May 8, 2024 • 42 mins
In Part 2 of Open Minds with Ryan Newman, we discuss government and private coercion and how state plenary authority plays into questions of freedom. How does concentrated economic and government power affect the democratic power of private citizens? How does a corporation's size and scale change its ability to exercise political influence? And how can conservative and libertarian discussions shift from focusing on process and procedure to inspiring substantive change?
Featuring:
Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, State of Florida
Alida Kass, Vice President & Director, Strategic Initiatives and Freedom of Thought Project, The Federalist Society
Featuring:
Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, State of Florida
Alida Kass, Vice President & Director, Strategic Initiatives and Freedom of Thought Project, The Federalist Society
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
Welcome to Open Minds, a Freedomof Thought podcast series interviewing the people who
bring courage and independent thought to thechallenges of today. We are back Freedom
of Thought Podcast with Ryan Newman,General Counsel to Governor DeSantis, the governor
of Florida. So in our priorepisode we talked about the philosophical framework that
(00:27):
you developed over the course of yourcareer, and now we are going to
transition to the present situation and connecton how we sort of think about the
how we think about the current challenges. So it's my opening question here,
which I credit to Professor Josh Klinfeldwho coined this. So some things you
(00:52):
know them when you feel them.You know when you're in love, you
know when you're having fun, andyou know when you're free. And there
is a pervasive feeling of being unfreetoday. Do you agree with that?
I do in some respects, butthen in some respects maybe not so much.
(01:22):
Certainly, if you're wanting to openup a business, it's not a
particularly easy thing to do. Nowit's easier in Florida than perhaps anywhere else.
There is that line the free Stateof Florida exactly. You might have
heard of it We're very much proudof that. But yeah, I mean,
(01:45):
if you want to open up ajob, open up a business,
uh, you know, that mightbe a pretty difficult thing. If you're
an employee at a Fortune five hundredcompany, you might have to watch what
you say because if you say somethingthat could offend someone, you know,
you might lose your job. Inthose respects. Yeah, I mean,
(02:12):
I think the current state of Americais actually quite oppressive. I mean,
I dare anyone to go really takeon transgender ideology today. It's a very
difficult place to be. If you'rein the medical profession and you have profound
disagreements with the treatment that's being pushedthere, or or even the concept of
(02:34):
transgenderism, you'll be run out ona rail, uh in no time.
And so in that respect, Andyou know what's interesting about that is it's
not that's not formal oppression at all, at least understood yea, in terms
in terms of you know, you'llbe you'll be you'll be taken out and
shot you know by the state youknow, or you know, shipped off
(02:57):
to the gulag or something by theauthor. But it's it's an oppression.
Nonetheless, if you feel like inorder to you know, make a living,
take care of your family, you'vegot to be quiet about certain things,
you know, lest you lose yourjob or be blackballed and ostracized.
(03:20):
And so in a way, yeah, I mean that's significantly oppressive. Does
does your definition of oppression or coercionchurn on the identity of who is exercising
the power, be it government orprivate actor? I mean, not not
necessarily, it doesn't. I mean, if you if you, if you
(03:40):
think that your life prospects will bemarkedly curtailed by holding particular views, you
know, that is you know,uh, perhaps a slightly less tanch oppression
than you know, being prosecuted orsomething, but it's nevertheless real. Uh.
(04:08):
Two people, we don't allow governmentsto do that either though, right
sort of to I mean, ifyou're sort of civil service government employee.
We we don't think that it's okayfor government as employer to fire people for
their speech, for their for theirprivate speech, their non official speech.
(04:30):
Right, that's right. But youknow, in theory, a private company
can't unless the state state steps into prevent it. And and I think
there is an interesting question about whetheror not you know states should do that,
(04:56):
and I know it's roiling conservative libertarianscircles whether that's an appropriate, you
know, appropriate for the government todo. I tend to think that,
depending upon the state of affairs ina country, it could be absolutely appropriate
at least for states to do,which have plenary authority to begin with.
(05:17):
I think we forget about that sometimes. I mean, I think we've so
fallen into a kind of a libertarianmindset that we forget that at least at
the local level, At the statelevel, state governments have plenary authority in
ways that you know, perhaps thefederal government does not safety exactly all safety
(05:38):
amormals, and so I mean,so state authorities really should be considering well
the well being, the flourishing,the happiness of their people, and if
there are ideological forces at work insociety right that are impeding that, but
(06:01):
it requires to address it, Itrequires the state to intervene until you know,
some global company, no, youactually you can't fire your employees for
you know, their First Amendment protectedactivity. Where the case may be.
Then I think that's something that statesshould do. But I do think it
(06:29):
requires judgment, and it really itdoes require a discerning assessment of the lay
of the land in a society.But the idea that, oh, categorically
governments should never even consider doing sucha thing to protect the livelihoods of the
great mass of their citizenry. It'scrazy. Yeah, it's interesting. I
(06:56):
mean, there's the line that youknow, it's it's a private company,
it can do what it wants.You may have heard that, right,
as conservatives we believe, and youknow, presumably also like I'm a private
citizen, right, I can Ican sort of have the ideas and and
and sort of thoughts that I want, right, And there's you know,
(07:20):
if if if if the sort ofthe marketplace of employers and ideas right where
the sort of the open you know, you're at an employee, you know,
you're working for somebody who does doesnot respect your off the job freedom
of speech, you know, postingon social media, participating in the public
(07:42):
doors and discourse whatever it is,right, you know, you should should
sort of pack up your things atlaw firm A and sort of walk down
the street to law firm B.But there is an interesting dynamic. I'm
curious if if if this is ifthis is your sense where I think some
some say that the the problem isthe the is the is the sort of
(08:03):
the alignment on these questions that sortof the market isn't behaving in a way
in the way that we would haveexpected, because rather than the law firm
or the private company sort of steppinginto a situation to take advantage of the
market po opportunity, they also falllike dominoes. That's right. I mean
(08:24):
the typical way of looking at thingsis, you know, look, if
you if you don't like it whereyou're where you're working, well, just
get a job somewhere else. Andso yeah, the ployer should and then
you know, some way with theemployer, you know, pick and choose
the employees that that you want.Everybody can just go and do their and
(08:45):
do their thing. I think onething that concerns me about that is I
think that might becoming less true.You know, maybe maybe the labor market
isn't quite as fluid as we tothink that it is. But also if
you're wanting to build a society wherepeople are flourishing, you know, and
(09:07):
people people don't I mean, yeah, in theory, yeah I could quit
my job and then go find ajob, you know, across the state,
or maybe even across the country,you know, pick up my family
and move, as if that's apractical thing for people, or if that's
even a good thing for people.We're becoming an increasingly rootless society. But
(09:30):
you know, sort of a freemarket approach is, hey, you know,
if you get if you get canned, because you know you're employed in
like what you said, well youcan just go get another job. Now
that job may be in Dallas oryou know, and you know, clear
across the country, whatever the casemay be. Yeah, I'm not sure
that's good for people. I'm notsure that's I'm not sure that that's that's
good for people, because people needroots, people need to feel secure where
(09:54):
they're at. That's where people tendto tend to tend to flourish. So
it's just not obvious to me that, yeah, it's as easy as that,
Well you just go find another joband still think that your your prospects
and you know your life will bethe same. I don't think. I
don't I don't necessarily think that's thecase. I also think that, you
(10:18):
know, more and more jobs aretaken up by concentrated economic interests. I
was kind of I've forgotten what thestats are now. But I actually had
seen some stats about you know,the percentage of jobs held by what percentage
of companies, right, and solike a small percentage of companies, you
know, account for a very significantlylarge number of jobs. So if there
(10:45):
is more of a high mentality amongespecially among large firms, right, then
there really aren't There isn't much inthe way of alternatives. And you know,
a lot of these big corporations dojust to point out, we're all
woke, almost all of them.So if you're looking for you know,
working for a big corporation that's notyou know, good luck with that.
(11:09):
There isn't a there isn't a freemarket in that respect. They're all monolithic
in there, you know, andtheir you know, commitment to diversity and
equity and inclusion and some of thesewoke ideas and liberal social causes, do
you I mean, so the ideaof this sort of set of political attitudes
(11:31):
and taboos and and correct opinions.It seems sort of across the various institutions,
right if we're talking about the lawfirms and like big business and higher
education and so sort of the thecapture of all of that at least the
(11:56):
leadership right of all of that,what is there a challenge a problem of
a sort of irreversible capture if thesort of the leadership of institutions control sort
of who comes in and who getsto stay, and who advances and who
gets thrown out? And like,how does how do you make sense of
(12:18):
that for consistent with freedom of thoughtand conscience? Well, I think I
think this is a massive problem,and I think it plays right into our
earlier discussion that the extent to whichall the significant major culture influencing positions and
(12:41):
society are held by people all sharingthe same ideology, that is undoubtedly going
to have downstream effects on people whodo not subscribe to that ideology. And
that's a problem. Now you couldsay, well, look, if the
ideology is a good thing, isn'tyou know it is? Perhaps it's not
(13:05):
so bad, right, And atsome level, I guess all societies have
influencers, you know, people atthe top who you know, kind of
set the cultural tone for a society. Cultures are bound by their defined by
their boundaries. That's right, Andthat's not in and of itself a bad
thing per se. In fact,at some level, all societies probably need
(13:31):
a little bit of that to givelike order and meaning to a society.
So I mean some of my criticism, you know, sort of you know,
it sort of presupposes that this whiteideology itself is as a bad thing.
But I have a challenge of thatright with sort of in in it's
(13:58):
it's maybe is it less common rightto argue about to have these disagreements on
the substance of what is being advancedas opposed to the sort of the higher,
more abstract level of process. Right, Yeah, I think this is
a big This is a big issuebecause I think conservative libertarians and I'm back
(14:22):
to using the label again, butI'm just I don't think we have a
choice. But I do think there'sbeen a tendency on the right of the
political spectrum to focus on process andprocedure and to not obsess with substantive views
of the world and advancing their ownsort of philosophy outside of you know,
(14:48):
this is the system or process thatwe're trying to preserve. And I do
think that has been a shortcoming ofthe right right because people tend not to
vote for people in that to likelay down their lives and really fight for
a process, They just they justdon't. They do to a certain extent.
(15:09):
Obviously, you know, people believein the constitution, the constitutions.
That's abstructure, right, and thatstructure matters to us. But I'm not
I'm not sure that you know thatit's enough to inspire people, right.
I think at the end of theday, people do care about the substance
(15:31):
of what it is that we're tryingto preserve here, what kind of society
do we want to live in,not just what kind of political form do
we want? And that is thedebate that is the subject of I think
of democratic discourse. This is whywe have elections, this is why we
vote. But that means that oncewe have, once the vote is taken,
(15:56):
and that, you know, politicalleaders can advance a substantive program,
a substance of a substance of worldview. There's nothing wrong with that. But
I think for too long folks onthe right, though, just want to
talk about process and not really defenda set of core beliefs. I think
(16:18):
people on the other side are notafraid of that, and I think it's
worked to our disadvantage over time.But going back to earlier question about you
know, well, what happens whenyou know, all the leadership element society,
big business, academia, the bureaucracy, media and entertainment, law firms,
(16:41):
all of the you know, culturalleaders and influencers subscribe to one ideology.
Is that is that a healthy thingor not? Well, certainly not
a healthy thing if the ideology isfundamentally flawed, which I think will spoke
stuff really is. But it canalso be a bad thing, even if
(17:02):
there's a lot of good to theideology, to the extent that there's not
enough room for people with different perspectivesto raise their hand without getting it chopped
off, you know, and beingable to voice concerns and be a you
know, and you know, offerup different perspectives. And I think we
are I think we are kind oflosing that a little bit. For people
(17:29):
who really buck the prevailing ideology today, they are not welcome in elite institutions,
at least in meaningful enough numbers toever succeed in persuading enough people to
perhaps abandon the prevailing ideology. SoI do think that that's a problem and
(17:52):
certainly a problem for the rest ofthe society. And I think they're a
downstream effects to that. What doyou think sort of supports that kind of
consensus. Let's take kind of thegeneral area of your sort of private sector
(18:15):
business activity, where we might expectto see sort of market forces operating in
a different way, more supportive offreedom and more operating more of a as
a deterrent to engaging, Right,some of these large companies engaging on some
of these questions that look sort ofyou know, fifty to fifty questions at
(18:38):
best. Right, is there isthere something about how this is developed,
is a sort of as a matterof scale or concentration or anything that that
sort of insulates from from from moreaccountability. Well, h I do think
(19:07):
the the capture of corporate America bythis ideology has been probably one of the
most significant developments, because you reallywould think that corporations would be a little
reluctant to go down the road ofembracing you know, the cdeology, and
(19:30):
really, at the end of theday, it's a it's a it's a
cultural fight. And you know,most people think, well, or I
think have traditionally have thought that,wow, corporations will stay out of that.
Well, what what how can itpossibly serve their interests to pick a
side in the cultural war, right, because everybody on both sides of the
culture wars buys their products. Right. It's like, was it Michael Jordan
(19:56):
said, you know, even Republicansby by she use, And yet here
we are with these corporations really embracingthis ideological perspective and taking aside in the
cultural war. What explains that?It's hard to know. I mean,
(20:19):
I've heard many different theories for it. Right. Some of it is just,
you know, an asymmetry in theforces of activism. You know,
the great middle class that doesn't reallybuy all this stuff. When I say
buy the stuff, I'm talking aboutproducts, I'm talking about the ideology,
don't. They don't buy the ideology. But they're also not you know,
(20:41):
picketing, you know, outside thecorporations. But activist groups do. They
agitate, and they're members of activistgroups who are employed by these companies agitate.
So they're just a constant for inthe side of management to begin with.
(21:03):
And I think when the forces area raided in that way, I
think there's just a natural tendency toso long as the corporation doesn't think that
the great middle class will really backlashthat there's a tendency to just kind of
go along. Also just think that, you know, because a lot of
these CEOs, they're educated in thesame universities that breed the Sally ideology,
(21:26):
beg in with, I think they'rejust naturally predisposed to it probably anyways,
or at least why they may notagree with with the ideology and its most
ferrulent form, at least they tendto identify more with the activists perhaps than
with you know, the American middleclass. And so I think, you
(21:49):
know, it just it's easy forthem to capitulate to the activists. But
then when you combine that as wellwith and I don't and I also feel
like I need to point out thatI do think the government has played a
role in this as well, especiallythrough the manipulation of the civil rights laws,
(22:10):
you know, to push you know, the theories of liability and so
forth that were never contemplated when thesecivil rights rights laws were first enacted.
And so human resources departments obviously,I think, reacting to that, you
know, are incentivized to like embracethis DEI stuff. And so I think
(22:30):
that's an aspect of all of thisas well. And then of course You've
got the asset managers who've have alot of sway over corporations and they've become
you know. Now, what's interestingabout this is that's they build so much
power and it's not even their money. I mean, they're just managing other
(22:52):
people's money. But through that they'reable to advance, you know, agendas
that are i think, less lessobjective and more personal to the asset managers
and their beliefs what they want thanthe interest of their uh, you know,
the people investing in their funds.So I think all of this is
(23:15):
combined to create this environment that we'rethat we're operating in. And while I
think the market can function sometimes,I think the backlash to to but on
the you know, bud Light andit's ad campaign, it's transgender ad campaign,
(23:36):
I think was significant. Of Course, targets sometimes gets some some pushback
on some of the things that itis done. Of course Difney has been
getting uh pushed back as well.That hopefully is having somewhat of a disciplining
influence, but I'm not sure thatit's enough in the in the grand scheme
(23:57):
of things. And it's interesting howthe capture of different sectors might sort of
interfere with that feedback loop. Imean it's interesting, for example that I
think the bud Light and target followownership transfer on with Twitter. Like the
(24:23):
ability to participate on a social mediaplatform and sort of express disagreement right,
sort of to have the ideas outthere is maybe one element, But then
there's also an interesting element, likewhat you were saying earlier about the difficulty
(24:48):
that some employees have in expressing offthe job ideas that are sort of outside
of the scope of your sort ofelite consensus idea, right, it does
I wonder whether that interferes with thekind of feedback loop that you might otherwise
expect to see at this sort ofreaction to someone. I think it has
(25:10):
to be if people are afraid tosay anything, or to speak up or
to share their own views, thissilent majority effect. You know they're out
there, they're just too afraid becauseyou know, they don't want to lose
their job, or they don't wantto be ostracized or you know, banished
to you know, from polite society. I think it's real. It's real
(25:32):
too, and it's especially real inelite circles, professional circles, and people
just will people will definitely keep theirhead down. And so that's you know
that that that is one reason foryou know, hey, if we were
creating that kind of environment, thatis not a healthy environment. People do
(25:52):
not flourish in that kind of environment. And so if that means the you
know, the state's got to stepin and tell these large corporations that,
hey, you know, you can'ttake that into account when you're you know,
firing or firing someone. You know, that's something worth looking into.
(26:17):
Now. I do I do thinkI need to make one quick point when
we're talking about business, because notall businesses are created equal to where I
was going. Yeah, I dothink there is a meaningful difference between a
public corporation and a private corporation.And I don't think those two things have
(26:40):
to be regulated the same way.And I think there's a tendency, at
least on our side, to thinkthat they have to be there, be
creative, is target eat, Yeah, and it's just not I just don't
think that's right. And I thinkwe need a lot more thinking on our
side about the nature of a company. The nature of a corporation to what
extent is really have rights and doesn'thave rights independent of the sort of of
(27:04):
the of the flesh and blood humanthat make it up, right, And
yeah, the divide between the peoplewho manage the affairs of the company and
the actual owners of the company isof course greatest, and a public corporation
not as much show with private corporation, although it could be depending upon how
(27:26):
you know it's structured and formed.But generally speaking of public corporation, there
is a massive disconnect between the managementof the corporation and the people who actually
own it. In fact, theownership is so diffuse that the idea of
ownership, it's really kind of meaninglessin that regard, right, because the
(27:51):
shareholders don't really control a public corporation, there's some questions that don't even can't
even be sent to the shareholders.Oh, that's right. In fact,
I want to say, I wasjust seeing some headlines the other day about
efforts of some public corporations to youknow, resist disclosing to their shareholders their
(28:11):
charitable contributions and donations and what theyspend the corporate money on. And now
how crazy is that it's the leadershipof the corporation is advocating for No,
actually, we don't really want theshareholders to know how we spend their money,
how we spend corporate resources. Andto me, that's crazy. But
that just goes to show you themassive golf that exists between the management and
(28:36):
the owners. And I think begsfor more state intervention and overshite into the
management of corporation. And I thinkunderscores why perhaps you know, large public
corporations, perhaps they don't have thesame scope of rights you know that a
(28:59):
natural person does. And I dothink and I've talked about this, you
know, and other venues, butI do think that you know that a
lot more work needs to be done, and a lot more philosophic board needs
to be done on what really arethe scope of rights with respect to especially
(29:22):
public corporations. I mean Citizens United. Of course is the case that everybody
hangs their hat on, and ofcourse Disney, and it's lawsuit against and
it's against the governor for first Amendmentof retaliation, which it lost incidentally,
and so they're taking it up ona pill. But I just want to
make sure everybody knows that we wonthere there the case was dismissed, but
(29:48):
you know they're waiving, you know, wrapping them. You know, Disney's
wrapping itself in the First Amendment andthe flag and Citizens United and everything.
But Citizens United was just a small, little, close we held company that
was formed to engage in political speech, you know, and that's received part
received contributions from for profit corporations.But I don't think it was part of
(30:14):
the record whether they were publicly tradedor that's right or yeah, worlds apart
though from uh, you know,the Disney Company and you know, global
widely held publicly traded corporations. Worldsapart, right, there's another aspect of
this, I mean, because andI think it's it's a thread that it's
(30:34):
a it's a strong thread that runsthrough the conservative legal movement that's framed around
liberty. And you know, earlieryou talked about the idea of liberty as
a having sort of moral substantive contentand scope limits. But I think there
(31:00):
are there are other newer ideas ofliberty right where sort of anything it's a
sort of an atomistic individualism concept ofliberty of asserted rights that we're not really
contemplated, contemplated sort of facetiously,sort of like you know, until five
minutes ago, but like a littlebit maybe a little bit longer than that,
(31:22):
but pretty a pretty recent vintage.Right. And then you have these
sort of assertions of competing rights rightas against the sort of the sort of
the rights of speech or conscience ofsort of whoever is on the other side,
right, And I think we seethese increasingly mediated through some of the
(31:47):
large private institutions. So there's it'sa sort of make private institutions having a
lot of say over some highly contentiouscultural questions just sort of outside of the
oh absolutely right, because corporations can'tvote, but they're you know, taking
(32:13):
you know, public positions on thingsthat really is you know, up to
and should be up to, youknow, voters through the electoral process.
But you know, I remember backwhen you know, Georgia was considering some
election reform legislation, right, andI think that prompted I think it was
(32:34):
the Major League Baseball to leave thestate of Florida. I mean Major League
Baseball, Georgia, Yeah, Georgia, yeah, Georgia. Yeah, you
know, some of the transgender sports. What does what does the electoral process
have to do with Major League Baseball'sbusiness? I think American Airlines, you
(32:55):
know, also took positions on youknow, election integrity effort efforts in the
state of Texas. Why is whyis American Airlines taking a position on electoral
reform or election security and integrity?What does that have to do with Americans?
(33:15):
American Airlines business doesn't have anything todo with it. Same thing with
with you know, Disney. Youknow, Disney took a high profile public
position uh that you know, genderidentity and sexual orientation should be taught in
kindergarten to THEORID grade. Why whatdoes that have to do with Disney's business?
(33:36):
Doesn't have anything to do with it. And it's just remarkable to me
that these companies felt like they neededto take those positions or wanted to take
those positions. And it's not asthough, you know, a vote of
the company was taken. So theseare let me ask you a sort of
(33:57):
an even an even an even morecontroversial, maybe controversial question on that.
But like let's say it's let's sayit's it's it's true that that there's a
legitimate business interest in taking a positionon you know, Let's say they've done
(34:19):
that, They've done the math,they've done the surveys, right, and
you sort of yes, you alienatesome families with children, which is kind
of a core constituency. But youknow, the sort of the advantage with
your career employees, right, likenets out, we did, I crunch
the numbers, Right, Does itnecessarily follow that that decision has constitutional significance?
(34:46):
Well in other settings, I've I'vecertainly been willing to accept the possibility
that there might be some corporate businessinterest that does have constitutional detection. But
I do confess that how exactly youdraw the line I have not been able
(35:07):
to, I think figure out myself. I mean, that's certainly something that
I'm still struggling with myself. ButI do think that there are certainly really
easy cases where, you know,business's activities are so far outside of the
(35:27):
business interests of the company that theidea that has constitutional protection to engage in
those activities makes absolutely no sense.You know, at some level, you
know, management is you know delegated, you know, responsibility to carry out
the fears of the business on theback of the share shareholders. And there's
(35:51):
got to be some common understanding aboutyou know what that means. It certainly
can't mean you know everything that thatsuddenly the you know, the CEO can
take positions on you know, widelycontroversial you know, social issues about which
(36:13):
uh you know, his own shareholdersprobably don't have a common view. And
so I do think there's got tobe there's got to be a limit.
I'm just not sure that I've beenable to identify, uh, you know,
the best line. I mean,the the consequences of going the other
way and just saying hey, publictraded corporation just doesn't have rights at all
(36:38):
does create some complications though, especiallyin so far as you know, the
corporation is itself immediate corporation, youknow, or engages and like its whole
business model is you know, content. But yeah, yeah, yeah,
so but maybe that's you know,maybe that's the line. You know,
(37:00):
so yeah, media companies, newspapers, things like that, companies that are
formed for the purpose of engaging inspeech activities. You get press. But
you know, does you know shouldMichelin? Yeah, they make tires,
you know, why should Michelin becomeany on anything? You do you have
a thought just to sort of zoomout a little bit, do you have
(37:22):
any thought though on you know,I think if you cast your mind,
cast our mind back several decades therewere disagreements, but maybe the idea of
a focus on process and neutral rulesseemed seemed reasonable because there seemed to be
(37:42):
a sort of some substantive cultural baselineon sort of what rights count and matter
and which do not, So youweren't constantly dealing with these sort of competing
claims to freedom, but in sortof do you have any thoughts on how
(38:07):
to cabin this more atomistic individualism anda functional democracy? Just to ask the
easy questions, I think any societyto be well functioning and healthy has to
have a degree of cultural unity.That's not to say, you know,
(38:34):
completely monolithic, right, because likelike anything, you have to find the
golden mean, you know, soAristotle tells us, let's find the golden
mean. And I think that's that'strue of society. Right. We don't
have a society that's so conformist,so monolithic that because that creates its own
(38:55):
problems of you know, tunnel visionand uh stagnation so forth. Right,
A level of diversity does create dynamism, and you know, which is good
and can be a healthy thing,but when taken too far, it can
be a completely destructive thing. Andat some level people need you know,
(39:16):
in order to flourish and and youknow, live happy lives needs some load
star you know, leads needs somemooring and so and I think society,
society has some level of cultural unityprovides that for people, some degree of
(39:37):
order that gives meaning and purpose,uh, a larger meaning and purpose that
they can operate within. And peopleneed that. In fact, uh,
I want to say, even Tokefieldtalks a little bit about this, you
know, the cond that that thatone of the one of the problems with
an ecolitarian society where everybody start offree to like their own way, is
(40:01):
it increases anxiety because you know,there's too many options, too many choices,
not enough guidance for people, andthey're just a drift at sea,
and that can be an anxiety inducingproblem for people. And so it's all
(40:24):
about finding the right the sweet spot. And I think our country has accomplished
that for much of its history,you know, with great amounts of you
know, diversity from all around theworld, but at the same time still
a cultural unity and core that bindsus all together. I do worry that
(40:47):
we're losing that, and I dothink it creates a problem that you touched
on because a society has just runentirely by neutral principles. Can't solve that,
and it will just lead to greaterdiscord. And so yeah, I'm
(41:08):
definitely definitely worried about it. Somaybe to close on a happy note,
what are you What are you reading? What have you read lately that has
has helped you think about the challengesof the moment of anything. So I'm
juggling all kinds of things right now, which is slowing me down completing any
(41:31):
of them. But I started readingModern Times by Paul Johnson, which is
uh, which is a great book. I don't know if you've ever read
that. I'm also reading Individualists,which is a kind of a history of
libertarian thought, which is very veryinteresting. I actually opened up and started
(41:54):
not too long ago, Family andCivilization, UH, which is a which
is a good book book as well. What else, I've got many books
on my coffee table that I'm tryingto balance. But those are the Oh
and then this one's for fun,Splendid in the Vile. That one's just
kind of a fun read about WinstonChurchill, you know, in the darkest
(42:15):
days of the Battle of Britain,So you know, I'm kind of all
over the place. Well, Ryan, thank you so much for joining us.
I have been looking forward to havingthis conversation for a long time,
and I preach appreciate so much youryour your all of your health and support
(42:36):
for the freedom of thought. Absolutelywell, thanks for having me. It
was a lot of fun. Appreciateit all right,
Welcome to Open Minds, a Freedomof Thought podcast series interviewing the people who
bring courage and independent thought to thechallenges of today. We are back Freedom
of Thought Podcast with Ryan Newman,General Counsel to Governor DeSantis, the governor
of Florida. So in our priorepisode we talked about the philosophical framework that
(00:27):
you developed over the course of yourcareer, and now we are going to
transition to the present situation and connecton how we sort of think about the
how we think about the current challenges. So it's my opening question here,
which I credit to Professor Josh Klinfeldwho coined this. So some things you
(00:52):
know them when you feel them.You know when you're in love, you
know when you're having fun, andyou know when you're free. And there
is a pervasive feeling of being unfreetoday. Do you agree with that?
I do in some respects, butthen in some respects maybe not so much.
(01:22):
Certainly, if you're wanting to openup a business, it's not a
particularly easy thing to do. Nowit's easier in Florida than perhaps anywhere else.
There is that line the free Stateof Florida exactly. You might have
heard of it We're very much proudof that. But yeah, I mean,
(01:45):
if you want to open up ajob, open up a business,
uh, you know, that mightbe a pretty difficult thing. If you're
an employee at a Fortune five hundredcompany, you might have to watch what
you say because if you say somethingthat could offend someone, you know,
you might lose your job. Inthose respects. Yeah, I mean,
(02:12):
I think the current state of Americais actually quite oppressive. I mean,
I dare anyone to go really takeon transgender ideology today. It's a very
difficult place to be. If you'rein the medical profession and you have profound
disagreements with the treatment that's being pushedthere, or or even the concept of
(02:34):
transgenderism, you'll be run out ona rail, uh in no time.
And so in that respect, Andyou know what's interesting about that is it's
not that's not formal oppression at all, at least understood yea, in terms
in terms of you know, you'llbe you'll be you'll be taken out and
shot you know by the state youknow, or you know, shipped off
(02:57):
to the gulag or something by theauthor. But it's it's an oppression.
Nonetheless, if you feel like inorder to you know, make a living,
take care of your family, you'vegot to be quiet about certain things,
you know, lest you lose yourjob or be blackballed and ostracized.
(03:20):
And so in a way, yeah, I mean that's significantly oppressive. Does
does your definition of oppression or coercionchurn on the identity of who is exercising
the power, be it government orprivate actor? I mean, not not
necessarily, it doesn't. I mean, if you if you, if you
(03:40):
think that your life prospects will bemarkedly curtailed by holding particular views, you
know, that is you know,uh, perhaps a slightly less tanch oppression
than you know, being prosecuted orsomething, but it's nevertheless real. Uh.
(04:08):
Two people, we don't allow governmentsto do that either though, right
sort of to I mean, ifyou're sort of civil service government employee.
We we don't think that it's okayfor government as employer to fire people for
their speech, for their for theirprivate speech, their non official speech.
(04:30):
Right, that's right. But youknow, in theory, a private company
can't unless the state state steps into prevent it. And and I think
there is an interesting question about whetheror not you know states should do that,
(04:56):
and I know it's roiling conservative libertarianscircles whether that's an appropriate, you
know, appropriate for the government todo. I tend to think that,
depending upon the state of affairs ina country, it could be absolutely appropriate
at least for states to do,which have plenary authority to begin with.
(05:17):
I think we forget about that sometimes. I mean, I think we've so
fallen into a kind of a libertarianmindset that we forget that at least at
the local level, At the statelevel, state governments have plenary authority in
ways that you know, perhaps thefederal government does not safety exactly all safety
(05:38):
amormals, and so I mean,so state authorities really should be considering well
the well being, the flourishing,the happiness of their people, and if
there are ideological forces at work insociety right that are impeding that, but
(06:01):
it requires to address it, Itrequires the state to intervene until you know,
some global company, no, youactually you can't fire your employees for
you know, their First Amendment protectedactivity. Where the case may be.
Then I think that's something that statesshould do. But I do think it
(06:29):
requires judgment, and it really itdoes require a discerning assessment of the lay
of the land in a society.But the idea that, oh, categorically
governments should never even consider doing sucha thing to protect the livelihoods of the
great mass of their citizenry. It'scrazy. Yeah, it's interesting. I
(06:56):
mean, there's the line that youknow, it's it's a private company,
it can do what it wants.You may have heard that, right,
as conservatives we believe, and youknow, presumably also like I'm a private
citizen, right, I can Ican sort of have the ideas and and
and sort of thoughts that I want, right, And there's you know,
(07:20):
if if if if the sort ofthe marketplace of employers and ideas right where
the sort of the open you know, you're at an employee, you know,
you're working for somebody who does doesnot respect your off the job freedom
of speech, you know, postingon social media, participating in the public
(07:42):
doors and discourse whatever it is,right, you know, you should should
sort of pack up your things atlaw firm A and sort of walk down
the street to law firm B.But there is an interesting dynamic. I'm
curious if if if this is ifthis is your sense where I think some
some say that the the problem isthe the is the is the sort of
(08:03):
the alignment on these questions that sortof the market isn't behaving in a way
in the way that we would haveexpected, because rather than the law firm
or the private company sort of steppinginto a situation to take advantage of the
market po opportunity, they also falllike dominoes. That's right. I mean
(08:24):
the typical way of looking at thingsis, you know, look, if
you if you don't like it whereyou're where you're working, well, just
get a job somewhere else. Andso yeah, the ployer should and then
you know, some way with theemployer, you know, pick and choose
the employees that that you want.Everybody can just go and do their and
(08:45):
do their thing. I think onething that concerns me about that is I
think that might becoming less true.You know, maybe maybe the labor market
isn't quite as fluid as we tothink that it is. But also if
you're wanting to build a society wherepeople are flourishing, you know, and
(09:07):
people people don't I mean, yeah, in theory, yeah I could quit
my job and then go find ajob, you know, across the state,
or maybe even across the country,you know, pick up my family
and move, as if that's apractical thing for people, or if that's
even a good thing for people.We're becoming an increasingly rootless society. But
(09:30):
you know, sort of a freemarket approach is, hey, you know,
if you get if you get canned, because you know you're employed in
like what you said, well youcan just go get another job. Now
that job may be in Dallas oryou know, and you know, clear
across the country, whatever the casemay be. Yeah, I'm not sure
that's good for people. I'm notsure that's I'm not sure that that's that's
good for people, because people needroots, people need to feel secure where
(09:54):
they're at. That's where people tendto tend to tend to flourish. So
it's just not obvious to me that, yeah, it's as easy as that,
Well you just go find another joband still think that your your prospects
and you know your life will bethe same. I don't think. I
don't I don't necessarily think that's thecase. I also think that, you
(10:18):
know, more and more jobs aretaken up by concentrated economic interests. I
was kind of I've forgotten what thestats are now. But I actually had
seen some stats about you know,the percentage of jobs held by what percentage
of companies, right, and solike a small percentage of companies, you
know, account for a very significantlylarge number of jobs. So if there
(10:45):
is more of a high mentality amongespecially among large firms, right, then
there really aren't There isn't much inthe way of alternatives. And you know,
a lot of these big corporations dojust to point out, we're all
woke, almost all of them.So if you're looking for you know,
working for a big corporation that's notyou know, good luck with that.
(11:09):
There isn't a there isn't a freemarket in that respect. They're all monolithic
in there, you know, andtheir you know, commitment to diversity and
equity and inclusion and some of thesewoke ideas and liberal social causes, do
you I mean, so the ideaof this sort of set of political attitudes
(11:31):
and taboos and and correct opinions.It seems sort of across the various institutions,
right if we're talking about the lawfirms and like big business and higher
education and so sort of the thecapture of all of that at least the
(11:56):
leadership right of all of that,what is there a challenge a problem of
a sort of irreversible capture if thesort of the leadership of institutions control sort
of who comes in and who getsto stay, and who advances and who
gets thrown out? And like,how does how do you make sense of
(12:18):
that for consistent with freedom of thoughtand conscience? Well, I think I
think this is a massive problem,and I think it plays right into our
earlier discussion that the extent to whichall the significant major culture influencing positions and
(12:41):
society are held by people all sharingthe same ideology, that is undoubtedly going
to have downstream effects on people whodo not subscribe to that ideology. And
that's a problem. Now you couldsay, well, look, if the
ideology is a good thing, isn'tyou know it is? Perhaps it's not
(13:05):
so bad, right, And atsome level, I guess all societies have
influencers, you know, people atthe top who you know, kind of
set the cultural tone for a society. Cultures are bound by their defined by
their boundaries. That's right, Andthat's not in and of itself a bad
thing per se. In fact,at some level, all societies probably need
(13:31):
a little bit of that to givelike order and meaning to a society.
So I mean some of my criticism, you know, sort of you know,
it sort of presupposes that this whiteideology itself is as a bad thing.
But I have a challenge of thatright with sort of in in it's
(13:58):
it's maybe is it less common rightto argue about to have these disagreements on
the substance of what is being advancedas opposed to the sort of the higher,
more abstract level of process. Right, Yeah, I think this is
a big This is a big issuebecause I think conservative libertarians and I'm back
(14:22):
to using the label again, butI'm just I don't think we have a
choice. But I do think there'sbeen a tendency on the right of the
political spectrum to focus on process andprocedure and to not obsess with substantive views
of the world and advancing their ownsort of philosophy outside of you know,
(14:48):
this is the system or process thatwe're trying to preserve. And I do
think that has been a shortcoming ofthe right right because people tend not to
vote for people in that to likelay down their lives and really fight for
a process, They just they justdon't. They do to a certain extent.
(15:09):
Obviously, you know, people believein the constitution, the constitutions.
That's abstructure, right, and thatstructure matters to us. But I'm not
I'm not sure that you know thatit's enough to inspire people, right.
I think at the end of theday, people do care about the substance
(15:31):
of what it is that we're tryingto preserve here, what kind of society
do we want to live in,not just what kind of political form do
we want? And that is thedebate that is the subject of I think
of democratic discourse. This is whywe have elections, this is why we
vote. But that means that oncewe have, once the vote is taken,
(15:56):
and that, you know, politicalleaders can advance a substantive program,
a substance of a substance of worldview. There's nothing wrong with that. But
I think for too long folks onthe right, though, just want to
talk about process and not really defenda set of core beliefs. I think
(16:18):
people on the other side are notafraid of that, and I think it's
worked to our disadvantage over time.But going back to earlier question about you
know, well, what happens whenyou know, all the leadership element society,
big business, academia, the bureaucracy, media and entertainment, law firms,
(16:41):
all of the you know, culturalleaders and influencers subscribe to one ideology.
Is that is that a healthy thingor not? Well, certainly not
a healthy thing if the ideology isfundamentally flawed, which I think will spoke
stuff really is. But it canalso be a bad thing, even if
(17:02):
there's a lot of good to theideology, to the extent that there's not
enough room for people with different perspectivesto raise their hand without getting it chopped
off, you know, and beingable to voice concerns and be a you
know, and you know, offerup different perspectives. And I think we
are I think we are kind oflosing that a little bit. For people
(17:29):
who really buck the prevailing ideology today, they are not welcome in elite institutions,
at least in meaningful enough numbers toever succeed in persuading enough people to
perhaps abandon the prevailing ideology. SoI do think that that's a problem and
(17:52):
certainly a problem for the rest ofthe society. And I think they're a
downstream effects to that. What doyou think sort of supports that kind of
consensus. Let's take kind of thegeneral area of your sort of private sector
(18:15):
business activity, where we might expectto see sort of market forces operating in
a different way, more supportive offreedom and more operating more of a as
a deterrent to engaging, Right,some of these large companies engaging on some
of these questions that look sort ofyou know, fifty to fifty questions at
(18:38):
best. Right, is there isthere something about how this is developed,
is a sort of as a matterof scale or concentration or anything that that
sort of insulates from from from moreaccountability. Well, h I do think
(19:07):
the the capture of corporate America bythis ideology has been probably one of the
most significant developments, because you reallywould think that corporations would be a little
reluctant to go down the road ofembracing you know, the cdeology, and
(19:30):
really, at the end of theday, it's a it's a it's a
cultural fight. And you know,most people think, well, or I
think have traditionally have thought that,wow, corporations will stay out of that.
Well, what what how can itpossibly serve their interests to pick a
side in the cultural war, right, because everybody on both sides of the
culture wars buys their products. Right. It's like, was it Michael Jordan
(19:56):
said, you know, even Republicansby by she use, And yet here
we are with these corporations really embracingthis ideological perspective and taking aside in the
cultural war. What explains that?It's hard to know. I mean,
(20:19):
I've heard many different theories for it. Right. Some of it is just,
you know, an asymmetry in theforces of activism. You know,
the great middle class that doesn't reallybuy all this stuff. When I say
buy the stuff, I'm talking aboutproducts, I'm talking about the ideology,
don't. They don't buy the ideology. But they're also not you know,
(20:41):
picketing, you know, outside thecorporations. But activist groups do. They
agitate, and they're members of activistgroups who are employed by these companies agitate.
So they're just a constant for inthe side of management to begin with.
(21:03):
And I think when the forces area raided in that way, I
think there's just a natural tendency toso long as the corporation doesn't think that
the great middle class will really backlashthat there's a tendency to just kind of
go along. Also just think that, you know, because a lot of
these CEOs, they're educated in thesame universities that breed the Sally ideology,
(21:26):
beg in with, I think they'rejust naturally predisposed to it probably anyways,
or at least why they may notagree with with the ideology and its most
ferrulent form, at least they tendto identify more with the activists perhaps than
with you know, the American middleclass. And so I think, you
(21:49):
know, it just it's easy forthem to capitulate to the activists. But
then when you combine that as wellwith and I don't and I also feel
like I need to point out thatI do think the government has played a
role in this as well, especiallythrough the manipulation of the civil rights laws,
(22:10):
you know, to push you know, the theories of liability and so
forth that were never contemplated when thesecivil rights rights laws were first enacted.
And so human resources departments obviously,I think, reacting to that, you
know, are incentivized to like embracethis DEI stuff. And so I think
(22:30):
that's an aspect of all of thisas well. And then of course You've
got the asset managers who've have alot of sway over corporations and they've become
you know. Now, what's interestingabout this is that's they build so much
power and it's not even their money. I mean, they're just managing other
(22:52):
people's money. But through that they'reable to advance, you know, agendas
that are i think, less lessobjective and more personal to the asset managers
and their beliefs what they want thanthe interest of their uh, you know,
the people investing in their funds.So I think all of this is
(23:15):
combined to create this environment that we'rethat we're operating in. And while I
think the market can function sometimes,I think the backlash to to but on
the you know, bud Light andit's ad campaign, it's transgender ad campaign,
(23:36):
I think was significant. Of Course, targets sometimes gets some some pushback
on some of the things that itis done. Of course Difney has been
getting uh pushed back as well.That hopefully is having somewhat of a disciplining
influence, but I'm not sure thatit's enough in the in the grand scheme
(23:57):
of things. And it's interesting howthe capture of different sectors might sort of
interfere with that feedback loop. Imean it's interesting, for example that I
think the bud Light and target followownership transfer on with Twitter. Like the
(24:23):
ability to participate on a social mediaplatform and sort of express disagreement right,
sort of to have the ideas outthere is maybe one element, But then
there's also an interesting element, likewhat you were saying earlier about the difficulty
(24:48):
that some employees have in expressing offthe job ideas that are sort of outside
of the scope of your sort ofelite consensus idea, right, it does
I wonder whether that interferes with thekind of feedback loop that you might otherwise
expect to see at this sort ofreaction to someone. I think it has
(25:10):
to be if people are afraid tosay anything, or to speak up or
to share their own views, thissilent majority effect. You know they're out
there, they're just too afraid becauseyou know, they don't want to lose
their job, or they don't wantto be ostracized or you know, banished
to you know, from polite society. I think it's real. It's real
(25:32):
too, and it's especially real inelite circles, professional circles, and people
just will people will definitely keep theirhead down. And so that's you know
that that that is one reason foryou know, hey, if we were
creating that kind of environment, thatis not a healthy environment. People do
(25:52):
not flourish in that kind of environment. And so if that means the you
know, the state's got to stepin and tell these large corporations that,
hey, you know, you can'ttake that into account when you're you know,
firing or firing someone. You know, that's something worth looking into.
(26:17):
Now. I do I do thinkI need to make one quick point when
we're talking about business, because notall businesses are created equal to where I
was going. Yeah, I dothink there is a meaningful difference between a
public corporation and a private corporation.And I don't think those two things have
(26:40):
to be regulated the same way.And I think there's a tendency, at
least on our side, to thinkthat they have to be there, be
creative, is target eat, Yeah, and it's just not I just don't
think that's right. And I thinkwe need a lot more thinking on our
side about the nature of a company. The nature of a corporation to what
extent is really have rights and doesn'thave rights independent of the sort of of
(27:04):
the of the flesh and blood humanthat make it up, right, And
yeah, the divide between the peoplewho manage the affairs of the company and
the actual owners of the company isof course greatest, and a public corporation
not as much show with private corporation, although it could be depending upon how
(27:26):
you know it's structured and formed.But generally speaking of public corporation, there
is a massive disconnect between the managementof the corporation and the people who actually
own it. In fact, theownership is so diffuse that the idea of
ownership, it's really kind of meaninglessin that regard, right, because the
(27:51):
shareholders don't really control a public corporation, there's some questions that don't even can't
even be sent to the shareholders.Oh, that's right. In fact,
I want to say, I wasjust seeing some headlines the other day about
efforts of some public corporations to youknow, resist disclosing to their shareholders their
(28:11):
charitable contributions and donations and what theyspend the corporate money on. And now
how crazy is that it's the leadershipof the corporation is advocating for No,
actually, we don't really want theshareholders to know how we spend their money,
how we spend corporate resources. Andto me, that's crazy. But
that just goes to show you themassive golf that exists between the management and
(28:36):
the owners. And I think begsfor more state intervention and overshite into the
management of corporation. And I thinkunderscores why perhaps you know, large public
corporations, perhaps they don't have thesame scope of rights you know that a
(28:59):
natural person does. And I dothink and I've talked about this, you
know, and other venues, butI do think that you know that a
lot more work needs to be done, and a lot more philosophic board needs
to be done on what really arethe scope of rights with respect to especially
(29:22):
public corporations. I mean Citizens United. Of course is the case that everybody
hangs their hat on, and ofcourse Disney, and it's lawsuit against and
it's against the governor for first Amendmentof retaliation, which it lost incidentally,
and so they're taking it up ona pill. But I just want to
make sure everybody knows that we wonthere there the case was dismissed, but
(29:48):
you know they're waiving, you know, wrapping them. You know, Disney's
wrapping itself in the First Amendment andthe flag and Citizens United and everything.
But Citizens United was just a small, little, close we held company that
was formed to engage in political speech, you know, and that's received part
received contributions from for profit corporations.But I don't think it was part of
(30:14):
the record whether they were publicly tradedor that's right or yeah, worlds apart
though from uh, you know,the Disney Company and you know, global
widely held publicly traded corporations. Worldsapart, right, there's another aspect of
this, I mean, because andI think it's it's a thread that it's
(30:34):
a it's a strong thread that runsthrough the conservative legal movement that's framed around
liberty. And you know, earlieryou talked about the idea of liberty as
a having sort of moral substantive contentand scope limits. But I think there
(31:00):
are there are other newer ideas ofliberty right where sort of anything it's a
sort of an atomistic individualism concept ofliberty of asserted rights that we're not really
contemplated, contemplated sort of facetiously,sort of like you know, until five
minutes ago, but like a littlebit maybe a little bit longer than that,
(31:22):
but pretty a pretty recent vintage.Right. And then you have these
sort of assertions of competing rights rightas against the sort of the sort of
the rights of speech or conscience ofsort of whoever is on the other side,
right, And I think we seethese increasingly mediated through some of the
(31:47):
large private institutions. So there's it'sa sort of make private institutions having a
lot of say over some highly contentiouscultural questions just sort of outside of the
oh absolutely right, because corporations can'tvote, but they're you know, taking
(32:13):
you know, public positions on thingsthat really is you know, up to
and should be up to, youknow, voters through the electoral process.
But you know, I remember backwhen you know, Georgia was considering some
election reform legislation, right, andI think that prompted I think it was
(32:34):
the Major League Baseball to leave thestate of Florida. I mean Major League
Baseball, Georgia, Yeah, Georgia, yeah, Georgia. Yeah, you
know, some of the transgender sports. What does what does the electoral process
have to do with Major League Baseball'sbusiness? I think American Airlines, you
(32:55):
know, also took positions on youknow, election integrity effort efforts in the
state of Texas. Why is whyis American Airlines taking a position on electoral
reform or election security and integrity?What does that have to do with Americans?
(33:15):
American Airlines business doesn't have anything todo with it. Same thing with
with you know, Disney. Youknow, Disney took a high profile public
position uh that you know, genderidentity and sexual orientation should be taught in
kindergarten to THEORID grade. Why whatdoes that have to do with Disney's business?
(33:36):
Doesn't have anything to do with it. And it's just remarkable to me
that these companies felt like they neededto take those positions or wanted to take
those positions. And it's not asthough, you know, a vote of
the company was taken. So theseare let me ask you a sort of
(33:57):
an even an even an even morecontroversial, maybe controversial question on that.
But like let's say it's let's sayit's it's it's true that that there's a
legitimate business interest in taking a positionon you know, Let's say they've done
(34:19):
that, They've done the math,they've done the surveys, right, and
you sort of yes, you alienatesome families with children, which is kind
of a core constituency. But youknow, the sort of the advantage with
your career employees, right, likenets out, we did, I crunch
the numbers, Right, Does itnecessarily follow that that decision has constitutional significance?
(34:46):
Well in other settings, I've I'vecertainly been willing to accept the possibility
that there might be some corporate businessinterest that does have constitutional detection. But
I do confess that how exactly youdraw the line I have not been able
(35:07):
to, I think figure out myself. I mean, that's certainly something that
I'm still struggling with myself. ButI do think that there are certainly really
easy cases where, you know,business's activities are so far outside of the
(35:27):
business interests of the company that theidea that has constitutional protection to engage in
those activities makes absolutely no sense.You know, at some level, you
know, management is you know delegated, you know, responsibility to carry out
the fears of the business on theback of the share shareholders. And there's
(35:51):
got to be some common understanding aboutyou know what that means. It certainly
can't mean you know everything that thatsuddenly the you know, the CEO can
take positions on you know, widelycontroversial you know, social issues about which
(36:13):
uh you know, his own shareholdersprobably don't have a common view. And
so I do think there's got tobe there's got to be a limit.
I'm just not sure that I've beenable to identify, uh, you know,
the best line. I mean,the the consequences of going the other
way and just saying hey, publictraded corporation just doesn't have rights at all
(36:38):
does create some complications though, especiallyin so far as you know, the
corporation is itself immediate corporation, youknow, or engages and like its whole
business model is you know, content. But yeah, yeah, yeah,
so but maybe that's you know,maybe that's the line. You know,
(37:00):
so yeah, media companies, newspapers, things like that, companies that are
formed for the purpose of engaging inspeech activities. You get press. But
you know, does you know shouldMichelin? Yeah, they make tires,
you know, why should Michelin becomeany on anything? You do you have
a thought just to sort of zoomout a little bit, do you have
(37:22):
any thought though on you know,I think if you cast your mind,
cast our mind back several decades therewere disagreements, but maybe the idea of
a focus on process and neutral rulesseemed seemed reasonable because there seemed to be
(37:42):
a sort of some substantive cultural baselineon sort of what rights count and matter
and which do not, So youweren't constantly dealing with these sort of competing
claims to freedom, but in sortof do you have any thoughts on how
(38:07):
to cabin this more atomistic individualism anda functional democracy? Just to ask the
easy questions, I think any societyto be well functioning and healthy has to
have a degree of cultural unity.That's not to say, you know,
(38:34):
completely monolithic, right, because likelike anything, you have to find the
golden mean, you know, soAristotle tells us, let's find the golden
mean. And I think that's that'strue of society. Right. We don't
have a society that's so conformist,so monolithic that because that creates its own
(38:55):
problems of you know, tunnel visionand uh stagnation so forth. Right,
A level of diversity does create dynamism, and you know, which is good
and can be a healthy thing,but when taken too far, it can
be a completely destructive thing. Andat some level people need you know,
(39:16):
in order to flourish and and youknow, live happy lives needs some load
star you know, leads needs somemooring and so and I think society,
society has some level of cultural unityprovides that for people, some degree of
(39:37):
order that gives meaning and purpose,uh, a larger meaning and purpose that
they can operate within. And peopleneed that. In fact, uh,
I want to say, even Tokefieldtalks a little bit about this, you
know, the cond that that thatone of the one of the problems with
an ecolitarian society where everybody start offree to like their own way, is
(40:01):
it increases anxiety because you know,there's too many options, too many choices,
not enough guidance for people, andthey're just a drift at sea,
and that can be an anxiety inducingproblem for people. And so it's all
(40:24):
about finding the right the sweet spot. And I think our country has accomplished
that for much of its history,you know, with great amounts of you
know, diversity from all around theworld, but at the same time still
a cultural unity and core that bindsus all together. I do worry that
(40:47):
we're losing that, and I dothink it creates a problem that you touched
on because a society has just runentirely by neutral principles. Can't solve that,
and it will just lead to greaterdiscord. And so yeah, I'm
(41:08):
definitely definitely worried about it. Somaybe to close on a happy note,
what are you What are you reading? What have you read lately that has
has helped you think about the challengesof the moment of anything. So I'm
juggling all kinds of things right now, which is slowing me down completing any
(41:31):
of them. But I started readingModern Times by Paul Johnson, which is
uh, which is a great book. I don't know if you've ever read
that. I'm also reading Individualists,which is a kind of a history of
libertarian thought, which is very veryinteresting. I actually opened up and started
(41:54):
not too long ago, Family andCivilization, UH, which is a which
is a good book book as well. What else, I've got many books
on my coffee table that I'm tryingto balance. But those are the Oh
and then this one's for fun,Splendid in the Vile. That one's just
kind of a fun read about WinstonChurchill, you know, in the darkest
(42:15):
days of the Battle of Britain,So you know, I'm kind of all
over the place. Well, Ryan, thank you so much for joining us.
I have been looking forward to havingthis conversation for a long time,
and I preach appreciate so much youryour your all of your health and support
(42:36):
for the freedom of thought. Absolutelywell, thanks for having me. It
was a lot of fun. Appreciateit all right,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!