Although the immediate medical crisis of COVID may be behind us, we have yet to recover from the political side effects of the pandemic. We were lied to. Senator Rand Paul has revealed the extent of the lies in his explosive new book, Deception: The Great COVID Coverup, yet few have come to terms with the brute facts regarding “Gain of Function” research and the conspiracy to keep it a secret.

I had the privilege of interviewing Senator Paul about the extensive deception around COVID-19, and the shocking number of government agencies and private sector entities involved in the collective coverup. Rather than coming clean, Dr. Fauci and others orchestrated a massive campaign to shirk responsibility. The American people deserve to know the full truth.

With the mainstream media still asleep at the wheel, it’s time to wake up to the egregious overreach of federal, state, and local governments that took place, and ensure that they are never again able to abuse powers in this way. Listen to Senator Paul summarize in his own words what you’ll learn from his book:

“It was the outright lies that piqued my interest. What Fauci was actually doing was beginning a coverup. People often question, ‘How could a conspiracy involving hundreds of people possibly be true?’ As George Carlin said, ‘You don’t need a conspiracy when interests converge.’ I think over time, the idea that they could share guilt or culpability for millions of deaths [was] a big incentive for them to cover up.”

Listen now, or read the transcript below, to learn the full story behind the lab leak hypothesis (at this point, all but confirmed), and the Senator’s ongoing efforts to get the word out to the public

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Lenore Skenazy is author of Free Range Kids, first published in 2010 and republished a few years ago. She's a frequent public speaker and co-founder with Jonathan Haidt of Let Grow movement. She's been on The View, 20/20, The Daily Show, and The Today Show.

We first met Lenore when she was a columnist for the New York Sun, shortly after she wrote "Why I let my nine year old ride the subway alone," which earned her the coveted award of the “world's worst mom.”

It is my pleasure to introduce her to an entire new generation of my show's listeners, as my final show.

Links

* Let Grow

* Free-Range Kids book

* FreeRangeKids.com

* The Fragile Generation Reason Magazine by Lenore Skenazy and Jonathan Haidt

Transcript

Bob Zadek: Lenore, please share the anecdote of the world's worst mom for us again?

Lenore Skenazy (11:16): Sure. Well the headline says it all. Years ago when our younger son was nine, he started asking me and my husband (who you never hear of as the world's worst dad) if we would take him someplace he'd never been before here in New York City and let him find his own way home on the subway. Bob, did you grow up here?

Bob Zadek (11:42): Yes, I was a subway rider as far back as I can remember. I grew up riding the buses, the Q44 A and all the buses and the A E and the F train.

Lenore Skenazy (12:01): A Q tells us you were a Queens boy!

So my son asked if he could take the subway alone. We said yes, so one sunny Sunday I took him to Bloomingdale's. I left him in the handbag department because that's where the subway entrance is. I took a bus home and he went down to the subway. He talked to a stranger and asked if this was the right direction. The stranger said no, he was on the wrong side. But instead of hurting him, the stranger helped him.

So he took the subway down to 34th Street, the Miracle Street, got out, and had to take a bus across town to get home. He came into the apartment levitating with pride. He'd done something grown up, his parents had trusted him, and it had gone well.

I didn't write about it immediately because I didn't realize my entire career depended on it at the time. I was a newspaper reporter, and about a month and a half later, when I had nothing to write about, I said, “How about I write a column about letting my son take the subway by himself?”

My editor says, “Sure, it's a nice local story.”

And so I wrote Why I let my nine year-old ride the subway alone.

Two days later I was on the Today Show, MSNBC, Fox News and NPR being interviewed and often chided for doing something that could have been dangerous. It took years for me to unpack why we always ended up talking about “What would've happened if he had been murdered??”, even though he obviously hadn't been.

So I started Free Range Kids as a blog. I should say that I love safety helmets and car seats and seat belts and mouth guards, extra layers. I just don't think kids need us with them every single second of the day. I think they can figure things out on their own. I think they can have some adventures. I think they're as smart as we were and we got to spend a lot of time on our own. So that's what I've been preaching for 15 years. Kids are smarter and safer than our culture gives them credit for.

Bob Zadek (14:34): My parents were model parents by your standards. They would've gotten the award at your annual ceremony for the world's best parents because they took risks with my life probably every day of my upbringing. I walked to school in Queens where I grew up.

What Drives Overparenting?

Bob Zadek: What are the merits of this fanaticism that drives the helicopter parenting?

Lenore Skenazy (15:41): Parenting has changed. Suddenly, instead of discussing something happy and triumphant, we were talking about a hypothetical where my son died. First of all, it's an extremely depressing and distressing thing to discuss. But then I gradually realized that to go to that dark place had become the hallmark of good parenting.

That's what everybody does now.

When we're trying to pass the laws so that you're allowed to let your kids play outside or walk to school, the counter-argument is always, “Well, what if something goes wrong?”

Thinking that catastrophically and pessimistically about everyday things like walking to the bus stop or playing at the park is new. Your mom and my mom would let us walk to school starting at age five, and everybody did. And so what the culture had back then was a shared belief that kids are pretty competent and the world is pretty safe and nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we can't let them go. And that has evaporated.

Bob Zadek (17:46): You gave us the hypothetical, What would you have felt if your son died? It's kind of the question I think begs the answer a bit, but who dwells there? Was he holding his breath waiting for your answer?

Part of that approach to parenting assumes that something going wrong is more likely than not fatal. But things are supposed to go wrong. How else does one learn? If you're 26 when you first find out things could go wrong, you're not going to live to 27. You're just not going to make It.

Lenore Skenazy (19:01): If I ever give a Ted talk (hint, hint Ted talk people out there), I would call it “What if something goes wrong? Good.”

Because that is how you learn almost everything. You certainly remember things better if they went disastrously. also babies come into the world uncooked in a way. It’s not like a gazelle that's born and by the next day It's just like any other gazelle that's running around. But humans come in and they're pretty helpless because their brain is just busy learning. It has so much learning to do, and it does this by being curious and paying attention to everything. And Mother Nature has assumed that throughout your childhood you'll be doing all sorts of things. You'll be screwing up. You'll be with a lot of different kids of different ages because that's how kids grew up in just a big bundle of the Peanuts gang. And you will learn from it all.

You will learn from the times that you don't fall off the swing. You will learn from the times when you do. You will learn from the time that you haven't had your turn yet because you didn't assert yourself. Or you'll learn from the time that you gave your little brother a chance on the swing because you're older and you're a decent person and your heart will swell and your brother will love you forever.

So nature expects you to have good and bad things happening all the time. And the big lie that has been told to parents is that you better prevent any of those things from happening because it will hurt your child.

And you don't want your child to be distressed or frustrated or hurt in any way. So it's like taking half of the vitamins out of your food. It's like, okay, now you still have the white flour but you don't have any of the chaff.

We're expecting kids to be just as hardy as ever, but we're not giving them half the nutrients – the bad things. You don't want a life of only bad things, but you want to have to do a little bit of struggling and figuring things out.

I will give you one quick example if I may. So there's an article in the Wall Street Journal on how to raise a free range kid in the 2020s, which I thought was odd because they didn't call me and whatever, doesn't matter. The woman they interviewed had come up with the perfect solution. When she grew up she would always go down to the creek near her house and she would play for hours and found things interesting, whether it was with friends or without friends and make things out of rocks, whatever. She just loved being in the woods.

And she said now that her daughter was the age that she had been, she wanted her to have the same experience. And so she gave her a phone and said, “Now you can go.”

And she said, “The great thing was that my daughter was riding her bike to the creek, and the chain fell off her bike and she could call her dad immediately,” the woman's husband.

He hurried over and promptly put the chain back on the bike. It is distressing that she failed to recognize the completely opposite experience she had compared to before, when she was trusted to be on her own and figure things out if something went wrong. Whether she fell off her bike, the chain broke, or she accidentally hit a squirrel, she would have managed. It is unimaginable to think of anything terrible happening on a bike, but had it occurred, she would have figured it out.

I think she's giving her daughter a far less exciting, less empowered experience.

Why Risk-Taking is Essential for Kids

Bob Zadek (23:03): The parents have been indoctrinated into being afraid ear of danger lurking everywhere. My parents would occasionally remind me to be careful and do things, but they weren't obsessed by it. I was pushed out the house after breakfast and I think the door may have been locked. I didn't come home until my mother yelled “Robert!” at the top of her lungs on my front stoop at the end of the day and I was summoned back and everybody's mother did the same thing for dinner and that was it.

There was no contact with the parents whatsoever. It was only kids.

You explain how important it is for kids to develop their own games, and resolve differences, without being protected from that, and you explain how children are protected from negotiating with other kids just to resolve differences. Speak to that how that is a crucial part of becoming a contributing adult.

Lenore Skenazy (24:37): Jonathan Haidt and I wrote about this in The Fragile Generation from a couple years ago. We've been trained by all the experts and fear mongers and parenting magazines and books. There was Parents magazine article called the “Play Date Playbook”. First of all, you never called them play dates. And secondly, play dates are pretty easy. You don't need a playbook. It's not football, it's just kids getting together. The article had a bunch of questions ostensibly from parents on how to conduct a correct play date.

One question was, “My child is old enough to stay home alone and often does now, but she's about to have a play date over. Am I still allowed to run to the dry cleaner?” And Parents' magazine responded, “Absolutely not.”

And they gave two reasons. And the first reason was physical danger. Something bad could happen, they could trip, they could fall, they could catch on fire. They gave an example of a girl who had been on a play date, who had microwaved some macaroni and cheese and it spilled on her and she got a burn. Okay, so tell 'em not to use the microwave. But so first of all, there's the physical danger of you not being right there.

And by the way, when they talked about that girl who had been burned by her macaroni, the mother had actually been in the backyard, so the mother had been there. You just have to be even closer. You have to be Velcro to them to be a good enough parent according to Parents magazine.

But the second thing they said is, and what if there's a spat? You want to be able to jump in before anyone's feelings get hurt. And that's the Rosetta Stone part for me because what Parents Magazine is telling you is if you're a good parent, you must make sure that your child never even suffers an argument with a friend. Because if her feelings get hurt or if I guess if the other kids' feelings get hurt, that is too much for them to bear.

Then you add on top of this, the idea that anything bad that happens scars you for life, it becomes an adverse childhood experience.

So what the magazine was suggesting is a general awareness of essentially everything coming out of your daughter's mouth and her play date's mouth—that you should keep tabs on with split second timing to step in there and ensure that no one's feelings get hurt because that's something that a parent should do, guaranteeing that your child is never upset. Now that's a culture that has driven parents crazy.

Bob Zadek (27:37): One can analyze a cultural norm. There was a time in human history when that cultural norm did not exist, and then there's a time that it exists in abundance today. But tell us about the in-between. How did it develop?

Lenore Skenazy (28:06): So that's what the Free Range Kids book is about. I'll whip us through the four reasons that I write about in the book. But in this new edition, I tiptoe towards a fifth reason. It’s still a little amorphous to me, but we'll talk about it. So the first four are pretty obvious. One is, what do we always blame? We blame the media because the media is out there trying to keep you engaged. Keeping the eyeballs watching the television. So the worse the story, the more chance that the people will keep watching.

This started in 1979 when there was a boy who was taken from a bus stop here in New York City and never seen again. Paula Fass is a historian of American childhood and she wrote a whole book about the history of American kidnappings (kind of a weird thing to do). People assumed that somebody had taken this boy from the bus stop to take home and raise as their own child. He was this angelic blonde-haired kid and they assumed some woman didn't have kids, really wanted one, saw this one took him and was going to raise him. That was the public's assumption for the first several weeks of the investigation until finally it started dribbling out. The police are saying, “Well, maybe it's actually not a woman really. Well, maybe it's a guy.”

Really, what would a guy want? You're kidding. We used to think predators at that time were wolves and eagles. Nobody was calling humans predators yet because that hadn't colonized our brain that there were predators all around that predators are seeking children every single second, that they're not next to their parents.

When we started thinking that way, she said it was like a match to a gas tank because it filled us with rage and fury and sympathy. It felt like you were being a good person to think about it and get madder and madder. It was every flavor at once in the brain and it was very powerful. A few years later, Adam Walsh was taken from a Sears in Florida—horrible story—and his story was made into a two-day mini-series that broke all ratings records in 1984.

Adam Walsh's dad is John Walsh. He started not only America's Most wanted, he also the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They were the ones who started putting the pictures of missing children on milk cartons. What they did, I'd say very disingenuously, is they never mentioned that the vast majority of those kids were not stolen by some predator off their bike or from the bus stop. They were kids taken in divorced custody battles or they were runaways. But if you see a different child every week and above it on your milk cart and it says, “have you seen me?” you start feeling that no child is safe. And then there was a lot of misinformation spread. John Walsh testified in Congress that there were 50,000 children murdered by strangers each year, which is false.

Thank goodness. It's far less. I don't even like to discuss it at all. But the point is that stranger danger then becomes this phrase we all use. And if you ask me, it actually keeps kids less safe because the vast majority of crimes against kids are committed by people they know. Often family members or close friends, but stranger danger just takes hold and then everybody wants to do something good.

And so there are after school specials on stranger dangers and police come to the school and discuss stranger dangers, you go to a fair and you get your kids foot fingerprints made because of stranger danger. And it becomes accepted that any child outside without a mind is fair game for the boogeyman as if everybody, the Fordham Baldis have taken over America and are swarming through the streets of the suburbs, the malls, and the alleyways. Just looking for the next victim.

Bob Zadek (32:55): You trace the beginnings of the fear to media behavior in the seventies…

Lenore Skenazy (33:08): Eighties more. In the eighties you get cable, and cable has so much more time to fill. 24 hours of news, so that's a lot of extra real estate there.

Bob Zadek (33:27): I'm going to embarrass you because you have this pedigree of MAD Magazine, a comic book. Now what am I leading up to in the fifties? Comic books make kids into mass murderers. I occasionally peruse statutes as a lawyer looking for interesting provisions. I still have, it remains on the books, a California statute regulating, it states it is a felony to have a comic book with five consecutive panels depicting violence. It's a felony. Wow. So you must have four and then have a family scene to avoid prison.

Lenore Skenazy (34:39): ”We interrupt this comic…”

Bob Zadek (34:40): Now we are smiling, but some adult with a functioning brain decided that statute was needed. Somebody who was elected by people.

Lenore Skenazy (35:32): There are always panics. There were panics in the 1920s—white slavery, right? Everybody's going to take the fair damsels off the street and sell them into white slavery.

Bob Zadek (35:48): In the nineties it was Satanic Panic in the preschools.

Children are taught to avoid strangers from an early age. This is known as "stranger danger." The result is that children are told to find any adult for help, even if they don't know them.

Lenore Skenazy (36:24): You know what? Don't talk to a wolf wearing a wig. That'd be my advice. If you need help, run. If they're an adult, run from them. Do you know about the Utah Boy Scout story?

There was a Utah Boy Scout who went on a trip. He got lost and everyone searched for him. And they couldn't find him for three days, even though they searched exactly where he'd been, because whenever they heard someone calling his name, who he didn't know, we thought it's a stranger, luring him, he'd been told never talk to strangers. And he would hide.

Finally, I guess he was hungry of thirsty enough that he came out and they found him. But you can Google it—it's not an urban myth. Look up “Boy Scout, Utah, Stranger danger.”

We scared people into thinking most people around them are not decent. But that's wrong. People want to help each other. We made people afraid of the good people in their lives. And the truth is, people want to help. They definitely want to help a child. So just teaching them not to go to strangers is not only counterintuitive but also counterproductive because if a kid needs help, they should be able to ask someone, "Am I going the wrong way or can I stand next to you?"

This van has been following me for three blocks. I'm just going to stand here while it goes by. And then you've made yourself safer.

Bob Zadek (37:59): As a libertarian, I of course always see danger lurking, but it is in my government. So I am taught never to talk to anybody in government.

Lenore Skenazy (38:13): ”Am I being detained?”

Bob Zadek (38:14): That's the grownup equivalent of don't talk to strangers.

Legislative Solutions & Child Protective Services

I want to spend some time—because it's less visible on the legislative response to now we have parents who feel overwhelmed by the threat lurking at every turn. And when anybody seems, feels overwhelmed, they look to elsewhere for help. And it's sort of unfortunately natural for some people to look to government. The government should do something about it or a phrase that is no longer popular. “There ought to be a law.” In fact, I remember reader's Digest had a little column.

Bob Zadek (39:04): Tell us about what's happening. It spreads insidiously because one state does it. Another state says what a great idea, why didn't we think of it? And it spreads like COVID-19.

Speak about what's happening legislatively.

Lenore Skenazy (39:47): Let me bring people up to speed just about what Let Grow does. Let Grow is the nonprofit that grew out of Free Range kids, and it started when Jonathan Haidt from the Coddling of the American Mind was talking to Daniel Shukman, who was the chairman for 10 Years of FIRE, which fights for individual rights.

They were worried that kids on campus were fragile and often mistaking feeling uncomfortable for actually being in danger. That's why they would demand somebody step in and keep a speaker from addressing issues that might trigger distress. And they wondered who is addressing this at an earlier age of these kids' lives, where that would keep them from becoming overly sensitive, that would give them more opportunity for solving problems themselves, having adventures, and therefore becoming a little more resilient and resourceful.

And so they came to me and together we started Let Grow and Let Grow's slogan is “we're making it easy, normal and legal to give kids back some independence.”

Now why do we have to make it legal? Isn't it legal for kids to walk outside, play at the park or whatever? Yes and no is unfortunately my answer.

The reason it could be considered illegal sometimes, or at least worthy of a neglect investigation is because the neglect laws in most states are very open ended. They say parents must provide children with proper supervision. But as we've just been talking about, your parents' idea of proper supervision—and in fact my idea of proper supervision—is often at odds with other people's ideas.

Who gets to decide what is proper supervision? Once I started Free Range Kids and then with Let Grow, people started writing to me to say, “look, I was doing something I knew my kid was ready for. I allowed my kid to play at the park. I allowed my kid to walk home from school.”

I just did a story recently about parents who let their children ages seven and nine in Killingly, Connecticut ( which sounds like a horrible name) walk to Dunkin Donuts on Super Bowl Sunday. That had gotten not more than two blocks from the house when somebody saw them, and called the cops because there were children outside unsupervised.

So once you get to a culture that starts thinking that no kids should ever be alone and that kids are always in danger because there's always going to be a stranger out there, then you have people reporting thinking that they're doing the right thing. They're not being obnoxious. They think, oh my God, these kids are outside. Should I call the police? The authorities will know how to handle it. So they call the police and the police swoop in and ask, “Where do you live, kids?”

And they tell them, and the police come to the house and they say, “your kids are out walking by themselves.” And the parents say, “yeah, they're seven and nine years old. It's the nice day they're going for donuts.”

“Well, anything bad could happen to them.”

And that gets back to that question that was always asked of me, what if something bad happens to them? And you're allowed to hypothesize. You're allowed to fantasize. You're allowed to go into a dystopian fugue state and imagine rapists and sex traffickers and predators and giant eagles. Anything you want, you can imagine something bad might happen to them.

So why would a parent let them out of their sight? And so in this case, in Killingly, the parents were arrested for endangering the welfare of a minor.

I keep hearing from people, and I wouldn't say this happens every day, it doesn't. But I've heard from enough people and enough states, my daughter was walking home from the library, this was a Virginia story, and she was nine years old and the cops followed her home and she hadn't even gotten her coat off. ”Where are your parents?”

“They're upstairs. What's the matter?”

And then the parents come down, it's like, “what's going on?”

It's like, “Your daughter was walking outside.”

Yes, she was.

Why should this be considered anything other than a parent knowing their child best, knowing their neighborhood, knowing what their kid is capable of, and wanting their kid to have a little bit of the childhood of walking around and meeting the local dogs and maybe skipping over to get a candy bar that is undeclared before dinner?

I mean, why is it considered bad parenting to trust your kid, to have vaguely any kind of the freedom that you had as a kid that you're grateful for? I think that that should be legal. And luckily with the help of Let Grow with the help of people like you and listeners like you, we have passed what we now call Reasonable Childhood Independence Laws in Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, always with bipartisan support, often unanimously as it was in Utah and Colorado. They say that neglect is when you put your kid in obvious and serious and likely danger, not anytime you take your eyes off your kid. We are very hopeful that that's going to be signed by the governor and become our fifth state.

Opponents of the Independent Childhood Laws

Bob Zadek (45:13): Who opposes you? I want to meet those people who voted no.

Lenore Skenazy: There are two sets of laws: criminal law and Child Protective Services law. Criminal law tries to change criminal statutes. This means law enforcement and child services have one less tool to stop bad people. They worry bad guys will get away because they haven't investigated enough parental neglect cases. We usually focus on changing Child Protective Services. The fear is if this is almost the same problem, if they miss a neglected child who gets seriously ill or dies, headlines will say Child Protective Services didn't do its job.

And so they err on the side of over investigating rather than shrugging and saying, it sounds like they were just walking for a donut. Let's call that. No problem. I went for a donut at their age too. So often sometimes it's the actual people at an agency and sometimes it's just people who consider themselves more caring than anybody else who say, “but a child could get hurt.”

And our answer to that is that children are getting hurt. There's this incredible tsunami of child anxiety and depression. One reason is that children get so little independence that they're told everything is so dangerous for them.

The idea that Child Protective Services must constantly monitor parents and ensure kids are always supervised overlooks something important about childhood: curiosity, playfulness, and resourcefulness. You can't just say we need to check every home to make sure kids are always watched. There's value in kids not always being supervised.

But the fear of a child getting hurt and someone being blamed leads to constant checking. So they check everyone just to be safe.

Bob Zadek (48:54): Parents seem to be closely monitored for any signs of child abuse. As a result, there are many false alarms about abuse. In just a minute, tell us how parents are constantly watched and how this leads to a lot of mistaken reports of abuse.

Lenore Skenazy (49:19): Right, right. Well, what you were discussing before is that in every state, anybody who interacts with a kid, a teacher, a pediatrician, a counselor, whatever, is supposed to be a mandated reporter. And once again, this aims to prevent harm rather than cause it. And so if you see an unexplained bruise and the kid says, I don't know how I got it, you might be suspicious. Who are they covering for? You might report it to Child Protective Services. And the idea is no harm done. And also you are mandated to report. So failing to report could get you in trouble. And God forbid if the kid is actually being abused. So there's incentive to over-report, but no recognition that over-reporting is not only hugely expensive and time-consuming, it is completely traumatizing for the investigated parents who fear having their kids taken away.

It was created with good intentions, but the numbers are astounding—about 37% of all American children at some point will be reported to Child Protective Services hotline. And if you're black, it's 53%.

Bob Zadek (50:43): Nothing is scarier for parents than authorities taking their child away, believing they are bad parents. Friends, the Let Grow Movement is doing important work for parents. We spoke with Lenore Skenazy, @FreeRangeKids on Twitter, whose book "Free Range Kids" is on Amazon. Lenore’s blog is FreeRange Kids.com. Lenore, we know your time is valuable.

Lenore, thank you. I'll call you to talk about Queens for a few more hours.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Arnold Kling holds a PhD in economics from MIT. He has worked at the Federal Reserve and later at Freddie Mac. In 1994, he started a web-based business. He used to blog at EconLog, and now writes at ArnoldKling.substack.com.

Links & Transcript

* arnoldkling.substack.com

* Reason forum hosted by Zach Weissmueller,

* The Big Short

* It’s a Wonderful Life - Bank run scene

How did SVB (almost) Go Under?

Bob Zadek: (01:49): Arnold, let's talk about Silicon Valley Bank, founded around 40-50 years ago—a new bank compared to our first bank formed by Alexander Hamilton around the country's founding.

Silicon Valley Bank was doing fine until recently. It was the 16th largest bank, with plenty of funds and public shareholders. It specialized in startups, especially biotech and tech companies, and was a favorite of venture capitalists in Silicon Valley. Then suddenly, Silicon Valley Bank collapsed.

So far there hasn't been a run on the bank, perhaps because the Fed intervened. But how could a successful, well-established bank fail so quickly? Arnold, tell us how a bank could go from thriving to defunct overnight.

Arnold Kling (03:47): As Ernest Hemingway said, “Gradually, then suddenly.”

I think that captures the story here. They gradually lost money because they held a huge portfolio of long-term mortgage-backed securities and Treasury securities on their books from a couple of years ago before interest rates went up. The value of that portfolio went down.

Then they went bankrupt suddenly because over 95% of their deposits were not insured. The typical customer had $3 million to $4 million that they used to make payroll and other expenses. That's way above the insurance limit of $250,000. Those people saw the bank was underwater, and no one wanted to be the last one left holding the bag. They started a run on the bank.

Bob Zadek (04:56): The public believes that when you deposit money in the bank, the bank somehow keeps it in a shoebox under the counter. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, when you deposit money in the bank, you are making an unsecured loan to the bank. Unlike a bank that lends you money with the collateral of your home or car, you are just the lowest form of creditor—an unsecured creditor.

We don't want all depositors withdrawing their funds at once. That's called a "run on the bank,” as Jimmy Stewart explains in It's a Wonderful Life. If everyone who lent you money demanded their money back at once, even if you have assets, they're not in cash. So you'd default. After the Great Depression, the government decided to avoid bank runs by guaranteeing deposits up to $250,000.

The problem was that millions and millions of dollars were deposited in Silicon Valley Bank, but then bad things started to happen. The bank had invested much of their money in federal securities, so it didn't have enough cash on hand to give everyone their deposits back right away. The federal securities that banks invest in are usually very safe. This caused even more panic and worsened the run on the bank. In short, too much money chasing too few safe investments led to a crisis of confidence in Silicon Valley Bank.

Arnold Kling (09:13): In a way, this is a rerun of the savings and loan crisis of the 1970s and 1980s.

If you lent me money for a mortgage a few years ago at 3% interest, you're probably not happy collecting only 3% now that mortgage rates are closer to 6%. On the other hand, I'm delighted to pay only 3% and have no desire to sell my house and take on a new mortgage at 5%. So what's good for me is bad for you as a lender.

Silicon Valley Bank lent heavily when interest rates were low. As a result, the mortgage securities and long-term bonds they purchased declined in value. However, there is no risk of default on my 3% mortgage, so I am happy to repay it. Similarly, there is no way the federal government will default on the 20-year bonds paying one and a half percent interest. You need not worry about default in that sense. Though you may believe these investments are safe, they have lost value. If you had to resell them to someone else today, you might get only 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. That is exactly the problem Silicon Valley Bank faced.

There was some ordinary deposit runoff because the tech boom was fading, so some of these companies were starting to spend their money. Instead of having 3 million in their account, they might have take it down to 2 million. So they're asking for a million dollars back, and the bank to meet that has to sell some of its portfolio. With its portfolio being worth 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, it's starting to book losses.Then these depositors start to worry: What if I need my money when it's my turn? Will they still have it?

Insolvency vs. Illiquidity

Bob Zadek (11:44): Imagine you own a house worth $1 million. You owe $500,000 on the mortgage—that's your only debt. Your net worth is $500,000. You're financially secure. But if the mortgage holder demanded repayment the next morning and you can’t pay, you'd be insolvent. That's what insolvency means: owing more than you can repay.

Arnold Kling (12:58): I would call that illiquid.

If you had to sell everything immediately and pay off your mortgage, you wouldn't be insolvent. If you sold your house for $1 million, you could pay the $500,000 mortgage and have $500,000 left over. You'd be insolvent if your house was worth $400,000 and the mortgage was $500,000.

Silicon Valley Bank was illiquid and insolvent. They lacked the funds to repay the depositors demanding their money back. They were also insolvent because selling their bond portfolio would not have raised enough money to repay all deposits.

Bob Zadek (14:23): I noticed that the Moody's rating for Silicon Valley Bank dropped from an A to a C rating overnight. The rating agencies, which were one of the main culprits of the 2008 financial crisis, seem to have again fallen asleep at the switch with Silicon Valley Bank, as with First Republic. The rating agencies are supposed to sound the alarm, but they're paid by the companies they rate, not the people who rely on them.

Arnold Kling (15:50): In addition to the rating agencies, there were actually all these people, either in the private sector or government regulators—the California Home Loan Bank Board, the FDIC, the auditor—who signed off on everything. None of these people did anything until the crisis was over, even though there were short sellers who could see this happening.

I believe bank examiners noticed issues about a year ago—saying that their growth was problematic. Banks aren't supposed to triple in size organically. SVB had $60 billion in deposits in early 2020 but around $180 billion by late 2022.

If you're running a bank, you cannot keep your management controls operating with growth at that rate. You're going to have junior managers managing four or five times more than they’ve ever managed. You're going to be throwing new hires in there the way Putin's throwing untrained soldiers at Ukraine.

Bank examiners saw the problems, and that was even before considering the interest rate risk. They also saw the interest rate risk, but did nothing. We think that if there are enough regulations, these issues won't happen. But they certainly don't prevent everything. Regulations alone are not enough.

Bob Zadek (17:59): As a lawyer and lender in commercial credit, I have often heard those seeking loans present themselves with unusual growth, boasting, “We have grown so fast.” My response is that there is natural growth one would expect in companies or living things. But there can also be extraordinary growth—we call that “cancer.” It is unhealthy, whether financially or physically.

Arnold Kling (19:51): I'm actually surprised the FDIC didn't have a veteran regulator involved. There had to be people at the FDIC who could see there was a problem. It would be interesting to file a Freedom of Information Act request for all the memos written about Silicon Valley Bank, because I bet there was some old curmudgeon writing things like "Why don't we shut this bank down? Why don't we make them hedge their interest rate risk? Why don't we do this? Why don't we do that?"

Someone higher up probably said, "No, we don't need to do any of that."

Why not let SVB fail?

Bob Zadek (20:45): The federal regulators took action that they vehemently deny was a bailout. Putting aside labels, they stepped in over a weekend and prevented an obvious outcome: letting the bank fail. There's nothing wrong with a bank failing. Depositors put money in a bank, presumably making an informed decision. They don't qualify as victims. Small depositors are protected by insurance. Just let the bank fail. Let companies unwise enough to leave money with the bank lose it, since they made a bad loan.

But the regulators didn't do that. Instead of the obvious choice to let the bank fail, they intervened to avoid it.

Tell us why regulators did not let the free market run its course?

Arnold Kling (22:40): Something pretty striking happened this weekend: The U.S. banking system was nationalized. The government now controls our banking system like in China. Why did this happen? It wasn't just about bailing out SVB. It was about bailing out every other bank because around 25% of banks—maybe more, maybe less—are in bad shape. They hold too many long-term bonds and may be insolvent. Even solvent banks have uninsured deposits and large accounts. If SVB had failed, the consequences would have hurt not just SVB's creditors.

“Something pretty striking happened this weekend: The U.S. banking system was nationalized. The government now controls our banking system like in China.”

So I believe if they had done nothing Monday morning, we would have descended into chaos. The financial system could have completely collapsed. I don't think they had a choice.

Had nature run its course, there's a strong likelihood of widespread financial collapse. You might have had to sell apples from a cart on the street just to earn a living.

Though they had to take action, they didn't just say, "We'll ensure uninsured depositors get their money back."

They said, "From now on, every uninsured depositor will be made whole at every bank. We'll provide lending so any bank can borrow to meet cash needs. If there's a run on your bank, we'll make sure they can pay your deposit."

Effectively, they said they'd protect everything. What follows from that as night follows day is tighter regulation. They're going to exert more control over what the banks do, in some ways legitimately, because they have become the ultimate backstop for every bank.

So the government can legitimately say, "Since we're backing your risky bets with taxpayer money, we should control how much risk you take and who you lend to." That's why I say the banking system is essentially nationalized. As surely as night follows day, regulators will realize they need to closely monitor banks once they grasp how much risk the FDIC and Fed have assumed by backing all these banks. We'll have a highly-regulated banking system where government regulators dictate who banks can and can't lend to. That gets back to something that resembles China.

We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

Bob Zadek (26:37): We already have a highly regulated banking system, and you ain't seeing nothing yet.

Due to my professional life, I have frequent contact with bankers in many roles. Many of the decisions bankers make seem to be explained apologetically as "Well, we're just doing what the regulators require.”

Arnold Kling (27:44): SVB is an example of that. Why do they buy long-term bonds and mortgage-backed securities? Because the government says that's how you minimize your capital requirements. That's how you can grow without continually going out to the capital market and asking shareholders to put up more money.

We're already regulating that way. It's going to be less and less room within the regulations for banks to do private sector type lending and more and more of a focus on lending to the government. It's like you say, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Bob Zadek (28:30): One can easily list examples of the forced partnership between government and banks. We are all at least vaguely familiar with regulations from the late 1970s that began in Chicago called the Community Reinvestment Act. The government had a social problem: lack of housing. It was part of our national ethos that it's more American to live in a private house than to rent. So the government pushed banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't necessarily afford them to live in private houses. Banks were coerced to make bad loans to people who didn't deserve them. I'm not criticizing any group, but banks were told, "You need favors from us, the regulators. If you want favors, you have to scratch our backs.

I did a show about how regulators often guide banks to stop providing accounts to lawful businesses like gun shops through unofficial guidance. Though not explicitly required, banks follow this guidance to avoid trouble. So much for separation of church and state or private business and government.

Arnold Kling (31:06): The government prefers to channel credit toward its own spending and away from certain private sector businesses like gun shops. Until 2008, housing generally received substantial government subsidies and support.

However, since the 2008 financial crisis, much of that support has been scaled back. Credit standards for borrowers have tightened significantly. This has gone from requirements that were too loose to ones that are now too tight. Consequently, over the past 15 years, housing starts have not kept up with population growth in any single year. Rents and home prices have risen due to the government no longer favoring the housing market in its financial policies.

So the question is: who will the government target next as it directs more and more credit to its preferred uses? Will it still support venture capital and private sector investments in energy? Or will the government increasingly control where banks lend money, like in China where banks are technically private but the government dictates exactly where they should put their funds.

Who will foot the bill?

Bob Zadek (32:46): One cynical aspect of the government's plan to insure bank deposits up to $250,000 is that, according to Janet Yellen and President Biden, it will cost consumers nothing. As Federal Reserve Chair Yellen explained, banks will pay for deposit insurance through fees based on their size. So if claims need to be paid, "don't worry, the banks will pay." This explanation seems utterly cynical, if not dishonest. Obviously, insurance has costs, including the likelihood of claims. Deposit insurance won't just materialize out of thin air. Either consumers will pay higher fees or get lower interest rates, or taxpayers will end up footing the bill if the insurance fund runs out of money. Yellen's assurance that "consumers aren't going to pay" is hard to believe. The idea that "it will not cost us" anything is dubious at best. As always, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Arnold Kling (34:16): That's just a classic demagogic lie to say that no people will pay for a tax. Politicians levy taxes at a business level and say, "Don't worry, it's a business tax, you won't pay it," not realizing that all taxes ultimately are paid by people. You can call it a corporate tax, or a payroll tax.

Bob Zadek (35:16): At least 10 years ago, I did a show where we spent an entire hour discussing who pays corporate income taxes. It was clear from data that the lowest 25th percentile of income earners bear the brunt of all corporate taxes. Since they spend all of their money on consumer goods, the cost of taxation gets passed into the product prices.

Arnold Kling (36:06): And they're also their workers, and the corporate income tax reduces investment, which raises the productivity of workers along with wages. That's a classic difference in economics between where you place the tax and who bears the burden of the tax.

For example, the payroll tax is split evenly between employers and employees legally. But economically, the employee pays all of it. Because if I'm an employer and I know that hiring you means I'll have to pay X percent of your salary to the government, then that's less money I can afford to pay you.

The Moral Hazard

Bob Zadek (37:21): A concept of ‘Moral Hazard’ was in the news every night during the 2008 financial crisis and the era of the movie The Big Short, my favorite film about economics and finance. It refers to the bailout of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and perhaps First Republic Bank and other banks that may follow.

Arnold Kling (38:18): The concept originates in the insurance industry. For example, let's say you're going to build a house in either western Florida near the Gulf coast or a mile or two inland. If you have flood insurance, you might as well build it on the coast. It's much nicer there. Flood insurance creates an incentive for you to overlook or downplay the risk of your house flooding.

We still need insurance, but when we have insurance, we need to be aware of this reduced the disincentive to take risks.

In banking, deposit insurance is insurance. I have the choice as the owner of a bank between being prudent and careful—not paying too much to depositors to lure money away or investing in the riskiest loans— or gambling—making risky loans and luring other depositors away from other banks with higher interest rates.

The risky bank is subsidized by deposit insurance. It's a “heads I win, tails the FDIC loses” situation.

Therefore it becomes incumbent on the insurance company—in this case the FDIC—to regulate banks. Let's say a company's going to to give you fire insurance. It's going to make sure that you follow building codes, that you have a sprinkler system, etc.

With car insurance you pay different rates depending on what kind of safety features you put in place.

The insurer always wants to regulate the person they're ensuring. The moral hazard in this case gets exacerbated because there are a lot of banks that are not in his extreme position as svb, but they're in a milder version of it where their portfolios are a little underwater and they have a lot of these what were formally uninsured depositors.

Now that they have insurance backing, theoretically there's nothing stopping them from attracting billions of dollars in deposits and essentially gambling with them. If they win big, shareholders and executives reap huge rewards in the form of profits and bonuses. But if they lose, it may not really hurt them because if they're already struggling, they can't pay out big dividends or bonuses anyway. So they don't have much to lose. The moral hazard in the whole system has increased dramatically. Mostly, it will be exploited by the owners and managers of unstable banks - what we used to call "zombie banks" in the 1980s. These were banks that didn't really generate their own profits.

Bob Zadek (43:12): As I recall, Texas was the epicenter of the savings and loan crisis. This was because Jim Wright, a Congressman from Texas and Speaker of the House, had significant influence over banking regulations. He ensured favorable treatment of Texas S&Ls.

I believe corporate treasurers who deposited large, uninsured sums with Silicon Valley Bank assumed that the government would bail them out if needed. They assumed Silicon Valley Bank was "too big to fail," even though it wasn't actually that large. Banks were thus able to attract more deposits than their balance sheets warranted. In my view, the "moral hazard" of expecting government bailouts led treasurers to make riskier decisions and gave banks an unfair advantage in attracting deposits.

Arnold Kling (45:03): Well, yes, you could have a banking system where you penalize them as a lesson. You could say, "Okay, we'll allow corporate treasurers to wait while we liquidate SVB. We'll see how much they get—80 cents on the dollar, 60 cents on the dollar."

I think the problem with that is, at least with how banking works today, it's really difficult to expect even a professional corporate treasurer to walk into a bank and examine everything to figure out how risky it is. I couldn't do it—I certainly don't have the knowledge or expertise. Just look at things like really complicated banks with derivatives or even a bank like SVB. You'd have to understand that they're not properly hedging their portfolios, unlike other banks with just as many long-term bonds but that also do things like interest rate swaps.

As a corporate treasurer, I don't want to have to analyze the derivatives positions of every bank I do business with and determine how those positions might change under different scenarios. I don't believe the banking system can be organized in that way. Instead, I think we need to organize the system so that private sector actors have "skin in the game." I don't want the FDIC to be solely responsible while everyone else is risk-free. However, this would require significant changes to the banking system.

The proposal I like best is to issue contingent capital in the form of long-term bonds held by banks. If a bank's net worth falls below a certain level, ownership of the bank would transfer from shareholders to bondholders. Bondholders would then be responsible for evaluating and monitoring the bank's risks. I think this is the only viable way to transfer that responsibility to the private sector. It would be very difficult to transfer it to depositors.

Bob Zadek (47:46): My proposal is for private deposit insurance, similar to how commercial credit insurance works. A private insurance company would ensure bank deposits and have the means and motivation to thoroughly assess risks, unlike a bank treasurer. Deposit insurance premiums would be tiny but rated based on the bank chosen. Banks would then compete based on credit quality to attract deposits. Unfortunately, I need your support to promote my plan so we can partner to privatize deposit insurance now.

Arnold Kling (49:25): Private insurance has worked in the past. Banks even formed mutual insurance companies. In fact, that's essentially what First Republic is doing now. Although I don't know how the banks providing liquidity to First Republic are being compensated.

Just because it's worked before doesn't mean it will happen here. Politically, that won't happen. As I’ve already said, our banking system is becoming increasingly nationalized.

Follow Arnold on Substack

Bob Zadek (50:53): What are the types of topics you like to cover on Substack?

Arnold Kling (51:04): Some of my work focuses on abstract libertarian ideas and the challenges of putting libertarian principles into practice. That's what I try to do most of the time. I generally avoid commenting on whatever issues happen to be popular on Twitter or in the mainstream media at the moment. However, the situation with SVB was in my area of expertise. I have a long background in finance, financial regulation, interest rates, risk, and so on. Even though I usually steer clear of trending topics, I felt compelled to weigh in on this.

Bob Zadek (51:42): You have provided a wealth of wisdom on a complex and important topic. Most people's eyes glaze over when I bring these issues up with them. The subjects you discuss are fascinating and have significant ramifications that affect each and every listener, each and every American, and could determine the path of our nation's political and economic future. So please continue to closely monitor these issues on behalf of all of us.

Arnold, we are deeply grateful for your contributions. And friends, thank you again for joining us.

Arnold Kling (52:35): Thanks Bob.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Today's guest, renowned civil liberties attorney and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, raises the bar and exceeds the highest standards. Professor Dershowitz has published over a thousand articles and 50 books, including several national bestsellers. His autobiography Taking the Stand was a New York Times bestseller. Other notable books include The Trials of Zion, Rights From Wrongs, The Case for Israel, and Chutzpah.

His forthcoming book Dershowitz on Killing examines the complex issue of determining rules regarding life and death decisions. Following the principles that have guided his long, distinguished career, he argues these rules should reflect the irreversibility of death.

In this episode, Dershowitz explains how he became unfairly "canceled" for adhering to his principles, and what upholding these principles has cost him.

His most recent book, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences (July 2022), takes a broad stance against the dangerous trend of cancellations—both of specific people as well as the very idea of neutral justice. It’s not only right-wingers provocateurs being cancelled on college campuses anymore. Liberal ideas, including some of the most cherished principles of American government, are now being cast aside.

Take the presumption of innocence. It’s the bedrock of our adversarial legal system. We all pay lip service to the idea that everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense. Yet the principle seems to go out the window whenever the person being defended is unpopular, as when Dershowitz pointed out the shaky legal grounds for impeaching former President Trump.

In recent years, Dershowitz himself has suffered the ‘price of principle’ as the latest victim of cancel culture. Former friends like Larry David refuse to talk to him; he’s been shunned from events at which he used to be top-billed speaker. And his principled defenses of unpopular figures like Trump have been used against him in the court of public opinion.

Unlike most celebrities whom the “cancelists” go after, Alan was exonerated. Still, Dershowitz has found few defenders. He has had to defend himself.

Furthermore, he writes that principles have taken a backseat to partisan identity politics. Partisan Democrats forget that his defense of Trump was based on the same principles he had used to defend Clinton against partisan attacks. He argues that too many people abandon their principles in favor of whatever stance benefits their political party or social group, and believes we are heading towards a "dystopia of partisanship and discrimination" if this trend continues.

Purchase the book, and subscribe to Alan’s Substack:

Links

* The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences

* Dershowitz on Killing

* Bel and the Dragon - Wikipedia

* In Defence of Cross-Examination - Chapter 6 - Search for Truth in Arbitration: Is Finding the Truth what Dispute Resolution is About? - ASA Special Series No. 35 | ArbitrationLaw.com

* 12 Angry Men (1957 film) - Wikipedia

* Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia

Transcript

The Case for Neutral Principles

Bob Zadek: Alan, your recently published book The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences differs from your 50 other methodically persuasive books on topics like censorship, equality, vaccine mandates, and law. This book is more personal. What goal did you have in writing it?

Alan Dershowitz (02:54): I wish to criticize cancel culture. I desire to push back against those who would censor views they disagree with. I wanted to express my disapproval for free speech for me but not for thee—due process for me but not for thee. If I can be canceled because I stood up for principle, then anyone could be canceled. If I can be attacked, then any American can be attacked.

I feel a special obligation because I do have a platform to fight back against what I regard as some of the greatest evils of today: the substitution of partisanship for principle. People just pick sides and try to do justice not based on any evidence or principles, but based on which side you're on.

In the Bible and the Torah, God tells judges there are only two rules. One, don't take bribes. That's obvious, but that's the second rule. The first rule is low tech: Do not recognize faces or do justice based on who the individuals are. That is why the statue of Justice is blindfolded. But today everybody is peeking under that blindfold and administering justice based on race, political party, gender, ethnicity, religion—everything but the merits.

This is a call to return to principles. It is difficult, because I have obviously been censored, criticized, threatened with disbarment proceedings, and subjected to every possible type of attack for insisting on prioritizing principles over partisanship. But I will continue doing so and fighting back.

Bob Zadek: Most partisans believe they are advancing a principle through their actions. So are we really talking about the methods used to promote a principle? Because one influences the other, doesn't it?

Alan Dershowitz: Yes, but remember everybody claims to have principles. The Nazis claimed the principle of trying to destroy the Jewish people. Stalin claimed the principle of communism over capitalism. Just because you claim to have a principle doesn't mean that you're a principled person, that you are actually basing your ideas and your actions on neutral principles. I call for neutral principles. I was friends with the philosopher named John Rawls from when we were at Harvard together who always said, you decide moral issues behind a veil of ignorance. You don't know whether you're going to be a Democrat or Republican, white or black, Jewish or Christian. You have to come up with moral rules, rules of principle that would satisfy you and everybody else without regard to who you were and who you become. It's that kind of principle that I'm talking about.

As the lawyer Felix Frankfurter once said, the history of liberty is largely a history of procedures. What concerns me today is that the procedures are no longer neutral. You get different due process depending on ethnic backgrounds or on religious backgrounds. A democracy is a neutral principle. Due process is a neutral principle. I'm looking for a return to neutral principles, which means sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.

Tactics vs. Principles

Bob Zadek: Let’s discuss the principle which itself drives the censorship.

There are two topics: First, the principle. Second, The tactic.

Censorship is a tactic, not a principle. It is a tactic used by those who disagree with your point of view to ensure your point of view is never expressed, and pushes it into the shadows.

Now you spent a lot of time appropriately in your book on cancel culture. Let's assume, playing devil's advocate, we don't disagree with the principle. You'd still write a book criticizing cancel culture, focusing on the tactic. So help us understand why the tactic itself deserves so much attention.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, for me the tactic follows the principle. The principle is that the ends do not justify the means. The principle is neutrality. The principle is fairness. The principle is due process; the principle is the adversarial system.

There are two kinds of principles, you're right. There are principles like Nazism, communism, fascism, and antisemitism. Those are all claimed to be based on principles. But all of those principles have one thing in common: they won't tolerate counter-principles. They won't accept the opportunity to challenge, debate, and allow other points of view to be expressed.

In the last chapter of my book about principles, I point out that just because it's a principle doesn't mean that it's right. There are wrong principles too. So for me, the focus has to be on process. You call it tactics. I call it process. In order for principled people to be able to dominate the discussion, there has to be a process. And in a democracy, the people decide subject to checks and balances and judicial review. Those are the principles I'm most interested in: the principles that deal with procedure and process and fairness and the marketplace of ideas and the hope of the marketplace of ideas.

Jefferson said that as long as there are opportunities to respond, there is nothing to worry about by allowing wrongheaded ideas.

What's important is that the free exchange of ideas remains open to all viewpoints. Hopefully, this will lead to reasonable conclusions.

However, it doesn’t always work out. In 1930s Germany, the marketplace of ideas was initially open between 1930 and 1932, resulting in a plurality of votes for the Nazis. The marketplace of ideas was never open in the Soviet Union or China, so we can't judge those cases. We have a few examples of the free exchange of ideas leading to bad outcomes, like early 20th-century Spain and Italy. There was some degree of a marketplace of ideas and they chose fascists. So you never know who the marketplace will help or hurt, but for me, the marketplace is a principle in and of itself.

Dershowitz’s Cancellation Story

Bob Zadek: You share your personal experience of being "canceled" intimately with readers from the start of your book. Tell us about going through cancellation so people understand what fueled your passion for writing this book.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, let me start with today. The New York Times has a lead story, and the lead story is entitled “American Jewish Leaders Active in the Debate over Israel Judicial Reform.” Well, that seems to describe me. I'm an American Jewish leader. I've been a leader of the American Jewish community for 50 years.

I am the most knowledgeable American on the Israeli judiciary. I have written more articles on that subject than anyone else, but The New York Times chose not to interview me. They chose a whole bunch of people that some people have heard of, some have not. But the Times made a willful and deliberate decision to eliminate me, to cancel me from a debate in which I am deeply involved.

Having a discussion about American attitudes toward Israeli judicial reform without including me is like staging the play Hamlet without the prince. It may sound egotistical, but it's just an accurate truthful description. I am the most qualified person in America to discuss that issue, and yet The New York Times deliberately and willfully omitted me. The same thing has happened on a number of other occasions.

Temple Emanu-El in New York used to have me every single year putting a biblical character on trial—Abraham, Moses, David. They would gather 1,600 people. It was the biggest event of the year. The rabbi used to say, "We have more people here than on Yom Kippur."

And then when I was falsely accused by a woman I had never met, the 92nd Street Y canceled me, as did Temple Emanu-El, as did the Ramaz School.

Now the woman eventually admitted after eight years that she may have mistakenly identified me for somebody else. But the cancellation still continues.

When I defended President Trump on the floor of the Senate, even though I've disagreed with him and voted against him, and plan to vote against him again, my wife and I, and my whole family were canceled on Martha's Vineyard. Nobody would speak to us.

People were told, “if you're seen speaking to Alan Dershowitz, you'll never be part of our social group.” We weren't invited to any events.

And so there was a massive attempt to cancel me. And as I've said, I have the resources, I have the ability, I have the energy to fight back—and therefore I have an obligation to stand up for all the other people who have been canceled for no good reason or for very bad reasons, but don't have the resources, the ability to fight back.

Thank you for reading Essential Liberty. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Cancel Culture show you who your real friends are

Bob Zadek: Did accepting that role make you question your relationship with the “cancelists?” Did you discover something about them you didn't know before? Or is this just a sign of what's happening in some circles?

Alan Dershowitz: A bit of both. Their behavior showed they weren't real friends. People behaved so obnoxiously. My wife was at the gym when a woman said, "Oh my God, this is Alan Dershowitz's wife. I can't be in the same room with her."

Caroline Kennedy, who'd invited us over many times, sat down next to me at a dinner party and said, "Had I known you were coming, I'd never have accepted the invitation to sit with you." She's the ambassador to Australia, and is supposed to talk to Chinese leaders, but can't speak to someone who defended Trump on constitutional grounds.

Many of the residents of Martha's Vineyard whose children I represented pro bono—staying up late at night to help them when they got arrested for drunk driving or, in one case, cheating on a test—then refused to speak with me.

Larry David and I used to work out at the same gym. He'd come over for dinner sometimes too. But one day he walked up to me in front of a store on Martha's Vineyard and said, "You're disgusting, and all your people are disgusting. All these Republicans are disgusting." So it's partly a function of what's going on in society today—people choose sides, and if you're not on their side, they don't want to have anything to do with you. But it also showed the superficiality of friendships.

A couple people contacted me, but I refuse to reach out to them in return. I have no interest in being friendly with or associating with anyone on Martha's Vineyard who was involved in canceling me.

In some ways, I'm glad these fake friendships are over and I don't have to deal with some of these bigoted, biased people anymore. It was hard for my wife and kids too. They lost friends because of my views and the false accusation against me. Now that the woman basically withdrew the accusation, saying she may have mistaken me for someone else, legally withdrawing all charges, some people have apologized. But others still have it out for me.

When canceled by the 92nd Street Y, Temple Emanu-El, and Ramaz School, the heads and rabbis said they didn't believe the charges but wanted to avoid trouble, reminiscent of McCarthyism.

Growing up in the 1950s, the anti-communist fervor known as McCarthyism was rampant. People would say, "We don't actually believe you're a communist, but others have said you are. So to avoid trouble, we're going to as if you're a communist." And people were canceled.

It's interesting that Chilmark, the center of today's "cancel culture" on Martha's Vineyard, was itself a target of McCarthyism.

Many left-wing people lived in Chilmark and were subject to McCarthyite tactics.

You'd think Chilmark residents would understand modern McCarthyism better, but they're the worst offenders. For them, it's "fairness and due process for me, but not for thee." If you're hard-left, they want fair treatment, but if you are somebody who tries to be neutral and principled, they have no interest in you. And so it did teach me a lesson.

The hypocrisy of cancel culture

Bob Zadek: It is an oversimplification to dismiss "cancel culture" as merely rude or insincere behavior. That does not capture it accurately. What do those who condemn others - so-called "cancellers", have in common? Certainly not all of society cancels people. Most do not, in fact. Give us insight into what makes them different in a negative way from those in society who are more open to opposing views.

Alan Dershowitz: Yeah, it's the one word of course, intolerance. They just can't tolerate opposing points of view.

Some of the people on Martha's Vineyard who canceled us lack the intelligence to understand neutral principles. They wrongly assume that if you defend someone, you must support them politically. They're too dumb to understand otherwise. A third group believes Trump is "worse than Hitler." Supporting Trump's legal case makes you like Goebbels—a helper and enabler, so they'll treat you like a Nazi war criminal. It's an absurd extremism that happens on the extreme and far left.

Look, I oppose woke culture and extreme leftist ideology. People should know I'm a centrist liberal. I align more with centrist libertarians than with woke leftists or far-right neo-Nazis.

For me, tolerance is key. I used to debate William F. Buckley frequently. Though we held opposing views, we could argue passionately then share a drink and learn from each other. Those days are gone forever.

Larry David doesn't want to learn from me. He wrote blurbs for some of my books, calling me brilliant and saying my arguments were terrific. Now, he doesn't even want to listen to anything I say because I defended Trump. And that's true of people like Caroline Kennedy as well, the whole Kennedy family. She has tolerated so much on behalf of people within her family, within her social circle, but draws the line at anybody who would defend the legal and constitutional rights of Donald Trump.

Larry David no longer wants to learn from me. Though he once praised my brilliance and called my arguments terrific in book blurbs, now he won’t even listen because I defended Trump, and that's all that matters for him. For him, the ends justify the means.

So there is immense hypocrisy here too. People aren't even embarrassed to be hypocrites. If you're a hypocrite for the "right" side, that's apparently fine.

Bob Zadek: I have found brief chances to argue against cancel culture by comparing it to our judicial system, particularly the criminal law aspect.

A system without a defense would lack fairness. Though some may assume guilt proves arrest, our principles say the opposite. Imagine a judicial system where the defense was not allowed to speak. Would society be pleased with the result?

Alan Dershowitz: You don't have to imagine it. It happened in the January 6th commission where every member of Congress on that commission was partisan, and nobody was permitted to make a counterargument on behalf of Trump.

For example, when they purported to show Trump's speech on January 6th, they deliberately and willfully edited the tape and omitted the words of President Trump, where he said, "I want you to go and demonstrate peacefully and patriotically."

If there were an adversarial system with fair representation of both sides, they would never have eliminated those words. Under cross-examination, they'd be terribly embarrassed when asked, "Didn't you eliminate those words? Why did you eliminate those words? Doesn't it show your bias?”

I went to China in 1979 at the request of Ted Kennedy to observe emerging democratic groups, like the Democracy Wall movement. I attended my first trial there and sat through the whole thing. It was a minor trial of someone who had stolen building equipment from a government institute, punishable by maybe 10 years in prison.

The prosecution presented a compelling case. Then the judge said, "Before I decide, let's hear from the people." They opened the doors and 25-30 people rushed in, shouting "He's guilty! Maximum punishment!"

The judge said, "I've heard all sides.” It was Alice in Wonderland: , conviction, sentence, and execution, then trial. The only difference from the January 6th congressional hearings was that there was no trial at all, either in that Chinese courthouse or in Congress.

So today in the U.S., we see this happening. We see it in some of the attacks on Trump. Lawyers present only one side, yet judges rule against them. I don't say Trump's arguments are right. I just want to hear all sides of all arguments before rulings, and that just isn't being done today in the court of public opinion or in the rooms of Congress or tragically even sometimes in the courts of law.

Bob Zadek: One example proves the point about bias in the process: The January 6th commission. It was purely political, with no pretense of finding the truth. All knew it was political theater, with no sincere attempt to determine facts.

For instance, the Warren Commission on JFK's assassination or the 9/11 Commission at least sincerely tried to find facts.

Persuading the Public about Principle

Bob Zadek: Now, in your books and in others who write persuasively, they aim to change a law, alter an election. Though it's a tough road, their goal is reasonable: some benefit, some change.

If you write persuasively, I ask myself, what could you hope to change in your book? Once your book was done, did you not hold that hope? If so, what did you aim to do? Or was it as personal? Explain what happened to you.

Alan Dershowitz: By the way, I have now completed my 53rd book, The Preventive State. Though I had only written 30 books a few years ago, I hope to reach 60 books total. That's my goal, and I’m 84 years old now. With each new book, my experience grows. I aim to continue writing as long as I'm able, using the strength and ability I have.

To answer your question, a little of both. If they were conservatives, I'd want to make them more critical and analytic in their thinking. If they were liberals or libertarians, I'd want them to improve at what they advocate for.

I didn't really aim to change people's views, but in my books, I do want to change minds. I want to open them. I want them to oppose cancel culture. I want them to try seeing through the lack of principle.

You say everyone knew the January 6 committee was overtly political. Some of my friends and colleagues didn't. They listened and said, "Oh wow, did you hear that evidence? Aren't you convinced?"

I said, "No, I'm never convinced until I hear both sides of an issue."

Many fell for the idea that since there were videos and testimony, it must be true, failing to realize the evidence was selectively edited.

I believe it was [John Henry] Wigmore who once said cross-examination is the greatest tool for finding the truth ever created by humans. And of course, it originates in the Bible, in the Book of Daniel. There, Daniel confronts two witnesses trying to frame a woman. He questions them separately, not allowing them to hear each other's answers. He gets them to contradict each other and admit their lies.

I think many people don't understand that when they hear only one side of the case, they're satisfied. And many people make up their minds even before they hear the evidence. As you say, if you're not guilty, why would anybody have arrested you? The prisons are filled with people unfortunately, who were ultimately proved innocent by DNA evidence and by other evidence. And also the streets have with guilty people who were never convicted. Our system is far from perfect.

I think many people accept what they hear without question, satisfied with only one side of the story. Some even make up their minds before considering the evidence.

As you say, if you're not guilty, why would anybody have arrested you? Well, the prisons are filled unfortunately with people who were ultimately proved innocent by DNA evidence and other evidence. Also, the streets have guilty people who were never convicted. Our system is far from perfect.

Bob Zadek: I should have invited those friends of yours whom you referred to come to your house to watch 12 Angry Men. It's a very short film, as you know, considered to be the greatest courtroom drama ever made.

Alan Dershowitz: It's not a courtroom drama, though.

Bob Zadek: True, it takes place entirely in one room, the jury room, and it's must-watching for every law student.

To this day, whenever I watch it, tears fill my eyes. I can't stop. I have to watch that movie more than once a year. There have been attempts to remake it, never successfully. It won't happen. Henry Fonda made it for $700,000, starring alongside many famous actors before they were famous in their twenties, and it was magnificent. Sorry, I digressed. I don't mean to take up our time with a movie review.

Alan Dershowitz: I'm glad you did.

Merit vs. Identity

Bob Zadek: Your book describes your personal experience with cancel culture. Who is your primary audience? Did you write it for those who practice cancel culture, for the rest of society, or both?

Alan Dershowitz: The target was people who could make the “cancelists”—people who engage in cancel culture—feel guilty, and hold others accountable. The goal is to make it very difficult for people to justify cancel culture. Remember when I wrote the book, there were those on television, in the media, and writing for newspapers defending cancel culture, saying it was a good thing.

I wanted to make it clear that if you're going to continue to engage in cancel culture, you do so in the face of significant criticism. For the most part I would understand that people who have been canceled would probably read the book more sympathetically. But I tried to write it in a way to make it acceptable to people who were cancellers as well.

Bob Zadek: Most of my audience are people who go about their lives without spending time, energy, or power on canceling. To those outside of the Martha's Vineyard part-time resident, what message do you hope this book conveys to them about how they can reduce the influence, or perhaps eliminate, this hopefully transient phenomenon of cancel culture?

Alan Dershowitz: I don't believe it's transient. I think it's getting worse. It's being taught in universities today. I think many young people and their teachers support canceling others. My goal was to convince young people that canceling people shuts down your mind. It prevents you from learning and growing. It makes you close-minded. If you want to develop and learn, you can't cancel people. You must engage with them, listen to them, argue with them. Only by confronting different views can you avoid becoming static and rigid in your thinking.

Having taught for 50 years at Harvard as a teacher, you have to be open to new ideas.

I would come home from class every day, and instead of asking me, "What did you teach the students today?" my wife would always ask, "What did you learn from the students today?" I would always be so happy to share an insight that I didn't have, explained to me by a student so different from me. While I may still disagree, at least I understood them better.

Bob Zadek: I've had a similar experience. My version of that is when I have guests on the show or when I'm just having a conversation in Starbucks, find somebody next to me, I love to be proven wrong because it's only then that I learned something. To reaffirm what I already know, even if it's incorrect, does not help me in the slightest. So the sign of becoming more intelligent is how often you're proven wrong, because each time it's like you graduate to the next level.

Alan Dershowitz: The close-minded - the cancellers, the Martha's Vineyard elite - never learned anything because they shut themselves off from opposing views. If you differ, they don't want to listen. This was like McCarthyism. That's what fascism was like. These folks call themselves liberal, but they're the most reactionary people on the face of the earth. They're so bound by their supposed leftist principles that they're unwilling to do anything politically incorrect.

People often forget that the phrase "political correctness" originated with Stalin. He would execute those who expressed views that contradicted the communist party line. That was the original meaning of "politically incorrect." Today, some invoke that phrase as if it signifies something positive.

Bob Zadek: In your book, you devoted at least one entire chapter and parts of other chapters to discussing identity politics, a subtopic of cancel culture. Please explain what people generally mean by "identity politics" and why it is significant.

Alan Dershowitz: As I see it, identity politics is a cancer in our country. Let's distinguish between identity groups and identity politics. I strongly identify with my heritage, being a Jewish kid from Brooklyn, the son of first-generation Americans and the grandson of immigrants from Poland. I have a strong connection to that identity, but I don't want to be judged solely based on it. That's personal. I want to be evaluated based on my own merits. I was at Martin Luther King Jr.'s iconic speech in August 1963, though I struggled to hear his words from so far away, where he proclaimed, "I dream of a day when my children will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.”

It's not so much the positives of identity politics as the negatives of doing away with meritocracy. Today, some universities admit medical students based on identity rather than grades, and are eliminating grades altogether.

Look, if you want to eliminate meritocracy for law students or talk show hosts, fine. But never dare eliminate it for airline pilots, surgeons, or anyone else who holds lives in their hands. Then that's in my book as well Dershowitz on Death when it comes to issues of life and death.

You must hire the most highly qualified people. If you show no discrimination, you'll achieve real diversity.

Let me tell you a story. I needed an exceptionally skilled doctor for a particular procedure after experiencing some health issues. And so I searched all across New York City for the finest surgeon to perform the procedure. Everyone recommended the same physician. At first, I assumed it would be a stereotypical affluent white man from an elite background, perhaps a six-foot-two fellow from Groton who attended Yale Med School. But when I entered the operating room, there was this short African American surgeon with a thick Brooklyn accent—and everyone said he was the absolute best. Yes, there was diversity, but it was diversity based on skill and merit rather than identity politics. I was thrilled to have the best surgeon in the world operate on me. I like the fact that he was Black, but ultimately I just wanted the most skilled surgeon.

Bob Zadek: I knew legacy admissions and favoritism existed, but confronting it made me question my own biases. I claimed to value meritocracy but didn't object to unfair preferences for children of alumni. Why did I get angrier at efforts promoting diversity and inclusion? I realized I needed to reflect on my prejudices and hypocritical standards.

Alan Dershowitz: Yes, I agree. I have opposed legacy admissions, geographic distribution in admissions, and admissions based on family connections since the 1960s. In fact, I proposed something quite radical then: removing the applicant's name from Harvard's admission form. Their name—whether Crawford, Smith, Dershowitz, Bernstein, etc.—would not matter. Nor would the form contain the name of their college or high school. Instead, it would list the quality of the college, divided into five groups: the top colleges (number one); the second-best colleges (number two); and so on. So if you attended Harvard or Yale, you'd get a number one rating. But you'd get the same rating if you went to Wash U or another school like Brooklyn College, which is just as good as Harvard.

So Admission would be determined by merit alone.. The application would contain only information relevant to the role: work experience and qualifications. It would not include race, religion, gender, or other personal details.

You can say where you came from in terms of whether you grew up poor and had to struggle to achieve what you wanted, as long as it does not include invidious things like racial slurs. Remember, when I was growing up, if you wanted to get into Harvard or Yale, not only did you have to submit a picture, you had to provide your mother's maiden name so that if you changed your name from Goldberg to Gold, they would know that your mother's name was Schwarz. They would do everything possible to determine whether you were Jewish, to determine whether you fit their criteria or not.

I vigorously fought in the sixties to abolish that. I have consistently opposed non-merit-based admissions my whole life. If you want random admissions, that's fine. It means elite schools end—anyone can apply anywhere and picks go by lottery. But that would end elite colleges and universities.

Maybe in a socialist society you’d want that. By the way, in a socialist society in communist Russia, they had quota systems. That is, the class consisted of ethnic divides. So if they were 3% Jewish in the population, they would get 3% Jews in the class. There were 5% Crimean, you get 5% Crimean. The class had to represent the ethnicities and sub-ethnicities of everybody in the Soviet Union.

That's one approach, but it's not ideal. Soviet universities that admitted students this way were not particularly strong schools. Schools that admit based on merit tend to be much better, which is why MIT is such an excellent school. At least until recently, MIT focused more on scientific ability than identity politics.

Dershowitz on Killing

Bob Zadek: We’re discussing Alan Dershowitz's book, The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences—a must-read.

Alan invites you into his mind, into his point of view, and shares personal experiences with you in a way that you're not often going to find in contemporary nonfiction.

Alan, as promised, I wanted to spend time discussing your new book, Dershowitz on Death: How the Law Decides Who Lives and Dies, published next month. This topic is complex and troubling. Though capital punishment comes to mind immediately, the issue is much broader. The fact that a government can take a life in my name is difficult for me to accept. Given our limited time, please give us an introduction to your book on how the law determines who lives and who dies.

Alan Dershowitz: Well, first I came up with the idea during Yom Kippur services at the synagogue. The central Yom Kippur prayer says that on this day, it's essentially determined who will live and who will die. And then there's Leonard Cohen's song, which deals with the same prayer. I had those things in mind when I wrote the book.

And death is different. I have opposed the death penalty for 70 of my 84 years, likely even longer since I remember the Rosenbergs being executed in the early 1950s when I was 13. My cousin, Rabbi Koslow, was the rabbi who administered the Jewish equivalent of last rites to them. So the death penalty has always been essential to my thinking about the law.

But I also deal with other issues in the book. When you die, do you have the right to take your lifesaving organs with you, or should you be obliged to donate your kidneys and heart and any other parts that can save lives?

I deal with assisted suicide. I deal with the Holocaust. And actually I have a libretto that I've been working on of an opera based on the Holocaust. I have in it a letter that I've written to be published the day after my death—a letter to the editor complaining about my obituary. So there's a little bit of gallows humor there too.

But to me, the most important thing the law ever decides are issues of life and death. And so every chapter in the book deals with an issue of life and death and how the law sometimes badly, sometimes poorly, sometimes better, deals with issues of life and death.

Bob Zadek: When writing this book, what were your primary sources of information? Since the book references Judaism and religious culture frequently, as well as topics like assisted suicide law, which is currently being debated, what materials did you rely on?

Alan Dershowitz: A book like this is so personal that you have to look to your own life experiences. So I look to my life experiences as someone who grew up as a Jew. I look to my life experience, someone who's fought against capital punishment. I am an organ donor and I want everybody else in the world to be an organ donor, not to take their organs with them so the worms can eat them. I'd rather have my organs be used to save another human life or to give somebody sight who is blind. And so a lot of the book is based on personal experiences, but my personal experiences include reading widely.

I never write without reference to Dostoevsky and Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Philip Roth. These are people whose contributions to my values have been immense over the years. So I don't separate or distinguish, particularly at my age now, between what I've read and lived. I don't go and look to the library when I write because I know what's in my library. It's now part of my life and my experiences.

Bob Zadek: The way I see it, I've had 81 years of continuous immortality that hasn't been interrupted for even a day. So I'm on a roll. I'm optimistic it will stay that way.

Alan, thank you so much for giving us your time. I know how valuable it is, and I appreciate you sharing it with us. I wouldn't dare ask how you write your books or what you'll write next. That's for you to discover! But I suspect there will be many more stories after writing about death. Thank you again for your time and insight. I know my audience will appreciate it as much as I do.

Alan Dershowitz: Thank you.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Our country has been governed since its founding by a two-party system. The Constitution did not establish political parties, which the founders feared. History proves their concerns were prescient, not paranoid. James Madison hoped opposing factions would counterbalance each other's power, through "ambition offset[ting] ambition." Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Rather, one hand simply washes the other, leaving US citizens with the resulting dirty soapy water.

In 1776, Thomas Paine offered the colonies 47 pages of Common Sense, which became the most widely read book of the times.

Today our guest, Tom Campbell, offers us the Common Sense political party.

Tom served five terms in the US Congress and two years in the California State Senate. He holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago and a JD magna cum laude from Harvard. He was a White House Fellow and a US Supreme Court law clerk.

I'm now registered as a Common Sense Party voter – I've given up the pleasure of primary voting, but I'll sacrifice that to support the right thing politically. Read or listen to my interview with Tom and see if you’d like to join me.

The Bob Zadek Show is the country's longest running libertarian broadcast – nationally streamed at 8 AM PT Sundays. Subscribe for weekly transcripts, book summaries and additional resources:

Links:

* Learn more and update your voter registration at CACommonSense.org

* George Washington-Baneful Effects of Political Parties - Thirty-Thousand.org

* Common Sense Party on Twitter

Related Shows:

* Alex Nowrasteh: How Prop. 187 Turned California Blue

* Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop. We know the two-party system is flawed… | by Bob Zadek | Medium

* Restoring Common Sense to California | by Bob Zadek | Medium

Transcript

Why California Needs a Third Party

Bob Zadek (01:58):Tom, welcome back to the show.

Tom Campbell (02:58): Bob, it's a pleasure to be with you. I look forward to a fascinating hour.

Bob Zadek (03:02): Now, Tom, you are a founder of the Common Sense Party. Now let's start with the core issue. What's the problem with a two-party system? Isn't two enough? Why do we need more?

Tom Campbell (03:35): The system we have in California is two parties that have gone to their extremes.

The Democrats have shifted further and further left under the influence of public employee unions and identity politics. The Republicans have shifted to the right under the support of former President Trump, almost reaching cult status.

That leaves those of us in the middle with folks who cannot talk with each other.

That leaves those of us in the middle without a voice in California. Since Democrats have a supermajority, they have no need to listen to anyone else. The parties retreat to their extremes, leaving the rest of us behind.

We can illustrate this in a number of different policy issues. I'll choose one issue: education.

We know the quality of education in public schools through high school graduation is poor. It's far below acceptable levels. And we know that to win the Democratic nomination for legislature, you need support from the California Teachers Union. They oppose charter schools and parents' ability to choose a better school than their local public school. Republicans now make up less than one-third of each legislative house, so they've become irrelevant.

A possible compromise is to give higher pay to teachers in low-income schools—call it merit pay. The California Teachers Union won't allow Democrats to support that; they insist on strict seniority, like most unions. But that prevents good teachers who want more challenging assignments from being paid more. Instead, many skilled teachers become administrators so they can earn higher pay, leaving classrooms where their talents are most needed.

Republicans are hesitant to increase teachers' salaries because some of that money goes to teachers' unions, which fund campaigns against Republican candidates. A compromise is to expand charter schools, giving parents the option to send their children to charter schools if that provides a better education, and to pay higher salaries to teachers in challenging areas based on performance.

How the Top-Two System makes California Ripe for Third-Party Challenges

Bob Zadek (06:30): Now, California, is a remarkably politically dysfunctional state. It has raised political dysfunction to high art.

You noted that Republicans are now irrelevant. One could argue this happened due to political mismanagement, which we won't discuss here. The Republican downfall traces back to Pete Wilson and Proposition 187 – the immigration bill – long ago.

Simply put, Republicans committed political suicide. They blew it.

So let's distinguish a political party's self-destruction, where it made decisions that ruined itself, from the overall issue of opposing political parties in general. And let's understand this distinction in the context of the whole country, even though we're starting in California - rather fertile ground, I dare say.

Let's argue for a third party based on the behavior and structure of the two existing parties. Then we'll show how the Common Sense Party, which recently joined another third party, makes that case nationwide. Unless this issue is specific to California.

Tom Campbell (08:52): It's a solution specific to California, Bob, because California is one of only four states that have the top-two primary selection process.

If you don't have a runoff process in March to determine the top two candidates who will run in November or June during non-presidential election years, then multiple candidates from various parties all run at once in November. The winner is whoever gets the most votes, even without a majority. As a result, the winner is typically a Democrat or Republican.

In California and three other states, you have the chance to advance to November with only one opponent. If there's an independent candidate who reaches the November election, there's only one other candidate. Then you have a very good chance of winning.

It happened in the Coachella Valley with Chad Mayes. Though he ran as an independent, he had previously been a Republican. He made it to the finals and then defeated his Democratic opponent. Every Democrat who does not have a candidate in the finals will be interested in supporting the independent. Every Republican who does not have a candidate in the finals will be interested in supporting the independent. That is why it can work in California. I'm hesitant to say that it will work elsewhere.

We all know examples like Ross Perot running and likely taking votes from George H.W. Bush, or Ralph Nader running and probably taking votes from Al Gore. That is not possible if you only have two candidates in the finals in November.

Fixing a Broken System

Bob Zadek (10:51): Now the Common Sense Party could simply have as its mission breaking the two-party monopoly and preventing any party from monopolizing power. Or the Common Sense Party could focus on a specific platform that appeals to voters who feel unrepresented by existing parties.

It’s undisputed that the Democratic Party controls education policy in California and is captive to teachers unions, not voters or their children. The unions fund the Democrats, so they shape policy to benefit the unions, not voters. So on education, the Common Sense Party would support the right policies, unlike other parties.

Is the goal to represent disaffected voters or improve politics overall?

Tom Campbell (12:54): It starts by improving the entire political process, then candidates will likely emerge who, hopefully, will get elected. The individual candidates in that case I mentioned of education are probably supporters of those moderate, sensible approaches.

However, the institutions have to change first and here's why. It's an important but obscure point: California's campaign finance laws favor established political parties. If you're running for state legislature and have wealthy donors, you can get $4,900 from each of them. No more. However, if you ask a person, "Please donate $45,000 to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party,” and that party promises to give it to me the next day, that's legal. So if you're running with a party's support, you've got $45,000 plus $4,900. If you run without a party, you only have $4,900. Can you see why no independent candidate can win?

Bob Zadek (14:11): You effectively made your point within minutes of starting the show. But what you've really emphasized, or the main point you've made regarding both examples of campaign finance laws and the Democratic Party's allegiance to teachers unions, is that they allow wealthy donors undue influence. It seems you're criticizing a system that allows wealthy donors disproportionate sway. Is part of your goal to reduce the influence of money in politics? That's a major challenge in America today, especially in California.

Tom Campbell (15:10): It is absolutely my goal to decrease the influence of money in American politics. Bob, if I could accomplish only one thing, I would consider that a successful career in public policy. And the challenge in doing so is quite straightforward.

The people in power benefit from the current system, so they're unlikely to change it. That's why we need a third party and a chance to elect new leaders who will go to Sacramento, reduce the Democratic majority below two-thirds, and force them to compromise. Only then might we see real campaign finance reform.

I would like to propose a simple rule: If you can't vote for me, you can't donate to me. Imagine how that would work. If you're running for US Senate from California, no funds from Nevada. If you’re running for California Attorney General, gambling interests in Nevada couldn't donate. If running for LA assembly, couldn't take money from the Bay Area up north. You could only get money from the people you represent.

This seems easy to explain, utterly fair. Everyone goes after the same funds and has the same kind of responsibility is imposed on somebody who's raising money as when they are voting in the legislature.

Bob Zadek (16:44): You may risk violating the Constitution and the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that donating money to a political campaign constitutes free speech and expression, granting it constitutional protection. However, we are not discussing constitutional issues here. We aim to highlight ways in which the political process has failed us. So the overall point—that this process has failed—is well taken.

Part of your argument is that we need another major political party. Clearly, we already have many political parties in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the Republican Party is increasingly becoming a fringe party, though not quite yet. But they're heading in that direction—they're trying their best but failing so far.

Aside from that snide comment, my apologies to the audience and for any harm. We have many current non-Democratic and non-Republican parties. So explain to our listeners why we need another non-Democratic and non-Republican political party when there are already so many.

Tom Campbell (18:24): The reason is that each of those third parties—even if they don't like the term—restricts who they help financially to members of their own party. I was surprised to learn that when I checked the Libertarian Party bylaws. They are prohibited from giving a dime to any candidate who isn't a Libertarian. The Greens won't support anyone outside their comfort zone, and neither will the Peace and Freedom Party or any other third party. They are wedded to the ideology on which the party was founded.

In contrast, the Common Sense Party explicitly states in its founding document that it will support independent thinkers, including Common Sense Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and Party candidates. The key is to support the candidate who best embodies common sense principles, regardless of political affiliation.

To reiterate what I said previously about the top two candidates, let's say one Democrat running against another in a staunchly Democratic district. One of them is an independent-minded candidate. Bob, you and I know one candidate will be backed by Democratic Party leaders and the other will be the outsider. We'll support the outsider. No other third party will endorse a candidate except in their own party. Our goal is to elect good people to the legislature who think for themselves, aren't intimidated by party leaders and who demand that they sign on to an entire platform and agenda. We don't really require that you even belong to our party for us to help you.

The CA Common Sense Platform

Bob Zadek (20:10): You gain strength from numbers. Obviously, you want many registered Common Sense Party voters. People register with a political party because they believe the party largely reflects their worldview. There will never be complete agreement, but you try to have the party mirror your views on political issues as closely as possible. Will you have a platform with consistent positions on issues like spending, taxes, foreign policy, although you're a California party? Even though some states seem to have a foreign policy, California hasn’t pronounced one. Or what about the environment and related issues? Will you have a mission that reflects my views so that's the group I want to associate with?

Tom Campbell (21:43): We will, and we have already begun working on it. I have a position paper on virtually every subject that has come up in public policy, including the three that you just mentioned. The way our party is structured is we wait to be officially established, then send out the bylaws to party members and a draft platform at the same time. If we get a majority of party members to say, "Yes, I agree with this," then that's our bylaws and platform going forward. In order to change it, you need a three-quarters vote. Now the reason why that threshold is high is because we don't want to exclude people, and we don't want people to feel that, "Well, if I can't agree on this point, I'll never be able to get the party's support." What each candidate then decides to do is up to herself or himself, as you correctly pointed out.

No one fully supports every position in any party's platform. But in California, you have to strictly follow the demands of Democratic or Republican leaders if you belong to those parties. And I don't want to deny support for someone just because we disagree on any particular party platform.

Bob, you're right that you have to stand for something. We stand for openness. We stand for getting independent-minded candidates elected.

I'll certainly tell you what I believe on any of these issues. I've already posted many of my views on our party's website in the comments section. But if it's going to be the party's official view, it has to get support in a party vote, which we'll get as soon as we're approved by the Secretary of State.

Bob Zadek (23:33): Registered voters are not a zero-sum game. As the Common Sense Party acquires new registered voters, those voters were likely registered with other parties before joining the Common Sense Party. How would you convince a typical Democratic voter to feel more comfortable registering with the Common Sense Party? Would you say the same thing to a Republican voter the next day? Do you tailor your pitch based on whether you're trying to persuade a Democrat, Republican, independent, or libertarian?

Tom Campbell (24:59): A logical question is whether there's room for a candidate who doesn't fully support their party's positions. You might find a pro-life Democrat or a pro-environment Republican. The common appeal is this: Should we elect someone to the legislature even if they don't strictly follow their party's orthodoxy and thus won't get party support?

The key issue is whether we should give candidates a chance to serve if they don't always toe the party line. Do they deserve a shot at office even without full party backing?

I say that to everybody. I don't speak with forked tongue. How I fill in the example will differ according to who I'm attempting to persuade: A Democrat interested in being more pro-business could be a good target for the Common Sense Party. A Republican wanting to be more pro-environment or pro-choice might be receptive to our party. It's the willingness not only to tolerate but to celebrate standing up for one's own views. That is common, and I say it to everybody.

Bob Zadek (26:33): I have discussed third parties for years with many guests. As an outsider, I've observed that political parties seem like little more than marketing groups. That is, they are central organizations that raise and spend lots of money and have extensive political know-how. What do they do? They try to develop a platform of unrelated issues that will get 50.01% of voters to vote for them. There's no overall guiding principle. It's just a mix of positions that polling shows will get 50.01% of the vote, giving the party control.

Therefore, in my experience, most voters seem focused on a single issue. By that I mean there's one issue they care deeply about, and that determines their vote. Given that, how do you appeal to a majority or a sizable portion of single-issue voters who feel either the Democrats or Republicans align with their view on the issue they care most about?

Tom Campbell (28:38): You correctly observe the system of parties as a joint marketing device. I'd also say it's a joint financial device, given what I just said about the campaign finance laws in California. You have a 10-to-one advantage if you are a political party in funding campaigns. The purpose of political parties is to label candidates in a way that will generally convey their positions to voters without requiring further research. Voters can simply vote for the Democrat (D) or Republican (R) candidate, and the candidates who want the D or R nomination will receive funding.

I believe that's evolving, and the Common Sense Party is really at the forefront of that change. The reason for the change is that it's now possible to learn far more about any individual's positions via the internet than when I first entered politics in 1988 or while growing up. The parties primarily serve a general branding purpose, as you correctly noted.

I have to say with hopefully respect for all the candidates for judges, virtually none of us knows the candidates for judges that we vote on every time. And so we kind of look for a branding, like are you endorsed by prosecutors or defense attorneys? That used to be a proxy for information. Now, though, we can go online to good services like Ballotpedia. In under a minute, we can find a candidate's positions on taxes, regulations, environment, guns, water, and more. We can make our own choice based on the candidates' actual views. So, in a way, Bob, I don't think I could have done this 20 years ago. Political parties used to dominate how we got information to vote. But now we have immediate access to infinite information on the internet.

“Do we need this from the government?”

Bob Zadek (30:53): It seems to me the best way to register Common Sense Party voters is simply to ask them privately, when voting, if they're choosing the lesser of two evils or if the candidate fully represents their views.

All you need to do is say that with the Common Sense Party, voters will never have to hold their nose as they cast their ballot.

I often tell my guests that if an opinion bores me, I'll say so. Your opinion may bore me. But why you think that way intrigues me. So I say, I don't care what you think. Tell me why. You might change my mind or teach me something new.

So for a common-sense party, the key issue is why you hold a position, not just what it is. What motivates you? Are you swayed by special interest groups or do you believe it's simply the right choice, and here's why: No party appeals solely to voters' intellect or emotions. And if that's the core of your platform, it's the age-old debate between heart and mind. As Jefferson and Socrates wrote about, there's a constant battle between heart and mind. The other two parties appeal to your heart; we appeal to your mind.

Tom Campbell (33:19): You're eloquent, Bob. Wouldn't it be great to vote for a candidate rather than against one? That's another way of putting it. Or as I call it, the Common Sense Party is the party for the rest of us. How often have we said, "I wish there was a better candidate"? The last two presidential elections left me with that feeling.

So what can we do to fix it? It's not going to happen with the two-party system – or the one-party system actually, with an irrelevant Republican Party in California.

Bob Zadek (35:06): At the heart of politics, especially in California but across the country as well, is this fundamental issue of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Why am I raising this crucial issue? Because I believe in limited government.

The key issue is the central relationship between citizens and the government. How much should the government involve itself in our lives? How much freedom do I really have?

Can any political party base its position on such a core value? There is a Libertarian Party, but it's kind of irrelevant to me. I can't relate to it. Although I describe myself as libertarian, I'm not actually a member of the Libertarian Party. "Libertarian" describes my philosophy and values, not my political affiliation. So instead of discussing a specific issue like education, immigration, or the environment, speak to that broader issue of individual freedom and responsibility. Those specific issues aren't really relevant to the core reason for forming and promoting the Common Sense Party.

Now, I know you won't just tell the audience what they want to hear. You'll give an honest approach.

Tom Campbell (37:29): It's a core issue for me. The Common Sense Party is the vehicle that would allow me if I were running for office to express it. I’m not still running for office, but if I were, I could get to the finals and get elected holding the views that I do.

I begin with the premise that maximum freedom should be implemented in public policy for individuals. Nevertheless, there are times when the need for government intervention overrides individual preferences. Where to draw that line differs among people of good will.

A superior method for analyzing any public policy issue is to ask, do we truly need this government program?

When I was in Congress and the state senate, most of my Democratic and some Republican friends approached issues differently. They would say, "Well, is this a good idea?" Would it be a good idea to have more public education? Is it a good idea to have the government subsidize the production of silicon chips in the United States? I'd say, "You're asking the wrong question. It's not about whether an idea is good. It's about ‘do we need the government to do it?" So we might agree that it's a good idea to have more silicon chips produced in America so we're not dependent upon imports from China. And that's even more so if Taiwan's supply becomes threatened by China.

My starting point isn't "Is this a good idea?" but rather, "Do we need the government to implement it?" So Bob, I share your libertarian values, but I might conclude that yes, we do need the government - for example, to care for seniors who haven't saved enough for retirement. Social Security was a good idea, if imperfect from a libertarian perspective. Yes, we need the government for Social Security, though reasonable people may disagree with me on even that. I began by asking, "Do we need this from the government?”

How the Two Parties Block Competition

Bob Zadek (39:47): As the builder and creator of a third party, you give our audience insight into how the system works against outsiders.

When any group – whether business, union, or political party – gets protection from competition by government action instead of exposing itself to voters' choice, it must be selling an inferior product. This group, union, or political party doesn't want to be tested in an open election, whether in the pocketbook or ballot box. Therefore, the two political parties have significant government protection against anybody intruding on their territory. It's the same monopoly that governments gave to railroads and utilities, to the detriment of consumers. In this case, the consumers are voters.

Help the audience understand issues like ballot access, control of the debate stage, and related topics. Explain to our audience how the system favors the monopolistic Democrats and Republicans at the expense of other ideas like the Common Sense Party.

Tom Campbell (41:42): First, access to the debate stage is powerful. The Presidential Debates Commission, run by Democrats and Republicans, has kept the Libertarian candidate out of the presidential debates for the last three election cycles. This does not benefit America. When people say, "The presidential debates are on, I'll watch them," thinking the debates somehow provide fair exposure to different views, that is incorrect. The debates are run by Democrats and Republicans, and only they get invited. Ross Perot gained access in 1992 due to his high poll numbers and wealth, which allowed him to spend heavily to achieve those numbers. However, if you are not extremely wealthy, you do not make it onto the debate stage.

Second is access to the ballot by signatures. There is a very informative newsletter, likely you receive it, published by Richard Wininger in the Bay Area. He monitors how difficult it is to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Bob, again and again, state after state, it's easier for the two major parties to keep their position on the ballot than for a new party to get on the ballot. Once you pass the threshold, you're "grandfathered" in. Then, those in power, like the Democratic Party in our state, lift the threshold. The second big issue is the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. Once you're on the ballot, you stay on, but if trying to get on, those already in positions of power have made it nearly impossible.

Third, I should have emphasized it more: money. You correctly identified the 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down limits on how much individuals can spend. But the Court said reasonable limits would be okay. Now in California, candidates get a 10-to-1 fundraising advantage if they have a major party's help. Without a major party, independent candidates need personal wealth. The Democrats and Republicans passed these laws together in Sacramento.

I believe the Buckley ruling allows my proposed rule: if you can't vote for me, you can't donate to me. That's an oversimplification, though. To pass Supreme Court muster, the rule could be: if you can't vote for me, donate $100; if you can, follow $4,500 limits for legislative candidates.

So there are three issues: ballot access, who debates, and the 10-to-1 fundraising gap.

Bob Zadek (44:58): The reason I brought up this topic is that these laws, federal and state, were enacted by a legislature dominated by either the Democratic or Republican Party. It's infuriating but unsurprising that the two parties which hold all the political power in our country passed legislation to ensure no one disrupts their duopoly. No one can ruin their two-party rule. As voters, we should be offended. We have to ask ourselves, why are these two parties so afraid of giving voters access to other candidates and viewpoints? You only need legal protection if you know your product is flawed and fear competition. In this case, competition at the ballot box.

Laws and rules make it nearly impossible for third parties to compete with Democrats and Republicans. They serve no purpose but to protect the major parties. Support third parties and their right to ballot access. Let them make their case to voters, who can then decide whether or not to support them. What could be more democratic than giving voters real choice and holding parties accountable?

The Future of Politics

Bob Zadek: Tom, regarding the Common Sense Party, what's the latest? Tell us about your experience with Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. Update us on the Common Sense Party and how our listeners can learn more about it and consider other viewpoints.

Tom Campbell (47:47): Visit our website at commonsense.org. The Common Sense Party joined with the Forward Party, led by Andrew Yang and former Governor Christie Todd Whitman. Andrew Yang was formerly a Democrat and Christie Todd Whitman was formerly a Republican. Our goal in partnering is to establish the Common Sense Party in California since we share the same principles, especially providing more access to the political process. The Forward Party in California decided it makes more sense to work with us rather than duplicate our efforts. They would have to start from scratch. By helping us instead, they can tell their members to register with the Common Sense Party in California. Once we meet the requirements, a Forward Party candidate can run in California. If most in the Common Sense Party choose, we can even change the party's name. But the Forward group thought it smarter, as a party, not to replicate what we've done. We found it a wonderful partnership. They have energetic volunteers and we have experience. Together we are stronger. Note we are in California; Forward is nationwide.

Bob Zadek (49:29): I found it interesting that you identified Christie Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and Andrew Yang, a presidential candidate. Yang ran in the Democratic primaries from New York. I mentioned them after you did because I admired Whitman simply as a public figure. Though I don't necessarily support Republicans, I admired Whitman as a candidate. I liked her positions.

Yang, a Democrat, ran in the primaries. He had to pander somewhat to the extreme wing. I put that aside; I just plain liked the guy. He was smart. I felt comfortable with him. I likely disagreed with him on several issues, but putting aside our differences and seeing him only as a fellow human, I feel at ease with him.

So if this is any indication of the caliber of public figures drawn to the concept as well as the party, it's a ringing endorsement for the Common Sense Party. Tom, whatever you did to attract that caliber of supporters and proponents of the Common Sense Party, you're on the right track.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

Californians enjoy abundant choice when it comes to cuisine, entertainment and leisure activities. Yet in the political arena, we are stuck with just one choice.

The Democrats have effectively had One Party Rule here for the last two decades. Since 1996, Democrats have continuously held a majority in the State Assembly and currently hold a dominant 62-18 supermajority in the 80-seat chamber.

Most forget what happened in the 1990s that permanently changed the balance of power. In 1994, Proposition 187 passed by referendum, with strong support from then-Governor Pete Wilson. The law banned undocumented immigrants from accessing non-emergency healthcare, public schools, and other services in California. Since then, Hispanic voters have largely voted as a bloc for Democrats, leaving Republicans all but irrelevant.

Tom Campbell served five terms in the US Congress, and one two-year term in the State Senate. He created the Common Sense Party to combine fiscal responsibility with inclusivity to appeal to the wide swath of voters who want more choice in their political candidates. Sounds a lot like libertarianism, without all the baggage that the word carries.

Is it too much to ask for an independent-minded politician who is neither bought and paid for by the public sector unions, nor an anti-immigrant fanatic?

The California Common Sense Party has aligned with Andrew Yang’s “Forward” Party movement – trying to break the “two-party doom loop,” and find common sense solutions. Tom Campbell joins me this Sunday to break the latest news about their plans to disrupt California politics.

Back in early 2021, Cato Institute senior fellow Ted Galen Carpenter urged Washington "to abandon its efforts to torpedo Nord Stream 2." His warnings have been proven prescient by Seymour Hersh's recent revelations, which seem to confirm the US government's involvement in the destruction of the pipeline. Many journalists admit behind closed doors that they believe in the US's involvement, yet the media remains silent out of fear of provoking a response from Russia.

In his new book Unreliable Watchdog, Ted Galen Carpenter argues that the news media has become a tool for propaganda rather than a watchdog for the American people, leading to a distorted view of U.S. foreign policy and a “garrison state” mentality.

He examines the media's willingness to accept official accounts and policy justifications without skepticism, particularly in regards to the Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, the Balkans, Iraq War, Libya and Syria civil wars, and post–Cold War relations with Russia and China.

He questions why journalists and social media platforms collaborate with government officials in pushing an activist foreign policy, even when results are questionable or disastrous.

Are we repeating the same mistakes with Ukraine as the media cheerleads the escalation of another unwinnable war?

Today's guest, Ted Galen Carpenter, is a senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He has written 13 books and over 1,100 articles on international affairs. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Strategic Studies. His latest book, Unreliable Watchdog, examines the empty promise of press freedom embodied in the First Amendment and offers lessons on how the press should honor its duty to inform ordinary people. Our founders could not have imagined that such freedom would be squandered by much of the press, leaving it as little more than an unquestioning mouthpiece for the political establishment.

I agree with Ted's point that the press, as a business protected by the First Amendment, has certain duties that correspond with its rights and freedoms. The press should use these privilege responsibly. Overall, Ted's book delivers a powerful message: with rights come responsibilities, and the press is no exception.

The Bob Zadek Show is the country's longest running libertarian broadcast – nationally streamed at 8 AM PT Sundays. Subscribe for weekly transcripts, book summaries and additional resources:

Links:

* Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) / Twitter

* Unreliable Watchdog | Cato Institute

* Volodymyr Zelensky Is Washington's New Jonas Savimbi - Antiwar.com Original

* Washington's Convenient Relationships with Dictators - Foundation for Economic Education

* Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer - YouTube

* Ted Galen Carpenter discusses groupthink, foreign policy, media, and Ukraine on ABC's Between the Lines | Cato Institute

* Why Can't America Accept an Imperfect World? | Cato Institute

Transcript

Bob Zadek (00:00:00): Ted, welcome to the show. Was my opening too harsh, or did it appropriately set the tone for today's discussion?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:01:56): The title of my book, Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and US Foreign Policy, was chosen deliberately. The press is meant to serve as a watchdog over public policy, calling attention to government misconduct and incompetence. However, the media's track record in this regard is poor and declining.

Two major issues stand out:

* Instead of investigating and reporting independently, journalists often act as stenographers, rephrasing and circulating government propaganda as news.

* World events are frequently misrepresented in simplistic melodramas pitting "horrible villains" against "angelic advocates of freedom". The villains are always US opponents, the angels US allies - even if the angels are deeply flawed or corrupt.

These twin diseases of the news media undermine its duty to inform the public.

What Would the Founders Say?

Bob Zadek (00:04:30): You said in your introductory comments that the press is supposed to serve as a watchdog. Where does this expectation come from? Who determined that this is the press's role? As you noted, the founding fathers' publications openly took political sides. Thomas Jefferson had his preferred newspapers, and John Adams had his. Readers expected praise for their preferred politician. The founders and the public did not expect the press to be impartial watchdogs. So, where did the idea that the press should serve as impartial watchdogs originate?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:06:18): The expectations for an adversarial press have not been met. While early newspapers were partisan, openly attacking opposing political parties, today's media largely supports the government. There is little opposition, especially regarding foreign policy and national security, where a bipartisan narrative dominates and is rarely challenged. Journalists who question this narrative face backlash from colleagues and government agencies. This shift to collusion, regardless of which party controls the White House, is the danger.

Bob Zadek (00:07:38): As we discuss the state of the press today, it may be helpful to reflect on the past. Was there ever an ideal time with regard to press freedom or objectivity? In preparing for this conversation, I tried to recall major events from US history - from its founding through the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War, and the Spanish-American War - to identify a potential "golden age" of the press. However, I could not definitively point to one. So I ask: Can you identify a period we could view as a high point for the press to use as a benchmark against today? Having a reference point in history could provide useful context for evaluating how - or how much - the press has changed.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:08:52): We've seen periods where media narratives conflict, or "dueling biases". An ideal of perfect objectivity in the press is unrealistic. However, as the U.S. has expanded its global influence, the media has increasingly served government interests. This trend has worsened significantly. Government officials promote their agendas through a more subservient press.

Journalists became disillusioned after government officials lied about the Vietnam War. This skepticism extended to other issues in the 1970s and 1980s. As in the early Republic, views were partisan - liberals criticized Reagan's policies in Central America while Republicans defended him.

Though hard questions were asked and debates occurred, the Persian Gulf War ended this. Journalists again saw themselves as part of the government, as patriots supporting patriotic policies. Questioning such policies was unacceptable.

Mainstream Media Influence over Foreign Policy

Bob Zadek (00:10:56): When discussing freedom of the press, let's focus on foreign affairs coverage by mainstream media. By "press", I mean major news outlets like The New York Times and CNN, not just bloggers. While bloggers can attract many readers and influence discussions, for this conversation let's focus on mainstream media. How does their foreign affairs coverage impact freedom of the press? Defining our terms will help listeners follow along.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:12:23): The press has evolved over time. Originally, it consisted of pamphlets and newspapers. Magazines later joined as another medium. In modern times, radio, television, blogs, the internet, and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been added. Today, these new forms of media are considered part of the press. However, traditional outlets like newspapers and television still have the greatest reach and influence on public policy. While a dedicated blogger may have thousands of readers, major news outlets can reach millions. As a result, these large entities tend to have a similar worldview and rarely challenge government officials' perspectives. Meaningful dissent is rare. Though the press now takes many forms, scale continues to impact influence. The entities with the widest reach remain the most powerful, despite changes in how people get their news. A diversity of viewpoints is still needed to best inform citizens and hold leaders accountable.

Does Media Have a Special Responsibility?

Bob Zadek (00:14:07): The media is fundamentally a business, like any other business in America. All American businesses only have a duty to obey the law, prescribed by our governmental system. Although we are born with the belief that the press is special, the media does not have a duty or public service obligation that companies like Amazon or Microsoft lack. The media only has a duty to obey the law, and if it fails to do so, it will be punished. Does the media have any special benefits under our legal system that come with a duty to behave differently? Or are we simply assigning one type of business a duty that we do not assign to others?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:15:40): Well, in this case of course it's a self-proclaimed duty. Journalists claim it is their duty to scrutinize policymakers and report to the public. If that is their self-declared mission, then their performance should be judged against that standard. Given the kind of simplistic propaganda that dominates the airwaves, journalism has failed spectacularly in covering defense, foreign policy, and international issues.

Bob Zadek (00:16:40): The media establishes an aura of authority as reputable sources of information. As citizens, we are conditioned to trust the media's reporting. We expect journalists to uphold the founders' vision of a free press as embodied in the First Amendment and a cornerstone of our society. The press is considered a pillar of public discourse - a "fourth estate" on par with the three branches of government. However, with this esteemed status comes responsibility. If the media abuses its position by spreading misinformation or being overly biased, it violates public trust and undermines its credibility.

To call oneself a journalist requires adherence to journalistic standards of objectivity, accuracy, and fairness. Is this a reasonable starting point for discussing the media's improper behaviors and how to measure and address them? The conversation could examine the roles of both the media and the public in maintaining an ethical press.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:18:11): The press claims to be essential for a free society by preventing abuses of power and the rise of dictatorships. But it’s hard to fulfill this role when it consistently allies with and serves government institutions that are gaining more power, acting secretly, and violating civil liberties. The press's failure has been most notable regarding foreign policy and national security, though not limited to those areas.

Schilling for the CIA: The Church Committee Exposes the Corruption of Journalism

Bob Zadek (00:19:07): In your book, you provide many examples of the press failing in its responsibility. Tell the story of a time the press misbehaved, according to your standards.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:19:45): The Senate Investigative Committee uncovered in the 1970s that over 250 prominent U.S. journalists were on the CIA's payroll. Led by Senator Frank Church, the committee found that these journalists were not just sympathetic to the CIA or cooperative with it, but were paid shills for the agency. Given the large number of prominent journalists involved, this was a major dereliction of duty.

The early 1990s saw major developments with the Persian Gulf War. The press largely repeated government propaganda, portraying Iraq's Saddam Hussein in an extremely negative light. While Hussein was certainly a cruel leader, media reports of Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti infants from incubators were false. Despite this, the US government endorsed such stories.

Similarly misleading reports occurred in the lead-up to the Iraq War, with media claiming Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction. These assertions were untrue, yet the news media happily repeated them.

The Nord Stream pipeline is a recent example of the US selling a dubious narrative. The US sold the story that Russia bombed its own pipeline

Media failed to ask key questions: Why would Russia damage its pipeline and revenue stream? If it wanted to stop gas flow, why not just close its own valve?

The US, not Russia, is the prime suspect, given longstanding opposition to the pipeline. U.S. leaders opposed Russia-to-Europe natural gas pipelines from the 1980s. They pressured Germany to abandon Nord Stream 2 months before the Ukraine war and sought to position the U.S., Norway, and U.K. as alternative gas suppliers if Russian pipelines were shut down.

Balancing Profit-Making with Truth-Telling

Bob Zadek (00:23:39): The media industry is largely made up of for-profit corporations whose primary goal is to generate revenue for shareholders, not to serve the public interest. While there are some exceptions, most major media companies are focused on profits. This raises the question of how to motivate these companies to invest in high-quality journalism and coverage of important issues when doing so may not be profitable. Supporters of free markets may argue that media companies should focus on profits, but this can come at the expense of informing and empowering citizens.

How do you balance the two?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:26:21): Media outlets have gone through ups and downs in profitability. While national chains can generate enough sales to turn a profit, independent outlets struggle. To be profitable, outlets often resort to a bland, uniform style to appeal to a wide audience.

The shift toward political bias was not solely due to politics or profit motives. While some media pursued an ideological agenda or financial gain, others seemed to do so despite decreasing profits. Some outlets grew tired of the dominant narrative and saw a business opportunity in alternative viewpoints. For example, Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter was motivated by objections to the platform's authoritarian political correctness, as well as potential profits from catering to underserved audiences. The success of Musk's venture remains to be seen.

Social media companies are no longer purely private entities. They receive government subsidies, input, and threats if they don't cooperate. For example, the US Justice Department and intelligence agencies paid Twitter $3.4 million annually so that they could meet with Twitter officials and pressure them to exclude certain individuals and viewpoints. This collusion between companies and governments is dangerous. It corrupts the marketplace of ideas and threatens free expression.

Bob Zadek (00:28:55): Is the media reacting to government pressure or misbehavior? As we examine Twitter, the FBI, and the CDC's interactions with the press, we must consider whether the media is diluting its role as a watchdog due to incentives or threats from the government.

Let's shift our focus from criticizing the press to examining the role of government and relevant laws. We could discuss the Espionage Act of 1917 and other statutes, as well as how the government influences press independence through guidance and subtle actions, as you mention extensively in your book.

The Velvet Glove and the Iron Fist

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:31:01): In my 1995 book The Captive Press: Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment, I described the government's tactics toward the media as either the "velvet glove" or the "iron fist." The iron fist involves overt threats, like prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act. The velvet glove is more subtle but equally dangerous: the government implies that the media will receive benefits for cooperating with its agenda.

The government may offer exclusive stories or lucrative contracts to analysts who support its positions. It portrays these analysts as independent commentators rather than paid spokespeople. If you do not cooperate with the government, you will lose access to exclusive stories that attract readers and viewers. The government will not tolerate maverick journalists who embarrass it. They say, “Our cooperative relationship will suffer if you allow such iconoclastic journalists.”

The White House claimed it was "suggesting" changes to media coverage of COVID-19. In reality, these were threats. A government agency "suggesting" how the media should operate is like a mob boss making a suggestion - it's not optional. There's an implicit threat of consequences for non-compliance. The government knows a menacing tone is often enough to intimidate journalists who might resist their messaging. Most journalists readily amplify the government's preferred narratives. But for the few who resist, the government has ways to force compliance.

Bob Zadek (00:34:05): Of course, coming from a government agency that controls funding, such a "suggestion" carries significant weight.

A few weeks ago on my show, I discussed this famous 2009 letter regarding Title IX and sexual harassment on college campuses. The Department of Education's 2009 guidance letter was a "suggestion." The Department of Education claimed ignorance about the impact of their "suggestion", which threatened to withhold federal funding if universities did not aggressively address sexual misconduct.

Government "suggestions", especially from agencies that control resources, are not mere recommendations. The Department of Education's disingenuous stance undermined the coercive nature of their guidance.

(00:35:12): The government often pressures social media companies to promote certain information or suppress other information. For example, the CDC told Twitter which information about COVID-19 it considered accurate and which it considered misinformation, and said it would be unhappy if Twitter published different information. President Biden famously said "Twitter is killing people" for allowing what he considered misinformation.

As Ted's book discusses, this is one way the government contributes to the media's failings. It is difficult for companies to resist government demands, even if it means compromising their independence and objectivity.

Ted, could you elaborate on the tools governments use to influence media companies and reduce their objectivity?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:37:21): Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, can testify to the severe consequences for embarrassing the national security establishment. Government agencies relentlessly pursued him for simply exposing their lies and misdeeds.

My colleague James Bovard, a columnist for the New York Post and USA Today, has long been a thorn in the side of government bureaucrats on both domestic and foreign policy issues.

After Bovard published a critical piece, a top justice department official called the editor of USA Today and strongly suggested it would be in the newspaper's best interest to part ways with the author, Jim Bovard. Fortunately, the editor refused to be intimidated.

But how many others have succumbed to such pressure over the years? I'd bet there are plenty. We've seen prominent journalists fade from the scene after voicing strong criticism of government policy, especially regarding national security agencies and the national security state. I don't think that's coincidental. I would be willing to bet most of those episodes followed input suggestions from the government.

Bob Zadek (00:39:44): One prominent example during the Obama administration involved a Fox News reporter who was threatened with prosecution by Obama's Attorney General, allegedly for violating the Espionage Act. There was public speculation about whether the reporter's actions in reporting a news story amounted to a crime. While the incident involved Fox News, the concern was about the government's behavior toward the press. As I recall, the Attorney General discussed indicting the reporter or convening a grand jury. Is this another example of the point you're trying to make?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:40:50): The Obama administration's brief named two journalists who could be legally prosecuted as accessories to espionage for reporting leaked information. The administration chose not to prosecute, portraying it as a favor to journalists. However, they reserved the right to prosecute journalists in the future. This threatens journalists to discourage criticism of the administration. Whistleblowers leaking information to journalists face a growing risk of prosecution. High-level leaks authorized by national security leaders are permitted, but whistleblowers and journalists utilizing whistleblower information may be prosecuted as spies. The administration is taking whistleblower and journalist prosecutions more seriously to silence dissent.

Beware Overwhelming Consensus

Bob Zadek (00:42:20): I aim to help our audience make the most of the hour we have with them. What should they do differently and what they should look out for?

Ted Galen Carpenter: One key takeaway is that just because an activity is labeled as journalism does not mean it should be viewed as an authoritative public information source. When we need professional advice, we seek out experts like lawyers, doctors, architects, and the like. We don't simply ask someone if they are a doctor and then follow their advice if they say yes.

There is a warning here: simply labeling something as journalism should no longer impart credibility or authority. Viewers must think critically about the expertise and objectivity of information sources.

When investigating issues and making judgments, find reliable sources of information. For civic matters, choose sources that are well-informed and unbiased, not just the loudest voices. Use the same care in selecting news sources as you would for legal or health matters. Don't assume that press coverage alone conveys truth. Much information is impaired by bias or inaccuracy. Look beyond surface-level channels and blogs. View information skeptically, as a starting point for understanding issues, not the final word.

Journalists vary widely in the quality of their work, just like doctors. When reading a journalist's writing, it's important to consider their track record. Do they have a history of accurate reporting and analysis? Have their predictions or claims held up over time? Or does their writing seem misleading or like fiction?

Also be suspicious of overwhelming consensus in the media. Conventional wisdom is often wrong, not right. Especially be wary if journalists are embracing the latest government campaign, whether domestic or foreign. In these cases, journalists may be serving as propaganda agents rather than independent monitors.

Evaluating journalism requires effort. You must follow journalists' work over time to assess their accuracy and uncover any ulterior motives. But as a engaged citizen, this diligence is necessary.

Are Patriotic Movies Propaganda?

Bob Zadek (00:46:53): As I prepared for the show, I found myself reflecting on Hollywood's role during World War II. At the time, Hollywood produced many "patriotism on steroids" movies to support the war effort, such as by demonizing the enemy and glorifying Allied troops. While this propaganda-as-entertainment raises concerns today, it was seen as necessary and admirable patriotism then.

Some argue this media-government collaboration was appropriate given the circumstances. Entertainment could encourage the public to buy war bonds, make sacrifices, and maintain morale - all to help win the war. However, others find this relationship concerning, even if well-intentioned. There is a tension between patriotism and objectivity.

Let's compare the patriotic portrayal of the entertainment media during World War II to the attitudes of the present day.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:49:14): I would caution against that approach. Much of the media from that era demonized entire populations, not just governments. Portraying all Japanese or German people as evil was unhealthy and unfair. Entertainment should avoid such overly broad generalizations.

The media's patriotic fervor cannot justify the imprisonment of citizens. The unjustified incarceration of Japanese and Japanese Americans during World War 2 is a prime example. So too are more recent cases of misconduct and lies by the government. As citizens, we cannot ignore repeated abuses of power or blindly support supposed patriotism. While I respect the U.S. government, that respect is not unconditional. No citizen should ignore injustice or climb aboard a misguided patriotic bandwagon.

The United States' actions in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were misguided. Overthrowing governments and creating chaos in Iraq and Libya, and empowering extremists in Syria, were mistakes. Expanding NATO to Russia's border triggered the Ukraine tragedy. Americans and the media should hold officials accountable for these poor decisions instead of blindly following leaders.

Though Bashar al-Assad's regime is oppressive, supporting Sunni extremists against it was the wrong approach. US conduct has been flawed, and officials must be called out on this, not blindly followed.

Bob Zadek (00:51:31): Is there any government policy or behavior that you find so offensive it contributes to major problems? If so, would you support repealing the statute enabling it?

Are there any actions elected officials could take to prevent the press from becoming a propaganda machine?

Other than individuals making independent decisions over time to effect change, are there any steps that could be taken?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:52:26): Congress can and should repeal the Espionage Act of 1917.

Bob Zadek (00:52:31): Tell our audience about the Espionage Act of 1917. As unbelievable as it may seem, Ted, there could be some people out there who can't recite the statute from memory. Despite its innocuous-sounding name, it's actually quite controversial.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:52:53): The Espionage Act is an update of the 1918 Sedition Act. Essentially, it criminalizes any criticism of US policy during a national emergency. The government can classify any document it wishes, and disclosing a classified document violates the Espionage Act. Over 1 billion documents are now classified, including the CIA's lunch menu.

So when you have over a billion documents classified - that's designed to conceal all government activity from media scrutiny and public scrutiny - that system needs to be repealed. It has been abused again and again and again. That's one thing that needs to be done immediately. I would like to see a Supreme Court decision explicitly overruling Korematsu vs. the United States. That was the decision that approved Franklin Roosevelt's executive order imprisoning Japanese and Japanese American citizens on the basis that they might pose a security threat in the Western states. It was dishonest at the time, politically motivated, not necessary, and a deep, deep offense to the liberties of the American people, setting a horrible precedent that could come back to haunt us at any time. Third, Congress needs to get serious about following the constitutional process if we go to war as a country. That means a declaration of war from Congress, an end to presidential wars. That's absolutely essential.

Bob Zadek (00:54:54): The media primarily focuses on entertainment and emotional appeal rather than substantive information or thoughtful discussion. As profit-seeking enterprises, media organizations target the lowest common denominator of consumers rather than the most discerning. In-depth analysis and high-level discourse are rare in the media landscape. As a result, the nuanced discussions and complex issues that warrant attention remain largely untouched.

The eternal conflict between passion and reason has long been pondered. As Socrates contemplated, and Thomas Jefferson experienced in Paris, the heart and mind can battle intensely. In Jefferson's case, his heart yearned for a woman while his mind urged caution. His private writings on this internal struggle were widely shared.

According to Thomas Jefferson, he would prefer newspapers without government over government without newspapers. Our nation's founders recognized the media's role as a safeguard for democracy. However, today's media prioritizes profit over providing essential information to citizens.

Do you agree with Jefferson that the media should operate independently from the government? This is a difficult choice with arguments on both sides.

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:57:43): I would like to see a very vigorous and diverse press and the most limited government possible. What we have now is the opposite: a massive, leviathan government and a timid, obedient press that is not terribly useful. That’s a bad combination.

Bob Zadek (00:58:11): In your book, you offer a few additional suggestions, thoughts, and ideas for the readership to consider as we approach the concluding moments of our show. What lessons can our readers anticipate learning from your book upon reading it?

Ted Galen Carpenter (00:58:39): I suspect most readers will be surprised to learn just how compliant the press has been over the decades, and especially in recent years, and how slavishly many journalists have followed the government's desired policies. I suspect most Americans think the press is a feisty institution that does not hesitate to challenge the government or expose wrongdoing. Unfortunately, as this book shows, that is far from the case: most of the time, the press acts as the government's lapdog rather than its watchdog.

Bob Zadek (00:59:32): The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for free speech and freedom of the press separately. Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free expression of ideas. While the Amendment protects free speech and then separately freedom of the press, I have never quite understood why freedom of the press is singled out as a distinct right. If the First Amendment merely prohibited laws interfering with free expression, wouldn't that be sufficient to protect freedom of the press rather than identifying it as a separate freedom?

Is there a meaningful difference between the rights to free speech and freedom of the press?

Ted Galen Carpenter (01:00:45): At the time the Constitution was created, there was a sense of distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of speech referred to individuals expressing themselves, such as through letters or speeches on a soapbox. The press was viewed as a separate category, referring to newspapers and pamphlets that are widely circulated.

However, to me there is no meaningful difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Freedom of expression, especially of political ideas and ideological positions, is the same regardless of the medium through which it is expressed. The mechanism of expression is unimportant.

Things are becoming increasingly worrying regarding the government's ability to dominate public discourse and suppress anything that contradicts its agenda.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

George Will calls it the year's "most-needed book on public affairs"—Philip K. Howard's Not Accountable tackles public sector unions head-on, arguing that they're not only dangerous, but unconstitutional. Not Accountable is a non-partisan vision for fixing the biggest flaw in government. Consider a few data points: Public sector membership in the United States is around 7 million. 4.6 million teachers. 1.3 million service employees. California, with 300,000 teachers, is only able to terminate two or three per year for poor performance. 40,000 Californian retirees receive over $100,000 in pension salary. In the end, who pays? Our children do—both in lost learning outcomes, future taxes, and less money in state and federal budgets for other services. Howard, the founder of the Common Good organization, joins me Sunday to make the case for a legal solution – not a democratic one – for fixing the broken system. Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives alike should be up in arms about the lack of accountability for police officers, teachers, and all those who are supposed to serve the public good. What can we do about it? Find out this Sunday on the show of ideas.

Philip K. Howard is the founder of Common Good, a nonpartisan organization devoted to streamlining laws so that Americans can use sound judgment in their everyday decisions. Philip is the author of Not Accountable, which persuasively contends that public employee unions weaken our democracy and should be (and I will contend already are) unconstitutional. We'll spend the next hour making that argument.

Links

* The Yale Law Journal - Forum: From Progressivism to Paralysis

* A New Governing Vision — Common Good

* Opinion | Government Is Flailing, in Part Because Liberals Hobbled It - The New York Times, by Ezra Klein

The Bob Zadek Show is the country's longest running libertarian broadcast – nationally streamed at 8 AM PT Sundays. Subscribe for weekly transcripts, book summaries and additional resources:

Transcript

Transcript has been edited for conciseness and clarity

Bob Zadek (1:59): Philip, what caught my attention at the start of the course was the preface to your book, written by Mitch Daniels. To me, Mitch Daniels personifies the ideal leader of our country, and I was disappointed when he decided not to enter the Republican primary in 2008.

How did you persuade him to write the preface to your book?

Philip K. Howard (02:53): I did a number of reforms with Mitch when he was Governor of Indiana. Then, when he became president of Purdue, he asked me to give a talk to his senior staff about why they should focus on making sensible decisions day to day instead of just following a rulebook.

Mitch Daniels is an extraordinary leader who focuses on how things work, such as improving the Department of Motor Vehicles in Indiana or managing public personnel. This is much more important to most Americans than abstract debates about immigration or other issues.

What makes public service unions different?

Bob Zadek (03:50): Now we're going to be spending most of this hour talking about a special type of organization: public sector unions.

That is the focus of your book, Not Accountable. We will learn what you mean by associating the phrase not accountable with public sector unions.

What makes public sector unions different than private unions.?

Philip K. Howard: Everybody said, "Well, it's a union. It's always a union." In fact, the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, which only came about really in the late 1960s, was done not because there was any scandal or abuse, but because union leaders wanted more power.

Whereas private unions, which were prevalent during the Progressive Era, had their origin story in factories abusing child labor and having endless work hours and horrible safety records, there was never a need for public employee unions. People thought they should just be treated fairly. But in fact, it's the difference between fish and mammals.

The incentives are completely different in a trade union context like the Auto Workers Union. Both sides have a vested interest in the viability of the enterprise. If they have inefficient work rules or demand too much, the company may move out of town or go out of business, resulting in the loss of their jobs. In contrast, with public unions, you can demand anything and the government cannot move.

In a private context, the private trade union, the argument is about the split between capital and labor. It's all about how to divide the profits. In the public union context, it's very limited. This is because the government can't move and officials don't pay for it. So, taxpayers have to foot the bill. Public unions  can demand anything they can get away with and taxpayers must pay.

This is why FDR opposed public unions. He said collective bargaining cannot be transferred to the public sector because public employees have a sworn duty of loyalty to serve the public, not to negotiate against the public interest with inefficient work rules. There is an ethical difference here.

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Most importantly, trade union negotiations are an honest adversarial process, where it would be unlawful for management and labor to collude and come up with something that is not in the interest of either side.

Public unions negotiations are nothing but collusion. They amass a great deal of power: they get people elected, staff campaigns, and send people in buses to knock on doors. Once the official is elected, they don't sit on the opposite side of the table; they sit on the same side. This isn't a negotiation; it's a payoff.

Bad Math: How Fund Accounting Robs Future Generations

Bob Zadek (08:14): You used the word "collusion," which has a criminal connotation. You didn't mean that what they were doing was illegal; it was cynical, they work together. However, neither party is breaking any laws, due to the system itself.

Philip K. Howard (08:47): It would be illegal if it were done in the private sector.

Bob Zadek (08:48): That's correct. But it's not collusion in the public sector.

Philip K. Howard (08:52): It's not illegal, but it's dishonest.

Bob Zadek (08:56): Because I'm an accountant and I love spreadsheets, I have this embarrassing personality flaw: I just love when things balance.

In the private sector, financial statements—the reports to shareholders, the "voters," if you will—are published according to rules that record expenses when they are incurred and income when it is earned, not paid. This makes it harder for a private employer to spend future dollars, as the creation of that obligation will impact the current employer's performance.

In the public sector, however, there is a different approach to accounting, often referred to as "fund accounting," which means expenses are only recorded when they are paid, not when they are incurred. This means an elected official can support, for example, high union pension costs that are paid in the future without incurring a deficit in their budget.

I have always maintained that so much would change if municipalities and states had to use accrual basis accounting. Political officials negotiating with the union are spending a future elected official's money, which means the present political official doesn't get dinged with a deficit in their budget.

Philip K. Howard (11:32): I think they did improve those accounting rules somewhat in the last decade or so. But the process is exactly as you described, which is that they come to the negotiating table and say, "What can we get?"

They can’t get away with paying people hundreds of thousands of dollars in current income. So, how do they squeeze their pound of flesh out of the government?

One way is by making future promises that only come due after the politician leaves office, so they won’t have to pay it. It isn’t accounted for honestly.

The other way was through restrictive work rules that made the government virtually unmanageable. For example, if you wanted to move a desk, you had to negotiate it. If there was a pandemic, there was nothing in the contract about working in a pandemic or doing remote learning or teaching. It was like the spokes were disconnected from the hub—you couldn't move forward until you got union approval.

A Brief History of Public Sector Unions

Bob Zadek (12:37): Public service unions have been around for a while, and most people listening to this podcast were born into a world where they already existed. Examples include teachers unions, SEIU, and other public service workers unions.

However, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. If our listeners are older, they may remember a time before public service unions. So, let's take a brief look at the history of how we got to where we are now, with the teachers union playing a major role in the Covid recovery and pandemic recovery efforts.

Philip K. Howard (13:30): Prior to the 1960s, public unions had no collective bargaining power. They were like any other interest group, such as the National Education Association, a professional group with ideas in their self-interest, but without power over politicians.

Then, Kennedy was elected and, as payback for union support, he issued an executive order authorizing collective bargaining in the federal government. A report chaired by Arthur Goldberg had looked into this beforehand, but it was largely vacuous and substance-less.

In the late 1960s, unions kept agitating with state governors and parties. The civil service system, created in the late 19th century, allowed public employees to organize, and as government grew, they became more influential.

New York state agreed to consider collective bargaining, and a report by labor law professor George Taylor outlined how it should work. He said that you could not give up management control and that disagreements should not be decided by arbitrators, as this would be unconstitutional.

However, the law passed in exactly the opposite way, and other states, including California, followed suit. The Taylor Report also said that managers must maintain their power and that elected officials must make decisions, but the law did exactly what the report said not to do.

What Makes Public Sector Unions Special?

Bob Zadek (16:34): Let’s return to the question we started our show with: why are public sector unions a separate topic, not lumped in with private sector?

Think back to Covid: one would think that the decision to close schools would be the result of the democratic process, if one were naive and idealistic. That's the way it's supposed to work. But, in reality, the teachers unions called all the shots.

Philip K. Howard (18:04): For a long time, people have known that public employee unions are a headache and make managing government difficult. However, few understand how wasteful the system is. Approximately $2 out of every three dollars spent on personnel and related costs is wasted. This leads to a lack of accountability and a failure to fix any issues. As a result, we keep electing new people, yet nothing ever changes. Toxic police cultures persist, and the reason is because democracy is a process of accountability.

When you elect someone, you expect them to do a good job. If they don't, you elect someone else or the other party. But this assumes that the people you elect have the authority to manage the operations of government. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

For example, when COVID-19 happened, they did not have the authority to require people to come to school or do distance teaching. This has had disastrous results for students, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds. Experts say that these students have lost 17 percentile points in learning compared to the cohort in 2019, and this gap will never be recovered.

The Fruits of Collective Bargaining: Wasted Money, Civil Unrest, and Lost Learning

Bob Zadek (19:29): We have a direct compromise of a core governing principle in our country: the answerability, or accountability, of elected officials for our lives as citizens. However, there is no accountability because the elected officials themselves are powerless. Watching CSPAN hearings demonstrates this imbalance of power between the elected officials and the public service unions.

We have also experienced profound civil unrest in this country, with George Floyd being the most recent example. This is not the only example; there are many more.

Philip K. Howard (20:58): Tyre Nichols.

Bob Zadek (20:59): And now in Tennessee with the shooting of the innocent woman in Tennessee. There have been numerous instances of nationwide unrest, and the police are often blamed. However, this is a broad statement that overlooks the influence of unions. In your book, you discuss the accountability of police unions and their impact on our civic life. Could you tell us more about this?

Philip K. Howard (21:36): Democracies are nothing but a process of accountability. People are supposed to have authority to run the government and be held accountable if they do a bad job. However, in American public employment, 99% of public employees get a fully successful rating. Dismissal rates for performance across all sectors are between zero and 0.2%. Two or three teachers out of 300,000 in California get dismissed every year.

Derek Chauvin was the cop who killed George Floyd by putting his knee on him for nine minutes. He was known to be a tightly wound, weird guy, yet the police chief had no authority to terminate him or even reassign him. In the Minneapolis Police Department, there had been 2,600 complaints in the prior decade, of which only 12 resulted in any kind of discipline, the most severe being a 40-hour suspension. This shows that the system of public service is so rigged that no one can be held accountable.

Most people in government, including cops, probably want to do a good job. However, when everyone knows that performance doesn't matter, it destroys the culture. Why work hard or go the extra mile when you see someone else not doing anything? This leads to a public culture without pride, accomplishment, or excitement.

In the case of the Memphis killing of Tyre Nichols, young, untrained officers were assigned to the nighttime duty in the bad neighborhoods. This resulted in the officers becoming their own kind of gang.

Subscribe to receive the “cliff-notes” summary of Philip Howard’s book:

Police Abuse & Dysfunctional Public Sector Work Culture

Bob Zadek (25:12): Notice the dynamic Phil has explained: the title of his book, Not Accountable, says it all. Let's take a closer look at police abuses.

This isn't a show about being anti-police. We're taking a more sophisticated approach to the problem. Union leaders want to get elected, so they promise to protect jobs. This is appealing to police officers, but it also protects the worst performers at the expense of the good ones.

Public service unions lack accountability to the public, which creates the problem. This dynamic is also seen in powerful teacher unions, which protect teachers in "rubber rooms".

Philip K. Howard (27:24): Yeah, so you can end up with bad or discouraging cultures. Paul Volcker did a bunch of reports, and he talked about how discouraging it is for civil servants who work hard to have to tolerate those who don't work hard and don't do their best. Studies of good schools also say the same thing: nothing is more discouraging.

If you go to a good school, including a good public school, you can feel the culture of excellence. People are trying hard and everyone feels a mutual obligation to do their best. In contrast, if you go to a lousy public school, you experience the exact opposite. And you can't fix the lousy public schools because you can't manage them differently.

Thomas Sowell, the economist from Stanford, did a book where he compared the performance of public schools with charter schools that shared the same buildings in inner cities like New York. The performance was radically different, even though the students were chosen by lottery from the same cohort and neighborhoods. For example, there was one school in Harlem where the charter school was ranked 37th in the state of New York out of 2,400 elementary schools in academic achievement, while the public school sharing the same building in the same year was ranked 1,694th.

Bob Zadek (29:35): So everything was the same building: the same supply of students from the same demographic. There's only one element that's different. What is that element?

Philip K. Howard (29:52): Accountability and management are key. For example, in a charter school, which spends less money per student than a public school, class sizes are larger. However, they redirect money to provide art classes, music classes, and other activities to broaden the interests of students, instead of just focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic. Human innovation and initiative are at work in the charter school, doing whatever it takes to help the struggling student focus better than in the public school. In contrast, in the public school, everyone is just going through the motions, with no control or management, and no way to get rid of those teachers who are not trying.

“It's a scandal. We are ruining the lives of underprivileged children by putting them in an institution run for the benefit of the public teachers union, instead of for the students.”

Bob Zadek (31:06): How many of the issues we have discussed are caused by collective bargaining? Would a civil service system without collective bargaining be enough to satisfy you?

Philip K. Howard (32:03): Well, first of all, civil service in general is a good idea. It has to be a merit system. The merit system was meant to ensure accountability. The history of civil service shows that it was not supposed to be a process of tenure or lifetime employment, but rather a process of neutral hiring. This was in contrast to the spoils system, where people were hired because they gave money to a politician.

Ironically, a hundred years later, public employees are now subject to the spoils system again, except it's permanent. There is no accountability, no matter how bad an employee is.

You can have a system that protects against arbitrary firings by having someone else review it and make a judgment about whether the official was fair or not. This system should honor human judgment and responsibility, not just be a set of rigid legal rules that make people feel invincible.

To achieve this, collective bargaining should be eliminated. Elected officials are meant to serve the public, but then they negotiate with people whose job is to serve themselves, leaving the public out. This leads to bankrupt states, like California, poor schools, toxic police cultures, and transit systems that cost three times what they should. This is due to work rules that serve no legitimate purpose other than wasting money.

People reading this should be outraged. The genius behind these rules is that they are designed to be inefficient.

Why Due Process Doesn’t Apply to Firing Decisions

Bob Zadek (34:23): The genius of the public service unions is the marketing savvy of coining the phrase "public service" – oh my God, kudos to whoever invented that! The public service unions, to be accurate, are union service organizations – they hardly serve the public. I couldn't resist that hint of cynicism – apologies to my audience.

The unions want due process, but due process is a very specific concept which deals only with, for the most part, governmental behavior in a criminal context – being convicted without due process of law. People often apply the First Amendment to employment relationships, but there is no free speech – Susan Sarandon is not deprived of free speech if people don't attend her movies.

Due process has nothing to do with the conversation. Your ideal system would be one with rules designed to protect workers from arbitrary treatment by their, ultimately political, bosses. We have workers who are apolitical – they just want to show up for work and do their highly specialized job, and they don't want to be fired unfairly by the political process when there's a change in administration. All of that makes sense – it's good for everybody.

But the system now deals with work rules – rules governing the quality of life of the workers – and the unions perform a disservice in that regard. That's the part of the process where we start to lose accountability, isn't it?

Philip K. Howard (37:10): Well, there are two things here. Firstly, for any successful organization to be built, everyone needs to trust that everyone will be held accountable for their performance. This foundation of trust is undermined if people can keep their job by sleeping all day. There are stories of teachers who sleep during class and still don't get fired. Steve Brill once heard a case of a teacher who never graded papers and her defense was that the city didn't provide her with instructions to do so. This is absurd.

The same goes for police departments. If someone misbehaves, there are so many rules that make it hard to hold them accountable. For example, the officer can't be interviewed until every other witness statement is taken. And the arbitrators who decide the case are chosen by the police union.

Most work rules have nothing to do with the quality of life. A hundred years ago, unions were great for protecting workers in dangerous jobs like meatpacking or railroads. But now, these rules are just used for feather bedding. For example, if a work crew needs to remove a branch from the transit line, they can't do it because it's not in their job description. They need a whole new crew.

The same goes for cleaning subway cars. When they thought that Covid could spread through touching the bars and railings, they didn't have enough workers. So they subcontracted it out. The private contractor did three times as much work for the same price. This shows how much waste there is in the system.

Bob Zadek (39:58): Abuses in work rules are nothing more than a wealth transfer from those who cannot protect themselves to those with power. What is almost always the case with such abuses is that monopolies, such as railroads and public service workers, have absurd and abusive work rules. This is because the customers don't have a choice; the government cannot move out of town.

Philip K. Howard (41:04): And secondly, the public supervisors don't have a choice. So, it's not just the risk of a government monopoly. The people in positions of responsibility can't do anything either. This adds another layer of inefficiency. Government always has a problem running due to lack of market competition and other factors. Now, add to that the fact that the people in charge of government have no authority to act. They are like the Lilliputians, all tied down.

Public Sector Unions are Unconstitutional

Bob Zadek (41:50): I want to give the audience an insight into an important part of this discussion, which you do a beautiful job on in your book - the economics. The Janus Case, which you mentioned in your book explains how unions collect money through forced contributions. I did a show on Janus and on Rebecca Friedrichs and her fight against teachers unions in California. The government protects this money and the unions overwhelmingly use it for political contributions to reward those who supported the unions.

In effect, the public is forced to provide economic support to the unions so they can work against the public's interest. Can you explain the flow of funds in this process?

Philip K. Howard (43:01): Collective bargaining has allowed public employee unions to mobilize the mass of modern government against reform. There are 7 million members of these unions, including teachers, police, and others, who pay around $5 billion in dues annually. Most of this money goes to political activity. They elect their own bosses and remove state legislators who don't comply with their demands.

It's like dealing with a giant, fire-breathing dragon. Even Republicans are reluctant to take them on, as the unions can mobilize national money to get rid of them.

I suggest that the point of constitutional governance is for people to elect those in charge. The Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution (Article IV) enshrines this principle and applies to states and local governments. It states that the United States will guarantee to every state a government of a republican form. James Madison discussed this in the constitutional debates, explaining that elected officials must retain the authority to manage the government. They cannot give it away to any set of nobles or any favored class.

In the last 50 years, however, this has happened almost without people noticing. Politicians have been bought off, giving away the power to govern, run schools, and manage police forces to public employee unions through collective bargaining powers and other rights.

This is unconstitutional, and this book provides a legal mechanism to undo it.

Bob Zadek (46:23): The non-delegation principle is profoundly important. It is part of the well-known system of checks and balances, where one group's ambition is offset by another group's ambition, resulting in a benefit to the public.

The non-delegation principle also applies, as my audience will remember or know, to prohibit Congress from giving too much authority to the executive branch. The courts will decide what "too much" means. The executive branch cannot be allowed to legislate, which is another example of the same principle.

Philip K. Howard (47:12): Two things: Congress cannot take away the executive power to run personnel. Therefore, the collective bargaining powers are unconstitutional. Five years ago, I wrote a paper that served as the basis for Trump's decision to hold all senior employees accountable, as Congress lacks the power to take away the president's executive power.

You are talking about the doctrine of intergovernmental transfer, which is when Congress gives too much power to an agency. However, what we're discussing with public employee unions is far worse. It's like a rich company coming along and saying they want to run the police force and decide how everything is run in the government. This is not allowed, as whoever is doing the work must be accountable to people appointed or elected by the voters. This has not happened, and there is a permanent spoils system.

Making the Case in the Court of Public Opinion

Bob Zadek (48:41): Phil, in the few minutes we have, let's empower the audience. As they leave this podcast, they should be motivated and determined to make a difference. What actions should they take to bring about change? Although the changes may be complex politically, conceptually they are straightforward.

Philip K. Howard (49:23): In making the legal case, or even the constitutional case, it is essential for the public to care about it and agitate politically. This shows that it is important. So, when listeners are frustrated with another tax raise or a failing school, they should ask why these things can't be managed more effectively. What do the union contracts look like? Why does it cost more than the private sector would? People should tell their friends that it is crazy. Elected officials must have the authority to manage these things, and this should be a centerpiece of the 2024 presidential election. I’ve spoken to several potential Republican candidates already, but the Democrats may not pick it up due to their union funding. For it to be important in the 2024 election, voters must make their voices heard.

Bob Zadek (50:55): Phil, I'd hoped to make headlines by having you use this podcast to declare your candidacy in the primary, but I was mistaken.

We've been speaking with Philip K. Howard, author of the recently published Not Accountable. Philip has also written The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good, and Life Without Lawyers. In addition, he has authored The Rule of Nobody, and Try Common Sense.

Philip, we appreciate you taking the time to share your wisdom with us and our audience. We also want to thank the audience for giving us an hour of their time and allowing us into their hearts and minds. Thank you so much, my friends out there. And thank you again for your book.

Philip K. Howard (52:09): Great to be with you, Bob.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe