics was dominated by guilt, the monarchy which exploits, and by the church which also took a hit. so basically the established power, the establishment of guild, nobility and church did not like any of the uber of your. innovation was considered a sin, and then for weird bottom-up reasons this bourgeois thing
started to emerge where innovation is celebrated, where all of a sudden this idea the fruits of your labor belong to you, get out of the bottle and it only happens in england and it happened in england because england is weird. right? them up in places that have property rights before them and places that allow to before. the chimes at printing presses long before europe did. time and again they established powers shut shutout innovation because it was disrupting and the stabilizing to the status quo. because england had a week center, netter had -- never had armies come also to reasons, this genie gets out of the bottle and when you talk about ourselves, and so for me a big part of the argument is just simply that if we don't talk about this stuff, we will forget
about it. the bible says remember the sabbath and keep it holy. the remember is not translate as honor. it's an activity. it's not recall. it's like these things you have to physically do, and we don't do any of that right now in our culture. >> host: business on your point about how recent all the stuff is. i read in footnote on page nine, think of it this way. my father was born with oliver wendell holmes was on the supreme court. he thought the civil war under lincoln. lincoln was again been working on a farm in indiana when john quincy adams was president. in 1775 john quincy adams as a boy heard the gunfire at the siege of boston that george washington commanded the forces. washington was born 1772 at the thought of miracle. that's five lifetimes. washington father was born in 1694 and died at the age of 48 about 14 years past the average life expectancy for an englishman at the time. so six lives and even then it
was just getting started. an economist says for most of man's life he lived no better on two legs than he did on for back. another guy, i can remember, points out the average english citizen in material terms lived no better than average roman citizen did. the steady state of poverty was unbelievable. in just six lifetimes all of that changes. there are bars, clubs and oxford up into that are built in the 1300s. >> host: the striking thing that comes up whenever we, take say the 2016 election, something you deal with towards the end of the book and the question of what our current political situation tells us about where the west is.
that we have these two narratives. one of them is pretty solid, that's the trump narrative. then the democratic narrative shifts and dodges around largely because it decides to center itself on the trump narrative and the its antithesis. so trump says america is lost, america's off-track. we've done everything wrong and there are all these people have been left out and i'm speaking for you. i'm your voice. you didn't get, you got nothing. no raises, , your salary stinks, your financial situation stinks and basically in coded terms your cultural dominance has been taken away from you. it's not fair. it's not right, and i'm going to take it back. then you have hillary clinton and the democrats who, remarkably first time in my lifetime or sense really from
the democratic convention, this country is great. this country is -- i don't like to hear donald trump running down the country. this is terrible. michelle obama eight years earlier scope the first time she was proud of her country. so now they are merle haggard. running down my country, walking on the fighting side of me. so trump makes this sort of tribal appeal to white america, let's say, and the democrats become universalists, even though they are the party of anti-politics. proportional representation by race and gender in their political convention and all that. and so trump is maybe
effectively the first really successful national identity politics politician, but it is identity to politics that the identity politics people never expected would be identity politics, which is the great danger of identity politics, which is if the majority or the plurality decides that it is going to act as though it is an oppressed minority, well, there's no telling where that leads. >> guest: i think that's right. it's amazing if you look at the polling, everybody thinks they are all pressed right now. a demographic group that does it feel like they are not oppressed or demeaned or set upon by the other people. look, i historically think you do, too. i have considerable sympathy for a lot of the people in the trump
coalition who feel they are put on. the way in which our popular culture, our sort of campus culture consistently and relentlessly denigrates flyover people, for lack of a better word. >> host: gunowners. >> guest: gunowners. churchgoers, clinging to god and the guns and worshiping -- hunters, right. some of that is, i think some of those feelings of cultural resentment are legitimate in the sense that they are being looked down upon. you can get away with making fun of those people that you never could for other people. i also think, this is something that's very controversial with the left these days, that whenever you talk about the left
having some responsibility for the backlash that led to donald trump, they get -- we didn't vote for this guy. this is you. this is the way the republican party has been going on for a long time. there some truth to that. i have been beating of the republican party, but you can't go around saying yes, all white people are racist, right? you can't go around talking about how it's amazing how the white working-class, blue-collar guy, joe lunch bucket would take a piece of the democratic coalition from fdr up until the day before yesterday. joe biden bragged about that. that's where the votes came from, these union guys. >> host: archie bunker was democrat. >> guest: the second info for donald trump, they are all champions of white supremacy, all races. it's like the day before the 2016 election, the electoral
college, what was a cold, the blue wall with the added advantage of electoral college, democrats celebrated it. the day it worked against them all of a sudden it is an institution of white supremacy, you know? the point i'm getting at is you can't demonize people for ever and expected to say you're right, i'm horrible. what people will do is able to wait a second, my dad was a pretty good guy. my grandfather fought in world war ii. my great, great grandfather, he fought for the union in the civil war. white people did some pretty good things in this country. you get defensive. normal human response. tribal response. now we are seeing increasing numbers of white people identifying, saying their core identity comes from being white, which was not the case 25 years ago. >> host: when pat buchanan
rose in 1992 against george h. w. bush, i started hearing in certai precincts of the rectum i worked at the washington times at the top and there were very many people on staff who wou end up working for buchanan, populating early trump stuff. and they started talking about being european american. this was startling almost -- like this is ludicrous. one thing to say you're an american jew as we both are, don't make up 2% 2% of populatn of the tray. it's a defining hairdressing in my life. it's not quite enough for me to say i'm just an american because this is a very big thing. but it's also, i do it because -- >> guest: no, no, no. >> host: but europeans, so they were attempting to don the
mantle of an oppressed minority while being the majority. thatas a forerunner to it's happening nowhere white americans still constitute, they still constitute a majority but the idea is somehow that the only way you get standing in a society that is atomizing in this fashion is to retreat into a sub tribe. trent and to have grievance. i think it's a huge problem and get them all for calling out the problems on own site but this is a problem that is a cultural problem, and the left commands, the commanding heights of moles of our culture, and to say that they have no role in this culture problem i think is bizarre. on that i do scapegoat all the.
i do persuade them in this book. actually i do want to say one thing. i hear this from a lot of people. i heard this from trevor noah and people on the left. it's funny, in the subtitle i've got rebirth of tribalism,, populism, nationalism and identity politics is a strong american democracy. all the liberals agree with the populism and nationalism and pretty much with me on the tribalism. they get furious at the identity politics. i've done a lot of conservative talk radio and they are all -- you never would get rid of ethnic -- i have no problem with ethnic politics. from ben franklin talk about the germans in pennsylvania to the irish and tammany hall. it's not necessarily always a good thing. they can go too far and all the rest, but it's very different
than the identity politics thing which is essentially trying to create an abstraction of, that i can tell all i need to know about you by some abstract, , yu know, adherence to something. one of the things that makes more dignity possible a great is can have many different identities. one of the things about the tribal mind is all politics was personal in our natural environment. the tribe with a troupe of the platoon of whatever you want to call it was our nation. it was our family. it was our politics. it was our spirituality. we worshiped our group. a group was in relation to god. all the meaning was stacked up on each other and one of the great things, it had a downside, was alienating that comes with modernity is that instead a stacking up all the meanings we spread it out. at one moment you can be in church and another moment you
can go to the movies. another moment you can be committed to your job or your family. we split up the sources of meaning, , and that's one of the things that makes impossible because it gets complicated with the role of institutional pluralism but if you have enough buy-in from different institutions you willing to create this open space for other people to have different points of view, , right? in the tribe of you has to agree on everything. we are losing a lot of that in our politics. >> host: amy she was written a book called political tribes and she posits in it that what america can be should become what it was at its best and what can begin is the definition of being an american is your part of what you call the supergroup. so that your tribe can be part of the larger tribe, which tends not to be a rule of tribes. if you're an israelite, you
know, you're not a moabite. you want to kill them. so the supergroup, but the problem here, talk about the spreading of the institution of the idea being because you also understand that for yours to remain healthy and free to be what it needs to be, you can't poach another guy who is different from you because you are giving permission to come in and do what yours. it's a mutual, also sort of a mutual defense agreement where there's dmz, like cultural dmz. you don't attack me, i don't attack you. the question is, your argument is that teaching our history and creating a space in which we allow our children, you and i both have teenage children and i have younger children consumer going through this experience of having been educated without this, that we need to give them
the tools to feel the gratitude for what we have, even if they don't want to accept the ideological basis of the miracle anything like that. he's in a time machine, go back to 1600 and see how many minutes you could survive. >> guest: that's right. >> host: as opposed to living now. >> guest: i keep distracting myself on this, the suicide part, is that anything they can be created by words, can be destroyed by words. we can talk us out of this. we seem to be doing a pretty good job of doing this. the reason why it's fragile is, if doing thing that differentiates us from the jungle are the institutions that we are born into, and our institutions are in bad shape, and starting with the family. and so, you know, people keep
asking what do you do about it? what are your policy suggestions? i don't do a lot of policy in your book one of the things i do say and that i really firmly believe is that we need to show as much power to most local level possible for a bunch of reasons. but primarily the first is, so much of thi resentment and the tribalism and all the rest comes from this sense that has its roots in capitalism and politicsermediate, , lots of place where this comes from. but this sense there are people out there who are controlling my life. i have no power of my life. people are making decisions for me. people are conspiring against me. the system is rigged. keeping this, the system is red. someone that is paranoid and it's not true. some of it is totally legitimate but the way you fix it is by
come if you send as much power over peoples lives to the most local level possible, you know who the powers that be are. you see them at your kids school. you seem at the play, at the baseball game, at church. there's an accountability fix in there. you can't claim the powerful unseen forces of globalists are doing everything, right? sometimes when people talk about globalists they make it sound at age 13 13 every globalists geta bar mitzvah. there's some of that going on. you would still have culture war fights but the advantage is the winners have to look the losers in the eye the next day, see them, be the parents of the kids friends and all that. that creates a certain amount of humility and a certain amount of open heartedness to these kinds of questions. people don't live in the united states of america.
that's why nationalism doesn't what people want to do. americans don't live in the united states of america. they live in this neighborhood in cleveland, you know, this cul-de-sac in san diego or whatever. they live in actual communities with real human beings. there's this thing, done bars number, there's a upper limit as to how many human beings can learn. that's where all of real life happens as with other human beings, virtual communities are not communities. there are only like i think they give us happiness in life. arthur brooks has a list and does miss it up but it's like faith, family, friends, experiences, genes. because some people are born miserable bastard. and earned success which is not necessarily or even off it money pit is this feeling that you made a difference in peoples lives, that you respected for making a contribution. the government can't give you
success. can increase your net worth. it can't increase your self-worth. the only people continue earned success of the people who love you. and you care about you or who respect you. that has to be done at the ground level. giving people more resources to find that where the actually live is i think really the only answer and it has to start with the family. >> host: a wonderful piece in the weekly standard about how did he politics offshoot of the breakdown of the family because the desire am a tribal desire to feel like you're part of something doesn't go away ptb didn't get those feelings satisfied in your family or your local community, you go off and you look for an extraction. that's what you see in a lot of these idiots on the right who think that they will find meaning in the life by calling themselves aryans or whatever. it's all cheap. we fix it is by reaching out to
actual human beings. >> host: you say, you stop messing this is a book without god. god is not a factor in this book. just to conclude where we began, you nonetheless refer to this kind of seismic intellectual event 350 years ago, as a miracle. a rabbi says there's a pages of my magazine this month, a miracle is a supernatural event, anything that otherwise naturally wouldn't happen. the word miracle is an interesting one because what it suggests, this is also gratitude, even though this is about that is not atheist but it does not bring god into it, is that what you're supposed to do with a miracle is kind of gawk at it and realize, gratitude is one thing but there's something
awesome about, a miracle something awesome. this simply laying out a fact of what happened to mankind over the last 250, 300 years, and to say if these people in england, for whatever reason, england and ireland and scotland had not had these ideas, had this common concert of, you know, sort of, this set as you said wouldn't be here. we wouldn't be here. i don't know where we would be, some shtetl. but there is that aspect to it, as i read the book and i think i read it twice. it's just a kind of awe-inspiring thing that this thing was -- i went to see the
cathedral in france which was billed in the 11th, 12th century. you walk through it and it's like the greatest building on earth. i can't believe he did this. how did they do this? how was this done? they didn't even have power tools. they had nothing. that's what so the second even though it is an excellent depressing title, but made me feel is that we are witness, , e are the living witnesses to a thing that is without precedent in the way of america, the world trying to i really appreciate that. that was sort of where i was going so i really appreciate that. the miracle part for me, i know we had to wrap this up at the medical part for me is divine intervention, it is we often call things miracles that are inexplicable, and part of my argument is that no one intended this miracle to happen. it was an accident, and by
virtue of the fact it is an accident and that it was created, not through human will but through this weird convergence of contingency, we should be all the more grateful for it because like, our reaction should be oh, crap, i do want to mess this up. the story of the goose who laid the golden egg, it's a story of gratitude. no matter version it is this goose is give you a unbelievable treasure and ask if and since i can't. eat out of a range of entitlement or resentment or out of arrogance of intellect, they kill the goose. what they should be doing is building, , protecting it from everybody. like back off, man, this goose is valuable. we don't do enough of that and that's what i'm trying to convey. >> host: so you were building, this book is building a cage around the goose. >> guest: that's exactly how
absolutely pick it would take eight years to build that cage if you did have 200 articles run the world of going to get nays to pay for the cage thank you. >> .. public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. we are live from the second day of the 34th annual chicago tribune printers row. you will hear author