Tucker Carlson, President Trump, Mitt Romney discussed on Glenn Beck
Four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five or we've talked a lot this evening in particular an hour. One about the deficiency is on the democratic side, both ideologically and tactically. But at the same time the world is in some ways also going their way now in January Tucker Carlson said the Republican intellectual world ablaze by our ticketing in a sense. Why Trump won namely that he called out a failed into intellectual elite a failed ruling class starting with Mitt Romney. And this was in response in part to Mitt Romney is anti-trump editorial in the Washington Post, and what Tucker rays were many failings of the starting with the fact that they're not really ruling for the common. Good anymore so much as the good of third world nations or feel good. Policies that make them feel as if they're virtuous and compassionate people, regardless of the outcomes for their supposed beneficiaries while they continue to enrich themselves and accrue more power. Dr Matt Peterson has written extensively about this. He's the vice president of education at the Claremont institute and editor of the American minds. And he wrote the peace at that new website. The American mind where argues Tucker Carlson is right now for two scores are before we jump in. I'm a pavilion at the Kremlin institute. And I continue to work with them. Because I think they're a great institution that's doing God's work in trying to restore America's founding principles Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much that introduction. Ben. Thanks. What's it's my pleasure. And thank you for writing. This piece wet start at the highest level, which is how in your view have our elites found us. Oh, gosh. There's so many ways I would start though with a misunderstanding of American principles and purpose. The first failing you'd have to talk about is that the education of our elites of sales to understand and distinguish what is distinctive about America. And what Merican the American principles of government aren't there for what we ought to be aiming at what's the purpose? And so what you have what you see in lead society is a willingness or an aura a culture that is very reluctant to embrace something distinctly American, and it's much more apt to say what's wrong with America. Right. And it's the suspicious of patriotism, I would start there. And then the problem is that outside of that. If you don't have a way to to to be a patriotic elite, or you're not taught what the principles and purposes of your government, are you then descend to self interest, right? The only other thing you have in the academy is self interest or some form of Ben's social Justice woke doctrine, right? So this this is an enormous problem. It's been going on for a long time. It's been building for a long time. But what you see now or people like Tucker talking about it explicitly on the right in ways that really annoying house for some time. There's a political element, of course. But if you believe that politics is downstream from the culture part of what comes out of our elites are sort of norms governing practices for how to live your life. And that comes well before we talk about policies Charles Murray, whose work I'm sure you're very well familiar with talks about in one of his books. The idea that the Elliott's don't preach what they practice. In other words, they sort of promote an anything goes progressive utopic sorta worldview where they reject the traditional values and principles on which our entire civilization is based but then in their own lives. They live. Very conventionally, and they really do a disservice when they exhibit certain behavior in their rhetoric and other behavior in their private life. Do you think that factors into the sort of Tucker and your view as well? Absolutely. I think Tucker is a hundred percent right about this. Obviously Charles Marie has spearheaded the proof of this in in very real and damning social science. So what you see is that when you are a member of the elite, you're reluctant to adopt any policy that actively promotes the health of the family at the same time that you know, because of your station, you know, that getting married is a good idea. Stay married is a good idea. Marriage is much healthier among elites than it is among the rest of society. And so this is where Tucker really made his Mark. This is why Tucker's monologue resonated throughout the country. What he said was quote, co culture economics are inseparably intertwined certain economic systems allow families to thrive and thriving families make market economies possible. That's what he said. And so what he did is is do something. Different. He said, no, no, no. You can't just treat policy is it separate from the promotion or the denigration of the family. I can is it used to be called as is used to call political economy economics is necessarily tied to to to morality and to promoting certain kinds of behavior and rewarding and punishing other kinds of behavior. Discouraging it, and I don't really should be controversial. But unfortunately, a lot of rhetoric on the right were just used to. We have adopted over the last few decades makes it controversial to say these things I think it's kind of a truism that an economy derives from a culture and embedded in that to your point is the idea that morality matters, and it clearly functions in a free market and a capitalist system doesn't just arise out of nowhere. Otherwise, the people who had claimed that China, for example, would become economic would become politically liberal and socially liberal. Because it's economically liberal. They would have been proven, right? If it was that economics decided, but actually it's the other way around and it starts with people and their own voluntary actions. Now, the criticism of Tucker's PS, and you deal with this in European as well is that if the free market, we it's to certain disasters in society, creative destruction implies both not only creation, but also destruction. And there's real societal cost to that. Then is Tucker arguing and our folks like you who support his argument than arguing that we should sort of rebel against the free market in some ways because there are societal losses in free market systems as well. I think it's a matter of priority. I think I think the best way to understand it is that. Sure does desire a free market in the sense that we we do have a drive within us right to be creative to take initiative to buy and sell things among amongst ourselves forth, and so on but in order to do that we need a governmental structure around it some way. But the stylish is kind of rules of the game and points us in certain directions as opposed others. So let me give an example because I understand absolutely why many people might be listening saying, I'm not sure what this guy's talking about. Well, I don't know if I acquired a Greeley sounds like, you know, some kind of socialism. Great society type doctor, and this is not what we're talking about. It's not what Tucker Carlson said that our leaders should speak out against the ugliest parts of our franchise system because not all commerce is good. Commerce is inside harmful. And so what are the questions? He asked was why why is it defensible alone people money for people money that they can't possibly repay so take payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods. Right. Four hundred percent annual interest at this is this is this is a practice where you might raise. The question. Mark may say why is this commerce? Good. And in fact, in American history ABRAHAM LINCOLN when he first ran for office said, you know, loaning money to poor people at exorbitant rates of interest in idea, no Webster during the ratification debates said, look, you can't separate the morals of the people from the influence of money on men sense of Justice and more obligation. The law influences are habit, and we should restrict credit to people who won't be able to pay money back in order to encourage them to to save and be responsible. Now, I think that's a matter of common sense. But, but when you when you have a kind of a brittle conservative rhetoric really is libertarian in a way, right? That says well, there's no connection. That's why people are upset with what? Tucker was saying. But I think no Webster was right, right? Lost credit for four people be helping courage. Good bad. So that leads to a fundamental question. Which is is it government's job in some way to promote virtue people instantly sort of recoil when you talk about should government be promoting certain moral values and principles and not others. Do you believe that it is the fundamental job of government to do? So. I think that the first instinctual reaction of many older conservatives would be to say, what are you talking about the Taliban had a department of virtue, and vice last thing, we do is we last thing we want is to increase the power of district stink. And there's certainly a lot of truth to that. In a way, I agree with that hundred percent the same time, we can't neglect. What law is and here the American founders can help us out because they did not promote it kind of great society where government interfered in every part of people's lives on the other hand. There's not lied to themselves and think that law and policy on matters of numbers. I dunno matters of economic policy. We're just kind of morally neutral, they knew that law either encourages or discourages certain kinds of habit and certain kinds of kinds of behavior and they didn't pretend otherwise so. So the way I put it is. Of course, government and lock can't reach inside people and make them virtuous that that certainly is not something that law can do directly. In fact, other solutions to be doing that much more directly than government. I mean. Reward certain kinds of behavior and encourage it right, certain kinds of habits and ways of life and discourage other kinds of habits and ways of life and to pretend otherwise I think is very dangerous where does Trump factor in in this thesis, I mentioned in my open that in some sense what Tucker was explaining why Trump won while the Elliott's failed. He called them out on it. What is the takeaway in terms of what the future of conservatism looks like is there something within Trump that recognizes the problem, and you can say here are the sorts of policies that we might wanna push for based upon what he saw on the electorate, so I guess one question. What does the future of conservatism, look like to whether Republican rank and file simply reject this out of hand and take the sort of you that? Well, look this was a blip in US history. This president actually rejected everything that we show it and our twenty twelve autopsy of why Mitt Romney lost and the status. Will ultimately, prevail. Again. Well, I am certainly view that even though there are many people in Washington and elsewhere in power. Who've been always President Trump. I mean, they they think that once President Trump leaves the scene, and of course, they hope to force him out off the scene force him off the stage. They hope that things will go back to the way they were. And I think this is a dangerous delusion as well. I don't think things are going to go back to the way they were. I think that what we're having is what we should be. Having is a very serious debate about what is a matter of principle. What's a matter of policy so principles should be the things that don't change. Right. That dictate what kind of policy we should propose given the circumstances but policy changes over time because we find ourselves in different circumstances. So you know, to give an example of of I think what Trump understands what Trump can actually teach us. Federal's papers. Let's go all the way back to the, you know, the ratification of the US constitution. Our founders are very clear about this Justice is the end of government and Charles kesler editor the Claremont review books warned of this twenty years ago. You said conservatives avoid arguing about questions of Justice whenever possible. And by that, I think he meant, you know, they like to argue about numbers and GDP, and and utilitarian kind of arguments efficiency, and they didn't want to argue about Justice. In the meantime, the last talked about Justice all the time, right? Social Justice is their mantra. And so we avoid arguing about questions of arguing about political questions and talking about Justice. We really are student politics Kessler said essential issue is Justice. And that's the problem. So the example, I would give as a matter of rhetoric when it comes to economic policy, whatever the policy should be. We can debate about we can debate about right with evidence. If we if we tariffs as an example will this lead to the ends that we? Think about the the the arguments that are gonna win that resonate with people. Trump's argument 'economics over and over again is I care about our people. My purpose is to make their lives better. And he's very clear about that. He's in very simple and stark language, whereas conservatives are still in a way, fighting the Cold War in their mind, the other fighting the Soviet Union, and they'll say things like, well, you know, this is good because it's it leads the freedom, and it's part of the free market. Well, freedom is good, right? But freedom needs to be justified because ultimately Justice is the end of government. The name of the piece is Tucker Carlson is right. You can find it at the American mind, and we've been speaking with its author, my friend, Dr Matt Peterson vice president of the institute and also the editor of the new website, the American mind Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me, and we'll be right back. This is Ben winegarden in for Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton show, eight four four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero.