October 3, 2025 • 29 mins
This is a rebroadcast of ep 198
In this episode of Libertarians Talk Psychology, we dive deeper into the theme of tribalism and its psychological impact on modern populism. Drawing from the insights of historian Victor Davis Hanson, we examine how tribalism has developed in America and what it reveals about our cultural and political divides. We connect Hanson’s perspective to research on implicit and explicit attitudes, exploring how hidden biases shape group identity and influence social behavior.
Julie highlights the role of the elites and media in framing populism, often portraying its supporters as outsiders or threats, while we discuss how psychology sheds light on the true motivations and struggles of the populist movement. The conversation raises key questions: Are implicit biases inevitable? Can we move beyond tribal divisions? And how does populism challenge the power structures of modern society?
This is a thought-provoking discussion for anyone interested in the crossroads of psychology, politics, and culture, offering both libertarian analysis and evidence from psychological science.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
In this episode of Libertarians Talk Psychology, we dive deeper into the theme of tribalism and its psychological impact on modern populism. Drawing from the insights of historian Victor Davis Hanson, we examine how tribalism has developed in America and what it reveals about our cultural and political divides. We connect Hanson’s perspective to research on implicit and explicit attitudes, exploring how hidden biases shape group identity and influence social behavior.
Julie highlights the role of the elites and media in framing populism, often portraying its supporters as outsiders or threats, while we discuss how psychology sheds light on the true motivations and struggles of the populist movement. The conversation raises key questions: Are implicit biases inevitable? Can we move beyond tribal divisions? And how does populism challenge the power structures of modern society?
This is a thought-provoking discussion for anyone interested in the crossroads of psychology, politics, and culture, offering both libertarian analysis and evidence from psychological science.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is a rebroadcast of an earlier episode.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
So today I want to go back and talk about
tribalism again. And Victor Davis Hansen is continuing to talk
about this, and he's one of the best sources on
what has happened. But I have a book that I'm reading,
kind of reading about psychologists and populism, and also I
have an article I want to go over on diversity
(00:40):
implicit and explicit. But first let's listen to Victor talk
about this.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
How did we start to read tribalize. I think part
of it came out of the sixties that, in the
eagerness to create parody, groups that were extremists said, you
know what, it's not enough to be equal, because we
were on equal for all these years, so we have
to be more than equal. I think most Americans were
willing under the Johnson administration to say, Okay, we'll have
(01:10):
a period of ten twenty thirty forty years of institutionalized
prejudice and we won't call it that, well, we won't
call it quote as we'll call it affirmative action. So
if somebody is not of the majority ancestry, i e. White,
then we will give extra consideration given the idea of
pass bias or maybe the fumes of present bias. And
(01:32):
we were all accepting of that. But as the so
called white population started to in proportional terms decline a
little bit, and more and more groups decided that they
were victimized, then the number of people with complaints against
the majority group. I think it's often underappreciated that during
(01:55):
the Obama administration, specifically two thousand and nine to sixteen,
a radical concept emerged that really threatened the very foundations
of US citizenship. And this was the idea of diversity.
Remember that affirmative action had been focused and targeted on
the idea of the historical sin of slavery and the
(02:18):
idea that because people look African, they were not fully American,
and the United States during the Civil War the efforts
to stop Jim Crow, the civil rights movement was trying
to erase that blemish from its history. But under the
idea of diversity, other groups that were not African American,
(02:39):
not the twelve percent of the population, but other groups
that were quote not white were suddenly aggregated, and so
the number of people that had claims on the majority
for past grievances or anybody that was not white. And
think what that entailed. You could immigrate from the Punjab
and you could sell your farm for two hundred thousand
(03:00):
dollars an acre and be quite wealthy, arrive in California,
and suddenly you were diverse. You'd never experience the discrimination
in the United States, but you were diverse. Why were
you diverse for one reason? You were not white? At
least you could claim you're not white.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Okay, So a couple of things just right from his analysis.
He's thinking, this is a big characteristic of the polarization
going on. And I want to confirm that I sleep
with the enemy. I'm living in a nest of elites
and they are obsessed with inclusiveness and diversity, I mean
(03:38):
obsessed with it. It takes up their thinking on everything.
They can't think about anything else. It's always black. Now
it's the sexuality part. But they are into the game
of the victims are the deal. The victims are the deal.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
And I want to highlight or at least express your
history of dealing not with diversity, but with hiring practices
to avoid discrimination, because as far as I was concerned,
you became one of the nation's most experienced in best people,
especially when it came to hiring.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Hiring in the South, in the hiring the operator operator.
But that's it's a high level labor position.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
But you had a requirement under These plants had requirements,
so they didn't want discrimination. They didn't want the government
definition of discrimination to cause them trouble.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So you they also didn't want to discriminate people. Get
that wrong. They didn't do it because the government told
them to do it. They did it because it was
the right thing to do and they wanted to be
a part of the community. And in the South, you know,
Louisiana is thirty five percent, I had people say, oh,
you're just doing that to keep them out of trouble.
(04:54):
They wanted to do the right thing. They had integrity,
and this was all white men deciding. There was very
few black managers at that point.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
And of course sometimes I wouldn't mind getting into how
you accomplished that, because you had a definite strategy that
helped these plants really loved you because you helped them
hire good people, good people who got along well with
each other, and you helped us in our company.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
And well, I appreciate all this praise.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
There's no need to minimize the impact that you had
on these plants and the impact that you had on
my company.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Well, you're pointing out I was in the trench with
the diversity issue and companies.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
It was discrimination then.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
It was really discrimination.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
It wasn't diversity at that time.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
It wasn't diversity. In fact, I think I probably got
out about the time it got weird in the plants.
I mean, I don't think the plants in South Louisiana
have embraced the diversity. I don't know the diversity thing
about the way Victor Hanson is talking about it. It's
a political coole agenda. It's not a real agenda because
(06:03):
I'm kind of going back to one of the points
I want to make. I grew up in the rural
South and know, looking at the blacks that were poverty stricken,
this was real for the American black.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
There really was true discrimination in the first fifteen years
or so of our lives. There was true brutal discrimination.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Well, I don't know how much discrimination there was, but
there were people who grew up in poverty, you know,
generational poverty, and the American black man and woman have
a right to complain that that was real. And what
I love that Hanson, Victor Hanson is pointing out is
(06:44):
that this didn't include other groups. This was the sin
of slavery that this country participated in and wouldn't let
go of and wouldn't let go of, and you know,
it was in the symbolities.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
And I'm sorry, I'm sorry, And let me say this,
it wasn't just the South. The rest of the country
was discriminating. They just didn't discriminate as bad as the South,
like song, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
They were.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
They were terrible in the North, and they were even
bad in the West. Now, we lived in the West
for a while and we were impressed at how little
discrimination they had.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
But against the blacks, they discriminated there. They discriminated against
the Indian Indians and the Mexicans and the Mexicans, so
we were kind of like ducks out of water. We
were like, what's going on here? It was the cultural
shift for us. Okay, So did you finish your point
on that?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Yeah, some some probably some other time. I would like
to get into your strategy, your specific strategy for how
you accomplished thing within the rules and the lulls of
discrimination and still managed to hire really good people.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, you know, when I was practicing organizational psychology, the
issue was becoming a problem with discriminating against the whites.
The EOC was clear that you could not be and
they said it beautifully, you could not be unfair to
one group in your attempt to be fair to another group.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
They really tied your hands, they.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Really they made it tough. So it was walking a
chalk line because for whatever reason, I'm not sure I
know the reason, but for whatever reason, the typical black
person scored lower on cognitive ability than the typical white person.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Well, I never felt like that was hard to understand.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I mean, those well, I don't want to get into that.
But the test I find out more about it now
that the tests are really normed on whites. I mean,
there's a cultural problem there. But it's not that simple
because there's a lot of evidence that it's a valid
test and so, but it was a mess. It was
(09:00):
a mess. In other words, I worked in an area
that was complex. Yeah, and I was given inadequate tools,
but those were the tools we had, you know, in
other words, we had to do the best with the
tools we had. And I do feel proud of the
fact I was never dragged into court and given a beating,
because you know, there are a lot of you know,
with creativity, there are a lot of ways to have
(09:22):
a win win solution.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
The big word was adverse impact. As long as you
didn't have adverse impact. As long as that plant, your
customer didn't have adverse impact, then they were pretty much
protected from lawsuits. Am I right?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Well, I think that's maybe going a little further. You're
never protected from a lawsuit no matter what. You're protected
maybe a little bit from losing a lawsuit. But now
we see that the country has corrupted, Its legal system
is corrupted. Point is, I never had to try to
prove anything in court, and that's because I kept my
ducks in a row, and my companies kept their ducks
(09:56):
in a row. You selected a number of black people
that was, and you selected a number of white people,
and that was proper. I mean, you did the proper
thing for your community. Because these plants were located in
a community that was you know, fifty percent blank. I
mean they wanted to do the right thing. I never
came across any employer that I worked for, except in
(10:18):
New York that wanted to go strictly down by the book,
by the numbers. Everybody wanted to do the right thing
and got a little squishy with the numbers.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
What do you mean about New York?
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, that was the one that wanted to go right
by the statistics. Do you go right by this?
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There are eighteen percent one race, ten percent another race
or something.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
You know that for fiscerule, We're going down a rabbit.
Ok Now, all right, Okay, I want to go back
to this thing about diversity. So the question that I
think Victor answers is why so much polarization? And so
he's looking at this issue of diversity, which is different
than the issue of discrimination diversity, But I like the
(11:00):
way he's talking about it is that all of a sudden,
if you were not white, you were part of the
victim group. And that makes every bit of sense to me,
because I'm going to talk about this in terms of
the elite, because that's where you know, people could call
me an elite, but I'm not an elite. My heart
and soul are not in the elite category. I'm an
anti vaxer. You know, all the elites are vaccination. Don't
(11:25):
listen to the misinformation. Get your vaccine and your boosters
and all that.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Not many elites can say what you can say, which
is you watched clan cross burned in your fro the office.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Well, I did watch a Klukus clan cross be burned,
and I spotted it before me, my dad spotted it.
Like they all turned to the window and said what
is that? And I said what is that?
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Now?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Everybody's head zips around like what the hell Klukus klan?
And what bothered him is not the Klukus clan cross
being burned, but that people came to the house.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
Yeah, that the people.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Were sneaking around in the middle of the night.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Oh no, that's that is what's scary. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
And they came up and they put a stamp on
the window. That later on they came up and put
a stamp on the window. They knew how to intimidate people.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Yeah, that's what it is. Now. The thing, the thing
that I found the interesting the first time I learned
this story from your family, was it the cross wasn't
but about three feet tall. I mean it wasn't always
it was always a cross.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Yeah, it was like a burning statue of great proportions.
Now it was I think it was about four feet wasn't.
Of course I don't remember it because I was a kid.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
But oh yeah, well, I mean I remember it. It's
a great story.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yeah, you're smaller when you're a kid, so things are bigger.
I could have, but I mean three or four feet,
you know. It was like made out of two by fours.
It was wrapped in rags, and they put gasoline on
it and set it on fire, just like you'd expect
my cross.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
And then they went about two hundred yards down the
road and watched it turn, waiting for the all to rehaction.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
This is the best story. This is the lead story
in my book al Writing, because they went across into
dule Layfield's pasture cow pastor to watch. We're going to
watch them be very upset. Nothing happened.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Your family didn't even see it.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
My family family was doing what it always did. We
were all Daddy was holding court talking to us, and
we were all listening attentively to my father. It's like
we're all faced the opposite direction except for me, I'm
facing the windows that look out on the yard. I'm
seeing this flickering, and so you know, I'm the only
(13:42):
one that noticed the cross burning by the time. By
the time I'm like, what is that if I'm by
the time my father noticed it, the fire had dripped
off the cross, set the yard on fire, set the
ditch on fire, and the KKK people had called fire department.
Who is the KKK people also, so the same people,
(14:07):
the same people, you know, they were the fire department
and the police. I mean this is rural south. I
mean the Seat River River Parish has two thousand people
in it.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
So you were about ten, so it was about sixty one.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
I sixty one.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
So this is early early in those this.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Is early in the race relationship. Our listeners that listen
to us have heard this story. But my father did
a tremendous service to the community as the newspaper editor.
He made this all transparent. And in other communities that
thought they had no problem, there were murders going on.
(14:47):
They had murdered people in Mississippi. In Mississippi, yeah, that's
where the movie Mississippi Burning. But my father made a
big stink out of it. He infiltrated a KKK meeting
and took a picture sure of the people, and you
know he was right there as a newspaper publisher.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Reporter must done a shotgun to the front of the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Well, they apparently did, but Kevin says there's question of that.
He said, as a bunch of drunk people.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Later on, how many times did drunk people shoot out
the door newspaper? Only only someone that has an incentive
against the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
It's hard to know what's you know, it's hard to
know what's what was going on. But the but the
fight between my father and the KKK did go on.
He did a tremendous service to the community making sure
those people did not have secrecy.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
And you had the FBI guard your house and you
had us.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
This is obviously more interesting to you than my topic
I had.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Well, I'm sorry, go ahead, I'm sorry, but it's a
great family story.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
We had men in black who came and guarded us,
Jaggar who were guys. So it was a big deal,
and you know, it made a very big impression on me.
But the fact is the blacks in Read River perish
Black lives matter, and the people that don't understand the
black experience is different than the Mexican experience. The immigrant,
(16:18):
the Eastern immigrant, the person from India, the person from Iran,
the black America. We owe some debt to the Black Americans.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
Well, And the way it happened in your community is
pretty much the way it happened everywhere, which is the
institution was set up to come down hard on any
resistance from the black community, but they were not set
up to come down on newspapers who were speaking the truth.
They couldn't really come down on the all heart. I mean,
(16:48):
they tried them to intimidate you. But your dad the
big trick was he started publishing names. People's message threatened
to publish.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
He published a couple of names, but boy shut it down.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
And the truth, exposing the truth shut the whole thing down. Yeah,
and that's the way it happened all across the South.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
We know how Now this is the nineteen sixties, so
we're you know, we're talking about half a century ago.
This is how it was, This is not how it
is today. And this is what I want to share
with you. I'll try, okay, yeah, try to try not
to dominate the conversation even though you have male entitlement. Okay,
(17:30):
so there's one article I want to talk about briefly,
and then I want to talk about this book, The
Psychology of Populism, The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. I'm
going to sum up talking about that. But so the
psychologists have been the elites. The psychologists have been eaten
up with this thing on diversity, and they One of
(17:51):
the things that I've talked about this before, this implicit
and explicit attitudes about race, sex, disabilit age. I want
to review very briefly this article from Psychological Science, September
twenty two. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes for change
(18:16):
in stability from two thousand and seven to twenty twenty. Basically,
the bottom line here is that the attitudes have changed dramatically,
both implicit and explicit. They acknowledge all explicit attitudes decreased
in bias from twenty two percent to ninety eight percent,
ninety eight percent change in racial attitudes explicit.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
And when you say implicit and explicit, can you also
say conscious and unconscious?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Well, you could say that who knows what they're measuring,
But the implicit are simply I mean the implicit attitudes
are it's supposed to be unconscious, Okay, okay, explicit or
just ask you, do I prefer white over black, prefer
young overall? Do I prefer straight to gay?
Speaker 4 (19:04):
You know?
Speaker 3 (19:04):
So the explicit or what the people acknowledge in a
survey question. But the implicit has to do with latency
of response. It has nothing to do with explicit. I
mean it does have there is a correlation between the two. Okay,
so we had let's see, they tested seven million people
over these years. The database was more female, and more young,
(19:28):
and more collageticly educated. But they claim to have waited
their analyzes. They corrected their analyzes. They say that, okay,
so let me just go over a couple of these.
So for implicit attitudes, I want to go over just
a couple of these, but the reader can go probably
get this article. It's Harvard that is doing this. Implicit
(19:48):
attitudes sexuality started now zero is no preference for either direction.
So sexuality they started at point three to three and
they ended at point one two with a sixty five
percent change. So that's one change. Now that's implicit and explicit.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Who's group are we talking about.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
This is the whole group. Okay, this is there, the
seven million people. Okay, So now, explicit attitudes sexuality, which
means anti gay, started at point six eight and ended
at point one point seven, a seventy five percent change
in attitudes. So both of those explicit and implicit on
(20:33):
sexuality are getting very near zero, very near zero.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Which is this is my favor.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Yeah, neutral. I understand the principle of try to help
people be neutral. I do understand that. But the elites
are just all over this. I mean, they can't think
about anything else. Okay, let's go over race and let
me just go. Race went from implicit went from a
point thirty three to a point twenty four with a
(21:02):
twenty four percent change, a twenty six percent change. Explicit
on race, when explicit went from point thirty two to
point oh one, went explicit went from thirty a little
bit to nothing with a ninety eight percent change. I mean,
that's that's what you're looking for.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
So almost no one is in justly, you know, in
favor of racism.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yeah, consciously is not invas so in certain ways, it's
like we're there, Okay, now I'm going to where you
want to be Yeah, that's where you want to skin
tone was similar. Now what didn't change over this period
of time was very much were the attitudes about age, disability,
and body weight. So gay and race changed tremendously. Now,
(21:51):
one other thing I'm going to say that I think
is fascinating is they break down the data between liberals
and conservatives. Okay, let's just go over race, because that's
what's to me is like fascinating and sexuality. But sexuality
is so tied into conservativism because I believe there's a
(22:12):
natural instinct the conservatives have about procreation that kind of
influences their opinions. But race, the liberals started at point
three one and this is implicit, this is unconscious. The
liberals started at point three to one and went to
point two, and the conservatives on implicit went from point
(22:34):
three seven to point three to two.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
So what's the issue? Which issue?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
We talk race? Anti anti black? So there I have
to say that the they're similar. They started similar, and
there was a little more change in the liberals. But
look at this explicit attitude. And I'm probably gumming this up,
but this is fascinating. The explicit The liberals went from
point two five to minus point one, and the Conservatives
(23:05):
went from zero point five to two to point two two. Yeah, okay,
so they both it's pretty fascinating. I want to say
one more thing and then I'm going to move to
this book to sum it up.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
But the sexuality, hold on, you got to summarize the
racism a little bit that explicitly. They the conservatives came
down to almost zero and the liberals went overboard.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Yeah, well they came down a lot. I mean, I
don't know exactly the absolute value we're talking about here.
When you talk about point two two, I don't really
know that that's a mean, that's an average of all
these people. So I don't know, I don't know how much.
But we're pretty close to not having anybody be discriminating
(23:52):
as far as race goes. We're pretty damn close both sides.
There's a little more on them. In other words, don't
need to relax about.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
This consciously and.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Consciously and unconsciously. I mean, the goal is being achieved.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Yeah, okay, I'm.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yeah, it's like, no need to get your hair on
fire anymore. It's not everybody. I mean, that's the trouble
with A mean, the you know, distribution is.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
Going to look, there's still bigots out there.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Yeah, there's still bigots out there, and they're always going
to have bigots out there. Okay, sexuality, and then I
want to go to this book real quickly. This is
anti gay for implicit. The liberals went from point two
one to negative point oh four, and in their explicit
attitudes they went from point two five to negative point
(24:43):
to nine. So the liberals are now anti white, I mean,
anti hairtisexual. They've overshot the mark right, they're pro gay.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
It went from being negative toward gays to being positive
toward gays and.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Against I mean, if you look at this as a win,
you know, zero sum win, lose their anti straight straight okay, Okay,
So because you don't want to go negative either, you
want the zero. Your the goal is a zero. Okay.
So the conservatives in their explicit went from point five
to two to point three four, which was thirty four
(25:21):
percent change. That's not too bad's that's implicit. Explicit blew
me away. When I saw these numbers explicit they started
at one zero point five to three anti gay.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
So now compare that to they're implicit. Explicitly, they were
very pro herodosexual more so than their unconscious attitude, much.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
More than their How about that.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
They weren't nearly as biased unconsciously as they were consciously,
and then end up they ended up point nine. So
they're still explicitly biased, but there if you compare them
to their implicit they're not nearly as biased implicitly. They're
not nearly as biased unconsciously as they are consciously. Now
(26:07):
you could be looking at an era in the measurement,
but this is a fascinating data set. Fascinating data set.
So okay, So any questions.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
About that, No, No, that's that makes it pretty clear.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Okay, So back to this tribalism issue, and I'll wrap
up with this because this is this book that I got.
I got it to understand the loose tight phenomena in
psychology organization. Some countries are loose and some countries are tight.
But this book, Psychology of Populism, the Tribal Challenge to
(26:40):
Liberal Democracy, is more more than being useful for somebody
trying to understand things about that title. More than anything else,
it's a composition about the bias of the elites, and
reading it is hard for me to stomach because they
hate Donald Trump, and they are talking as though populism
(27:03):
is a challenge to liberal democracy, and it really is
a challenge to the elite. And they're all through the book,
they're reframing the problem as a problem with populace. And
they don't know that they are in competition with the populace.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
They don't know they're exposing themselves.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
They don't know. That's a very good point. They don't
know that this is a book about their unconscious bias. Wow,
and they really hate Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Of course, Well, there are plenty of people that hate
Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Yeah, but now I kind of have an idea. He
represents populism. That's why they hate him. They hate him
because he's also a blowhard. But those are minor characteristics.
I mean, being an ass and being a blowhard, those
are minor characteristics. I've always wondered, why do they hate
him at the visceral level. It's because they've projected to him. Jack,
(28:00):
let me just make this last point. Then I'll let
you say something. They talk about authoritarianism as though it's
only a populism characteristic. I am in a community of psychologists,
and let me tell you, authoritarian it is an autocratic
leadership is a big, big factory. They are really they're
(28:21):
really autocrats. They're into power, and they're into their own power.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
The only thing I wanted to comment was that Trump
is particularly talented. They're coming up with a nasty nickname,
a nickname that really cuts you.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
To you, Pocahontas is one of the big the best one,
that could be the very best nickname ever put on anyone. Well,
you know, Russell Brand says Trump has tremendous comedic timing.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Who does?
Speaker 3 (28:49):
But they hate the elites hate Donald Trump. They've got
him in the index. Let me just tell you how
biased this book is. They have Donald Trump all over
the place in the index. Nowhere in the index can
you find middle class. The term middle class. I went
right there to try to look up middle class. They
don't talk about middle class. What else is the populism
(29:11):
but the middle class.
This is a rebroadcast of an earlier episode.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
So today I want to go back and talk about
tribalism again. And Victor Davis Hansen is continuing to talk
about this, and he's one of the best sources on
what has happened. But I have a book that I'm reading,
kind of reading about psychologists and populism, and also I
have an article I want to go over on diversity
(00:40):
implicit and explicit. But first let's listen to Victor talk
about this.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
How did we start to read tribalize. I think part
of it came out of the sixties that, in the
eagerness to create parody, groups that were extremists said, you
know what, it's not enough to be equal, because we
were on equal for all these years, so we have
to be more than equal. I think most Americans were
willing under the Johnson administration to say, Okay, we'll have
(01:10):
a period of ten twenty thirty forty years of institutionalized
prejudice and we won't call it that, well, we won't
call it quote as we'll call it affirmative action. So
if somebody is not of the majority ancestry, i e. White,
then we will give extra consideration given the idea of
pass bias or maybe the fumes of present bias. And
(01:32):
we were all accepting of that. But as the so
called white population started to in proportional terms decline a
little bit, and more and more groups decided that they
were victimized, then the number of people with complaints against
the majority group. I think it's often underappreciated that during
(01:55):
the Obama administration, specifically two thousand and nine to sixteen,
a radical concept emerged that really threatened the very foundations
of US citizenship. And this was the idea of diversity.
Remember that affirmative action had been focused and targeted on
the idea of the historical sin of slavery and the
(02:18):
idea that because people look African, they were not fully American,
and the United States during the Civil War the efforts
to stop Jim Crow, the civil rights movement was trying
to erase that blemish from its history. But under the
idea of diversity, other groups that were not African American,
(02:39):
not the twelve percent of the population, but other groups
that were quote not white were suddenly aggregated, and so
the number of people that had claims on the majority
for past grievances or anybody that was not white. And
think what that entailed. You could immigrate from the Punjab
and you could sell your farm for two hundred thousand
(03:00):
dollars an acre and be quite wealthy, arrive in California,
and suddenly you were diverse. You'd never experience the discrimination
in the United States, but you were diverse. Why were
you diverse for one reason? You were not white? At
least you could claim you're not white.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
Okay, So a couple of things just right from his analysis.
He's thinking, this is a big characteristic of the polarization
going on. And I want to confirm that I sleep
with the enemy. I'm living in a nest of elites
and they are obsessed with inclusiveness and diversity, I mean
(03:38):
obsessed with it. It takes up their thinking on everything.
They can't think about anything else. It's always black. Now
it's the sexuality part. But they are into the game
of the victims are the deal. The victims are the deal.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
And I want to highlight or at least express your
history of dealing not with diversity, but with hiring practices
to avoid discrimination, because as far as I was concerned,
you became one of the nation's most experienced in best people,
especially when it came to hiring.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Hiring in the South, in the hiring the operator operator.
But that's it's a high level labor position.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
But you had a requirement under These plants had requirements,
so they didn't want discrimination. They didn't want the government
definition of discrimination to cause them trouble.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So you they also didn't want to discriminate people. Get
that wrong. They didn't do it because the government told
them to do it. They did it because it was
the right thing to do and they wanted to be
a part of the community. And in the South, you know,
Louisiana is thirty five percent, I had people say, oh,
you're just doing that to keep them out of trouble.
(04:54):
They wanted to do the right thing. They had integrity,
and this was all white men deciding. There was very
few black managers at that point.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
And of course sometimes I wouldn't mind getting into how
you accomplished that, because you had a definite strategy that
helped these plants really loved you because you helped them
hire good people, good people who got along well with
each other, and you helped us in our company.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
And well, I appreciate all this praise.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
There's no need to minimize the impact that you had
on these plants and the impact that you had on
my company.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Well, you're pointing out I was in the trench with
the diversity issue and companies.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
It was discrimination then.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
It was really discrimination.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
It wasn't diversity at that time.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
It wasn't diversity. In fact, I think I probably got
out about the time it got weird in the plants.
I mean, I don't think the plants in South Louisiana
have embraced the diversity. I don't know the diversity thing
about the way Victor Hanson is talking about it. It's
a political coole agenda. It's not a real agenda because
(06:03):
I'm kind of going back to one of the points
I want to make. I grew up in the rural
South and know, looking at the blacks that were poverty stricken,
this was real for the American black.
Speaker 4 (06:17):
There really was true discrimination in the first fifteen years
or so of our lives. There was true brutal discrimination.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Well, I don't know how much discrimination there was, but
there were people who grew up in poverty, you know,
generational poverty, and the American black man and woman have
a right to complain that that was real. And what
I love that Hanson, Victor Hanson is pointing out is
(06:44):
that this didn't include other groups. This was the sin
of slavery that this country participated in and wouldn't let
go of and wouldn't let go of, and you know,
it was in the symbolities.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
And I'm sorry, I'm sorry, And let me say this,
it wasn't just the South. The rest of the country
was discriminating. They just didn't discriminate as bad as the South,
like song, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
They were.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
They were terrible in the North, and they were even
bad in the West. Now, we lived in the West
for a while and we were impressed at how little
discrimination they had.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
But against the blacks, they discriminated there. They discriminated against
the Indian Indians and the Mexicans and the Mexicans, so
we were kind of like ducks out of water. We
were like, what's going on here? It was the cultural
shift for us. Okay, So did you finish your point
on that?
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Yeah, some some probably some other time. I would like
to get into your strategy, your specific strategy for how
you accomplished thing within the rules and the lulls of
discrimination and still managed to hire really good people.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, you know, when I was practicing organizational psychology, the
issue was becoming a problem with discriminating against the whites.
The EOC was clear that you could not be and
they said it beautifully, you could not be unfair to
one group in your attempt to be fair to another group.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
They really tied your hands, they.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
Really they made it tough. So it was walking a
chalk line because for whatever reason, I'm not sure I
know the reason, but for whatever reason, the typical black
person scored lower on cognitive ability than the typical white person.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
Well, I never felt like that was hard to understand.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
I mean, those well, I don't want to get into that.
But the test I find out more about it now
that the tests are really normed on whites. I mean,
there's a cultural problem there. But it's not that simple
because there's a lot of evidence that it's a valid
test and so, but it was a mess. It was
(09:00):
a mess. In other words, I worked in an area
that was complex. Yeah, and I was given inadequate tools,
but those were the tools we had, you know, in
other words, we had to do the best with the
tools we had. And I do feel proud of the
fact I was never dragged into court and given a beating,
because you know, there are a lot of you know,
with creativity, there are a lot of ways to have
(09:22):
a win win solution.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
The big word was adverse impact. As long as you
didn't have adverse impact. As long as that plant, your
customer didn't have adverse impact, then they were pretty much
protected from lawsuits. Am I right?
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Well, I think that's maybe going a little further. You're
never protected from a lawsuit no matter what. You're protected
maybe a little bit from losing a lawsuit. But now
we see that the country has corrupted, Its legal system
is corrupted. Point is, I never had to try to
prove anything in court, and that's because I kept my
ducks in a row, and my companies kept their ducks
(09:56):
in a row. You selected a number of black people
that was, and you selected a number of white people,
and that was proper. I mean, you did the proper
thing for your community. Because these plants were located in
a community that was you know, fifty percent blank. I
mean they wanted to do the right thing. I never
came across any employer that I worked for, except in
(10:18):
New York that wanted to go strictly down by the book,
by the numbers. Everybody wanted to do the right thing
and got a little squishy with the numbers.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
What do you mean about New York?
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Well, that was the one that wanted to go right
by the statistics. Do you go right by this?
Speaker 4 (10:34):
There are eighteen percent one race, ten percent another race
or something.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
You know that for fiscerule, We're going down a rabbit.
Ok Now, all right, Okay, I want to go back
to this thing about diversity. So the question that I
think Victor answers is why so much polarization? And so
he's looking at this issue of diversity, which is different
than the issue of discrimination diversity, But I like the
(11:00):
way he's talking about it is that all of a sudden,
if you were not white, you were part of the
victim group. And that makes every bit of sense to me,
because I'm going to talk about this in terms of
the elite, because that's where you know, people could call
me an elite, but I'm not an elite. My heart
and soul are not in the elite category. I'm an
anti vaxer. You know, all the elites are vaccination. Don't
(11:25):
listen to the misinformation. Get your vaccine and your boosters
and all that.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
Not many elites can say what you can say, which
is you watched clan cross burned in your fro the office.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
Well, I did watch a Klukus clan cross be burned,
and I spotted it before me, my dad spotted it.
Like they all turned to the window and said what
is that? And I said what is that?
Speaker 4 (11:50):
Now?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Everybody's head zips around like what the hell Klukus klan?
And what bothered him is not the Klukus clan cross
being burned, but that people came to the house.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
Yeah, that the people.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Were sneaking around in the middle of the night.
Speaker 4 (12:05):
Oh no, that's that is what's scary. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
And they came up and they put a stamp on
the window. That later on they came up and put
a stamp on the window. They knew how to intimidate people.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Yeah, that's what it is. Now. The thing, the thing
that I found the interesting the first time I learned
this story from your family, was it the cross wasn't
but about three feet tall. I mean it wasn't always
it was always a cross.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Yeah, it was like a burning statue of great proportions.
Now it was I think it was about four feet wasn't.
Of course I don't remember it because I was a kid.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
But oh yeah, well, I mean I remember it. It's
a great story.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yeah, you're smaller when you're a kid, so things are bigger.
I could have, but I mean three or four feet,
you know. It was like made out of two by fours.
It was wrapped in rags, and they put gasoline on
it and set it on fire, just like you'd expect
my cross.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
And then they went about two hundred yards down the
road and watched it turn, waiting for the all to rehaction.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
This is the best story. This is the lead story
in my book al Writing, because they went across into
dule Layfield's pasture cow pastor to watch. We're going to
watch them be very upset. Nothing happened.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
Your family didn't even see it.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
My family family was doing what it always did. We
were all Daddy was holding court talking to us, and
we were all listening attentively to my father. It's like
we're all faced the opposite direction except for me, I'm
facing the windows that look out on the yard. I'm
seeing this flickering, and so you know, I'm the only
(13:42):
one that noticed the cross burning by the time. By
the time I'm like, what is that if I'm by
the time my father noticed it, the fire had dripped
off the cross, set the yard on fire, set the
ditch on fire, and the KKK people had called fire department.
Who is the KKK people also, so the same people,
(14:07):
the same people, you know, they were the fire department
and the police. I mean this is rural south. I
mean the Seat River River Parish has two thousand people
in it.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
So you were about ten, so it was about sixty one.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
I sixty one.
Speaker 4 (14:23):
So this is early early in those this.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Is early in the race relationship. Our listeners that listen
to us have heard this story. But my father did
a tremendous service to the community as the newspaper editor.
He made this all transparent. And in other communities that
thought they had no problem, there were murders going on.
(14:47):
They had murdered people in Mississippi. In Mississippi, yeah, that's
where the movie Mississippi Burning. But my father made a
big stink out of it. He infiltrated a KKK meeting
and took a picture sure of the people, and you
know he was right there as a newspaper publisher.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
Reporter must done a shotgun to the front of the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
Well, they apparently did, but Kevin says there's question of that.
He said, as a bunch of drunk people.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Later on, how many times did drunk people shoot out
the door newspaper? Only only someone that has an incentive
against the newspaper.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
It's hard to know what's you know, it's hard to
know what's what was going on. But the but the
fight between my father and the KKK did go on.
He did a tremendous service to the community making sure
those people did not have secrecy.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
And you had the FBI guard your house and you
had us.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
This is obviously more interesting to you than my topic
I had.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Well, I'm sorry, go ahead, I'm sorry, but it's a
great family story.
Speaker 3 (15:55):
We had men in black who came and guarded us,
Jaggar who were guys. So it was a big deal,
and you know, it made a very big impression on me.
But the fact is the blacks in Read River perish
Black lives matter, and the people that don't understand the
black experience is different than the Mexican experience. The immigrant,
(16:18):
the Eastern immigrant, the person from India, the person from Iran,
the black America. We owe some debt to the Black Americans.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
Well, And the way it happened in your community is
pretty much the way it happened everywhere, which is the
institution was set up to come down hard on any
resistance from the black community, but they were not set
up to come down on newspapers who were speaking the truth.
They couldn't really come down on the all heart. I mean,
(16:48):
they tried them to intimidate you. But your dad the
big trick was he started publishing names. People's message threatened
to publish.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
He published a couple of names, but boy shut it down.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
And the truth, exposing the truth shut the whole thing down. Yeah,
and that's the way it happened all across the South.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
We know how Now this is the nineteen sixties, so
we're you know, we're talking about half a century ago.
This is how it was, This is not how it
is today. And this is what I want to share
with you. I'll try, okay, yeah, try to try not
to dominate the conversation even though you have male entitlement. Okay,
(17:30):
so there's one article I want to talk about briefly,
and then I want to talk about this book, The
Psychology of Populism, The Tribal Challenge to Liberal Democracy. I'm
going to sum up talking about that. But so the
psychologists have been the elites. The psychologists have been eaten
up with this thing on diversity, and they One of
(17:51):
the things that I've talked about this before, this implicit
and explicit attitudes about race, sex, disabilit age. I want
to review very briefly this article from Psychological Science, September
twenty two. Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes for change
(18:16):
in stability from two thousand and seven to twenty twenty. Basically,
the bottom line here is that the attitudes have changed dramatically,
both implicit and explicit. They acknowledge all explicit attitudes decreased
in bias from twenty two percent to ninety eight percent,
ninety eight percent change in racial attitudes explicit.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
And when you say implicit and explicit, can you also
say conscious and unconscious?
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Well, you could say that who knows what they're measuring,
But the implicit are simply I mean the implicit attitudes
are it's supposed to be unconscious, Okay, okay, explicit or
just ask you, do I prefer white over black, prefer
young overall? Do I prefer straight to gay?
Speaker 4 (19:04):
You know?
Speaker 3 (19:04):
So the explicit or what the people acknowledge in a
survey question. But the implicit has to do with latency
of response. It has nothing to do with explicit. I
mean it does have there is a correlation between the two. Okay,
so we had let's see, they tested seven million people
over these years. The database was more female, and more young,
(19:28):
and more collageticly educated. But they claim to have waited
their analyzes. They corrected their analyzes. They say that, okay,
so let me just go over a couple of these.
So for implicit attitudes, I want to go over just
a couple of these, but the reader can go probably
get this article. It's Harvard that is doing this. Implicit
(19:48):
attitudes sexuality started now zero is no preference for either direction.
So sexuality they started at point three to three and
they ended at point one two with a sixty five
percent change. So that's one change. Now that's implicit and explicit.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
Who's group are we talking about.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
This is the whole group. Okay, this is there, the
seven million people. Okay, So now, explicit attitudes sexuality, which
means anti gay, started at point six eight and ended
at point one point seven, a seventy five percent change
in attitudes. So both of those explicit and implicit on
(20:33):
sexuality are getting very near zero, very near zero.
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Which is this is my favor.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
Yeah, neutral. I understand the principle of try to help
people be neutral. I do understand that. But the elites
are just all over this. I mean, they can't think
about anything else. Okay, let's go over race and let
me just go. Race went from implicit went from a
point thirty three to a point twenty four with a
(21:02):
twenty four percent change, a twenty six percent change. Explicit
on race, when explicit went from point thirty two to
point oh one, went explicit went from thirty a little
bit to nothing with a ninety eight percent change. I mean,
that's that's what you're looking for.
Speaker 4 (21:21):
So almost no one is in justly, you know, in
favor of racism.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
Yeah, consciously is not invas so in certain ways, it's
like we're there, Okay, now I'm going to where you
want to be Yeah, that's where you want to skin
tone was similar. Now what didn't change over this period
of time was very much were the attitudes about age, disability,
and body weight. So gay and race changed tremendously. Now,
(21:51):
one other thing I'm going to say that I think
is fascinating is they break down the data between liberals
and conservatives. Okay, let's just go over race, because that's
what's to me is like fascinating and sexuality. But sexuality
is so tied into conservativism because I believe there's a
(22:12):
natural instinct the conservatives have about procreation that kind of
influences their opinions. But race, the liberals started at point
three one and this is implicit, this is unconscious. The
liberals started at point three to one and went to
point two, and the conservatives on implicit went from point
(22:34):
three seven to point three to two.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
So what's the issue? Which issue?
Speaker 3 (22:40):
We talk race? Anti anti black? So there I have
to say that the they're similar. They started similar, and
there was a little more change in the liberals. But
look at this explicit attitude. And I'm probably gumming this up,
but this is fascinating. The explicit The liberals went from
point two five to minus point one, and the Conservatives
(23:05):
went from zero point five to two to point two two. Yeah, okay,
so they both it's pretty fascinating. I want to say
one more thing and then I'm going to move to
this book to sum it up.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
But the sexuality, hold on, you got to summarize the
racism a little bit that explicitly. They the conservatives came
down to almost zero and the liberals went overboard.
Speaker 3 (23:30):
Yeah, well they came down a lot. I mean, I
don't know exactly the absolute value we're talking about here.
When you talk about point two two, I don't really
know that that's a mean, that's an average of all
these people. So I don't know, I don't know how much.
But we're pretty close to not having anybody be discriminating
(23:52):
as far as race goes. We're pretty damn close both sides.
There's a little more on them. In other words, don't
need to relax about.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
This consciously and.
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Consciously and unconsciously. I mean, the goal is being achieved.
Speaker 4 (24:08):
Yeah, okay, I'm.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yeah, it's like, no need to get your hair on
fire anymore. It's not everybody. I mean, that's the trouble
with A mean, the you know, distribution is.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
Going to look, there's still bigots out there.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
Yeah, there's still bigots out there, and they're always going
to have bigots out there. Okay, sexuality, and then I
want to go to this book real quickly. This is
anti gay for implicit. The liberals went from point two
one to negative point oh four, and in their explicit
attitudes they went from point two five to negative point
(24:43):
to nine. So the liberals are now anti white, I mean,
anti hairtisexual. They've overshot the mark right, they're pro gay.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
It went from being negative toward gays to being positive
toward gays and.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Against I mean, if you look at this as a win,
you know, zero sum win, lose their anti straight straight okay, Okay,
So because you don't want to go negative either, you
want the zero. Your the goal is a zero. Okay.
So the conservatives in their explicit went from point five
to two to point three four, which was thirty four
(25:21):
percent change. That's not too bad's that's implicit. Explicit blew
me away. When I saw these numbers explicit they started
at one zero point five to three anti gay.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (25:34):
So now compare that to they're implicit. Explicitly, they were
very pro herodosexual more so than their unconscious attitude, much.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
More than their How about that.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
They weren't nearly as biased unconsciously as they were consciously,
and then end up they ended up point nine. So
they're still explicitly biased, but there if you compare them
to their implicit they're not nearly as biased implicitly. They're
not nearly as biased unconsciously as they are consciously. Now
(26:07):
you could be looking at an era in the measurement,
but this is a fascinating data set. Fascinating data set.
So okay, So any questions.
Speaker 4 (26:16):
About that, No, No, that's that makes it pretty clear.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
Okay, So back to this tribalism issue, and I'll wrap
up with this because this is this book that I got.
I got it to understand the loose tight phenomena in
psychology organization. Some countries are loose and some countries are tight.
But this book, Psychology of Populism, the Tribal Challenge to
(26:40):
Liberal Democracy, is more more than being useful for somebody
trying to understand things about that title. More than anything else,
it's a composition about the bias of the elites, and
reading it is hard for me to stomach because they
hate Donald Trump, and they are talking as though populism
(27:03):
is a challenge to liberal democracy, and it really is
a challenge to the elite. And they're all through the book,
they're reframing the problem as a problem with populace. And
they don't know that they are in competition with the populace.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
They don't know they're exposing themselves.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
They don't know. That's a very good point. They don't
know that this is a book about their unconscious bias. Wow,
and they really hate Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Of course, Well, there are plenty of people that hate
Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (27:37):
Yeah, but now I kind of have an idea. He
represents populism. That's why they hate him. They hate him
because he's also a blowhard. But those are minor characteristics.
I mean, being an ass and being a blowhard, those
are minor characteristics. I've always wondered, why do they hate
him at the visceral level. It's because they've projected to him. Jack,
(28:00):
let me just make this last point. Then I'll let
you say something. They talk about authoritarianism as though it's
only a populism characteristic. I am in a community of psychologists,
and let me tell you, authoritarian it is an autocratic
leadership is a big, big factory. They are really they're
(28:21):
really autocrats. They're into power, and they're into their own power.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
The only thing I wanted to comment was that Trump
is particularly talented. They're coming up with a nasty nickname,
a nickname that really cuts you.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
To you, Pocahontas is one of the big the best one,
that could be the very best nickname ever put on anyone. Well,
you know, Russell Brand says Trump has tremendous comedic timing.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Who does?
Speaker 3 (28:49):
But they hate the elites hate Donald Trump. They've got
him in the index. Let me just tell you how
biased this book is. They have Donald Trump all over
the place in the index. Nowhere in the index can
you find middle class. The term middle class. I went
right there to try to look up middle class. They
don't talk about middle class. What else is the populism
(29:11):
but the middle class.
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.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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