The Glenn Show

John McWhorter is back, just like you knew he would be. This week we’re talking about the future of affirmative action.

We begin by discussing Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner’s new film adaptation of the classic musical West Side Story. John argues that people who dismiss the musical as just “something some old white people wrote” are far too simplistic and limited in their view. I haven’t yet gotten a chance to see the new adaptation, but I’m a fan of the music and lyrics, so I’m inclined to agree with him. We then move on to affirmative action. When the Supreme Court takes up the Harvard admissions case next term, there’s a good chance they’ll end up declaring affirmative action unconstitutional. If that happens, John and I agree that we’ll likely see fewer black students admitted to elite universities, though I think administrators unwilling to scale back their focus on diversity will find ways to admit black students who may not be academically on-par with their peers. John and I are deeply concerned that orienting academic standards—from undergrad admissions to the hiring and tenure process—around diversity and identity will have disastrous consequences for the university system, for the long-term health of the nation, and, yes, for black people. As an object lesson, John presents a (rigorously anonymized!) account of a star black academic who, in John’s account, derives their profile more from their ability to represent their race than their scholarly achievements. Is this person respected by their colleagues for the quality of their work? More worrying, will people simply assume that all black students, academics, and professionals—even those who are truly accomplished—achieve their status due to their race? John worries that people will condescend to his young daughters in that way. If I had young children, I’d worry, too.

Things get a little heavy this time out, but that’s because the issues themselves are heavy. I want to know your thoughts—tell me about them in the comments.

Correction: In the video, I say that Lisa Cook studied under Paul Romer at Berkeley. This is an error. She was David Romer’s student.

This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

0:00 John: Don’t dismiss West Side Story just because it was written by “old white people”

14:59 If the Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, will higher education “resegregate”?

24:34 Are meritocracy and racial diversity initiatives inherently opposed to each other?

35:41 What, if anything, are we losing when we give significant weight to racial preference?

47:19 John: Certain black academics are valued for the way they represent their race rather than their scholarly achievements

56:54 The perils of the DEI industry 

Links and Readings

John’s NYT piece, “Yes, Some Musicals Are Unwoke. That’s Not a Writ to Rewrite Them.”

John’s NYT piece, “The Gilded Age’ Is Depicting Black Success. More TV Should.”

Heather Mac Donald’s City Journal piece, “March of the Revisionists”

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

Steven’s recently reissued and updated book, The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being ... Why is Steven, a political scientist, interested in how economists think? ... The virtue of markets ... Opportunity costs explained ... If everyone needs water and almost no one needs diamonds, why are diamonds more expensive than water? ... Prices, incentives, and compensation ... Would unlimited unemployment benefits help or harm unemployed people? ... Is it rational to expand our reliance on nuclear power? ... The difficulty of reducing healthcare costs ... COVID’s opportunity costs ...

As many of you know, I’m in the midst of writing a memoir. I’m now calling it The Enemy Within, but its earlier title was Changing My Mind, an allusion both to my intellectual development and to my shifting political orientations. In the course of thinking through my past, I’ve wondered how much the new, more conservative Glenn would have to say to the more liberal Glenn of the ‘90s and ‘00s.

So I decided to stage a little “debate” between us. Mark Sussman, my editor here at the newsletter, went through a lecture I delivered at Baruch College in 2000 where I laid out the argument that would become The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. He picked a few clips emblematic of the Old Glenn’s positions, where he thought there might be room for some interesting agreement and disagreement (you can watch the whole lecture here). We then recorded my reactions, with Mark “moderating” between me and my prior self.

It turns out that the Old Glenn and the New Glenn agree about a lot of things (though not, of course, everything). If present-day progressives approached problems of racial inequality in the way I recommended then, I still might not sign onto their program today, but there would be much more shared ground where compromise between opposing sides could be reached. Certainly the Old and New Glenns agree about a great deal. It all makes me wonder: Is it too late to abandon the hectoring tone of racial discourse today and have a serious discussion about history, outcomes, and incentives? Despite my own pessimism, I have to hope that it isn’t, and that, at the very least, the Old Glenn still has some allies out there.

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

On this week’s show, I’m talking to the political scientist Steven Rhoads, author of the influential book The Economist’s View of the World, which was recently reissued in a substantially updated edition. Steven thinks the fundamental principles of economics can help even non-economists see the world in a more rational and solution-oriented way, and I have to say, I agree!

I begin by asking Steven how a political scientist came to write a book extolling the virtues of economics—why not write one about his own discipline? After all, economists are constantly saying unpopular things that can sound a little heartless (at least if you don’t understand the reasoning). Steven explains what attracts him to economics. We get into the concept where all modern economics begins: the market. Steven asks, if, as some people suppose, only right-wing ideologues champion the efficiency of markets, why do left-wing economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz praise them (with qualifications)? We then approach three ideas fundamental to the study of economics: opportunity costs, incentives, and marginalism. We approach these ideas through practical problems, like why it’s sometimes necessary to make roads and public spaces less safe. (Hint: It’s not because economists are walking calculators devoid of human feeling!) We end the conversation by talking through some pressing questions where economists really should be listened to. Is it a good idea to pay out unemployment benefits to individuals indefinitely? Is it rational to rely on nuclear power when we know the dangers of radiation and nuclear catastrophes? Should individuals be able to undergo as many medical tests and procedures as they want? And, finally, are we overcounting the number of deaths caused by COVID?

If you’re wondering how to start thinking like an economist, Steven’s book and this conversation are great places to start.

This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

0:00 Steven’s recently reissued and updated book, The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being

5:28 Why is Steven, a political scientist, interested in how economists think?

9:41 The virtue of markets

17:24 Opportunity costs explained

27:07 If everyone needs water and almost no one needs diamonds, why are diamonds more expensive than water?

35:10 Prices, incentives, and compensation

45:43 Would unlimited unemployment benefits help or harm unemployed people?

50:47 Is it rational to expand our reliance on nuclear power?

52:58 The difficulty of reducing healthcare costs

56:58 COVID’s opportunity costs

Links and Readings

Steven’s book, The Economist’s View of the World: And the Quest for Well-Being

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

Ilya Shapiro’s controversial tweet about Biden’s imminent Supreme Court nomination ... John dips out and Glenn delivers a soliloquy ... John returns and clarifies his academic resume ... Why John thinks that Georgetown shouldn’t fire Ilya Shapiro ... Why should race be a factor in Biden’s Supreme Court pick? ... Should Biden have announced the gender and race of his pick ahead of time? ... John: “There’s real ideological diversity in the Black community” ... How bad was Whoopi Goldberg’s statement about the Holocaust? ... Glenn and John agree that Joe Rogan’s use of the n-word is not cause for cancelation ...

I’m back with my friend John McWhorter for one of our regular conversations. A lot has happened on the race and politics front over the last two weeks, so we’ve got a full docket of topics to discuss.

And speaking of dockets, after overcoming some technical difficulties, we spend a good chunk of time on matters relating to the Supreme Court. Ilya Shapiro, the incoming director of Georgetown University’s Center for the Constitution, was put on leave by the school after tweeting criticism of Joe Biden for passing over his preferred candidate for the Supreme Court in favor of a “lesser black woman.” Shapiro refers to Biden’s promise to nominate a black woman to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court when he retires later this year. Was Shapiro’s tweet racist? Neither John nor I think so, though it was poorly phrased. We go back and forth over the how much representation should play into the composition of the Supreme Court. We’re talking about an extremely elite institution with very few people on it, so I don’t think proportional representation is possible or necessarily even desirable, but it’s a complex matter. I say if Biden had simply nominated a black woman instead of announcing he was going to do so ahead of time, this wouldn’t even be an issue. How much do ordinary black people care about representation on the Supreme Court, anyway? The nomination of Clarence Thomas is an instructive case.

We then move on to discuss Whoopi Goldberg’s unfortunate comment about race and the Holocaust. Was she mistaken to say that Nazi persecution of the Jews had nothing to do with race? Absolutely. Do John and I think she should be pilloried for saying it? No. It’s a case of ignorance, not antisemitism. She apologized, and she should be allowed to get on with her life and career. The Joe Rogan affair is next. A montage of the comic and podcast host using “the n-word” several times over the years went viral last week. John raises the point that he wasn’t directing the word at anybody, he was citing it. There’s a difference between hurling a racial slur at someone and uttering a racial slur in order to discuss it. The word itself should not be off limits for the purposes of discussion, and we both think that anyone who simply can’t bear to hear it in any context needs to grow up.

As you can see, we take our role as “The Black Guys” seriously in this one. Let us know what you think!

This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

0:00 Ilya Shapiro’s controversial tweet about Biden’s imminent Supreme Court nomination

6:03 John dips out and Glenn delivers a soliloquy

13:22 John returns and clarifies his academic resume

17:40 Why John thinks that Georgetown shouldn’t fire Ilya Shapiro

23:07 Why should race be a factor in Biden’s Supreme Court pick?

33:43 Should Biden have announced the gender and race of his pick ahead of time?

40:55 John: “There’s real ideological diversity in the black community”

47:34 How bad was Whoopi Goldberg’s statement about the Holocaust?

55:07 Glenn and John agree that Joe Rogan’s use of the n-word is not cause for cancelation

Links and Readings

John’s NYT piece, “Don’t Assume Ilya Shapiro’s ‘Lesser Black Woman’ Tweet Was Racist”

John’s NYT piece, “It’s Time to End Race-Based Affirmative Action”

John’s NYT piece, “End Affirmative Action for Rich White Students, Too”

Glenn’s audio essay, “The Call of the Tribe”

John’s book, Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, “The Nasty Double Standards That Make This SCOTUS Nomination So Toxic”

James Scott’s book, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance

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

Larry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life ... Why did Larry, a serious academic economist, write a financial advice book? ... Why investing in stocks may not be as safe as it seems in the long term ... Larry: If a personal finance product is complicated, it’s a swindle ... An economist’s guide to divorce ... Is a free online Stanford education more valuable than a debt-laden traditional degree? ... Why does the government offer student loans? ... Larry: “We’re all self-made people at some level” ...

Here at The Glenn Show, I’m taking a little break from politics and culture to talk dollars and cents. My good friend and former Boston University colleague Larry Kotlikoff is here to discuss his new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life. In it, Larry brings his knowledge and expertise as an economist to bear on the everyday problems of spending, saving, and investing. In this episode, he shares some of that advice with TGS viewers.

But, wait a minute. Larry is a serious academic economist. Why did he write an advice book? He explains what he’s trying to accomplish with Money Magic. Larry talks about why investing in stocks may not be the best use of your money even when the market is up (especially if you’re carrying debt). I ask Larry about some of my own recent experiences managing my money, and he breaks things down in a way that non-economists can understand. For example, he says, if someone (including the U.S. government) is trying to sell you on a financial product that seems really, really complicated, it’s probably a swindle. What about major life decisions, like divorce? Even then, Larry says, you’re better off balancing the costs and benefits than making a decision without considering the financial consequences. We then get into education. Millions of people in this country carry unmanageable loads of student debt. But Larry thinks you can get an elite education without going into debt at all, and he explains how. Why does the federal government issue student loans, anyway? And is there a more equitable way it could arrange for repayment? Finally, Larry and I get into our personal history and talk about what makes successful individuals the way they are.

Whether you’ve got pressing financial questions or not, you’ll want to hear what Larry has to say.

This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

0:00 Larry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life

4:36 Why did Larry, a serious academic economist, write a financial advice book?

14:23 Why investing in stocks may not be as safe as it seems in the long term

24:17 Larry: If a personal finance product is complicated, it’s a swindle

29:34 An economist’s guide to divorce

32:48 Is a free online Stanford education more valuable than a debt-laden traditional degree?

44:20 Why does the government offer student loans?

51:12 Larry: “We’re all self-made people at some level”

Links and Readings

Larry’s new book, Money Magic: An Economist’s Secrets to More Money, Less Risk, and a Better Life

Glenn’s classic 1981 paper, “Intergenerational Transfers and the Distribution of Earnings”

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

What political values does Joe Biden represent? ... Do new election laws amount to race-based voter disenfranchisement? ... Glenn: Black people are free. But what should we do with that freedom? ... John changes his mind about Eric Adams ... John addresses linguistic informality and Sidney Poitier in his recent columns ... Amy Wax: heterodox thinker, provocateur, or racist? ...

John McWhorter and I often find ourselves aligned on the issues we discuss on The Glenn Show. We’ve even received criticism for how much we agree with each other! This episode should please those critics, as John and I actually find ourselves in stark (though productive and friendly) disagreement on a few matters. Let’s get into it.

We begin by talking about Joe Biden’s recent press conference. Personally, I think he performed pretty badly, as the White House subsequently had to walk back several of his statements. Are these just more of Biden’s characteristic gaffes, or do his misstatements reflect a deeper confusion within the administration? What values does Biden’s presidency represent, anyway? We go on to discuss voting rights and election legislation. We disagree about proposed changes to state-level voting laws: John thinks they're racist in their intent, and I remain to be convinced of that. We also disagree about the meaning of their effects. I have no problem with voter ID requirements, tightening the enforcement of existing laws, and other reasonable ballot security measures. But John is wary. He seems to be concerned that Republicans’ voting security measures are veiled attempts to increase their relative share of the turnout in certain contested districts by decreasing the participation in elections of (reliably Democratic) black voters. Why, he wonders, has ballot security become such an issue now? Of course, I have my responses! I then ask John what he thinks about New York City Mayor Eric Adams’s performance in his first weeks on the job. John was quite critical of Adams last time we talked, but he’s changed his mind. Finally, we get into the Amy Wax issue. Her recent TGS appearance and its aftermath lead us to discuss crucial questions about speech, platforming, and teaching. My fellow John Stuart Mill fans will want to pay close attention to this section.

This is a rich exchange that I’m sure will provoke much commentary, so please do weigh in.

This post is free and available to the public. To receive early access to TGS episodes, an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.

0:00 What political values does Joe Biden represent?

8:53 Do new election laws amount to race-based voter disenfranchisement?

23:00 Glenn: Black people are free. But what should we do with that freedom?

36:06 John changes his mind about Eric Adams

42:21 John addresses linguistic informality and Sidney Poitier in his recent columns

44:28 Amy Wax: heterodox thinker, provocateur, or racist?

Links and Readings

Bill Maher, “New Rule: First Lady Barack Obama”

John’s NYT piece, “Don’t, Like, Overanalyze Language”

John’s NYT piece, “On Sidney Poitier, Code Switching and the Black Voice”

Amy Wax’s Race, Wrongs, and Remedies: Group Justice in the 21st Century

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