Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 7, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:40

Jonathan Haidt | The Ben Shapiro Sunday Special Ep. 22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If we want to be a light to the world, if we think that democracy and liberty are important virtues, we need to get our own house in order.
	Well, here we are on the Sunday special with Professor Jonathan Haidt of NYU.
	We're going to get to all of my questions about his brand new book, The Coddling of the American Mind, which he's written along with Greg Lukianoff over at FIRE.
	We'll get to all that stuff, plus The Righteous Mind, all sorts of great stuff.
	But first, let's talk about your impending doom.
	71% of people say they need life insurance, but only 59% have coverage, which means at least 12% of people are procrastinating, and another, like, 30% are idiots.
	Sure, normally procrastinating is a bad thing, but if you've been avoiding getting life insurance, procrastinating may, in this case, have worked in your favor.
	Because while you were putting off getting life insurance, Policy Genius was making it easy.
	Policy Genius is the easy way to compare life insurance online.
	You can compare quotes in just 5 minutes, and when it's that easy, putting it off becomes a lot harder.
	You can compare quotes while sitting on the couch watching TV.
	You can compare quotes while listening to this podcast.
	Just try it.
	Policy Genius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance, placed over $20 billion in coverage, and they don't just make life insurance easy, they compare disability insurance, renter's insurance, health insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	So if you need life insurance, but you've been putting it off because it's too confusing or you don't have the time, don't be a loser.
	Check out PolicyGenius.
	It's the easy way to compare top insurers and find the best value for you.
	There's no sales pressure, there's zero hassle, and it's free.
	Go check it out.
	What are you waiting for?
	PolicyGenius.com.
	When it's this easy to compare life insurance, why put it off?
	Professor Haidt, thanks so much for stopping by.
	This is really a pleasure.
	So I want to start off by asking you sort of some off-the-beaten-track questions about your background.
	I like to find out where people are coming from before we delve into their ideas.
	So what exactly is your—you've become very politicized.
	A lot of folks in politics are very interested in what you have to say.
	Your books were first recommended to me by a high-ranking Republican official.
	What is your political background?
	Where do you stand politically, and how did you get there?
	Well, I'm a totally stereotypical northeast Jewish liberal, you know, academic type.
	That's my background.
	I grew up hating, well, Richard Nixon when I was a little kid because I knew you were supposed to hate Nixon, and then Reagan.
	I began studying cultural psychology in graduate school looking at how nations vary in their moral In their moral worldviews.
	And then as the, when the Democrats lost in 2000, and then again in 2004, I began, I was very upset, and I said, I can't stand it that the Democrats don't know how to talk about morality, and I can help them.
	And so I started converting my research over, my research from how countries vary, to how left and right vary.
	Because by then, left and right in this country were becoming like different countries with Different U.S.
	history and even different constitutions.
	And so I committed to understanding conservatives so that I could help explain conservative morality.
	And in the course of reading conservative and libertarian philosophy and ideas, I realized, oh my God, you actually have to look at problems from different perspectives to understand them.
	Over time, I kind of stepped out.
	We can talk about the Republican Party later.
	I have very little good to say about the Republican Party.
	I no longer identify as being on any team.
	I study moral psychology, I'm a social scientist, and I think as a social psychologist, if you're doing social science, it's really helpful to not be on a team, to have the independence to just try to study problems.
	So that's my background.
	So as a precursor to discussing some of the issues you discussed in The Coddling of the American Mind, I think it's almost necessary to talk about your earlier book, The Righteous Mind.
	Because that sort of provides the intellectual framework for what you talk about in the new book.
	So I wanted to ask you some questions about where that... So to fill in folks who may not have read the book, you make an argument that there are a bunch of different moral axes along which people work.
	That people don't just work along the idea of good and bad, that this breaks down into a number of different categories, and that left and right see these categories differently.
	So what exactly are those moral axes, and how do they play into politics?
	So from studying morality across cultures and reading the Old Testament and the Koran and reading ethnographies from non-Western societies, it was really clear that everywhere you look, people understand harm and pain and suffering, that's a moral issue, and reciprocity and fairness, that's a moral issue everywhere.
	But when you go to other issues like respect for authority, what's very common, but some places are really egalitarian, and sort of in-group loyalty, that's very common, but some places it's less important.
	And then that's four axes or dimensions.
	And then the fifth one is sanctity or purity, the idea that the body is a temple, it must be protected from degradation.
	So the kosher laws in Judaism are similar in some ways to the Hindu restrictions on eating and prayer, things like that.
	So the theory that I developed, based in part on the ideas of Richard Schwader, my advisor at the University of Chicago, was that the moral mind is like the way the tongue has five different taste buds on it, to pick up five different chemical properties of the world.
	Our minds, it's as though they have five or more different moral taste buds.
	And different religions, different political philosophies build a structure on some of those.
	What I found empirically from doing research, survey work, and other kinds of work, is that people on the left in America, and in general in other countries too, they build their morality mostly on issues of care, harm, protection of the vulnerable, and then fairness, but fairness as a quality.
	Whereas social conservatives, they have those, but they see fairness more as proportionality.
	Do the crime, do the time, that sort of thing.
	And then they also care a lot more about group loyalty, respect for authority, and a sense of sanctity or purity.
	And if you have that vocabulary, those five moral foundations, you can understand why left and right can't understand each other on most cultural war issues.
	And so what that sort of implies, and it's underscored by the other point that you make in The Righteous Mind, which is that people are largely driven by intuition rather than how we like to think of ourselves as reasonable creatures.
	If that's the case, can there ever really be any sort of conciliation in terms of politics, or is all of this sort of chimerical, like there's no way to come to any sort of even conversation?
	Right.
	So, philosophically and psychologically, I'm an intuitionist.
	That means I think intuition is where the action is.
	Our moral intuitions come first, and they drive our reasoning afterwards.
	That might make it seem as though we therefore can't agree because we're all just driven by gut feelings, but it's more complicated than that because our intuitions come first, but they are educable.
	They are changeable.
	We can't change each other's intuitions just by throwing reasons.
	You know, if left and right are talking to each other, well, you know, don't you care about, you know, respect for your parents?
	You can't just throw things at each other.
	But in relationships, We come to listen to somebody.
	We talk with someone.
	Our minds can meld.
	This is an amazing ability that humans have that no other animal has.
	We can meld our minds if we're open to that, and then we can actually hear each other.
	And that's what happened to me when I set out to understand conservative thought.
	I actually met a few conservatives.
	I mean, there were not many in my world, but I talked to some people, and they were very decent people.
	So, through relationships, with the right kind of relationships, we actually can open our minds and hearts.
	A great novel can do that.
	A great ethnography can do that.
	And one of the tragedies of our national life is that while we used to be fairly mixed politically, and we were more separated racially and in other ways, We've gotten more mixed along a lot of axes, but we're getting more and more separate politically.
	We live in more and more purified filter bubbles.
	And that makes it harder to empathize, it exacerbates our political divide, and it damages our democracy.
	So that brings us to the new book, The Coddling of the American Mind, which really talks about the ramifications of exactly this sort of divide.
	And in The Coddling of the American Mind, you talk about what you consider three big problems in American society today.
	If you want to just illuminate those, that would be fantastic.
	So the book is based around three great untruths.
	My first book, The Happiness Hypothesis, was actually about ten insights that you find in ancient cultures all over the world, psychological insights.
	And so one of them is, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
	That was Nietzsche's formulation.
	But you find the exact same idea in Mencius in ancient China, you find it all over the world, that kids need challenge, human beings need challenge, obstacles, failure, setback, in order to grow.
	So that's a basic truth.
	That's a psychological truth.
	But what we're finding on campus, what we're finding in the lives of American kids, is an increasing presence of the idea that what doesn't kill you makes you weaker.
	That is, in fact, oh my god, just recently there was an article making the rounds.
	Kids are mobilizing in high school.
	to end the practice of regular public speaking.
	Some kids have anxiety around public speaking.
	That's very common.
	One of the lines in this Atlantic article quoted a high school kid saying, nobody should be forced to do something that they're not comfortable doing.
	Wow!
	Wow!
	Can you imagine raising kids with that dictum?
	How would they come out?
	If this is true that we need challenges, setbacks, even fear, we have to be afraid and overcome it and realize, oh, I can do that.
	And if we give in to this idea that no one should be forced to do anything they're uncomfortable doing, we are setting up the next generation for failure.
	And that's exactly our subtitle, how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure.
	More briefly, the second great untruth is always trust your feelings.
	And the third is life is a battle between good people and evil people.
	And our contention in the book is that if we can successfully teach the young generation all three of these great untruths, they're almost guaranteed to fail.
	Well, let's talk about that last one, because that last one seems to me the most dangerous one of all.
	The attempts to favor feelings, I think, have a long subjective history, and in some ways may tie into the intuitionism that you talked about earlier.
	I mean, David Hume suggesting that basically we are creatures of passion, and then the reason sort of rides on top, pretending.
	But, with all that said, when it comes to the question of people seeing each other as good and evil, do you think that's springing more from one side of the aisle than another?
	How do you see that chain of causality moving?
	Well, let's hold off on the question of who's to blame or who is more guilty of this.
	Let's just start with the basic psychology here, which is that human beings evolved for tribalism.
	This is actually our great secret.
	Chimpanzees hunt and they have troops and they control territory.
	So they're able to do this.
	They're able to have battles between groups.
	But humans are the masters of this.
	And while that might sound bad, actually it enables us to cooperate.
	It enables us to have a shared moral world.
	So we are by nature tribal, and that's what got us into civilization.
	But modern liberal democracies are brilliant at turning that down to allow people to live more peacefully.
	Humans go very quickly to tribalism, but we can also tone it down.
	We're very good at trade.
	We're curious about other groups as well.
	And so a good modern society is one that finds ways to turn that down, allow people to live near others who are different from them, with no hostility, no violence.
	And we did a pretty good job of that in the 20th century.
	And there was a huge wave towards democracy.
	So we've made a lot of progress in the last few centuries overcoming tribalism.
	And the problem is that it's so easy to turn it back on.
	And a lot of what's happening in our politics between left and right, that's been accelerating since the 1990s.
	Cross-partisan hatred keeps going up and up since the 1980s or 90s.
	And unfortunately now, with certain forms of identity politics, we're finding these tensions between groups in the United States.
	And I just read, there's a new book out called The Tribes, something like that, in Britain.
	Very much the same process is happening in the UK.
	So this I find very alarming, that our society, our politics, social media, are turning up our tribalism.
	So where do you think that increased tribalism is coming from?
	Because my theory would be that based on sort of Robert Putnam's beliefs in diversity, of ethnicity being less beneficial than, for example, solidarity with regard to opinion, meaning that diversity is great so long as we all share a common goal.
	But if we don't share a common goal, then everything fractures pretty quickly.
	that the goal-oriented nature of the United States, a common culture that we shared, has basically disintegrated since the 1960s.
	In some ways, that's been for good on issues of sex and race, for example.
	But in some ways, that's been quite bad in terms of traditional morality, in my view, the stuff that held the social fabric together.
	It seems like that's what's been fraying most, is the social fabric.
	And what that's done is it's thrust people back into the tribalism that you're talking about— What would you attribute the rise in tribalism to?
	Yeah.
	So the way that I think about what's happened to our country is that in a large secular society, there are a lot of forces blowing us apart and there are a lot pulling us together.
	And if you go back to the mid to late 20th century, everything was lined up to pull us together.
	We'd had extraordinarily high rates of immigration in the late 19th and early 20th century.
	That's when my grandparents came over from Russia and Poland.
	There was a big wave of anti-immigrant backlash.
	And in the 20s, the gates were shut.
	Immigration went way down.
	And as you say, immigration has many good effects and many bad effects.
	You have to look at it honestly and try to maximize the good.
	So we had, by the 70s and 80s, we had very low rates of foreign-born.
	There was a dominant culture.
	It was the WASP culture.
	David Brooks has written brilliantly about how the WASPs set up a meritocracy within which Jews and Asians and other groups were able to succeed.
	We had a common enemy still in the Soviet Union.
	We had a functioning political culture in Washington where there's a lot of bipartisanship.
	Oh, and the media system.
	There were three networks, and so there was a more We had common sources of news.
	So all those things were lined up.
	And this was the century of American greatness.
	And all over the world, people looked to America and they said, wow, we want what they've got.
	Let's copy their constitution.
	Let's copy their culture.
	We were the light of the world.
	Obviously, there's plenty of anti-Americanism, too.
	But there's a lot of admiration for us.
	And then, one by one, the centrifugal forces pulling us together began to weaken.
	The media environment obviously reversed, beginning with cable TV all the way through to social media.
	Now it's fractionating us.
	Obviously immigration greatly increased beginning in the 60s, and again, many good things.
	The economists are clear immigration is good economically, but as you say, The issues of social trust and cohesion, Robert Putnam's work and others, suggest that that drops.
	Trust in others drops.
	And to have a functioning democracy, it really helps to have cross-group trust, to not be suspicious of each other.
	So in so many ways, things have kind of turned around and we have to do some serious thinking.
	What is it going to take to restore the social supports for an effective democracy?
	I mean, I do wonder if One of the things that it's going to take is something that's completely unpalatable to one side of the political aisle, at least, and that is a return to social institutions that people don't like very much, particularly on the left.
	So I want to ask you about that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about your psychiatric health.
	Today's show is sponsored by Talkspace, the online therapy company that lets you message a licensed therapist from anywhere at any time.
	All you need is a computer with internet connection or the Talkspace mobile app.
	I'm a big advocate.
	If you need help, you need to talk to somebody, and that means you can improve your mental health, even if you had trouble making time for it in the past.
	You can't imagine fitting anything else into your life?
	Well, with Talkspace, therapy is as easy as sending your therapist a message.
	You need to get something off your chest whenever you need to?
	Well, you can do that with Talkspace.
	Talk about everyday challenges at work or at home.
	Chat about life.
	There are no extra commutes, no leaving the office, no judgment.
	Remember, therapy isn't just about venting your innermost thoughts, digging into childhood memories.
	It's also about practical everyday strategies.
	That's the most important stuff.
	For stress management, living a happy life, getting involved in preventing your own bad chains of mental thought, having a therapist simply provides you a designated person for you to talk to who's trained to listen and help you make those positive changes.
	All the stigma that's associated with talking to someone is idiotic, which is why you should talk to my friends over at Talkspace.
	The Talkspace platform has over 2,000 licensed therapists who are experienced in addressing life challenges we all face.
	To match with a perfect therapist for a fraction of the price of traditional therapy, just go to Talkspace.com slash Shapiro and find out more.
	Use the code Shapiro to get 45 bucks off your first month and show your support for the show.
	That's Shapiro and Talkspace.com slash Shapiro for that special deal.
	Go check it out right now.
	So.
	My God, I thought I spoke quickly.
	You were amazing.
	Oh, thank you.
	Yeah.
	If my career falls through, I'll be the guy at the end of the commercials who issues all of the legal warnings.
	So if we're talking about the sort of forces that need to come back together, it seems like there are certain forces that it's almost impossible to bring back together.
	And the ones that most need to be brought back together are the ones that may be least palatable.
	What I mean by that, to clarify, is that social fabric for 200 years and for hundreds of years throughout Western civilization was basically based in church.
	You found your community in the church, in the synagogue, you had a common Judeo-Christian heritage, and with the rise of secularism, which has come along with a lot of economic benefits for sure, And a lot of diversity in terms of the kinds of people who are treated well.
	There's also been a consummate decline, a continent decline in the social fabric.
	What's tearing people apart seems a lot stronger than what's bringing us together.
	And it seems like that hole is being filled by political tribalism.
	I'm going to fill those values with whatever I think my tribe is, and it seems to me particularly, now to get to the left-right issue, and obviously I'm on the right, and I have plenty of criticisms for the right, but my main criticism of the left these days is that the left has fallen into a sort of tribalism that refuses to even acknowledge that another tribe exists, or that there are other people who perceive problems differently.
	To go back to your discussion of the various values in Righteous Mind, you suggest that basically the political left bases itself on a couple of values, fairness and harm.
	Well, if those are the values you base yourself upon, then by necessity you have to be implying, even to yourself, that the other side is for unfairness and for harm.
	That in order for, that there cannot be any bridging of the gap because the only values that matter are harm, perceived as anything bad that happens, anything I disagree with, Results in a certain number of people getting hurt and fairness in that a person who disagrees with me is in favor of the Reinstitution of a patriarchy or a hierarchical system and you're spotting that evil everywhere you look
	How can that possibly be bridged without folks on the left actually acknowledging that there are other sets of values that come into play and that those ones actually drive people and may not be in fact bad?
	So I think what you're pointing to is an asymmetry in mutual understanding.
	And I have evidence that that's true.
	So I run a research site at YourMorals.org.
	And we've had about a half million people go there and take our surveys.
	And in one experiment, we had people take our basic instrument, the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, which it gives you a score on these five foundations.
	And we had one-third of the people just filled it out for themselves.
	One-third were told, please fill this out as the typical liberal or progressive would.
	One-third were told, fill it out as a typical conservative would.
	What we found is that moderates are able to correctly predict how everybody would fill it out.
	Conservatives were almost as good as moderates.
	And it was people on the left, especially the far left, were very inaccurate.
	And it's for precisely the reason that you say, that because they couldn't see these questions about loyalty and fairness and sanctity, they couldn't see those as moral virtues.
	So on the questions about harm and fairness, they said, well, conservatives don't care about cruelty to animals and children.
	So I do think, and this was my case too, you know, I was very well educated in the United States, which means I learned nothing about conservatism.
	I learned very little about a large portion of political philosophy.
	And so it's impossible to grow up in this country without knowing what the left believes through the media, through newspapers, through movies.
	But I do agree that the left often fails to understand the right.
	And this is why we perennially have these issues on the left where, my God, how could they have voted for me?
	I don't know anybody who voted that way.
	What were they thinking?
	And so political surprises tend to be where the left is surprised, as happened in Brexit.
	I think they have a harder time understanding conservatives than vice versa.
	I personally think that every high school civics class, not that they teach them much anymore, but high school civics class should include the best of progressive thinking, the best of conservative thinking, possibly libertarian too.
	We shouldn't encounter Political diversity through the lens of the worst, because social media guarantees, if you're on one side, you are force-fed constant stories of the outrages by the most outrageous, horrible people on the other side.
	And if that's your view of who they are, of course you don't trust them.
	Of course you don't want your legislators to compromise.
	So I think we need to understand, we are coming apart in this country.
	We are facing the actual danger of the dissolution of the country over the next 10, 20 years.
	I'm not saying it's likely to happen.
	I think it's not likely to happen, but it is possible in ways that none of us thought were coming or possible five or ten years ago.
	So I think we need to take this seriously, start educating beginning in high school for more political tolerance, respect, and mutual understanding.
	So when it comes to the sort of pessimism that you're expressing about the nature of the country, with which I fully agree, there are a bunch of people who do disagree.
	There are folks like Steven Pinker who's claiming that everything is getting better.
	There are a lot of folks on the left who have suggested that problems on campus, which we discuss at length in the coddling of the American mind, that these are exaggerated, that basically campuses are just fine, that there's tolerance for other points of view.
	How do you respond to those particular criticisms?
	One, that everything is getting better and is just fine generally, and two, that college campuses are hunky-dory except for a few weird sort of straying from the mean.
	Let's take the first one.
	So, Steve Pinker, I think, is brilliant.
	I think he, in the big picture, I'm pretty confident he's right.
	That if we were just to check in at hundred-year intervals, each hundred years things would be much better than the hundred years before.
	Now, of course, at some point we might see the smoking wreckage of a global nuclear war, but odds are he's right in the long run.
	But as he grants, and as Robert Wright granted in his book Non-Zero years ago, you can have some big setbacks.
	It's only in the big picture that you see the march of progress.
	But along the way, you can have some pretty bad stuff happening.
	And I think where we are now, some of our problem is caused by social media.
	Of course, these problems of polarization were getting worse before social media, but social media is really messing things up all around the world.
	Odds are we'll learn how to deal with it, as we've learned how to deal with junk food.
	It took decades before we could learn how to live with the constant presence of junk food.
	I heard that for the first time last year, the obesity rate in America actually went down a tiny bit.
	So maybe we've learned how to coexist, and maybe that will happen with social media.
	But a lot of bad stuff can happen along the way.
	In terms of what's going on on campus, there's been a really productive debate, it was an excellent debate, started by a political scientist in Canada, Jeff Sachs, who pointed out that if you look at the general social survey, attitudes about free speech, it's not changing.
	In fact, if anything, younger people are more tolerant.
	And so that pushed me and Greg and others to refine our claims.
	And that's the way it's supposed to work.
	And what we found as we dug into the data is, yes, this national survey data shows no drop, but that's because it's focused on millennials.
	And this book, our book, The Coddling of the American Mind, is not about millennials.
	The millennials are fine on free speech.
	It's the generation after the millennials.
	It's the kids born in 1995 and after.
	They were raised very differently.
	We'll come back to that, because that's a major topic to talk about.
	So if you just look at iGen, or Gen Z, And, you grant the point that the skeptics made, that there are 4,500 colleges in this country, or institutions of higher ed of some sort.
	Are all of them up in arms over conservative speakers?
	No, most of them are not.
	Most of them don't have, you know, they're commuter schools, they don't bring in lecturers, they don't have riots.
	So, if you look at nationally representative data, on most campuses, nothing is happening.
	If you go home to a family, if you have a job off campus, you're not going to develop this arcane morality that we'll talk about, this safetyism morality.
	However, if you look at especially in the Northeast and the West Coast, if you look at the elite schools, there as far as I can tell, This new culture is present at almost all of the schools.
	It's not in the engineering schools so much.
	It's dominant in the humanities.
	So it varies even within the universities.
	My point is, there's a lot of diversity.
	We should not have a moral panic where we say, the new generation is lost, something's eaten their brains, or colleges are going up in flames.
	That's not true.
	But there is a new morality that is present in parts of most, maybe all, elite schools on the coast.
	That's where the shout downs and what little violence there's been, that's where it takes place.
	So we have to refine the story, figure out what's happening, and I think figure out how to reverse this cultural shift because it leads to a culture that's really bad for the students themselves and their mental health, and that's really bad for a culture of free inquiry.
	So how indicative are those outlier schools, statistically, of a broader trend across young folks?
	That's, yeah, that's complicated to answer.
	In terms of broad trends across young folks, the one, the most important one, the one that I think guarantees that we will be attending to this for many years to come, we cannot sweep this under the rug, is that rates of anxiety and depression are rising quickly for kids born after 1995.
	It's rising across social classes, across races, not so much across genders, or rather I should say, things are getting worse for boys, Substantially, but for girls, it's several times worse, several times faster, the increase.
	And what's very important to understand, because there's debate around this, some people say, oh, you know, kids, they like to say they're depressed.
	They're comfortable with this language.
	There was an op-ed in the New York Times a couple weeks ago by a psychiatrist saying, oh, you know, it's not real.
	It's just changing diagnostic categories.
	No, because if you look, there are studies, we cite them in the book.
	If you look at hospital admission data, this is the number of kids admitted because they cut their body with something sharp and had to be admitted to a hospital.
	It shows exactly the same pattern as it does for depression and anxiety.
	That is, it's way up, it's up even for the 11 to 13 year olds, and it's up especially for girls.
	And then you look at the suicide data.
	This is CDC data, federal data, same thing.
	The boys' suicide rate for teenage boys, From the first decade of the 21st century to the last couple years, it begins going up around 2010-2011.
	It's up 25%.
	25% more dead boys by their own hand over the last 10 or so years.
	For girls, the increase is 70%.
	25% more dead boys by their own hand over the last 10 or so years.
	For girls, the increase is 70%.
	Seven zero.
	So this is not just some isolated thing on a few college campuses.
	We have a mental health crisis across social classes, across all the different divides.
	On the elite college campuses, this is contributing to a culture of protectiveness.
	We're vulnerable, or at least, even if I'm not vulnerable, she's vulnerable, he's vulnerable.
	I am standing up for them.
	We can't have Ben Shapiro talk here, for example.
	And this is where the microaggression culture comes in, the idea of speech is violence, which was chanted at me when I was at Berkeley.
	Which is an insane concept just on the face of it.
	Especially at Berkeley.
	Yeah, it's pretty wild over there.
	But what was really wild about that one is the radical shift.
	Because I'd spoken there the previous year with no violence whatsoever.
	The next year I required 500 police officers.
	For protection, for some odd reason.
	But what exactly, does this trend hold true across parenting styles, across cultures?
	Or is it just a subsection that we're really talking about?
	Yeah.
	So this is all so new that I can't give you a solid answer.
	We don't have data on this.
	We do have a section in the book.
	We did spend some time researching social class differences, because we know there's a huge amount of research on social class differences in parenting.
	And we read two really good books.
	Annette Leroux has a book called Unequal Childhoods, and Robert Putnam has a book called Our Kids.
	And they both come to the same conclusion, which is that differences by race in parenting are actually fairly small once you control for class.
	So upper middle class black parents are more similar to upper middle class white parents than they are to working class of either sex.
	And so working-class parents do give their kids less supervision, which is good.
	Part of the problem is, in the 90s, we took away most of kids' unsupervised time.
	By the 80s or 90s, we stopped letting kids out to play without supervision, fearing that we thought they'd be abducted or something like that.
	So the working class is not as overprotective.
	Now working class kids have a lot of other problems.
	They face a lot more trauma, a lot more threat, like real trauma, like physical trauma, relational trauma.
	But in this country right now, at elite schools, there was some research came out last year, at many of our top schools, there are more kids who are children of the top 1% income than the bottom 60%.
	So our elite schools are populated overwhelmingly by the top few percent of the income distribution, and that's part of it.
	Rich kids have a lot more time to do symbolic politics.
	Working class kids, they have to pay their tuition.
	They have a lot of other obligations.
	So the culture of safetyism seems to be especially intense in upper middle class, upper class, elite coastal Yeah, when it comes to the identity politics that's cropped up so recently, and you sort of classify as a subset of emotional tribal-driven politics, where is the identity politics issue coming from?
	Does it have deep roots or shallow roots?
	And is it really just a new form of the kind of tribalism you've been talking about?
	So let me make a point here, which I hope will be helpful to your audience.
	In this country, we're in the middle of a long-running culture war in which terms become, they get tagged and they get used either as attacks or defenses.
	And identity politics and social justice are two of those terms.
	And I work on a college campus.
	Greg and I work on college campuses.
	We really want to solve the problem.
	We don't want to score points.
	We don't want to bash people.
	We really want to solve the problem.
	My view from writing The Righteous Mind is that whenever you have a political movement, there's always something that they're right about.
	There's always something that is good or true about it.
	And so what we did with identity politics, you know, because I came in very suspicious of it, thinking, you know, this is probably a bad thing.
	But as we read about it, we realized, okay, you know what?
	You have to have identity politics.
	If people can organize because they're wine growers in California, they can form a group to advocate for the rights of wine growers in California.
	And chess players can, I mean, you can have, politics should be responsive to every possible interest group.
	Why can't gay people or LGBTQ, why can't African American, of course, every group can organize.
	So you can't say identity politics is bad.
	What you need to do is say, okay, in the current American, Context.
	How are you pursuing the aims of your group?
	And this, I think, is a distinction that I found just clarified things right away.
	You can either pursue it using a common humanity approach, which is exactly what Martin Luther King, Pauli Murray, a lot of the early civil rights activists did.
	Common humanity.
	You start by saying, listen, my brothers and sisters.
	Or you use this soaring American language, as he did in his I Have a Dream speech.
	You first establish, we, we Americans, we human beings, they used a lot of religious language, Christian language, but obviously Judeo-Christian language.
	You start that way, and now right away, you're already halfway down the road to success, because now you're talking to people as members of a common group, and you can say, some of our brothers and sisters are being denied access to dignity, to jobs.
	So that worked, even if, of course, there was resistance at the time.
	It calls on our better angels, it establishes a connection, and in the long run, it works.
	That, we think, is great.
	What's new, or at least what's newly intense on college campuses in the last just a few years, is what we call the common enemy form of identity politics.
	It's based on the idea, the Bedouin proverb, me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me and my brother and cousin against the stranger.
	And if you unite everybody on campus against the enemy, and the enemy is on campus too, Because the enemy is straight white males.
	So what's new is the idea of intersectionality, which as we say in the book, intersectionality is not a bad idea.
	The idea that identities interact, that being a black woman is not just the sum of the two, but there are special obstacles that black women face.
	That's a fine idea.
	That's right and true.
	But the way that it gets implemented on campus is to train students to see, look around, oh, you know, oh, female, white, and to see, okay, female is oppressed, male is oppressor, white is oppressor, black is oppressed.
	To see people in binary dimensions, to imagine trying to create a diverse environment on a college campus.
	You're trying to create diversity.
	And at the same time, you're telling people to judge others through this simple, binary, bipolar dimension, good, bad, good, bad, to make moral judgments of people.
	So intersectionality, as it's practiced on many campuses, amounts to trying to unite a coalition of victim groups against the evil straight white males.
	And this is a recipe for, in addition to misdiagnosing the nature of not just American society, but especially college campuses, Isn't there a deeper critique of identity politics even than that?
	students to be manichean.
	It trains them to approach life and relationships through the lens of good and evil.
	We've got to tone that down if we want a successful, diverse society.
	Isn't there a deeper critique of identity politics even than that?
	Because you're taking identity politics at sort of its most favorable level to say people feel an identity with, for example, I feel identity with other Jews.
	But to suggest that all Jews are necessarily in the same boat, which is sort of the basis of identity politics, for you to group yourself with a group of people is to imply a common enemy of some sort.
	That's right.
	So Should we be fighting harder against identity politics than even you're saying?
	In other words, let's not group ourselves as blacks or Jews or gays.
	Let's group ourselves as a group of individuals who all agree on these common principles of how the society ought to be governed and how we ought to be left alone.
	Yes, I certainly agree with you.
	on that, that to what extent should we encourage people to see themselves as members of identity groups, or should we encourage them to think that black people are a certain way, Jews are a certain way?
	I think one of the great triumphs of the last few centuries has been to create a world that was especially clear for Jews.
	You know, Jews were literally kept in ghettos, and it wasn't until the Enlightenment ideas finally spread that Jews are allowed to make lives for themselves.
	The liberal tradition is ultimately about allowing room for people to make the lives that they want, they can choose to identify with a group or not.
	A really encouraging sign is that over the last few years, a lot of people who are not straight white males have been told, you need to identify this way, And they're saying like, no, I don't.
	How dare you tell me?
	How dare you tell me how I should feel?
	And at first, it was maybe hard for them to say that.
	But in the last year, a lot are saying it.
	And so there's all these great books out now, Francis Fukuyama, Has a new book just came out about identity and dignity.
	Anthony Appiah has been writing beautifully about this.
	Amy Chua, political tribes.
	So we're finding, and there's a lot more.
	So I think this is very encouraging.
	America is a diverse country.
	There are a lot of intellectuals in every different possible identity category.
	And a lot of them are rejecting this binary or in or out kind of identity.
	Politically, doesn't this tend toward libertarianism just naturally?
	Because what you're really talking about on a political level is we all have an agreement about the basic things that we should all do together and then everybody should basically be left alone to identify how they please.
	How does this play out politically in terms of, you know, if you were to take it to straight party politics?
	So, you know, as I hear you talk, what I'm thinking is that's really the definition of liberal.
	And what I mean is the word liberal, its origins are you believe in liberty.
	Its origins are originally, you know, like the liberal arts are the skills needed to be a free person in an open society.
	And so that's when we talk about liberal arts schools, we talk about the liberal tradition.
	That's what it means.
	And so in that sense, I'm a liberal.
	Now, I stopped using the word as the left began to kind of split between what I like to think of as there's the liberal left and then there's the illiberal left.
	Most professors, in my opinion, are liberal left.
	They are uncomfortable with many forms of identity politics.
	But it's the illiberal left that has had the loudest voice.
	It's often dangerous, as you found, as many people have found.
	It's dangerous to stand up against them.
	Dangerous.
	I shouldn't.
	Here I go.
	I shouldn't talk about Dean.
	You'll get a lot of blowback and a lot of hatred, is what I should say.
	At times, dangerous.
	From time to time, I've had to wear a bulletproof vest.
	It is occasionally dangerous.
	But you're right.
	I've said many times, I speak on dozens of campuses, it's really only a couple of years that are a serious problem.
	This is one of the things we most need in this polarized time.
	Just that little bit of nuance that you just added, that goes so far.
	Whenever we're having these conflicts, these talks, just to acknowledge anything about the other side, and then you can make your critique.
	Listeners everywhere, this is the way to be more effective.
	If you don't believe me, read Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People.
	This is the number one technique.
	So, but your question was, does that mean we should be libertarian?
	And I guess I would say it ought to mean that we should be liberal in the traditional sense.
	Unfortunately, the libertarians are sort of left as the guardians of the liberal tradition.
	So, what do you think has been the response to all of your research, which has been a lot friendlier to the right than a lot of other things that have been said in sociology departments around the country?
	How have people reacted in the academy to you?
	Because we've seen cases.
	You know, ranging from Evergreen State College to Northwestern, to Yale with the Christakis's, where people are legitimately run out of jobs.
	You call them witch hunts in the book.
	What's been the reaction to your work?
	Have you gotten any of that sort of blowback?
	No, I have not.
	Nothing bad has happened to me.
	You know, other than, you know, I occasionally get horribly nasty tweets.
	And I got an email the other day, which was from an anonymous server, and it was just a string of obscenities, which I can't even say on camera.
	Welcome to Twitter, yeah.
	So other than things like that from strangers, Nothing bad has happened to me, and I think this is actually very important to point out.
	So when I started critiquing the left, from the left, you know, there were some people who were suspicious of me, but a lot of people realized, you know, the left, we do have problems, we do need this critique.
	And because I would do it in sort of a gentle way, and because I clearly was not on the right, so I think I moved up to sort of the edge of what was possible, nothing bad ever happened to me.
	Then when I stepped out and I started saying, I'm not on the left anymore.
	I'm just, I'm nothing.
	I'm not on a team.
	Again, I thought there'd be blowback.
	And some people were suspicious.
	Some people didn't like me, but nothing bad happened to me.
	And then when Greg and I wrote our Atlantic article critiquing this new culture on campus, and it is a critique of a certain kind of identity politics.
	You know, my wife said, John, are we going to have to, like, hide our address?
	Like, are people going to stalk us?
	Nothing bad happened to us, because by 2015, people all over the place were beginning to realize something weird is happening.
	We're puzzled.
	And if you come out with an explanation of like, here's what we think is happening, people are really curious.
	And now with this book, again, I was actually kind of afraid, like, you know, what's gonna happen to me?
	I have tenure, I'm not gonna lose my job, but what's gonna happen to me socially?
	And the reception has been overwhelmingly positive, because again, people realize Something is messed up.
	The mental health crisis is real.
	Something's going on.
	My advice to people is if you speak up in this polarized climate, a lot of us are afraid to speak up, but if you can do it in a respectful way with just a little bit of nuance, the blowback is often much less than you would expect.
	So you teased much earlier in the show that you have a lot of critiques of the Republican Party.
	Because I, of course, am a conservative, that means we spent most of this program critiquing leftists on campus and some of the kind of rising leftist ideas of identity politics, intersectionality, microaggressions and such.
	So what are your main critiques of the right?
	How could the right be doing a better job and what exactly is the right doing deeply wrong right now?
	You know, so what really attracted me to conservatism was reading the philosophy.
	So, you know, one of my gateway drugs was Thomas Sowell.
	I read Conflict of Visions, and boy, that book, when I assigned it to my classes at UVA, you know, that really opened people's eyes.
	And he talks about, do you have the constrained view of human nature, which is where you think people, if you take off the constraints, they're going to do selfish, greedy, sexual, aggressive things, and we need religion, family, law.
	Versus the unconstrained vision, which goes back to Rousseau, or it's the John Lennon song, Imagine.
	Just knock down all the walls!
	Remove religion and country!
	Everything will be great!
	You know, when I look at it that way as a social scientist, I have to say, the conservatives are right about human nature.
	That is the correct view of human nature.
	And that goes back to our earlier part of our conversation about how we need structures, we need constraints in order to flourish.
	So, I'm very attracted to a lot of conservative philosophy.
	And that goes all the way up You know, from Burke all the way through Sowell, Hayek and others, conservative libertarian.
	So I'm attracted to a lot of the philosophy.
	And of course, I disliked Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party back then when I was a partisan Democrat.
	But I can see the wisdom of fomenting dynamism.
	I can see the wisdom of a lot of what the Republican Party was doing then.
	And George H.W.
	Bush was a very, very decent man.
	Um, but I look at the Republican Party, well, since Newt Gingrich, I think, converted to a much more confrontational party, which again, I can't criticize that.
	The Democrats didn't treat the Republicans well when they were in the majority.
	But I think Newt Gingrich and Fox News created an environment in which, in which the Republicans were more incentivized to sort of go rogue, to develop an, to based on feedback and opportunities to be more radical.
	And I think some of the policies that they've implemented, the worst critique of the Republican Party, or a common critique, is all they seem to really care about is lowering taxes on the rich.
	That seems to be their top priority, and that's been true for a while.
	And so a party that is just focused on its relationship with its donor class, and then its ability to do things... Well, don't get me started on Trump, but the things that Trump is doing to destroy our alliances, to disrespect our allies while sucking up to dictators, and the fact that the Republican Party has not repudiated him, So I think that Trump clearly is not a conservative.
	He is appealing much more to authoritarian tendencies.
	I can't see any lineage from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump.
	There is no way to get from here to there.
	So the fact that the Republican Party has lost its conservative soul, I think, and is following Donald Trump, Is I think a mark of damnation that it will wear for many decades.
	We quote research in the book on how however the political world looks between the ages of 14 and 24 sticks.
	And so I think the Republican Party is signing I can't say it's death warrant but I think it's going to lose a generation.
	I mean, I tend to agree with that assessment, which is one of my great fears about President Trump before he was President Trump, was that I listed several fears about President Trump that I had, and my chief one, which I think is still on the table, is the toxification of conservatism thanks to all of this.
	With that said, is there any way to put the political genie back in the bottle?
	Because it seems like political leaders of both sides have a real interest in revving up the culture wars, and I think that when it comes to Republican legislative priorities, it has less to do With the stuff they'd like to do, and the stuff that they can actually do without blowback.
	So tax cuts are popular because who exactly is going to whine about them?
	Everyone at least got a check, right?
	And when it comes to the left.
	But the debt and the deficit, which Republicans were the watchdogs of, and for the last 20 years, they've been the bad guys.
	Well, I totally agree with that.
	But the point is that there's the stuff that people can get done in Congress, and then there's the stuff that people can jabber about in Congress.
	And by looking to our politicians as our moral leaders, by looking to our politicians as our philosophical leaders, what we've actually done is create the sort of room for this divide between practical politics and the stuff that we think that they ought to be saying philosophically.
	Like when the politicians are seen as thought leaders, Barack Obama was seen as a thought leader for the left, and then he implements a bunch of policies that are completely partisan.
	I mean, he has no bipartisan legislation throughout any of his tenure.
	And yet he is seen by the left as some sort of great bipartisan unifier.
	And the right responds by saying, okay, fine, we'll just put somebody up there who doesn't pretend to be bipartisan.
	We'll just go out there and he'll do whatever he wants.
	Is there any way to put this genie back in the bottle?
	Because there is money to be made and votes to be gained in the sort of tribalism that both of us are sort of railing against here.
	Well first I have to defend Obama.
	He came out, so if you go back to the first election, the economic crisis threatened us with ruin.
	Nobody knew it was going to happen.
	It was a really scary time ten years ago.
	And Obama did the right thing, which is to say We're going to do this bipartisan.
	This is not a partisan thing.
	We're going to do this bipartisan.
	And we have to do this together.
	And he, and going back to his 2004 speech, I believe that Obama really does, he does actually understand conservatives better than most.
	He lived in Indonesia.
	He's traveled a lot.
	I think Obama, I like him philosophically and he started the right way.
	The Republicans, however, there was a particular retreat they had early in Obama's, in the first couple months of his term, somewhere in Maryland, I can't remember where it was, and they did a calculation and they said, Should we work with them and try to make them successful?
	Or should we try to make them fail?
	Which will work better for us?
	And they correctly calculated that the second course was best for them, and that was Obama's fault.
	Because Obama was very bad at negotiating.
	Obama should have said... Again, this is my political analysis, which is not worth much.
	Obama should have said, back channel.
	We're going to do this bipartisan.
	You have three months to join me on it.
	If you don't join me on it, I'm going to break your knees.
	I'm going to blame it all on you, and we're going to do it my way.
	But because Obama didn't play hardball, and he did this internationally too, because he didn't know how to negotiate and have a tough side, the Republicans correctly calculated that they could make him fail.
	And it worked.
	They came sweeping into power two years later.
	So you can't fault Obama.
	And then also on the health insurance, yeah, it was, he got no Republican votes, but he tried and tried and tried to take a Republican idea from Mitt Romney for how to do health reform.
	So Obama tried, and it was this hyper-partisan Republican party that I think drove him ultimately to have to just do it in a partisan way.
	Obviously I would disagree with that political analysis almost in full, but I do think that election 2012 was basically In my view, sort of the breaking of the country.
	Because by election 2012, there was a belief on the right that Mitt Romney was a decent guy who was pretty moderate in a lot of his politics, the only Republican who had ever provided Obamacare for a state.
	And then he was torn apart and savaged as a bad guy in exactly the same way the left savages Donald Trump, except that Mitt Romney is not Donald Trump.
	And so we've now been locked into this mutual rock-em-sock-em robots combat where it's a lot easier to punch the other guy than to have a conversation.
	So how do we get beyond all this?
	Because obviously you propose a lot of solutions in Coddling of the American Mind.
	You talk about solutions a lot.
	How do we get beyond all of this, even based on the original premise of Righteous Mind, which is that we are mostly intuitional.
	If we're mostly intuitional, the lizard brain is extraordinarily strong with us.
	How do we get past that and exercise reason, or does reason exist?
	What facility do we use to move beyond this?
	It's very difficult to just decide to change.
	The forces, the historical trends that got us into this rising polarization are complicated.
	There are a lot of them.
	There's no one thing we can turn around and change.
	I think the most basic thing we need to do is we need to have some major reforms of our political institutions to encourage more moderation, compromise, and cooperation in Congress and at other levels of government.
	What I'm hoping would happen This is an idea from Norm Ornstein, who wrote the book It's Even Worse Than It Looks at Political Scientists, is at some point, the next president, somebody will say, OK, we're in big trouble here.
	Everybody hates Congress.
	Congress doesn't want to be hated.
	Let's have a panel recommend a sweeping set of changes.
	To make the legislative process more effective.
	We can't be shutting out the minor party entirely.
	We can't be having, well, the filibuster is going away for a lot of reasons.
	So we have to have reform to the way Congress works, the way elections are run.
	The closed party primary really incentivizes extremists to run, because that's how you win the nomination.
	So some states are experimenting with open primaries, or with top two primaries, as you have here in California.
	So I think we need a whole package of political reforms for Congress.
	The issue of the media and social media reforms, they are much harder.
	There, I don't really know.
	There are tweaks that Facebook and Twitter can do to their algorithms, YouTube videos, but all I can think of is tweaks.
	It's very hard to change the media environment.
	Education, we've already talked about.
	We need to be educating kids for democracy.
	We're not doing that.
	One of the suggestions we make in the book is that however bad things are, the young generation, which has had very little time to work out problems, they've been given very little freedom and independence, when the current generation, iGen or Gen Z, when they reach the age of political power, things might get a lot worse because they haven't worked out the skills of compromise, dispute resolution on their own.
	So, I think we're in big trouble and we're going to have to take a comprehensive look at how we raise children, how we educate them in high school and college, how our political institutions work.
	I've done what I can, Greg and I have done what we can in our book.
	This is going to take a collaboration among political scientists and historians to really focus, as we're focusing on other threats to the country, to really focus on the threats to our democracy without blaming one side or the other, saying the system is messed up.
	If we want to be a light to the world, if we think that democracy and liberty are important virtues, we need to get our own house in order.
	And this is, I think, where a really deep solution is going to require a rebuilding of a social fabric that has almost nothing to do with politics.
	And when we watch the social fabric torn apart on everything from sneakers to football, it seems very difficult to put all of that back together.
	It seems to me that bipartisan legislation is not going to make everybody feel better about everything.
	It seems like whatever legislative remedies are sought to various problems, just because you got a Democrat and a Republican shaking hands doesn't heal the problem.
	What we have here is that neighbors don't trust each other.
	Neighbors don't see each other in any social setting.
	If the only thing that we have in common is government, we have nothing in common.
	That's right.
	So how do we rebuild?
	Let's spend some time on individual parenting.
	You're a parent, obviously.
	You have a 12-year-old and an 8-year-old.
	I'm a parent with two kids under five.
	What's the best way to educate your kids to be part of that social fabric, to rebuild democracy from the ground up in every generation?
	So we have a whole chapter on play, and why play is so important for the development of any human being, and why play basically lets you practice the skills of democracy.
	When Alexis de Tocqueville traveled in America in 1831, he was so impressed.
	He said, you know, in France, if some great thing needs to be done, it's going to be done by the monarch.
	And in England, it's going to be done by the aristocrats.
	But in America, if they need to build a bridge or start a hospital, they get a bunch of people together, they form an association.
	Americans have a genius for the art of association, he said.
	And we cite research in the book on how play is the practice for the art of association, a pickup soccer game.
	Three kids sitting around, what should we do this afternoon?
	I don't know, what do you want to do?
	And then they figure it out jointly.
	So with my kids, it's hard because all the parents are overprotective, including us.
	When we try to send our kids out, like we send them out to go do an errand, go across the street, my son would say, but daddy, everybody looks at me funny because there are no other kids out there.
	So it's a social coordination problem.
	I'm hopeful that Americans will realize we have a mental health catastrophe.
	We've got to do something.
	Forget politics.
	We've got to do something for the well-being of our kids.
	So I urge every viewer, every listener, go to letgrow.org.
	It's an organization started by Lenore Skenazy, who wrote the book Free Range Kids.
	I'm on the board.
	And it has all kinds of suggestions for how you can make your neighborhood and your elementary school and all your schools, how you can make them better able to support free-range child rearing, kids having a few hours a day in which there's not an adult watching them, how you can get administrators to back off and give them more room.
	So we have a lot of ideas there for how you can address the problems from childhood up through high school.
	Next, we have to look at all of our institutions, all the places that we congregate.
	And so, let's talk about religious congregations, workplaces, universities.
	Beginning a year or two ago, I started getting calls or hearing from CEOs saying, we're being torn apart, battles over bathrooms, battles over this.
	A lot of the identity politics issues, which again, have to be solved.
	But if you do it in a common enemy way, it's impossible to solve.
	So leaders of almost any organization are facing these problems.
	My rabbi, I go to Central Synagogue in Manhattan.
	My rabbi, when a rabbi speaks, says anything about Israel, oh my god, like, you know, a third of the congregation is going to revolt, whichever way you go.
	So leadership now is really, really hard.
	My team, we developed a wonderful program called Open Mind.
	So I urge viewers, go to openmindplatform.org.
	We've created a program, runs on any app, it's free, any platform, it's free, in which it walks you through some basic moral psychology.
	In a sense, it kind of walks you through the righteous mind and some other social psychology about why viewpoint diversity is good for you.
	It makes you smarter.
	It makes you better able to deal with people.
	Why it's so hard to do that.
	How do you talk to people?
	How do you talk to people who differ?
	And our belief, our hope, and we have some evidence, is that if any group takes this training, it only takes about an hour and a half, if any group does this training, Whenever problems come up, they'll be better skilled.
	They'll have a common vocabulary.
	They'll be able to resolve it.
	So I think we need to see this as a national crisis, rising polarization, which is making all of our institutions less functional.
	My fear is that if the Nike gambit pays off for Nike, more companies will do that.
	We'll have red and blue restaurants, red and blue dentists.
	Everything will be politics all the time.
	My God, what a nightmare that will be.
	So we all have to take responsibility for this, and it starts with us as individuals, and then steps right away from us as individuals into every organization or institution that we're part of.
	We can all be part of the solution at that more local level.
	I do have one final question, and that final question will be, what is best case scenario for the country in 20 years?
	What's worst case scenario for the country in 20 years?
	But if you want to hear the answer, From Jonathan Haidt, you have to be a Daily Wire subscriber.
	To subscribe, go to dailywire.com, click subscribe.
	You can hear the end of our conversation there.
	Well, Jonathan Haidt, thank you so much for stopping by, injecting a note of reason into our insane political discourse.
	It really is a pleasure to have him and wanting to do it for months.
	Really appreciate it.
	Thanks so much.
	Thanks so much for having me on.
	The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special is produced by Jonathan Haidt.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
	Associate Producers Mathis Glover and Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Caromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jeswa Alvera.
	And title graphics by Cynthia Angulo.
	The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲