Timeless Wisdom: Why Liberalism Has Become a Dirty Word

On Today's Show: Dennis Prager explores how the meaning and public perception of ‘liberalism’ has shifted over time. He examines the cultural, political, and philosophical forces that have contributed to the term becoming controversial in modern discourse.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Here thousands of
hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs had
to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles. Go to Dennisprager dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
As promised, today is about thoughts on the elections. Unlike
other classes, this is the most personal by definition, and
I trust you will appreciate that fact and will not
take offense at some of the views that will be expressed.
I would hope to do so as objectively as possible,

(01:05):
but it is even more than religion. It is not
possible to discuss politics and be perceived by everyone as
being objective. I would like to be, because this is
a course, not a lecture series. But I appreciate the
fact that some will simply find some of these views
quite wrong. That is why I will leave more time

(01:27):
than usual only in this particular session for other thoughts.
But I am asked to it as one of the
subjects that was listed, and that many of you have
asked for us to offer some analysis of the presidential
election that will take place next week, And I was thinking,
what should I do? Because you hear analyzes all the time,

(01:50):
what can I offer to you that you would not
normally get tuning in radio or reading a columnist. And
I thought that I would like to deal most specifically
with the question of the L word. I think that
I could do the best for you. Whether you consider

(02:12):
yourself liberal, conservative, or as I consider myself centrist, you
could you could most profit by an analysis of someone
who does think it's become a dirty word about why
it has become that I think is the is the

(02:32):
most honest thing. Rather than claiming some absolute neutrality in
the middle. I will tell you why this person who
was raised liberal, as virtually every Jew in America was,
who was raised to perceive voting Republican as an active apostasy.

(02:52):
A Jew for Republican is someone on the level of
Jew for Jesus in in the in the world that
I grew up, and in much of the Jewish world
to this day. And I must tell you when I
first the first time I voted Republican, it was it
was very, very hard. I felt that I was going

(03:14):
to have to answer to God on young Kipper that
you know alchte there will be one Shebahati Republican. There is.
I'm saying this with some levity, but it is absolutely
true that it is. It was. It was semi dramatic,

(03:34):
deep sense of guilt. While I have voted Republican the
last two times, it is, it is not even it
is a little easier, but I'm still a Democrat. In
other words, it's very hard to get the democrat and
liberal out of the Jew who was raised with Adlai
Stevenson and all the beliefs about conservatives and Republicans that

(03:57):
I am, probably most of you were raised with. So
I am a good example of someone who can honestly,
maybe incorrectly in your view, but at least honestly tell
you why something so venerated as the word liberal and
liberalism has become such a dirty word that until yes yesterday,

(04:21):
the thirtieth of October of an election year, the liberal
candidate refused to say he was. I mean, in other words,
that's not debatable. It's not debatable that it's become a
dirty word. What's debatable is it should it have become
why it has become, But that it has become is
not debatable. Conservative is not a dirty word. Mister Bush

(04:45):
walks around all day long saying I'm conservative, and it's
not a problem. Twenty years ago, thirty years ago, that
was a dirty word. My thesis to you, therefore, is
that it is deserved. In other words, conservative deserved to
be a dirty word. In the fifties, conservative was linked

(05:05):
with racism, with social retardation, holding back legislation that was moral.
Who opposed civil rights legislations? Liberal liberals are conservatives? Conservatives
Obviously conservative were retrograde. The conservative view was perceived as

(05:26):
being what's good for general motors is good for America,
not what's good for general motors and workers, not what's
good for Americans, what's good for big business. Conservative had
a dirty name, a bad name, bad reputation. It was deserved.
I believe liberal today has a bad name and a

(05:50):
bad reputation. I think it's deserved. The argument that is
being made that look at what liberals did traditionally and
how beautiful it was is not an argument. The question
is is that liberal that was beautiful the same thing
as the liberal today? I argue it isn't that. The

(06:11):
reason liberal has become a bad name, a bad word
in America is not because Americans have all of a
sudden become an extremely selfish people, which is a typical
argument given to me by liberals Americans vote their pocketbook.
You've become a little wealthy, and all of a sudden,
you are selfish. We liberals are beautiful and compassionate, and

(06:34):
you conservatives are selfish. That is truly how most liberals
perceive America. That they are compassionate and kind and that
conservatives are stingy, cheap and selfish. That there are selfish
conservatives goes without saying likewise, it goes without saying that
there are selfish liberals. I don't know if that is

(06:54):
a dividing line, and I will prove to you why.
I don't think that there is such a dividing line.
But that is the way liberals perceive it, that Americans
have become selfish, not that liberalism has changed. I argue
liberalism has changed the Americans have become not selfish. Americans,

(07:14):
I think correctly, have the reputation of being among the
most unselfish nations as a nation in the world. Given
how much America does when there is need for help,
when they are a starvation, etc. It is America that
is called on an America that responds first and most generously,

(07:36):
so too, when people need to go somewhere with refugee status.
It is America. America has this massive immigration problem because
it's wonderful. People flee to a country that they want
to live in. It's not because America is richer incidentally,
that people so want to come to America first. Switzerland

(07:57):
is richer than the United States. They are not lining
up as Swiss embassies around the world like they do
in American embassies. And the reason is people are smart,
They are not stupid. They know that there are more
opportunities in every area in America than anywhere else, not
just economic, but social and religious. You see, you are

(08:18):
not out of it in America if you are a minority,
as everybody else's too, but you are out of it
if you're a minority in Switzerland. Here you're another minority.
We live in a city of minorities. I work in Hollywood.
Once a week I drive through Soul Korea. I have

(08:38):
been to Soul Korea twice. Western Avenue might as well
be Soul houng chung Wong Avenue. It is. It is
like the Lower East Side when Mizeta lived. Everything was
in Yiddish. You might as well have been in Jerusalem.
Here it is soul transported. But there is also there

(08:58):
is also Little Japan. There is also Chinatown. There is
also huge Filipino area. And one goes on and what
about all the Hebrew you hear in the valley? Right?
I mean there are parts of the valley where if
you don't know Hebrew you have to study. You should
start studying it. Only in America can that be said

(09:20):
at this time. It's a wonderful place in many ways,
and people know it. So I don't believe Americans have
become selfish and rejected liberalism. I think liberals have rejected liberalism.
My proof being if you would listen to the speeches
of John F. Kennedy.

Speaker 3 (09:35):
My friend Bill Pearl, who does the Saturday night show
on KBC prior to My show, is a terrific talk
show host.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
You should truly listen to his show. I admire him
as a colleague. I mean, it's not common that one
admires a colleague.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
It's easy to admire people in another field, but in
your own I'm telling.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
You he has a beautiful show. The amount of homework
he does is remarkable. And I speak about the homework
because two weeks ago he compiled a huge assortment of
John F. Kennedy's speeches, and what he did was he
began the show by saying, ladies and gentlemen, tonight, my
guest is John F. Kennedy. And he would ask questions

(10:20):
and then play tapes at Kennedy's speeches as if he
was answering in the studio. That took a lot of work.
If you would have heard those speeches and you would
not have known it was Kennedy's voice, had it been
a just a reader reading them, you would have said,
this is a conservative speaking. For example, constant reference by

(10:42):
John Kennedy to the fact that the world is Haff's
half free and half enslaved, and the half that's enslaved
is communist. No democrat says that today. No liberal says
that the communist world is enslaved. That's Cold War rhetoric.

(11:03):
To a liberal, it's not allowable. I have said often,
and I do believe this. A liberal who would say
that would be elected. You see, people don't vote for
their House of Representatives, congressmen, or their senator foreign affairs.
They only vote for their president on foreign policy. That's

(11:26):
a major part of the reason Republicans keep winning the
country keeps electing after all Democrats, as mayors, as congressmen
and senators. What happens all of a sudden they get
selfish when it comes to voting for president. Again, the
selfish argument just fails. If Americans is selfish and to
liberal is unselfish, how come there are so many liberals

(11:47):
in Congress in governor's mansions because on foreign affairs, liberals
are not trusted for good reason, in my opinion, And
I'm talking to someone who voted for Mayor Bradley. I've
been a supporter of Mayor Bradley, so I identify with that trend.

(12:08):
This is coming from someone who is not talking above it.
I am part of that trend. And the reason that
Republicans or conservatives, if you will, are more trusted is
because of the issue of perceptions of communism and perceptions
of force. So I will begin my analysis of why

(12:29):
the L word has become the L word with an
analysis of foreign affairs. George McGovern was asked the quintessential
democratic liberal was asked when he ran for president. It
was in nineteen seventy two in Playboy magazine, where it

(12:49):
seemed for a while it was imperative that democratic presidential
candidates appear. Mister Carter was next, and that's when he
spoke about lusting, which apparently drew great evoked great trauma
among many Christians and massive yawns among many Jews, which

(13:15):
goes to that issue of one of the big differences
between Christians and Jews about the place of thoughts and
the place of actions and so on. That's another subject
for the other class. At any rate, he was asked
about communism, and he said more or less as follows.
I have the direct quote, but trust me that this

(13:38):
is just about what he said. He said, I personally
don't like communism. However, who am I to tell the
Russian people what sort of government they should have if
they want communism, that's their business. That was essentially his response.

(13:59):
That is the response, incidentally, that you would get from
most liberal professors at UCLA. That is the classic liberal
response post.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
Vietnam, not John Kennedy pre Vietnam, to the question of
communist Listen, I don't like it, which is.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
True, you don't. You never find the liberal who likes communism.
Like communism its communist, you know that's so, And they're
not communists, so obviously they don't like communism, but they're
not prepared to say it's slavery point blank, like John
Kennedy said, which was essential to liberalism. Communism is the

(14:39):
inheritor from Nazism of the enslaving of peoples and the mission,
which is what I believe communism is. But you can't
drag that out of a liberal. I asked Author's Lessener
Junior personally in public. Some of you may have been
there at the Brandis Bardine forums that I used to do.
I asked author Schlessinger Junior, probably the leading liberal professor

(15:04):
from the Kennedy era, extremely well known as you know.
I said to him, would you say that the United
States is morally superior as a society to the Soviet Union?
He said no, and I said, I'd like to repeat
the question.

Speaker 3 (15:26):
You are not willing to say that as a society,
the United States is morally superior to the communist society
of the Soviet Union.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
He said no, that would be self righteous. Liberals cannot
say the United States is morally superior to communism if
that has been perceived by the American public as eliminating
them from dealing with those who most Americans, thank god,

(15:56):
still perceive as vile. Mister Reagan said the Soviet Union
was an evil empire, a statement that should have elicited yours.
If the Soviet Union is not an evil empire, there
is no such thing as an evil empire, then none
ever existed. It's certainly an empire. It's the only remaining
empire in the world. What else would one call owning Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania,

(16:19):
azer By John, the Ukraine, Moldavia. Not to mention Afghanistan?
And how is it greeted that statement by the president
as if the man had knocked down Shirley Temple, I mean,
had said she exposes herself to children. He had said

(16:46):
something that the liberal press, the liberal politician found utterly offensive. Now,
there is an argument that the President of the United States,
having to deal with the Soviets, ought not politically call
them in their face evil. That's a valid argument of tactics.

(17:08):
But it wasn't the tactic that was attacked. It was
the statement, who are we to say they're evil? After all?
Don't we have homeless, don't we have an You go
through the litany of all the terrible things of America.
That's what is perceived as the liberal reaction to the

(17:29):
question of communism. That's why they won't win. There's a
proof to what I'm saying. The proof is this. It
was argued for the last eight years, the last two
presidential elections, that mister Reagan was winning because of the
force of his dynamic personality. He was called by liberals,

(17:54):
not by others, By liberals the great communicator, man with
extraordinary charisma and with a Teflon coding. Nothing sticks. So
why did he win in almost every state? Because he
has a Teflon coding and he's a great communicator, and

(18:15):
that was the liberal wisdom. Well, the liberals today are
running against a man who has no charisma, who has
no ability to communicate, who is basically a very nice nothing,

(18:35):
who appointed a very nice sub nothing. Liberals are losing
and may lose forty five states to a nothing and
a sub nothing. The sub nothing can't communicate to anybody.
Do you know where he was the last two months?
He showed up for the debate, was wound up appropriately,

(18:59):
and has been yanked off the national fail. You can't
find him. He is not to be seen. He's almost
as hidden as Jesse Jackson has been for very similar reasons.
Not that Jackson can't communicate. He communicates all too well
and will come to Jackson in a moment. Now, if
you lose against George Bush and Dan Quail, you can

(19:24):
no longer argue it is because of great communicative abilities,
powerful charisma and teflon coding. There must be a reason.
What is the latest reason they do better TV commercials
than do Coccus. That is every column mist repeats that. Now,

(19:46):
ladies and gentlemen, that is ridiculous, It is ridiculous. It
has nothing or little to do with the reason. The
reason is precisely given in the most famous line of
mister Ducoccus's acceptance speech in Atlanta. This is this campaign,

(20:09):
this election is not about ideology but competence. Now why
did he say that? Because he is so competent. No,
because he knows that if it's about ideology he will
lose fifty states. That was the giveaway. They know it.
He is a smart man, mister Ducoccus, probably considerably smarter

(20:33):
than mister Bush in pure brain matter. And if you
want to choose a man's wisdom on the basis of
whom he chooses as a running mate, the only decision
we could judge either of them by it's a genius
versus a jerk. Now, mister ducacis understood. If we debate ideology,

(20:55):
we don't have a chance. This country has rejected what
we stand for. Fellow Democrats, Let's not use our ideals
to win, because we don't have a snowballs chance in
hell to win on that. Let's debate competence. That was
the giveaway. But you can then lapse back to the

(21:18):
old refrain. America are selfish because they're doing well, and
when they do well, they don't care about the poor guy.
If you believe that, I can't convince you otherwise. It's
a depressing thing. I would imagine, though, to believe that
all of a sudden, in the last eight years, Americans,
who have been such believers in government helping people, in

(21:40):
caring for the poor, have all of a sudden become
so selfish. I feel for liberals. They must walk around
much more depressed than I do, and I think they do. Incidentally,
I think they do. It's a depressing thing to think
the rest of your civilization has metamorphosized into a selfish mass.

(22:02):
Now why has this happened is the subject of my session.
Why has liberal become associated in most Americans' mind with
someone unworthy of the White House. I began with foreign affairs.
Conservatives are prepared to say, say the following Communism is evil,

(22:22):
the Soviet Union is evil. We are prepared to fight
that evil, or at least help those who are fighting
that evil fighting. Liberals say, who are we to call
it evil? We have our own bad things going on
in our own society. We should only use force when

(22:43):
we are threatened personally, and let others choose their own systems,
even if it is communists. Those are very different views
of the world, and they both can't be right. One
is right and one is wrong, or they're both wrong,
but they certainly can't both be right. That's why the
Countrist is a perfect example. It's a very good litmus

(23:04):
test conservatives whole, or if you will, old time liberals,
which is what I think of me. As people in
Nicaragua wish to overthrow their communist regime that has robbed
their revolution from them, I support them and will give
them aid as long as I can. Why did I

(23:25):
learn from Vietnam? Speaking personally and the name of many
of those who want to support the constricts, I will
not send American Americans to die there, but I will
help Nikaraguans fight there. Does that mean they will die? Yes,
it's not possible to fight with machine guns and not die.
I am prepared to help people die and kill.

Speaker 3 (23:47):
Yes, that sounds cruel. That's because you've turned liberal. It
is not cruel.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Why is that any more cruel than helping Frenchmen kill
when they were occupied by the Visci regime. The Vicisi
regime was a local fascist regime in World War Two?
Why should we have invaded France? Why should we have
given aid to Frenchmen who are gonna shoot other Frenchmen
to overthrow the despicable vic regime? Because it's okay to

(24:16):
fight fascism but not okay to fight communism. Why communism
is more moral? On what gradation of morality? Is communism
more moral than fascism other than it's rhetoric. That's true.
On rh rhetorical terms, communism is much better than fascism.
When Nazis killed you, they said you are subhuman scum

(24:40):
and we are exterminating you. When communists murder you, they
do it in the name of progress, freedom and do
it for your sake. That is correct. Liberals by rhetoric.
Communist rhetoric is noble. Fascist rhetoric isn't trouble is in

(25:00):
the world today. I much rather live under a right
wing regime than a communist regime for a very simple reason.
Many simple reasons, but one that's the simplest and clearest.
If I live under a right wing dictator, I have
a chance in my own lifetime of living in a
free country. If I live under a communist dictator, I

(25:22):
have no such chance. That's the difference. Chili vote a
chilly general hunta neo fascist man just got himself voted
out of bower. Think Fidel Castro will do that. When
I'm going debate with one of my radio listeners on

(25:43):
this very issue, he told me it's much better in
Cuba than in Chile.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
I said, by no criterion of human rights and values
that I can think of.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
Is that correct? That is absolutely false. I would infinitely
prefer to live in Chili than in Cuba, and I
would infinitely prefer to live here than in either. But
if those were my choices, there is no question. He
called up the following week and said, you know, I
think you're right. To his credit, Cuba is worse, but

(26:19):
it goes down the line is worth South Korea we
speak the riots and rigged elections and so on. South
Korea's paradise compared to North Korea. West Germany is paradise
compared to East Germany. Wherever there's a communist half and
another half the other half is better, even if it's
not fully democratic. Everything I have said, John F. Kennedy

(26:44):
would have sat in this audience and played Tic tac
toe with himself while I spoke, because I would be
speaking such batal truths. This was the given of the
Democrats and the liberals up to Vietnam. Vietnam burned them.
They got very badly burned fighting communism. So all of

(27:07):
a sudden, instead of saying we fought it in the
wrong way, they said we shouldn't fight it. And when
a person decides not to fight something, he has to
start believing it's not worth fighting. It is very hard
to say something is evil, but I refuse to fight it,
because then you have to confront your conscience. So what

(27:28):
the Democrat liberal has done is said it's not worth
fighting communism, look at what happened in Vietnam. And once
deciding that it's not worth fighting communism. The next thing was,
it's really not so bad communism, which is why the
reaction to mister Reagan saying it's an evil empire. I

(27:49):
speak at colleges, If I describe communism as evil, professors
will get up and they they will that they have
viscerally angry reactions, passion passionately angry. I spoke at a
human rights conference. I was sneaked in as a speaker.
That's really what it amounted to. It was a human

(28:11):
rights conference developed by psychoanalysts, with whom I have great
respect for, and it was a very major conference here
at some hotel in Los Angeles. Speaker after speaker at
a conference on world human rights spoke about abuses in Chile,
abuses in South Africa, abuses in Argentina, which was then

(28:35):
run by the generals, and all correct. I agree with
every one of those. There are terrible. There are terrible
abuses and are still in the case of South Africa,
and should be noted. Now. One speaker spoke, however, about
abuses under communism. So I was sneaked in by a
friend of mine who's a psychoanalyst and who was on

(28:57):
the steering committee. He will also speak on human rights
in communist countries. I was hissed, I was booed. The
reactions were remarkable, to the extent that when I said
that Stalin killed more people than Hickler, which is a
fact of life, and I say it is a Jew
obsessed with the Holocaust. I was yelling that to the

(29:22):
point where it was denied. I was called a liar
for saying that there was genocide in the Ukraine. And
I simply looked at them, most of them being Jewish.
And I will analyze, perhaps tonight or another night, why
Jews tend to flock towards liberalism. And I said, you are, morally,

(29:43):
to me identical to those anti Semites who deny the Holocaust.
Anyone who denies what the Soviets did in the Ukraine
in the thirties is morally equivalent to the anti Semite
who denies what the Nazis did to the Jews. It
was the saddest of sad experiences. That's the issue, my friends.

(30:08):
If liberals could say these things about communism, it would
no longer be a dirty word, or it would fifty
percent at least would have been cured. Along with that,
of course, comes the issue of the use of force.
Mister Reagan used force on Libya. He bombed Libya. He

(30:29):
was called rambo for bombing Libya. Sometimes the rambo response works.
I have no one better to quote than an archtypical
liberal Woody Allen, who, in one of his films is
standing in Manhattan with two Jewish liberal friends and they

(30:50):
are debating about what to do about neo Nazis in America.
One of the liberal Jewish friends says to Woody Allen,
we should take out an ad in the New York Times,
to which Woody Allen responded that he suspects that most
Nazis don't read the New York Times and that baseball

(31:13):
bats are far more persuasive and effective. Now's Woody Allen
a rambo? That, no, because Jewish liberals are at peace
with bashing Nazi heads in, they're not at peace with
bashing communist heads in. I don't understand quite why I
never meet Jewish pacifists when it comes to Nazism, but

(31:36):
all of a sudden, when it comes to Communism, they
embrace Gandhi and every other pacifist that to me is selfish.
Those who want to destroy us should be killed, But
those who wish to destroy other nations, like the Ukrainians,
they should live and be Well, that's how I read
liberal non selfishness on foreign affairs. So when it comes

(32:03):
to force, mister Dukakis thought that it was wrong to
invade Grenada. There is a very large group of people,
as we discussed last week, that disagrees with mister Dukakis's appraisal. Grenadans.
They found the invasion terrific. They celebrated as a national holiday.

(32:24):
It's victory over Communism Day, like there was Victory over
Nazism Day in Europe. But that's rambo to the liberal.
When do you use force only when American interests are threatened?
Why that's considered noble and unselfish? I have never quite understood.
Strikes me as the quintessence of selfishness. Only when you

(32:47):
bother me? Will I ever use force? Do whatever you
want to the world, rap them all you like. Only
if you touch me, will I use my weapons. I
don't share that view. So those are two parts of
foreign affairs, the use of force and the view of communism.
Why we have an l word now domestic here. You

(33:09):
would think that liberalism should have a much better name.
It should it should have retained it. But it is
associated by many Americans with the following. For one thing,

(33:30):
it is associated with the sixties. Liberalism is associated with
the sixties, and for most Americans, except for those my
age who nostalgically look back at the sixties, I am
not among them. I didn't like the sixties during the sixties.
I certainly don't like the sixties in the eighties. But

(33:53):
there is a number of Americans that look back at
the sixties is a wonderful time. Do your own thing,
make love, not war, etc. Etc. Most Americans see that
period which had one spectacular liberal greatness attached to it
civil rights legislation, which is absolutely correct and which is

(34:17):
absolutely due to liberals and absolutely due to their credit.
That's just not a question. Conservatives did not open up
Southern schools to blacks. Liberals did. That's not a question
on You can't, however, on one issue. Continue to live

(34:38):
forever to maintain your credibility. You get the credit where
you deserve it, and then you move on. What do
you have to say to America in nineteen eighty eight,
We know what you have to say to the South
in nineteen sixty eight. What do you have to say now?
The sixties are perceived by most Americans as an age,
as a time of anarchy and tremendous permissiveness, breakdown of

(35:04):
institutions educationally, religiously, and politically, and by the way, I
generally share that assessment. I think we are still recuperating
from the sixties. It was a great time for an orgy.
It was a great time for fun. It wasn't necessarily

(35:25):
a great time for building the institutions that keep a
society going. The sexual revolution has at least as many
victims as it has people it has health. I have
no answer to the bottom line on the sexual revolution.
It's a very tough issue. Are women my age because

(35:46):
I'm quintessential sixties I was at college sixty six to seventy,
I was right smack in the heart of the sixties.
Are women happier as a result? Not that they can
go to work, which by and large is a good thing.
Women should be free. If they want to be surgeons,

(36:06):
they should be surgeons. There is obviously good things that
came out of feminism, But what about the part that
it was considered ridiculous to ever hold back sexually? You
had a hang up? The term why do you hung
up on a first date? They just had a bagel
and he wants to be in bed. She doesn't want

(36:29):
to go to bed. She has a hang up? Are
you sick? What's wrong with you? Did women benefit from
this buy and large men benefited from it? I'll be
very honest. I remember vividly. I was the happiest man
in the world that women were walking around saying, we're
just like men, we too can have sex without commitment.

(36:51):
I knew it was the biggest lie since pre Copernican
views of the universe. I knew it. Men for all
of recorded history, from ancient Mesopotamia had been trying to
convince women to have sex without commitment. All of a sudden,
this little window of opportunity open for men in the

(37:16):
late sixties, during my greatest period of bachelorhood, I knew
God was on my side. Women agreed, Oh, we can
also have non meaningful sex, said of course. Of course,
who said no? And it was just incredible. It was
the time to be a single man, or at least

(37:38):
that's what a lot of married men thought. And many
men decided to become single men then and found that
you know, in the final analysis, there was more fun
than happiness involved, which is another subject that you have
become aware of. So it's a very mixed bag, even

(37:59):
on the good stuff. And there were good things to
come from feminism, but they were also not good things.
I remember some of you were at Brandeis Bardein when
I was director, and I remember weekends so vividly. We
would open up weekends at the institute and it was
almost always for couples, and the way it worked was

(38:20):
the cup. Both both the husband and wife would stand
and introduce themselves. This was in the seventies, which is
which is philosophically the sixties, it's chronologically the seventies. I
remember so well. It made such an impact on me.
I was I was a bachelor. I was thinking what
will it be when I'm married? And I was watching
couples interact, and I remember a couple after couple that

(38:43):
would be like this. He would say, you know, I
am or whatever, and she would would very sheepishly admit
embarrassedly that she was uh uh a wife and mother.
It was said as if I'm sorry, I I have

(39:04):
nothing else to claim for myself. It was it was
said to see this. The shrip, to use the term
from the sixties put on women if they weren't a doctor, lawyer,
indian chief, or selling at May company. It it was
more prestigious to say I sell at May companies than

(39:25):
to say I make a home. Because you made six
bucks an hour and you didn't make a living, you
are in pay for being mother and wife. That too,
was part of it. Sure, there are good things, let
women do what they want and be free to Absolutely,

(39:45):
I'm totally for it, But a lot of bad stuff
came with it that is also part of them. It's
worthy of another talking will happen outside of feminism and
civil rights, though. There are a lot of things that
are associated with the sixties that simply are regarded by
Americans as a rule as not good. For example, kids

(40:09):
demanding that they make their own curriculum at college. Most Americans,
including this one, believed that the deterioration in American education
began in the sixties, and the major reason for it
is standards declined. In the sixties, standards were considered bourgeois, reactionary,
neo fascistic. It was the age of progress, progressive thought.

(40:35):
First of all, the most progressive was don't have greats, right,
don't have great and no required courses. So it is
now possible to graduate Princeton having taken movies. And I'll
prove it to you. What is the name of that Brookshields.
Brookshields went to Princeton. When she graduated about a year ago,

(41:00):
there was an article describing the courses she took. Because
she's famous and people wanted to know. A writer for
The New York Times wrote an opinion piece say missus
Shields should demand the mother as if the mother paid,
I don't know, Brookshields should demand her money back. Got no,

(41:22):
and then he would list what she never studied to
get a BA from Princeton University. Half her courses were
on film. That's an education, that's preparing. We're gonna compete
in the world, say the liberals. We have to compete
in the world, and the conservatives yell the same thing.
How you comte compete If kids are studying movies in college,

(41:45):
what are we gonna compete in movies? We won in movies,
We dominate the world. Unfortunately they're played on Japanese projectors.
See sense of decline of standards. I remember at Columbia,

(42:09):
where I attended graduate school, kids demanded to make the
curriculum juge of twenty two. What the hell are these
people called educators for if they don't know what's better
for us to study. I am not putting words in
a twenty two year old's mind. Now, at forty, I
wrote it. I said it then. I had such contempt
for educators it has never left me. Not teachers, educators,

(42:34):
the professional educators I still think are the dumbest people
in America unless proven innocent. In other words, if I
meet one who is an official in education, I think
they're dumb until I speak to them, and then they
can reverse it. These are the people who said twenty
two year old pishers like me would say, we don't

(42:57):
want to study X, Y, and Z, and we want
to study relevant remember relevant the key word and relevant courses.
Who needs history? I wan relevant courses? So they said,
you're right. A fifty five year old man who got
a PhD in education, who will spent thirty years education

(43:21):
says to a twenty two year old you're right. It
means he was wrong. They can't both be right. He
has spent thirty years wrong, and you expect kids to
have respect. I wrote an article when I was writing
my column for the Herald Examiner. You want to know
where the contempt for old age began in the sixties

(43:44):
because the elderly said, we have nothing to teach you kids.
The elderly caused the age gap, not the young. As
soon as the older generation says to the next generation,
you're right, where wrong? We don't know better than you?
Why will they not breed contempt for them? Clearly, age

(44:06):
brings nothing but wrinkles. It used to bring wrinkles and wisdom.
What was said in the sixties was it only brings wrinkles.
No wonder you couldn't trust anyone over thirty. They had
all lived a lie. I trusted people over thirty. I
came from a religious world where they said to me,

(44:28):
we do know better. We've lived forty years more than you, Dennis,
And as brilliant as you might think you are, you
don't know nothing. Four thousand years of Judaism knows a
lot more than you do. Religious kids in religious environments
respected their elders more for good reason. The elders were

(44:51):
worthy of respect. They said to us, we know better.
The worst thing I could tell my child is, I
don't know. What do you think? That's why? That's what
a five year old or a ten year old or
a fifteen year old wants to know, right, I don't

(45:12):
know what do you? Of course, if I don't know,
I'll say I don't know. I'm not a fool. My
child asked me in a lie, does God do exer?
I don't know when I don't No, I don't know,
but there are things I do know. How many parents
would say to me my kid came home from college,
and I don't know how to answer them. They're learning
things that we didn't learn. What's the difference. What's the

(45:33):
difference Our twelve year old daughter is learning things in math?
She came she showed me a math book. I would
funk I'd get a zero. She's in seventh grade. If
I took her exam, I'd get a zero. I never
heard of sets. I know sets from tennis. That's the
only set I know. Okay, she's studying sets. I don't

(45:54):
know what a set is. I could not answer her questions. Well,
that's technical knowledge. I'm not embarrassed not to know that.
But I'm supposed to have wisdom answers about life so
much crumbled. What else is the sixties and liberalism associated
with antireligion, and how could it not be it is.

(46:17):
You've got to be very, very disingenuous to say the
ACLU was not proposed to religion. It is. It wants
religion removed from every single public sphere. It was the
backbone of the democracy that without it, the democracy was threatened.
That's not believed by liberals. Liberals believe you can have

(46:39):
a secular society and thrive. Most Americans don't believe that.
I'm one of them. That's a very big deal. Yes,
the homeless is a big deal, but so is whether
or not religion remains the bonding of America, the backbone
of the civilization. That's a big deal. That is why

(47:03):
it is not right to say that Bush has run
just a negative campaign. It's certainly been no more negative
than the way the Democrats opened their campaign. And Richards
was dirtier than anybody has been in this campaign. And
her descriptions of George Bush at the Democratic Convention, that's
always forgotten. That's what started the campaign. The conventions begin

(47:24):
the campaign. They've both been dirty, and by the way,
I don't think it's been particularly dirty. I think that
this has been a very bizarre issue. Why was so dirty?
They attacked the other guy? Why do they suppose to
say he's a wonderful man. I think he'd make a
fine president. But I'm nicer Nixon and Kennedy. You know
what Kennedy said, when I think that the only thing

(47:44):
between Richard Nixon and the White House is me, I
get a heart attack. That's clean. And by the way,
so did we. It was something that we liberals shared
with him, that view he was the only thing between
Nixon and the White House. I don't understand exactly what's
so dirty about it. They attack each other, what are

(48:06):
they supposed to do? They do come out with position papers. Incidentally,
the press doesn't report it. The media is at least
as responsible as anyone over the impression that this is
a dirty campaign, because ten seconds on TV, they'll give
you the dirtiest line the man came out with. That's why,
that's why I beg people not to watch TV news.

(48:28):
I don't watch TV news. I don't think it's a
dirty campaign. I read what they say in articles, long articles.
You watch TV, you'll think it's dirty. TV is dirty.
Not the campaign at any rate. That is what a
lot of Americans are perceived when they perceive these issues

(48:49):
about what liberal means. What is the pledge of allegiance?
Issue is Ducaca is technically right, very well might.

Speaker 3 (48:55):
Be, but Americans perceive that liberals don't have a high
regard for patriotism. That is the perception that someone who
really does love the flag and want to salute.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
It is really a crypto fascist. That's how they're depicted.
That's how they're depicted by a liberal Hollywood movies. You
don't imagine a liberal crying at the sight of a flag.
Do you imagine a conservative crying at the sight of
a flag. That's the issue with this pledge of allegiance,

(49:28):
not the technical legal details which liberals are so fond
of clothing. And the same with Horton. I don't know
Horton was black, incidentally, until it was mentioned, because I
only read the papers. It was amazing to me when
I first heard that it was a racist issue. I said, oh,
he must be black. I swear to you, I give
you my word. I did not know the man was
black because I read newspapers and don't watch TV, so

(49:50):
I never saw a picture of him. I didn't have
any Imagy was black. And incidentally, I am convinced, as
the day is long, if Horton were white, they would
have made just as big a deal about it. Because
you remember that guy who hacked off the girl's arms
here in LA. He was white. The guy couldn't move
anywhere in California. Most Americans care if the hacker is

(50:11):
white or black. I mean, that's racist. The charges are
more racist than the Horton issue was. If Horton were white,
Bush wouldn't have made a deal. It's demeaning to the
American people to make that argument. I said. It's permissiveness

(50:32):
that's associated with liberalism. Take abortion. Apparently, according to polling,
most Americans are pro choice. I'm pro choice, but I
have very little in common with the liberal position on abortion.

(50:53):
That's the irony. Now, how could that be? I'm pro choice,
conservatives are antipe choice, and I feel closer to conservatives
on abortion. How is that possible? That will help you
understand why l has become a dirty word. It's the rhetoric,

(51:13):
it's the thinking, it's the philosophy. Most Americans feel very
bad about abortion. They perceive that liberals don't. The perception
is I got a letter today from Ira Glasser, not
personally a form letter that I should send money to
the ACLU. They obviously don't check their lists very carefully.

(51:38):
And in the letter, what does he say said? Well,
you must support the ACLU because we don't want a
Bush administration to undo women's reproductive rights. The second you
say women's reproductive rights, I feel like marching with fundamentalist

(52:00):
Christians whom I don't share the view of abortion as
murder at all. It's not women's reproductive rights. It is
the taking of the life. If liberals would at least
admit that and cry over the decision, they would get
American support. What is perceived is they don't give a

(52:22):
good goddamn about that thing in a woman's womb, and
they don't I perceive that. I don't think they give
a goddamn about it. I screwed, I got pregnant, I kill.
That's the motto of most abortions. It is not the poor,
the result of incest or rape. That's phony. The vast

(52:45):
majority of abortions are done by people who didn't use
birth control and want to undo their mistake. Period. I
interviewed a gynecologist. The gynecologist obstatrician who delivered my son,
a Beverly Hills gynecologist. Okay, his clientele on not Watts girls.

(53:09):
I said to him, just out of curiosity, doctor, how
many of the of the women, what percentage of the
women who come in here and are pregnant wish an abortion?
He said about fifty percent. Beverly Hills obstetrician. Immediately, by

(53:31):
the way, just think of the sadness. The man has
spent his whole life learning how to deliver babies, spends
half of his time destroying them. Okay, you don't like
the word baby fetuses or make you feel better. Spent
his life learning how to deliver babies, spends half of
his patients want the babies undelivered. Of those fifty percent,

(53:54):
I said, how many are married? He said fifty percent?
So I said, in other words, one out of every
four women who walks into your office pregnant wants an
abortion is married and wealthy. Correct. Okay, why would a married,
wealthy woman want an abortion? So as well, I'll tell you,

(54:15):
mister Brager, to give you an example. Just last week,
the woman came in and she explained to me that
her she and her husband had been planning a trip
to Europe for quite some time, and this was a
very inconvenient time to get pregnant. It's a liberal position,
isn't it. Take a good liberal position, no judgment. Most

(54:36):
Americans do take a judgment on that. There's something very
hideously wrong about a borning in such a circumstance. I'll
let her do it. I am legally pro choice, but
I think the act is despicable. And he gave other
examples just like that. Others had just thought it a
new job, a new home, and so on, bad time

(54:58):
to get pregnant. That's what's perceived as liberal. And when
you talk about reproductive rights, that's exactly what it is.
It is removing any concept of moral vacillation, of moral
ambivalence over what is being done. It's like removing a

(55:19):
decay to gay rights. I think discriminating against gays is wrong.
I think gay bashing is despicable. On the other hand,
I do not have a liberal position that whether you're
gay or whether you're straight, it doesn't matter. Everybody should
do what he wants and it's all a happy go

(55:42):
lucky civilization. I don't legally I'm pro gay rights morally, socially, theologically,
I think it is sad to say the least, that
we are not creating a civilization to teach that heterosexual
marriage is the preferred state. And most Americans feel that way.

(56:07):
Maybe Beverly Hills Jews don't, but most Americans, thank God do.
It's pretty tragic that Jews don't, since Jews gave the
heterosexual religious ideal to the world through their Bible. And finally,
two final things, taxes. Here is the classic case of

(56:31):
why liberals think conservatives are selfish. Say they're against any
rise in taxes to protect the rich, as if it's
the rich who pay taxes. I mean, there is something
so bizarre here. When taxes are raised, it's the middle
class that gets screwed, not the wealthy who find nine

(56:52):
thousand tax loopholes. And even if they didn't, do you
think they really care the wealthy don't care? The wealthy
and not walking around frightened of tax hikes. Where do
liberals live? They live in a cocoon that who do
they think they're convincing nobody? The middle class is frightened
by tax hikes, and the middle class votes for Reagan

(57:15):
it's rich Jews who vote liberal. The middle class hates taxes.
The upper class either avoids them or couldn't care less.
The bobes four hundred that waking over a tax rise. Oh,
I'll be in a thirty nine percent bracket. Evague, I'll
have to get rid of one of my planes. There

(57:43):
is something disconnected to reality here. There isn't an American
I know, outside of radical libertarians, who wouldn't be willing
to pay more taxes if he believed it would help.
Nobody believes it'll help. They think it'll cause more inflation,
more recession, and more spending on things that don't work.

(58:04):
That's the real reason people are opposed. How otherwise, how
do you explain the fact that this is the most
charitable society on earth. The amount of Americans gift to
charity is enormous. If they're so cheap, how come that's
the issue with taxes, not selfishness. People don't believe it works.

(58:24):
I don't believe it works. I give charity that extra thing,
what does it go for. I'll give more charity or
I'll pay I pay my taxes. Honestly, if I had
another percent, I would be shattered That's why I have
left Liberals because of taxes. I spend my life talking
about ethics, about paying taxes. Honestly, it's nonsense. If you

(58:49):
want to believe it, believe it, but it's not true.
And believing it's true costs the Democrats the White House
every four years. America is selfish. Americans don't believe taxation
will work. Where people are not taxed greatly, they produce more.
Why shouldn't they. If you get more of your money

(59:10):
to keep, you'll try to produce more. I am, by
the way I said this last session, I am for
taxing the rich personally, suspect the great majority of Americans are.
The question is how do you do it? Not that
an income tax clearly doesn't work. It ends up on everybody.
What about a consumption tax? A gentleman said, there are

(59:32):
problems with that. They're problems with everything, but at least
you know the man who buys the Mercedes has to
pay more tax than the men who buys a I
don't know. Dai certainly right, that's certainly right. Korean camera. Finally, finally,

(59:58):
in this election, there is the unspoken but passionately felt
issue of Jesse Jackson who as a rule, is loathed
by most Americans. He is not loath because he's black.
If Jesse Jackson were Irving Bernstein, he would be just
as loath. Many blacks don't wish to believe that many

(01:00:19):
liberal whites in that it is not true. They can
believe that till the cows come home, the man is
hated because of what he stands for. I personally, I've
written this, I've said this on the radio, and I
swear to it. If two equally wealthy candidates ran for
an office and one were black, I would vote for

(01:00:39):
the blacks solely on that basis. I deeply, deeply, for
the most selfish and altruistic reasons, want blacks to thrive
in America. What the hell do I have to gain
by a whole racial group feeling out of it? Even
if I were a bigot, I wouldn't be a stupid bigot.

(01:01:00):
You have to not only be bigoted not to want
blacks to thrive in America. You have to be a
stupid bigot. And there aren't that many stupid and bigoted
people in America. Not that many. We and Los Angeles
who have a black mayor can certainly attest to that,
and he almost became governor. Now it is said that

(01:01:21):
the difference was in fact a handful of white racists.
It may very well be, but it gives you an
idea of how many people aren't racist. And I wouldn't
be surprised. Had he been Republican, he would have won.
Blacks who run for Republican seats would probably have magnificent chances.
In general, Jesse Jackson I believe to be the most

(01:01:42):
dangerous public person in the United States of America. Now, now,
if that's the case that I believe this and I
am not out of it, then apparently a lot of
Americans also believe this. I say it, most people don't

(01:02:06):
say it because to say it is to be greeted
by cause of racist to which I will just add
the following and then take your comments. I say all
these things on the radio about Jackson to the extent incidentally,
where I had a very hute experience in Marie Callender's
half a year ago. I eated only the classiest places. Well,

(01:02:33):
they have the best pie in the world.

Speaker 4 (01:02:37):
The decor is.

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
Not exactly at any rate. I was seated one one
day and I was reading my paper and there were
two elderly women I suspect were Jewish at the table
next to me, and I overheard one saying to the other,

(01:03:00):
do you know what I heard last night on the
radio Dennis Crager? He called Jesse Jackson a bum. She
couldn't get over that somebody on the radio called Jesse
Jackson a bump. Incidentally, black holers will call me on
on occasion say I'm a racist on the air. If

(01:03:20):
I say that, why way. I just want you to
know I get a lot of black callers, fifty percent
agree with me. I obviously not part of the majority,
but I just want you to understand that there is
almost a relief on their part, at least those blacks
suits don't like Jesse Jackson. That somebody could actually say
it on the radio and come back next week. But

(01:03:45):
there are those who say you're racist, and to which
I answer, I'm not racist, and to which they say,
why aren't you racist? And now we have a discussion,
now am I racist or not? Most of the time
they leave thinking I'm wrong and not a racist. It's
so patronizing of blacks not to say what you think
about Jesse Jackson. So you'll get call a racist, and

(01:04:07):
then the issue ends. My father taught me that it
was a great thing. He used to have a thing.
It wasn't The issue wasn't racism, he said, So why
do they They'll call me pitcher and I've established that
in my life, So they call me a name. What
happens the next minute you have said what you believe
to be true. People know where you stand, and you

(01:04:30):
have much more credibility than on the next issue. I
said last fall, the Democrat who takes on Jesse Jackson
in the primaries can run for Emperor of the United
States and women. But none did and that made a
deep impact on Americans. Deep impact that too was considered liberal.

(01:04:51):
Not to confront the Jesse Jackson liberal as liberal, see
conservative as conservative slash rambo conservatives, and that is mainstream America,
I should say, not conservatives. Mainstream America sees liberal as
liberal slash will That's what's happened. Okay, I'll take your

(01:05:15):
comments and other thoughts. Yes, please, the one Democrat to.

Speaker 4 (01:05:20):
Gense during the age of the campaign, what's dead potch
and look what happens to the one who told the truth,
and look what happened to him to he do he
finally happened back up a period.

Speaker 2 (01:05:29):
Of yes, uh being pointed out, Uh, look what happened
the Democrat to take uh to take uh on uh
Jesse Jackson, Uh and that was Mayor Couch of New York,
right and uh, well that right, There is some truth
to that cause. The lady points out that he made
it a Jewish issue. He should have made it an

(01:05:50):
American issue, which is true. However, what one has to say,
why can blacks have black issues but Jews can't have
Jewish issues? See but jew If a Jew speaks about
Jewish concerns, he's he's provincial. If a c if a
Hispanic speaks about Hispanic concerns, that's beautiful. He's rooted in
his community. Right. In other words, he has a perfect

(01:06:12):
right touch to do what he did.

Speaker 3 (01:06:15):
Well wait, hold on, is it is an American issue
but it's also a Jewish issue?

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
It's both. I agree it's primarily an American issue. I
agree with that. And my theory, which I wrote in
the very first issue in my newsletter, Jesse Jackson in
the meaning of antisemitism is that demagogues first.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
Start up with the Jews, and when non Jews don't
recognize this, they will suffer, but the Jews suffer first.

Speaker 2 (01:06:45):
It starts out that way.

Speaker 3 (01:06:46):
It's almost like a divine role that the black pulls
first on the Jews.

Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
It is for somebody to say he's a naked emperor.
Nobody does, and it's a dangerous thing, but it is
certainly part of the reason that they will not get
to the White House. Now ed Koch was a sacrificial land.
By the way, you should all know that black leaders
did not support Jackson in eighty four. Prescott King was

(01:07:15):
the most credibility of black leaders, being the widow of
Mantin Luther King. UH did not embrace him, though recently
though a few months ago, and she had good reason
not to have, given what.

Speaker 3 (01:07:30):
He had done in the in UH portraying himself as
the man in him from his arms Martin Luther King died,
who was with him.

Speaker 2 (01:07:38):
As his royal follower till the end? And so on?
But listen, how could a black leader be less black
than the white liberal press. In other words, it became untenable.
The same thing with the mayor of UH of Atlanta
what's his.

Speaker 3 (01:07:53):
Name, and Andrew Young didn't support him.

Speaker 2 (01:07:56):
A lot of black leaders didn't, but it became impossible.
If the white press says Jesse Jackson is the leader
of the blacks, how could a black leader disagree? He
was created by white liberals much more than by black support.
That is the irony of it. Yes, uh, well give
it yougether. I mean exactly that the most uh particular

(01:08:18):
around the world. Once ago the Uniteds are you from Switzerland?
And not I say, are you from Switzerland? Oh? Okay? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:08:30):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:08:33):
How'd you know they had to.

Speaker 3 (01:08:36):
The people?

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
Wasn't as uh, very very good question.

Speaker 3 (01:08:40):
What if Switzerland had as open a policy as the
United States, maybe they would.

Speaker 2 (01:08:43):
Flock the Swiss embasies as much. I still don't think
they would. But my point about how moral America is
is is is uh simply reinforced by the fact that
we do let them in far more than anybody else.
In other words, if even if what you say were true,
it would just uh further reinforce my plane to the

(01:09:04):
singular moral role America plays in the world. Vietnamese boat
people were taken in by the United States. Japan, which
is at that sea, took in none.

Speaker 3 (01:09:24):
The Dukakis campaign has tried to use the Dukakis cover
up the Dukakis governup has they tried to use the
the Iran contra affair the entire time.

Speaker 2 (01:09:33):
It's not selling on main Street. It's it's because there's
no reason it should sell on main Street. The the
the issue. It was an attempt by Democrats which almost
succeeded to undo the Reagan and Republican control of the
White House. It didn't work. Uh, it didn't work. Ironically.

(01:09:56):
Part of the reason there were two reasons. One, there
was no reason it should work. It wasn't a big
enough scandal to unseat the president. Number Two, it didn't
work because of a man named Oliver North. The irony
there being that the the Democrats wanted the hearings televised,
which was a demagogic thing to do because it was

(01:10:18):
pandering to the to the public should have been closed,
and then yelled that North stole the zo because it
was televised. But North und the people suspected that it
was more political than a very deep sense of revulsion
that what had happened. They Democrats can't stand the countries,
so any funding of the countries, whether or not there

(01:10:40):
had been a link up with Iran, would have been
would have been detested, but Americans didn't proceed. This is
not a Watergate. This was idealistic. It was not selfish.
See it was ideals. It was not Watergate was selfish.
I have a bunch of corrupt guys to rob from
Watergate headquarters to win an election. That's despicable. Here it

(01:11:04):
was I that the motive was not selfish. No, I said,
the motive of the government was not of those involved,
of an Oliver North, of anyone. You think that the
funding of the countries was for profit, Okay, fine, thank
god you're in the minority. The vast majority of Americans

(01:11:27):
believe that an Oliver North is an idealistic man who
didn't want to pocket a penny. Oliver North was more
that there were little guys involved in the middle with chicanery.
Everybody knows that that's not the issue. That's not what
created the scandal. The scandal's purpose was to get hostages
for arms, a stupid idea, but one intended for good

(01:11:48):
ends to fund and then to use that later. They
were not connected originally, to use that later to fund countries,
which Americans are ambivalent over but neither ideal, even if
you think they're both awful is self serving. That's my point.
Watergate was entirely self serving. This is how we use
corruption to get elected. That's why there was no comparable

(01:12:11):
thing anymore than if there had been a democratic president
who had used funds to fund the African National Congress.
Let's say, to overthrow of the South African regime would
have been illegal. But even conservatives would have admitted the
issue was not selfish. It was it was wrong ideals,
they would have said, but it was still idealism. That's

(01:12:31):
why it's not a war game. Yes, if you.

Speaker 5 (01:12:34):
Were Michael bias Agains many months ago the testimal water
you're gonnas the Jackson.

Speaker 2 (01:12:42):
Suggestion it might to be undertake se well, I thank
you because I hope to have that opportunity one day.
If I were Michael Dukakis, how would I have taken
Jesse Jackson apart months ago? If I had the intestinal fortitude, Well,
for one thing, I would have said, I would have

(01:13:02):
taken on a lot of the terminology he used, which
was demagogic h and not adopted it. The second he
used economic violence in his acceptance speech. I said, Jesse
Jackson won the convention. See insidious rhetoric starts seeping in
when it's used enough, you've gotta be aware of that.
I remember the first time I heard that Israel was pacistic,

(01:13:24):
I went crazy. But enough time hearing Israel Zionism is racism,
Israel is pacistic, you start to lose anger. You have
to cultivate anger on certain things. I hate this term.
America commits economic violence against its people. It does not
commit economic First of all, I don't know what the
term means. It's a loaded term. It's a despicable term.

(01:13:46):
America may commit economic error as visa via its people.
Economic violence means America sets out to hurt its own people.
Anyone who believes that should not be running for the
president of a country that's so despicable. That's what I
would have set to Jesse Jackson, if you truly believe that.
He said, I don't agree with the Reagan policies. I
think they're hurting our farmers. I think they're hurting our
inner cities. I think they're hurting us in trade, and

(01:14:08):
I think the federal deficit is catastrophic. But Jesse, I
would never use such a term. I think the guy
would have been heralded as a savior of the American people,
and then he would have said, And furthermore, I must
tell you while uh we Democrats UH certainly would never
salute uh mister Bota of South Africa and we wanna

(01:14:31):
call his nation an outlaw nation. Uh, I don't quite
see the moral difference between mister Bota and mister Castro Jesse,
and you're going uh down there and and going viva
fidel bothers me and other Democrats a great deal. I
think you should apologize, Jesse. That's what I would have done. Yeah,

(01:14:53):
ye that over things.

Speaker 4 (01:14:56):
I think I understand why uh push did not so
uh Ken.

Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
In trying to figure out why, well you recur to
the strictly political that he's nothing's advantage tell uh and
uh I mistrust him that you know? You find both?

Speaker 3 (01:15:23):
Uh could you elaborate on good are you ever to
pay dupidity or just.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
A question that you just asked? Was naive taste, stupidity
or whatever that uh prompted mister Bush to choose mister
Quayle as a question. I have asked some of mister
Bush's aides. Uh it it is uh? It is the
a great riddle to me and I I hope it
is neither stupidity nor naive tay, just political miscalculation based

(01:15:53):
on erroneous data or I I mean, I wanna I
want to believe, since he will probably be the next president,
that it is not as bad as it looks. I.
I would even think that democratic liberals here for the
sake of the country would hope, would hope that that's
the case. Uh I I it is uh. It is remarkable,
uh to to have to have done that. I think

(01:16:15):
in that regard, UH, it's probably it's there ought to
be something different and in the selection of a vice
presidential UH candidate in uh I it may if there
may be time to either have a separate election or
just abolish the office. Uh it's uh. I think that
this really should cause that sort of thinking. Yeah, okay, it's.

Speaker 4 (01:16:36):
Uh question hide the organ stood looks like with information.

Speaker 5 (01:16:40):
Hus well in uh uh Bradley's first crack of the
does ship U post election study of the pig seas
of the state showed that the.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
Black beginning did not.

Speaker 5 (01:16:51):
Turn out to read a number of what the grady
at grand the end of these uh happy a.

Speaker 2 (01:16:57):
Ninety's foot they went, and that was considered the reason.

Speaker 3 (01:17:00):
Why maybe two. That's interesting, I have not heard that. Okay,
let me go to the this side. They always feel
like I am prejudiced.

Speaker 2 (01:17:11):
Against the right wing. Yes, sir, that basically what the
uh are you? Yeah? Uh I I am not forgetting

(01:17:31):
that at all. It's also unrelated to my claim. They
are anti.

Speaker 3 (01:17:35):
Religious and they have defended people who otherwise would have
no defenders.

Speaker 2 (01:17:39):
If they're both true, they're anti religious and they have
defended undi indefensible people.

Speaker 3 (01:17:45):
Who all people by and large. Yeah, the ACLU is
a political organization. It has as much to do with
civil rights today as Hadasa does, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Uh. And that is the view of many. Alan Dershowitz,
who is uh quite a liberal professor, uh as you
know and a a a brilliant man uh has written
that it has become a political organization as a left
wing agenda. If you read the letter sent to me today,
uh to to solicit funds, the entire agenda is against Reagan. Uh.
It c it hides behind the cloak of civil liberties. Uh.

(01:18:19):
But if it love civil liberty so much, explain to
me why it defended the rights of deporting a child
back to the Ukraine after he wanted to stay here.
You remember that the polupchick story. They are left wing.
They are not civil liberties. That is what has become
their agenda. The reason for that, by the way, I think,

(01:18:42):
is partially this. The ACLU confronts what I call the
March of Dimes syndrome. The March of Dimes existed in
order to raise funds to cure polio. Polio was cured.
Did the March of Dimes go out of existence? Of
course not. Nobody goes out of existence. Then you have
to work for a living. What you then do that

(01:19:02):
The ACLU is in existence to protect civil liberties. Civil
liberties in the United States are more advanced than on
any place on the planet of Earth.

Speaker 3 (01:19:10):
And since I don't believe his life elsewhere, they're more
advanced here than in the universe. Did they go out
of business, No, they invent new civil libertarian issues. Civil
liberties here are staggeringly assured. A criminal has more rights
in the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
And excuse me, an accused criminal has more rights in
the United States than anywhere in the world, including Britain
from which we learned the democracy. But they but they
still argue for more things became the Miranda thing so
that you undo a rapist sentence if you somehow got
the evidence or excuse me, did not read to the

(01:19:48):
man his rights. Is Britain an authoritarian country. They don't
have such a law as France, Scandinavia, the enlightened Scandinavians.
You think Norwegian police a excuse me, I'd like to
read you Norwegian law prior to arresting you only here
and it's considered a civil right. They should be out
of business, the ACLU, but the groups don't like to

(01:20:12):
go out of business. I don't blame him. Yes, one
aspect though, Let me think this, ye, why do I
think American Jews have become so liberal? With three minutes
to go as impossible, it will probably be a lecture.
It will probably be one of the classes. However, I

(01:20:34):
will give you a hint, since I never like you
to throw out a question. The American Jews who are
that liberal nine percent of the time are not religious.
Jews are very religious people, and if they don't use Judaism.

Speaker 3 (01:20:51):
As their religion, they will have something else as their religion.
In this case it is liberals. Jews don't do well
without causes to change the world. So if it's not
gonna be Judaism, It's going to be something else. That's
why they develop Christianity, Marxism, liberalism, ethical humanism. Jews makeisms

(01:21:12):
like Japanese make transistence. It is and this is, This
is the passion that Jews. That is why secular Jews
a liberal. They don't have a religion. This is their religion.
They perfect the world, not under the rule of God,
but under the rule of government. With that, I promise
next time, only questions first twenty minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:21:35):
This has been timeless wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit dennisprager
dot com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses,
and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.