November 28, 2025 • 26 mins
Conservative Robert George and progressive Cornel West talk to Margaret Hoover about their long-standing friendship that bridges their ideological differences in an interview recorded in 2020.
George–who recently resigned from the board of the Heritage Foundation over its defense of Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes–explains what he learned from West about race in America.
West, who ran for president as an independent candidate in 2024, comments on defending free speech as many fellow progressives favor restrictions and why he believes health care is a human right.
West and George, authors of the recent book “Truth Matters,” delve into their differences on the merits of capitalism and socialism, and they offer advice on how to navigate political divisions at Thanksgiving dinner.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, Katharine J. Rayner, Lindsay and George Billingsley, and Jared Stone.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
They often disagree but say it'sa blessing this week on Firing
Line. I don't like that big government
up here. Well.
No, I don't want, I don't want too big a government.
I just want to make sure we don't have poverty.
Or they've been described. As the ideological odd couple.
Cornell West being LED away under arrest.
Doctor Cornell West, a radical philosopher, socialist and
(00:21):
political activist. And Doctor Robert.
George, a socially conservative Christian thinker.
But they are friends, teach together and even travel the
country, making the point that opposites don't have to be
enemies. I love this brother and love is
not reducible to politics. West and George have continued
to speak out together since thisinterview was recorded in 2020.
(00:43):
Earlier this year, they co-authored a new book, Truth
Matters, after Dr. West ran for president in 2024 as an
independent. Accent on the moral and the
spiritual dimensions of Americanpolitical life.
Doctor George, who served on theboard of the conservative
Heritage Foundation, recently resigned in protest after the
(01:06):
Heritage president defended Tucker Carlson's widely
condemned interview with Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and
anti semite. The American people expect us to
be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not
attacking our friends on the right.
Doctor George responded on X quote.
The conservative movement simplycannot include or accommodate
(01:27):
white supremacists or racists ofany type.
There is no place for such people in our movement.
This Thanksgiving weekend, a lesson in how to disagree
agreeably. Welcome back to Firing Line,
Doctor Cornell West and Doctor Robert George.
Thank you, thank you, and we salute you for your show
(01:47):
building on the great legacy of this historic Firing Line show.
Well. You I am honored because you are
both celebrated scholars and public intellectuals who come
from remarkably different worldviews and profess different
perspectives. Dr. W you are a professed non
Marxist socialist and Doctor George you are a leader in the
(02:08):
Theo conservative movement. Not sure I'd say that, but at
least I'm not a Marxist. I'm not corny.
And we're both Christians, though we're both.
Christians, you're both Christians and you You respect
each other enough to disagree and to engage in serious and
rigorous contest of ideas in a civil and respectful way.
And you also have in common thatyou were both guests on the
(02:31):
original Firing Line with William F Buckley Junior.
It's a very great honour, very great honour.
Well, what's clear is as you nodwhen you speak, you're nodding,
and vice versa. You're leaning into one another,
clear affection between the two of you, which is.
So lovable I'm. So glad you guys.
In fact, actually, I think it's it's deeper than civility and
(02:53):
it's even deeper than respect. I think we've got a genuine love
for one another. I love this brother.
I revel in his humanity. And it seems to me I've heard
you say the common denominator is love.
Absolutely. There's just so many aspects and
facets of who we are as human beings that cannot be subsumed
under politics. So when you love somebody, you
love their, their qualities, their characters, their
(03:14):
laughter, their gestures, the the the things you have in
common that don't always fall into politics.
We can argue over Aquinas versusKierkegaard.
We can argue over his Bluegrass versus my Falcon Rhythm and
Blues. You said there's things that
bring us together. Then we reach politics.
We say, Oh my God, I think you did wrong, my brother.
I think you did wrong, my brother.
(03:36):
So that human connection, that rich, deep human connection,
that's what is so very important.
The other thing, Margaret, that we were talking about was the
importance of honesty and integrity and those sorts of
virtues. Well, I not only love Brother
Cornell, I admire him and I admire him for those virtues,
for honesty and for integrity. And he sets an example for me.
He's inspiring to me. We may disagree about politics,
(03:59):
but I do admire integrity. Person who says what he means,
means what he says, who does notsuccumb to peer group pressure.
Cornell's been under pressure from the progressive side
sometimes to do things or say things that he actually doesn't
agree with, and he refuses to yield.
I try to do that on my end and Ilook to him as a model for.
That and so the viewers know youboth did that in 2016 where you
(04:19):
refused to support Hillary Clinton even there was enormous
pressure from you on the Democratic side to support
Hillary Clinton and for you as well, Doctor George, to support
President Trump and to vote for him and to throw your weight
behind him. So both of you have really
walked that walk. Doctor George, you've said of
Doctor W Cornell is someone I have been learning from since
the moment we met. Even if I thought he was getting
(04:39):
the answer wrong, I noticed he was always asking exactly the
right question. Can you give me an example of
something he gets wrong when he's asking the right question?
This sort of thing, asking about, say, an economic system,
not or not exclusively does it work to elevate overall
(05:00):
prosperity, but is it just, doesit honor the principles that we
ought to honor, given that humanbeings have a profound inherent
and equal dignity? Now we reach different
conclusions about that. Cornell leans in the direction
of a more socialistic sort of system.
I'm more in the direction of thefree market sort of system.
But he's only going to give two cheers for socialism because he
(05:24):
sees the downside and the dangeras well.
And I'm only going to give two cheers.
I'm like Irvin Kristol, 2 cheersfor capitalism because I realize
it's a system that will sell youanything if it's not constrained
by moral principles that are themselves reflective of our
understanding. Understanding we should have the
dignity of the human person. There's certain things that
shouldn't be for sale. So I believe in the in the
(05:45):
market, but just two cheers. Cornell believes in the social
system, but just two cheers. Both of us acknowledge that
there's got to be some public regulation of market.
There's got to be fair regulation of market.
It's going to be a matter of degree.
It's going to be a matter of graduation.
It's the predatory capitalism inwhich greed runs amok.
Brother Robbie is against greed,whether it comes in the form of
(06:07):
corporate greed, poor people's greed, working people's greed,
white greed, black greed, brown greed.
Isn't that right? Yeah, like Cornell, I want a
system that works for the commongood, that works for people and
especially those who are at the lower end.
I think the market system has lifted millions and millions of
people out of poverty. So I'm for the market system.
(06:29):
I'm very skeptical of big government programs.
I want to empower the institutions of civil society,
families and churches and voluntary associations.
I want them to carry the bulk ofthe load when it comes to
health, education and welfare, and transmitting to each new
generation the values and virtues that are necessary for
people to lead successful lives and to be good, contributing
(06:50):
citizens. But I know that a market that's
unleashed without regulation, without moral constraints, is
going to do much more harm than good.
So. Have either of you moved the
other closer to your position? I think there's been movement,
but a lot of our movement has todo with also intellectual
movement. That is to say, reading great
(07:13):
texts. It could be a Jon Stewart meal,
it could be AWB Dubois, it couldbe a Hayek, it could be a Leo
Strauss. Our conversations.
But are you saying you've? Expanded your reading list well.
We don't, We read the text together, but it's how we read
them was how we read them. I think we.
(07:33):
You've said, both of you, that the examined life is constantly
being unsettled. Absolutely.
Where has Doctor W unsettled you?
I'll tell you where on issues ofrace, my inclination prior to
our deep engagement on these racial issues was to suppose
(07:54):
that the fundamental problem is that people are race conscious.
They think of themselves as white or black, when race is
really something ephemeral, something that strictly
speaking, doesn't even exist. It's a kind of artifact of
culture. Wouldn't it be better if we just
were colorblind completely in all of our dealings?
And that sounded to me like a very good way of solving the
(08:18):
problem. What Cornell has driven home
with me is, yes, there's a sensein which we should relegate
racial categories to the ash heap of history.
And yet we have to deal with thefacts of history, which include
the emergence of cultures based on, quote, race, UN quote.
(08:41):
So that a program in African American studies is is, for
example, studying a tradition, one that makes sense.
Cornell sometimes refers to African Americans as a people,
he says. I come from a people that has
suffered for 400 years, been treated unjustly, been hated,
and yet has taught the world so much to love.
(09:02):
I now understand in a way that Ididn't, I think previously, the
sense in which it makes sense torefer to, let's say, African
Americans as a people. I mean, there's a, there's a,
there's a policy prescription that encompasses many of the
problems that you've just outlined and that's affirmative
action. And you have said that, Brother
George, I'm sorry. The.
(09:24):
Professor, the Doctor W, you have said the Doctor Cornell,
you've said the Doctor West has really influenced the way you
thought about affirmative action.
Let's take a look. Cornell asked a set of questions
that made me think a lot more deeply about that Would our
campus be not be worse off by virtue of the effective absence
(09:46):
of people from the African American community?
And when you think about that question, the answer is, of
course we would be worse off. So, so how do you handle the
policy prescription then? I mean, what have you thought
about what the next step is? You've you've conceded that he
really affected the way you think about the issue.
Have you thought about the policy prescription?
I have. And my judgement of it is we
(10:08):
certainly don't want to lower standards.
So we've got one set of standards for African American
or Latino students and another set of standards for those who
don't fall into those categories.
We don't want to do that. I don't think we want to give
preferences based on race. That sounds too much to me like
the disease as cure. But it does mean that we need to
(10:29):
make an effort to make sure, a serious effort to make sure that
minority students feel they are welcome at Princeton University.
There's a place for them at Harvard University or Ohio State
or anywhere else. We need to be reaching out and
looking for the talent in those communities that maybe in a
different, if had history been different, would have been in
(10:49):
those institutions. But because history is as it is
or not in those institutions, that seems to me to be the way
to go. Doctor Wes, were you trying to
change his? Were you trying to change his
opinion or just help him arrive closer to the truth as you see
it? You know, my dear sister, we I
come from a tradition of liftingevery voice.
(11:10):
I don't want anybody to be an echo.
I want people to find their own voice, just like a jazz woman or
a Blues man. And my brother's got his own
voice, so I want him to find hisvoice and he'll land where he
lands. When I see my brother, I don't
have to eliminate his constructed whiteness.
He's a human being in a particular body, but he's made
the image and likeness of God. He has something there that is
(11:32):
worthy of a certain kind of treatment no matter who he is.
And so the history is there, white privilege is there, and
white supremacy is there, all these things.
The same is true with gender andso forth, right?
But it's that human connection that's crucial.
And when it comes to affirmativeaction, the question becomes we
want to make sure our students connect at a human level, but we
want to make sure it's fair the the, the, the conditions under
(11:55):
which they enter a college is fair.
And it's just, and we know all these institutions of higher
learning have traditions that were deeply racist and sexist
and anti Jewish and anti Muslim and a whole host of other things
were anti Catholic in terms of the Harvard and the Yales and so
forth. And Princeton too, Absolutely.
Let me ask you now about anotherpolicy, healthcare.
(12:19):
You've been on the record that Healthcare is a human right.
Absolutely. Why is healthcare a human right?
Because I think that human beings are so precious and
priceless that they ought to have access to the highest
quality of healthcare in their short move from mama's womb to
2. And that is something that so
many other nations already have been able to institutionalized.
(12:40):
The United States is very far behind in this regard.
That's a that's a preference in terms of how the policy should
be applied to every individual. But explain to me the right, the
human right part. Do you believe that Healthcare
is a a fundamental human right in the way that freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly and freedom to practice your own
religion that are enshrined in the 1st Amendment?
Is healthcare a fundamental right in that way?
(13:02):
I. Think it is.
I think Healthcare is fundamentally a human right
that's being born warrants a certain kind of treatment that
society can provide, especially for the children, especially for
the vulnerable, especially for the elderly.
But I think it holds across the board.
Doctor George, I know you've been on the record saying you
(13:25):
don't believe that Healthcare isa fundamental human right.
Well, not if by fundamental human right we mean an
obligation that the government provided.
No, there is a looser sense in which I'm perfectly happy to
speak in the language of rights when it comes to healthcare.
That means I think human beings have profound, inherent and
equal dignity, and we should work for a system that may have
(13:47):
some public elements, but may also have private elements that
will make healthcare affordable to as many people as possible.
I think there should be a safetynet, if necessary, provided by
the government. But on the whole, I would much
rather rely on the market. I don't like government running
things unless it's absolutely necessary.
No one else can run what I don'twant a private military want the
(14:10):
government running that. But what can be done by private
initiative, private action, voluntary work, I think should
be. And I believe in the magic of
markets. The good thing about markets
properly regulated is they push quality up and they push price
down because I think the best way to get healthcare to as many
people as possible is to drive quality up and prices down.
(14:31):
And you see now the overlap here, because at the moral level
we're very similar. Well, you're both saying is
there's an obligation. To see a civil.
Society. Somehow that society ought to
provide to the best of its ability because morally and
spiritually human beings have something precious that needs to
be attended to that results in how they're.
But then at the level of policy,then you say, oh, well, let's
(14:53):
see which way is the best way ofgoing about doing this kind of
thing. And it's that kind of discussion
that we need more of in the country so that we're not at
each other's throats, but ratherat the subject matter, trying to
deal with the suffering and social misery that's out.
There when it comes to positive goods like healthcare, like
(15:14):
education, there are different ways of providing different
mixes of private and and public and reasonable people of
goodwill can disagree about whatis best.
Well, a subject that you do agree about is free speech and
free speech on college campuses.Has it become even more
difficult in recent years to speak freely on college?
Oh yes. Absolutely no question that it
(15:35):
has. Cornell kindly praised me for my
witness and work on behalf of free speech.
But I want to say it's easy for me now as a conservative because
right now the conservative side,being so often the victims of
repression of speech, is in a high free speech mode.
Conservatives weren't always so jealous and protective.
Of free speech today. The difficulty, and This is why
(15:59):
Cornell deserves more praise than I do today.
The difficulties on the progressive side.
There are lots of progressives who aren't so excited about free
speech, who want to restrict it,who think they're good reasons
to restrict what they call hate speech, and so forth.
And Cornell has stood up in the face of that and said no, free
speech is for everybody and it'simportant and it's got to be
honored on a university campusesand in our society more broadly.
(16:21):
Doctor W Why that shift, that progressives seem to be in a
place where they're shutting down free speech more now than
before? Actually, the good question is
hard to say. It's really hard.
I think it's partly generational.
There is in fact also a certain kind of orthodoxy that sets in
(16:41):
any group, and that's why Socratic energy is very
important. No matter what the context is,
you have to have an acknowledgement that not only
you could be wrong, but you can learn something from someone who
you have deep disagreements with.
So that any kind of orthodoxy ofan adolescent or a or an
(17:02):
underdeveloped form just doesn'twant to listen or hear from
anyone they disagree with. Now keep in mind you got a lot
of progressive young folk who are very Socratic, so I don't
want to engage in generalization, but I think that
in part it has to do with the generational issue and the
second has to do with the increasing orthodoxy.
I I want to emphasize, Margaret,that when Cornell and I defend
(17:23):
free speech both on campus and in society more broadly, we're
not defending it as a mere abstract right, just a right
that falls down from heaven. That exists because it exists.
No, we're defending it because it's essential to truth seeking
and to running a Republican democracy.
You cannot be a truth seeker if you're in groupthink.
(17:43):
You cannot be a truth seeker if you're unwilling to be
challenged because of human fallibility.
We are all wrong about some things.
There is nobody whose head is filled with nothing but true
beliefs. All of us have some false
beliefs in there. And if we're going to move from
falsehood to truth with respect to any subject, we're going to
need somebody poking and prodding and challenging and
engaging us, and we need to be willing to listen.
(18:04):
And we certainly can't shut themdown.
The same for running a republican democracy, A
constitutional democracy like ours, because we're running a
great experiment in democratic order and democratic liberty and
self government. And you just cannot do that if
some people get to suppress the speech of other people.
Yeah, I think we're living not just in a highly polarized
(18:25):
moment in the society, but it's it's a gangster eyes moment in
our society. And by gangster, gangster, what
I mean is the eclipse of integrity, honesty, decency, a
hypocrite. Hypocrisy is the tribute that
vice plays, the virtue. So when you're a hypocrite, at
least you still have standards, you're just falling short.
A gangster has no standards at all.
(18:45):
I do what I want to do. Impunity, lack of
accountability. And that is the most dangerous
thing. No democracy.
Sounds like you're describing President Trump.
Well, I mean, he's one example, but he's not the only gangster,
right? All of us have some gangster
inside of us. So gangsterism is not just the
right wing thing it it cuts across our human condition.
Progressives have enormous cultural power.
(19:07):
Progressives dominate in academia, in journalism, in the
professions. This we've got a problem across
the board. And, and, and the progressives
can't point fingers at the conservatives and the
conservatives can't point fingers at the progressives.
When it comes to this, everybody's got to stop and
start showing some respect. Respect for each other as human
beings and respect for each other's rights to disagree.
(19:28):
OK, so I think I mean as as regular viewers take heart and
inspiration from the model that you demonstrate, how do they
also apply it to their own lives, to their own families and
Thanksgiving dinner tables, right, where, you know, they
have a deep love and shared history, but often fundamentally
disagree. And that can get in the way of
(19:50):
the love that you all have discussed that ultimately needs
to triumph in order for us to beable to really move forward in
this experiment of representative democracy.
Let. Me tell you, Margaret, what I
think the first and most necessary thing is, and it
begins with each of us, and thatis recognizing our own
(20:10):
fallibility. We are frail, fallen creatures.
Yeah. Intellectual humility.
Recognizing that we could be wrong about things, and someone
we regard as goofy or misguided or bigoted might actually be
right about those things, it's easy to acknowledge that we
might be wrong about things thatdon't matter that much to us.
(20:33):
The hard thing, but it's necessary, is to understand the
complexity and difficulty of great questions, and to
understand that I could be wrongabout deep, important things.
I could be wrong about values I cherish.
I could be wrong about identity forming beliefs for myself.
(20:54):
But the only way I'm going to figure out whether I'm right or
wrong is to listen to somebody who has a different point of
view and challenge. I'm not going to learn anything
from somebody I'm shouting at. I'm just not.
There's no good, not meaning learning that conversation.
I want to learn from Cornell. He has things to teach me, have
things to learn even when he's wrong about some things.
I want to know what his reasons are because they're going to
deepen and enrich my understanding, even if his he's
(21:16):
not actually correct. So if we're shouting, if we're
not listening to each other, it's not meaning learning.
Do you think people are less likely to listen on the issues
and the beliefs they hold most deeply?
Of course, of course they're going to be less likely to, and
we do wrap our convictions, wrapour emotions more or less
tightly around our convictions. That's just the human condition.
And so we then perceive challenges not as intellectual
(21:40):
or moral challenges, but as assaults on us personally,
because now our very identities are caught up in what we
believe. Of course we want to be
improvisational, and being improvisational doesn't mean you
give in. It just means you're cut.
You're starting from a certain standing point, and then you're
seeing whether there's wiser, more persuasive arguments put
(22:00):
forward for you to move in a place where you stand on
something stronger. That's all.
Well, I'd like to sort of wrap this up by taking you on a trip
down memory lane, Dr. West, and ask you to reflect on your
former self from 1993. Let's take a look.
Well, no, I think we recognize it, Princeton, that it's always
(22:20):
been difficult to make the life of the mind attractive in
American culture. We're simply trying to
acknowledge the fact that there isn't.
There is this very rich tradition in which the attempt
to delight and instruct and inspire and inform ought to be
at least made available. We recognize it will be.
It will appeal only to a small number of students, but to
(22:42):
ensure the quality of those students who make that kind of
choice. You both teach students.
How many students are you finding these days are
interested in the life of the mind?
Got a? Good number, yeah, got a good
number. It's a good slice, but we.
Have to inspire more? But we.
See, there's a lot that you're competing with when you're
(23:03):
trying to preach the gospel of the examined life, the life of
the mind. You're competing with status,
power, money, prestige. Those are just means.
They are. They are secondary things.
They're good because of the goodthings you can do with them, but
they are not what really matters.
The things that really matter are things like faith, family,
(23:24):
friendship, love, compassion, reaching out to other people,
exploring the great mysteries oflife and of the universe, what
summarily we call the life of the mind, which we might also at
the same time call the life of the heart.
They're what really matter. But there are competing values
and and selling kids on what Cornell and I think are the
(23:46):
right values is a challenge 'cause you're you got a lot
working against you got a whole culture working against you.
But I mean, I think the point I was trying to make 27 years ago
then, like, it's amazing to see me so young, that love of truth,
goodness, beauty has always beenthat of a critical minority
because you had to pay off a heavy cost.
(24:08):
And so there's no accident that often it's the great artists who
have been the vanguard of the species willing to pay that
heavy cost. It could be a cold train of
Beethoven. It could be a Tony Morrison or
Virginia Woolf. That's what it is.
That's how we're constituted as human beings.
We'd rather take the easy way out, status, money, wealth and
so forth. And yet the real spiritual and
(24:29):
moral wealth that really does provide a deep joy, not just a
superficial pleasure. It's something that we provide
as a door opening for young folkwho want to enter this love of
truth, beauty, goodness, and then as Christians, even love of
God, you see. But that's all with the critical
(24:50):
minority. But that's all right.
In our classes, Cornell will often tell our students that you
may not understand it, you mightnot even believe it, but let me
tell you the real reason that you have come to Princeton or
Harvard or whatever university it is, the real reason you have
come is to learn how to die. Because if you don't learn how
to die, you're not going to be able to know how to live.
(25:11):
We learn how to die in order to learn how to to live.
And it's only in the perspectiveof against the horizon of our
own death that we can really getour values straight.
I. Mean I can't end it any better.
It's in one heck of a bromance. Thank you for modeling how to do
(25:31):
this. Thank you and.
Thank you for. Coming.
Thank you, Margaret. It's great pleasure.
Thank you so much. Firing Line with Margaret Hoover
is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and
Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, the Tepper
Foundation, Peter and Mary Calico Pritzker Military
Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and by the following.
They often disagree but say it'sa blessing this week on Firing
Line. I don't like that big government
up here. Well.
No, I don't want, I don't want too big a government.
I just want to make sure we don't have poverty.
Or they've been described. As the ideological odd couple.
Cornell West being LED away under arrest.
Doctor Cornell West, a radical philosopher, socialist and
(00:21):
political activist. And Doctor Robert.
George, a socially conservative Christian thinker.
But they are friends, teach together and even travel the
country, making the point that opposites don't have to be
enemies. I love this brother and love is
not reducible to politics. West and George have continued
to speak out together since thisinterview was recorded in 2020.
(00:43):
Earlier this year, they co-authored a new book, Truth
Matters, after Dr. West ran for president in 2024 as an
independent. Accent on the moral and the
spiritual dimensions of Americanpolitical life.
Doctor George, who served on theboard of the conservative
Heritage Foundation, recently resigned in protest after the
(01:06):
Heritage president defended Tucker Carlson's widely
condemned interview with Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and
anti semite. The American people expect us to
be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not
attacking our friends on the right.
Doctor George responded on X quote.
The conservative movement simplycannot include or accommodate
(01:27):
white supremacists or racists ofany type.
There is no place for such people in our movement.
This Thanksgiving weekend, a lesson in how to disagree
agreeably. Welcome back to Firing Line,
Doctor Cornell West and Doctor Robert George.
Thank you, thank you, and we salute you for your show
(01:47):
building on the great legacy of this historic Firing Line show.
Well. You I am honored because you are
both celebrated scholars and public intellectuals who come
from remarkably different worldviews and profess different
perspectives. Dr. W you are a professed non
Marxist socialist and Doctor George you are a leader in the
(02:08):
Theo conservative movement. Not sure I'd say that, but at
least I'm not a Marxist. I'm not corny.
And we're both Christians, though we're both.
Christians, you're both Christians and you You respect
each other enough to disagree and to engage in serious and
rigorous contest of ideas in a civil and respectful way.
And you also have in common thatyou were both guests on the
(02:31):
original Firing Line with William F Buckley Junior.
It's a very great honour, very great honour.
Well, what's clear is as you nodwhen you speak, you're nodding,
and vice versa. You're leaning into one another,
clear affection between the two of you, which is.
So lovable I'm. So glad you guys.
In fact, actually, I think it's it's deeper than civility and
(02:53):
it's even deeper than respect. I think we've got a genuine love
for one another. I love this brother.
I revel in his humanity. And it seems to me I've heard
you say the common denominator is love.
Absolutely. There's just so many aspects and
facets of who we are as human beings that cannot be subsumed
under politics. So when you love somebody, you
love their, their qualities, their characters, their
(03:14):
laughter, their gestures, the the the things you have in
common that don't always fall into politics.
We can argue over Aquinas versusKierkegaard.
We can argue over his Bluegrass versus my Falcon Rhythm and
Blues. You said there's things that
bring us together. Then we reach politics.
We say, Oh my God, I think you did wrong, my brother.
I think you did wrong, my brother.
(03:36):
So that human connection, that rich, deep human connection,
that's what is so very important.
The other thing, Margaret, that we were talking about was the
importance of honesty and integrity and those sorts of
virtues. Well, I not only love Brother
Cornell, I admire him and I admire him for those virtues,
for honesty and for integrity. And he sets an example for me.
He's inspiring to me. We may disagree about politics,
(03:59):
but I do admire integrity. Person who says what he means,
means what he says, who does notsuccumb to peer group pressure.
Cornell's been under pressure from the progressive side
sometimes to do things or say things that he actually doesn't
agree with, and he refuses to yield.
I try to do that on my end and Ilook to him as a model for.
That and so the viewers know youboth did that in 2016 where you
(04:19):
refused to support Hillary Clinton even there was enormous
pressure from you on the Democratic side to support
Hillary Clinton and for you as well, Doctor George, to support
President Trump and to vote for him and to throw your weight
behind him. So both of you have really
walked that walk. Doctor George, you've said of
Doctor W Cornell is someone I have been learning from since
the moment we met. Even if I thought he was getting
(04:39):
the answer wrong, I noticed he was always asking exactly the
right question. Can you give me an example of
something he gets wrong when he's asking the right question?
This sort of thing, asking about, say, an economic system,
not or not exclusively does it work to elevate overall
(05:00):
prosperity, but is it just, doesit honor the principles that we
ought to honor, given that humanbeings have a profound inherent
and equal dignity? Now we reach different
conclusions about that. Cornell leans in the direction
of a more socialistic sort of system.
I'm more in the direction of thefree market sort of system.
But he's only going to give two cheers for socialism because he
(05:24):
sees the downside and the dangeras well.
And I'm only going to give two cheers.
I'm like Irvin Kristol, 2 cheersfor capitalism because I realize
it's a system that will sell youanything if it's not constrained
by moral principles that are themselves reflective of our
understanding. Understanding we should have the
dignity of the human person. There's certain things that
shouldn't be for sale. So I believe in the in the
(05:45):
market, but just two cheers. Cornell believes in the social
system, but just two cheers. Both of us acknowledge that
there's got to be some public regulation of market.
There's got to be fair regulation of market.
It's going to be a matter of degree.
It's going to be a matter of graduation.
It's the predatory capitalism inwhich greed runs amok.
Brother Robbie is against greed,whether it comes in the form of
(06:07):
corporate greed, poor people's greed, working people's greed,
white greed, black greed, brown greed.
Isn't that right? Yeah, like Cornell, I want a
system that works for the commongood, that works for people and
especially those who are at the lower end.
I think the market system has lifted millions and millions of
people out of poverty. So I'm for the market system.
(06:29):
I'm very skeptical of big government programs.
I want to empower the institutions of civil society,
families and churches and voluntary associations.
I want them to carry the bulk ofthe load when it comes to
health, education and welfare, and transmitting to each new
generation the values and virtues that are necessary for
people to lead successful lives and to be good, contributing
(06:50):
citizens. But I know that a market that's
unleashed without regulation, without moral constraints, is
going to do much more harm than good.
So. Have either of you moved the
other closer to your position? I think there's been movement,
but a lot of our movement has todo with also intellectual
movement. That is to say, reading great
(07:13):
texts. It could be a Jon Stewart meal,
it could be AWB Dubois, it couldbe a Hayek, it could be a Leo
Strauss. Our conversations.
But are you saying you've? Expanded your reading list well.
We don't, We read the text together, but it's how we read
them was how we read them. I think we.
(07:33):
You've said, both of you, that the examined life is constantly
being unsettled. Absolutely.
Where has Doctor W unsettled you?
I'll tell you where on issues ofrace, my inclination prior to
our deep engagement on these racial issues was to suppose
(07:54):
that the fundamental problem is that people are race conscious.
They think of themselves as white or black, when race is
really something ephemeral, something that strictly
speaking, doesn't even exist. It's a kind of artifact of
culture. Wouldn't it be better if we just
were colorblind completely in all of our dealings?
And that sounded to me like a very good way of solving the
(08:18):
problem. What Cornell has driven home
with me is, yes, there's a sensein which we should relegate
racial categories to the ash heap of history.
And yet we have to deal with thefacts of history, which include
the emergence of cultures based on, quote, race, UN quote.
(08:41):
So that a program in African American studies is is, for
example, studying a tradition, one that makes sense.
Cornell sometimes refers to African Americans as a people,
he says. I come from a people that has
suffered for 400 years, been treated unjustly, been hated,
and yet has taught the world so much to love.
(09:02):
I now understand in a way that Ididn't, I think previously, the
sense in which it makes sense torefer to, let's say, African
Americans as a people. I mean, there's a, there's a,
there's a policy prescription that encompasses many of the
problems that you've just outlined and that's affirmative
action. And you have said that, Brother
George, I'm sorry. The.
(09:24):
Professor, the Doctor W, you have said the Doctor Cornell,
you've said the Doctor West has really influenced the way you
thought about affirmative action.
Let's take a look. Cornell asked a set of questions
that made me think a lot more deeply about that Would our
campus be not be worse off by virtue of the effective absence
(09:46):
of people from the African American community?
And when you think about that question, the answer is, of
course we would be worse off. So, so how do you handle the
policy prescription then? I mean, what have you thought
about what the next step is? You've you've conceded that he
really affected the way you think about the issue.
Have you thought about the policy prescription?
I have. And my judgement of it is we
(10:08):
certainly don't want to lower standards.
So we've got one set of standards for African American
or Latino students and another set of standards for those who
don't fall into those categories.
We don't want to do that. I don't think we want to give
preferences based on race. That sounds too much to me like
the disease as cure. But it does mean that we need to
(10:29):
make an effort to make sure, a serious effort to make sure that
minority students feel they are welcome at Princeton University.
There's a place for them at Harvard University or Ohio State
or anywhere else. We need to be reaching out and
looking for the talent in those communities that maybe in a
different, if had history been different, would have been in
(10:49):
those institutions. But because history is as it is
or not in those institutions, that seems to me to be the way
to go. Doctor Wes, were you trying to
change his? Were you trying to change his
opinion or just help him arrive closer to the truth as you see
it? You know, my dear sister, we I
come from a tradition of liftingevery voice.
(11:10):
I don't want anybody to be an echo.
I want people to find their own voice, just like a jazz woman or
a Blues man. And my brother's got his own
voice, so I want him to find hisvoice and he'll land where he
lands. When I see my brother, I don't
have to eliminate his constructed whiteness.
He's a human being in a particular body, but he's made
the image and likeness of God. He has something there that is
(11:32):
worthy of a certain kind of treatment no matter who he is.
And so the history is there, white privilege is there, and
white supremacy is there, all these things.
The same is true with gender andso forth, right?
But it's that human connection that's crucial.
And when it comes to affirmativeaction, the question becomes we
want to make sure our students connect at a human level, but we
want to make sure it's fair the the, the, the conditions under
(11:55):
which they enter a college is fair.
And it's just, and we know all these institutions of higher
learning have traditions that were deeply racist and sexist
and anti Jewish and anti Muslim and a whole host of other things
were anti Catholic in terms of the Harvard and the Yales and so
forth. And Princeton too, Absolutely.
Let me ask you now about anotherpolicy, healthcare.
(12:19):
You've been on the record that Healthcare is a human right.
Absolutely. Why is healthcare a human right?
Because I think that human beings are so precious and
priceless that they ought to have access to the highest
quality of healthcare in their short move from mama's womb to
2. And that is something that so
many other nations already have been able to institutionalized.
(12:40):
The United States is very far behind in this regard.
That's a that's a preference in terms of how the policy should
be applied to every individual. But explain to me the right, the
human right part. Do you believe that Healthcare
is a a fundamental human right in the way that freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly and freedom to practice your own
religion that are enshrined in the 1st Amendment?
Is healthcare a fundamental right in that way?
(13:02):
I. Think it is.
I think Healthcare is fundamentally a human right
that's being born warrants a certain kind of treatment that
society can provide, especially for the children, especially for
the vulnerable, especially for the elderly.
But I think it holds across the board.
Doctor George, I know you've been on the record saying you
(13:25):
don't believe that Healthcare isa fundamental human right.
Well, not if by fundamental human right we mean an
obligation that the government provided.
No, there is a looser sense in which I'm perfectly happy to
speak in the language of rights when it comes to healthcare.
That means I think human beings have profound, inherent and
equal dignity, and we should work for a system that may have
(13:47):
some public elements, but may also have private elements that
will make healthcare affordable to as many people as possible.
I think there should be a safetynet, if necessary, provided by
the government. But on the whole, I would much
rather rely on the market. I don't like government running
things unless it's absolutely necessary.
No one else can run what I don'twant a private military want the
(14:10):
government running that. But what can be done by private
initiative, private action, voluntary work, I think should
be. And I believe in the magic of
markets. The good thing about markets
properly regulated is they push quality up and they push price
down because I think the best way to get healthcare to as many
people as possible is to drive quality up and prices down.
(14:31):
And you see now the overlap here, because at the moral level
we're very similar. Well, you're both saying is
there's an obligation. To see a civil.
Society. Somehow that society ought to
provide to the best of its ability because morally and
spiritually human beings have something precious that needs to
be attended to that results in how they're.
But then at the level of policy,then you say, oh, well, let's
(14:53):
see which way is the best way ofgoing about doing this kind of
thing. And it's that kind of discussion
that we need more of in the country so that we're not at
each other's throats, but ratherat the subject matter, trying to
deal with the suffering and social misery that's out.
There when it comes to positive goods like healthcare, like
(15:14):
education, there are different ways of providing different
mixes of private and and public and reasonable people of
goodwill can disagree about whatis best.
Well, a subject that you do agree about is free speech and
free speech on college campuses.Has it become even more
difficult in recent years to speak freely on college?
Oh yes. Absolutely no question that it
(15:35):
has. Cornell kindly praised me for my
witness and work on behalf of free speech.
But I want to say it's easy for me now as a conservative because
right now the conservative side,being so often the victims of
repression of speech, is in a high free speech mode.
Conservatives weren't always so jealous and protective.
Of free speech today. The difficulty, and This is why
(15:59):
Cornell deserves more praise than I do today.
The difficulties on the progressive side.
There are lots of progressives who aren't so excited about free
speech, who want to restrict it,who think they're good reasons
to restrict what they call hate speech, and so forth.
And Cornell has stood up in the face of that and said no, free
speech is for everybody and it'simportant and it's got to be
honored on a university campusesand in our society more broadly.
(16:21):
Doctor W Why that shift, that progressives seem to be in a
place where they're shutting down free speech more now than
before? Actually, the good question is
hard to say. It's really hard.
I think it's partly generational.
There is in fact also a certain kind of orthodoxy that sets in
(16:41):
any group, and that's why Socratic energy is very
important. No matter what the context is,
you have to have an acknowledgement that not only
you could be wrong, but you can learn something from someone who
you have deep disagreements with.
So that any kind of orthodoxy ofan adolescent or a or an
(17:02):
underdeveloped form just doesn'twant to listen or hear from
anyone they disagree with. Now keep in mind you got a lot
of progressive young folk who are very Socratic, so I don't
want to engage in generalization, but I think that
in part it has to do with the generational issue and the
second has to do with the increasing orthodoxy.
I I want to emphasize, Margaret,that when Cornell and I defend
(17:23):
free speech both on campus and in society more broadly, we're
not defending it as a mere abstract right, just a right
that falls down from heaven. That exists because it exists.
No, we're defending it because it's essential to truth seeking
and to running a Republican democracy.
You cannot be a truth seeker if you're in groupthink.
(17:43):
You cannot be a truth seeker if you're unwilling to be
challenged because of human fallibility.
We are all wrong about some things.
There is nobody whose head is filled with nothing but true
beliefs. All of us have some false
beliefs in there. And if we're going to move from
falsehood to truth with respect to any subject, we're going to
need somebody poking and prodding and challenging and
engaging us, and we need to be willing to listen.
(18:04):
And we certainly can't shut themdown.
The same for running a republican democracy, A
constitutional democracy like ours, because we're running a
great experiment in democratic order and democratic liberty and
self government. And you just cannot do that if
some people get to suppress the speech of other people.
Yeah, I think we're living not just in a highly polarized
(18:25):
moment in the society, but it's it's a gangster eyes moment in
our society. And by gangster, gangster, what
I mean is the eclipse of integrity, honesty, decency, a
hypocrite. Hypocrisy is the tribute that
vice plays, the virtue. So when you're a hypocrite, at
least you still have standards, you're just falling short.
A gangster has no standards at all.
(18:45):
I do what I want to do. Impunity, lack of
accountability. And that is the most dangerous
thing. No democracy.
Sounds like you're describing President Trump.
Well, I mean, he's one example, but he's not the only gangster,
right? All of us have some gangster
inside of us. So gangsterism is not just the
right wing thing it it cuts across our human condition.
Progressives have enormous cultural power.
(19:07):
Progressives dominate in academia, in journalism, in the
professions. This we've got a problem across
the board. And, and, and the progressives
can't point fingers at the conservatives and the
conservatives can't point fingers at the progressives.
When it comes to this, everybody's got to stop and
start showing some respect. Respect for each other as human
beings and respect for each other's rights to disagree.
(19:28):
OK, so I think I mean as as regular viewers take heart and
inspiration from the model that you demonstrate, how do they
also apply it to their own lives, to their own families and
Thanksgiving dinner tables, right, where, you know, they
have a deep love and shared history, but often fundamentally
disagree. And that can get in the way of
(19:50):
the love that you all have discussed that ultimately needs
to triumph in order for us to beable to really move forward in
this experiment of representative democracy.
Let. Me tell you, Margaret, what I
think the first and most necessary thing is, and it
begins with each of us, and thatis recognizing our own
(20:10):
fallibility. We are frail, fallen creatures.
Yeah. Intellectual humility.
Recognizing that we could be wrong about things, and someone
we regard as goofy or misguided or bigoted might actually be
right about those things, it's easy to acknowledge that we
might be wrong about things thatdon't matter that much to us.
(20:33):
The hard thing, but it's necessary, is to understand the
complexity and difficulty of great questions, and to
understand that I could be wrongabout deep, important things.
I could be wrong about values I cherish.
I could be wrong about identity forming beliefs for myself.
(20:54):
But the only way I'm going to figure out whether I'm right or
wrong is to listen to somebody who has a different point of
view and challenge. I'm not going to learn anything
from somebody I'm shouting at. I'm just not.
There's no good, not meaning learning that conversation.
I want to learn from Cornell. He has things to teach me, have
things to learn even when he's wrong about some things.
I want to know what his reasons are because they're going to
deepen and enrich my understanding, even if his he's
(21:16):
not actually correct. So if we're shouting, if we're
not listening to each other, it's not meaning learning.
Do you think people are less likely to listen on the issues
and the beliefs they hold most deeply?
Of course, of course they're going to be less likely to, and
we do wrap our convictions, wrapour emotions more or less
tightly around our convictions. That's just the human condition.
And so we then perceive challenges not as intellectual
(21:40):
or moral challenges, but as assaults on us personally,
because now our very identities are caught up in what we
believe. Of course we want to be
improvisational, and being improvisational doesn't mean you
give in. It just means you're cut.
You're starting from a certain standing point, and then you're
seeing whether there's wiser, more persuasive arguments put
(22:00):
forward for you to move in a place where you stand on
something stronger. That's all.
Well, I'd like to sort of wrap this up by taking you on a trip
down memory lane, Dr. West, and ask you to reflect on your
former self from 1993. Let's take a look.
Well, no, I think we recognize it, Princeton, that it's always
(22:20):
been difficult to make the life of the mind attractive in
American culture. We're simply trying to
acknowledge the fact that there isn't.
There is this very rich tradition in which the attempt
to delight and instruct and inspire and inform ought to be
at least made available. We recognize it will be.
It will appeal only to a small number of students, but to
(22:42):
ensure the quality of those students who make that kind of
choice. You both teach students.
How many students are you finding these days are
interested in the life of the mind?
Got a? Good number, yeah, got a good
number. It's a good slice, but we.
Have to inspire more? But we.
See, there's a lot that you're competing with when you're
(23:03):
trying to preach the gospel of the examined life, the life of
the mind. You're competing with status,
power, money, prestige. Those are just means.
They are. They are secondary things.
They're good because of the goodthings you can do with them, but
they are not what really matters.
The things that really matter are things like faith, family,
(23:24):
friendship, love, compassion, reaching out to other people,
exploring the great mysteries oflife and of the universe, what
summarily we call the life of the mind, which we might also at
the same time call the life of the heart.
They're what really matter. But there are competing values
and and selling kids on what Cornell and I think are the
(23:46):
right values is a challenge 'cause you're you got a lot
working against you got a whole culture working against you.
But I mean, I think the point I was trying to make 27 years ago
then, like, it's amazing to see me so young, that love of truth,
goodness, beauty has always beenthat of a critical minority
because you had to pay off a heavy cost.
(24:08):
And so there's no accident that often it's the great artists who
have been the vanguard of the species willing to pay that
heavy cost. It could be a cold train of
Beethoven. It could be a Tony Morrison or
Virginia Woolf. That's what it is.
That's how we're constituted as human beings.
We'd rather take the easy way out, status, money, wealth and
so forth. And yet the real spiritual and
(24:29):
moral wealth that really does provide a deep joy, not just a
superficial pleasure. It's something that we provide
as a door opening for young folkwho want to enter this love of
truth, beauty, goodness, and then as Christians, even love of
God, you see. But that's all with the critical
(24:50):
minority. But that's all right.
In our classes, Cornell will often tell our students that you
may not understand it, you mightnot even believe it, but let me
tell you the real reason that you have come to Princeton or
Harvard or whatever university it is, the real reason you have
come is to learn how to die. Because if you don't learn how
to die, you're not going to be able to know how to live.
(25:11):
We learn how to die in order to learn how to to live.
And it's only in the perspectiveof against the horizon of our
own death that we can really getour values straight.
I. Mean I can't end it any better.
It's in one heck of a bromance. Thank you for modeling how to do
(25:31):
this. Thank you and.
Thank you for. Coming.
Thank you, Margaret. It's great pleasure.
Thank you so much. Firing Line with Margaret Hoover
is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and
Henry Cornell, the Fairweather Foundation, the Tepper
Foundation, Peter and Mary Calico Pritzker Military
Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, and by the following.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.