Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 9, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:52

Vox Tyrannide | Ep. 1048

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All hell breaks loose at Vox when the boss unleashes hell on a top staffer, racial issues continue to rile the nation, and nasty debate breaks out over reopening schools.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN TV.
	Don't let others track what you do.
	Keep yourself safe at ExpressVPN.com.
	Slash Ben.
	We're going to get to all the news in just one moment.
	First, let me remind you, things are really, really volatile right now, particularly in world markets.
	If you've got money in the stock market, you've been watching this thing.
	Bounce up and down like a yo-yo.
	You just have no idea where the market is going next with coronavirus and with race riots and with the presidential election.
	There's just too much news to really price into the market right now.
	And that is why you're seeing so much uncertainty out there.
	This is why it might be a good time to at least be a little bit diversified.
	One of the ways that you hedge against risk.
	And by the way, also hedge against inflation that will come sooner or later, given the way we are spending money like a drunken sailor.
	One of the ways to do that, invest in precious metals at least a little bit.
	This is why you should talk to my friends over at Birch Gold Group.
	Your grandkids will be paying for everything that is going on right now.
	So it might be worthwhile to at least give them some money to do so by diversifying 10, 20% of your portfolio into precious metals and Birch Gold Group can help you out.
	Text BEN to 474747.
	When you purchase on or before July 31st, you get a free signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History.
	Birch Gold will go to work for you and make things super simple.
	They're the people I trust with Precious Metals Investing.
	I know the people who run the place.
	I really think that they are honest.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	At least request a free information kit on diversifying into gold.
	Again, always ask all your questions.
	Get all the information.
	Feel as comfortable as you can feel before you invest.
	But the people at Birchgold can help guide you.
	Text BEN to 474747, and during the months of June or July, when you open an IRA in Precious Metals, you get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, for free.
	Again, text my name, BEN, to 474747.
	Alright, so, all hell has broken loose over there on the left.
	On the left, there is this internecine war that is now going on between old-school liberals and the hard left.
	And you've seen hints of this before.
	Nancy Pelosi was going at it with the squad.
	You've seen hints of it at places like Evergreen State College, where Brett Weinstein, who's a socialist, I mean, an actual member of the political left, and was basically cast out of the college and was threatened with physical violence for deciding to teach in spite of a call for him not to teach because of his race.
	And there have been sort of hints at it here and there.
	But now it is broken into full-scale warfare, particularly inside the nation's institutions that are not universities.
	I think it's important to note this stuff has been happening on universities for a very long time, right?
	People like Nicholas Christakis over at Yale being ousted from the campus for the great sin of having said people wear Halloween costumes sometimes.
	You've seen college campuses trying to ban speech from people ranging from me to Heather MacDonald to Charles Murray to like everybody.
	On the right or anywhere near the right has been basically canceled from at least one campus or been threatened with violence for appearing at a campus.
	And this sort of stuff happens all the time.
	But the liberals in the media particularly, they didn't want to believe this was coming for them.
	They wanted to believe that this was only aimed at the right.
	And so the way they shied away from this is by saying a couple things.
	One, this is just Enthusiasm on college campuses.
	It's just too enthusiastic, right?
	I mean, these are people, they're young, they make mistakes, but we need their enthusiasm to really drive the movement forward.
	We need to channel that enthusiasm, and as they grow, and as they mature, and as they enter the real world, some of those rough edges will be sort of sanded off, but we certainly don't want to denounce their behavior right now, and we certainly don't want to magnify it or pretend that it's outsized or means anything.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	And the right is constantly pouncing on college campuses and using college campuses as a sort of example of how radical we are.
	But come on, guys, those are just college campuses.
	At the same time, the people who are doing this stuff, they're good hearted.
	And so can we really blame them?
	So that was one angle that was being used, right, was that these are college campuses.
	And so that's nothing like how the real world is going to work.
	And the second angle that was being used is these are enthusiastic people who are going to become our people now.
	As you may have noticed from the last few years in politics, as soon as you say to the most radical element of your membership that you need their passion, they immediately take over the entire party, right?
	That is the way that it works.
	As soon as you say to a group of people who are sort of on the fringe that you need their passion to drive us forward, they take over the party.
	You've seen this with Bernie Sanders inside the Democratic Party.
	You could certainly say that this happened inside the Republican Party in 2016 with President Trump, is that there was this very disaffected group of populists who basically A lot of people, you could see this with all the other presidential campaigns, the other presidential campaigns did not want to hit Trump directly because they were saying, well, eventually Trump will fall away and we'll need the support of these people and their passion really means something.
	So Trump just takes over the party, right?
	The same, this sort of stuff happens in political movements all the time.
	Well, now it turns out that the left's cancel culture that started on campuses has moved into mainstream liberalism.
	And it turns out that mainstream liberalism had no immune system for this.
	Now normally, you have to have an immune system against bad stuff happening inside your political movement.
	And the immune system relies on you being able to toss people and elements out of your movement when you don't like what they're doing.
	To say certain tactics are off-limits in your movement.
	The problem is that the mainstream liberal left Didn't have an immune system for the hardcore left because basically all the hardcore left is they just extended the argument of mainstream liberals a little bit in ways that the mainstream liberals just could not fight back against.
	So let me explain what I mean here.
	So the difference, I think, between liberals and the hard left in the United States is that liberals in the United States were all about fighting inequality from within the system.
	This is what liberals in the United States used to share with sort of classical liberals or even conservatives was the idea the American system wasn't necessarily inherently bad, it just had some problems with it.
	And if we just fix the problems, if we tinker with the problems in a technocratic way, if we harness the power of the American economy, if we harness capitalism to a bunch of regulations, Then we can end up with something that looks a lot more like gear up, a lot more equal in outcome.
	Now, what the left and liberals held in common was a goal of ending inequality.
	And not an inequality of opportunity or inequality of rights, ending inequality of outcome.
	That's what the left and liberals held in common.
	What the left and liberals were divided about was working within the system or working to destroy the system from outside.
	And so these two groups, the liberals and the left, they decided to basically make a common cause.
	Okay, well, we're not sure whether we're gonna tear down the system or whether we are going to work inside the system, but we have a common enemy, and that common enemy is the right, and the right must be fought.
	And so you saw these two groups of people basically combining forces, and this is sort of the difference between the radical left wing of the Democratic Party that was rioting at the 1968 Chicago Convention and the Hubert Humphrey wing of the Democratic Party that was still in charge of the party in 1968.
	You've seen this debate play out for decades inside the Democratic Party.
	One group of Democrats basically saying that The system itself is not completely broken.
	It's not completely wrong.
	It doesn't have to be completely vitiated.
	What you have to do is work, tinker inside the system, and we draw closer every day to utopia.
	But you can't tear down the entire system because, while we don't like some of the roots of the system, we do like some of the things about the system.
	Like, we still like the culture of rights.
	This is why the ACLU used to be very much in favor of freedom of speech.
	And the radical left's like, no, all of this is bad, right?
	Everything has to go.
	We need to tear everything down in neo-Marxist fashion, and we need to build up a new Marxist utopia.
	So that divide was there, but it was papered over by general oppositions to the right.
	Now, liberals always had the upper hand here because the mainstream American population was never in favor of tearing down the system.
	And when the Democratic Party was most successful historically is when the Democratic Party was making the liberal argument, not the hard left argument.
	Whenever the Democratic Party made the hard left argument, the Democratic Party lost.
	Whenever the Democratic Party argued we're tearing down the entire system, then they realized the American people are not up for that.
	The American people kind of like the American system.
	And so liberals always had the upper hand inside the party.
	But the problem, and this was the pitch the liberals made, was, you know, the reason you, on the left, you need to deal with us is because we can channel your program into action points that are palatable to the American people.
	But here's the problem.
	The liberals never had any immune system against the arguments of the left basically soul-sucking them.
	Why?
	Well, because the liberals made a move in the 1960s that they really never let go and really opened them up.
	Their own case for maintaining the system.
	It opened them up to a critique from the radical left that they simply could not rebut.
	So what was that argument?
	Well, in the 1960s, the left began to make the argument that if you were against their programs, if you were against their political programs that stood in favor of ending inequality, right?
	We're working within the system to end inequality was the argument.
	If you were against any of those programs, it's because secretly you were racist.
	And the right was hit with this over and over and over again.
	And the right couldn't understand it.
	I mean, the right got this all the time.
	If you were in favor of welfare reform, it's because you were secretly a racist.
	If you were against Obamacare, it's because you're secretly a racist.
	If you were against any of the left's programs, the liberals' programs, in terms of shifting the nature of American government, it's because you were secretly a racist.
	So they allied with the radical racial movement to racialize everything in order to again push forward.
	So the liberal left, which wanted to work within the system, built alliances with two groups of people now who wanted to tear down the system.
	One, radical racialists who saw the entire system as an outgrowth of American brutality.
	And two, neo-Marxists who wanted to see the entire system ripped down about their ears.
	And liberals were like, okay, we still have the upper hand here.
	We still have the upper hand.
	Now the problem is that by bringing everybody into this fold and creating this alliance, the liberals basically made themselves a minority inside their own movement.
	And how did this work?
	So basically you had a bunch of people who said, listen, When we say that you stand in favor of systems, you on the right, that you stand in favor of systems that perpetuate inequality.
	And so we want to change those systems because that's racist that you want to perpetuate inequality.
	That is the argument liberals make.
	The left said, it's not just that the systems have to be changed from the inside to stop racism.
	The systems have to be torn down as a whole to stop racism.
	In fact, every element of the system has to be torn down to stop racism.
	And the liberals wanted to maintain at least some semblance of the system were taken aback by this argument.
	They had no immune system to this argument because they'd been using the exact same argument to attack the right for years.
	For years, the attack on the right had been, you guys are secretly racist because you don't agree with us.
	And then the left said to the liberals, you guys are secretly racist because you don't agree with us.
	And liberals had no comeback to that because they'd been using the same exact argument for literally decades.
	Now, normally, there'd be a couple of pushback points from the liberals to the left here.
	One would be, guys, we can't win like this, right?
	Tearing down the system is not a winning strategy.
	Tearing down the system is not going to be successful, right?
	This has always been the liberal talking point against the hard left, which is, we're gonna take your more radical viewpoints, we're going to channel them into a more palatable form to the American people, and then we will win a broad victory.
	But if it's just you guys, you're a rump, right?
	You don't actually have enough votes in order to win things.
	Well, now the left says to liberals, guys, have you seen our cultural dominance?
	Have you seen the kind of cultural power we can exert?
	Have you seen the fact that we can take shows off the air?
	Have you seen the fact that we can take over Hollywood?
	That we can take over mainstream media institutions?
	Have you seen the fact that we can club people into submission?
	Have you seen this?
	Don't pretend that we are the minority anymore.
	We are now the majority.
	We have a coalition of the dispossessed.
	Or at least the purportedly dispossessed.
	And we are going to mobilize against the system and you guys are standing in our way.
	You're either with us or you're against us.
	So point number one that the liberals had against the left was gone.
	Because the left said, listen, you've been saying we need you for victory.
	What if we don't need you for victory?
	What if actually, if you join us, we have victory?
	What if the left sides behind Bernie Sanders and maybe we can still win?
	And this begins to look much more like a plausible outcome when they're running against somebody like Donald Trump because they say everybody hates Trump so much that, you know, we can be as hard left as we want to be and we don't need you to uphold the system anymore.
	So that was point number one that the liberals used to use against the left and that the left has basically destroyed.
	Point number two is that the liberals used to have a principled point with regard to the left, which was, listen, even if we are the majority, the reality is that one of the ways we became the majority is by using many of the rights that are now decrying, right?
	The right to freedom of speech.
	We used to like that thing because that was what gave us the power to overcome culturally immobile obstacles.
	Right.
	It was the way that we overcame that is the right had certain cultural dominance.
	We used freedom of speech in order to overcome that sort of dominance.
	And so the institution of freedom of speech is inherently good.
	Right.
	And you can't just you can't just tear down systems that infringe people's rights.
	The left used it.
	Some people in the liberal left used to believe in rights.
	And the left said, oh no, no, no, you're getting this all wrong.
	You're getting this all wrong.
	Rights are not even implicated here, guys.
	Rights are not even implicated.
	What we're doing is we're trying to stop violence.
	We're trying to stop violence.
	And you are complicit in violence if you stand for rights.
	So the left came up with a clever tactic, right?
	This started on college campus with all the safetyism.
	The argument is that if I say something you don't like, it is not that I am exercising my freedom of speech and we ought to have a discussion.
	It is that I am enacting violence upon you.
	And so rights are not implicated anymore.
	Rights themselves, in fact, are a shield for violence being done.
	And again, the liberals really had no comeback to this because the liberals had been using very similar arguments on a variety of issues.
	Liberals had been using this argument, for example, on freedom of association, right?
	They said, freedom of association is bad.
	The federal government now has to regulate freedom of association because some people misuse freedom of association.
	They don't want to associate with people because they're racist, for example.
	And therefore, freedom of association cannot be used as an excuse to do bad things.
	And so the hard left said, okay, well, if that applies to freedom of association, then it also applies to things like freedom of speech.
	And so freedom of speech has to be curtailed in order to protect people's feelings, because people's lives are being ruined.
	People are feeling unsafe.
	And so the left has basically co-opted the mainstream liberal movement.
	And this is what you are getting.
	This is all a big lead up to what you are seeing right now in mainstream media institutions around the country, major institutions around the country, as liberals, I think, are giving sort of their final gasp of breath before they are drowned in the bathtub of leftism.
	That's what's happening right now.
	What's happening right now is that the liberals, having thought all along that this alliance was going to serve them, it turns out that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has now been broken.
	And it turns out that somebody's invading the Soviet Union.
	It turns out that the heretofore alliance was always a shield for a betrayal that was going to come and take over the leadership.
	There was gonna be an internal battle, liberals didn't expect it, and now they're looking around and they're going, oh, wait a second, oh no.
	The Committee on Public Safety, they're the first people to the guillotines, as it turns out, that if you humored all these folks, that eventually they would turn on you.
	They figured they'll never turn on us, they're just, you know, we'll use their passion.
	The liberals felt about the mainstream left, the big radical left, the same way they felt about the college campus kids.
	Well, we'll humor them.
	We'll toss them a bone.
	They'll provide the passion.
	They'll provide the impetus.
	We'll pat them on the head and we'll tell them that they're doing nice, good things.
	And then everything will be okay, right?
	We'll just work with them, even though they're really, really radical.
	And then the left is like, well, what if we don't want to work with you?
	What if instead we want you to become an adjunct to us?
	We are sick of riding shotgun.
	What if we take the wheel and you ride shotgun for a little while?
	And liberals have no idea how to counter this.
	And so instead, they're signing open letters saying, we support freedom of speech, and then they're being canceled for doing so.
	You can see this playing out in the halls of Vox.com, one of the less good publications on the internet.
	We'll get to the battle that's broken out At Vox.com, because it is quite fascinating and indicative of exactly what is happening inside the left versus liberal internal battle.
	Now, normally, by the way, I would say I would just sit back and enjoy this, right?
	I mean, this is like a bunch of people who I'm not necessarily the most fond of who are eating each other.
	But I think that the liberals, their perspective must be upheld here, because if you're going to have an alliance at this point in American life that allows for conversation, the liberals have to win this battle with the left.
	I think right now they're losing and they're losing pretty badly.
	We'll get to this in just one second.
	First, BlinkSale.
	Okay, let's talk about the fact that invoicing can be a giant pain in the butt.
	You go to Microsoft Word, you did a job for somebody, you write up the invoice, you send it to them, and then you completely forget that you sent somebody the invoice.
	You have no follow-up, it doesn't look good, there are no systems of tracking, and you lose money this way.
	You don't even know who's dodging your bills.
	Well, this is why you require BlinkSale.
	With BlinkSale, you can send beautiful custom-branded invoices in estimates in seconds.
	You can stay on top of your outstanding invoices.
	You can let your customers and clients easily pay your invoices online.
	You'll even get instant notifications when a customer opens your invoice, so you'll actually know if they're just avoiding paying you.
	Forget about using invoice templates or stressing about coordinating a bunch of different software programs.
	BlinkSale takes care of it all, so you can spend more time focusing on the work that actually gets you paid and makes your business a success.
	As an added bonus, BlinkSale is now giving away $10 to 500 Daily Wire fans, So here's how it works.
	Go to BlinkSale.com, start your 14-day free trial, create your first invoice of $10, activate an online payment option, get Stripe or PayPal, send the invoice to DailyWire at BlinkSale.com, and they'll just pay you $10.
	The first 500 people to send an invoice for $10 to DailyWire at BlinkSale.com will get their invoice paid by BlinkSale.
	Limit of one per person.
	And you shouldn't have to send nagging emails to get your invoice paid.
	You should just be able to automate all this stuff and make it really easy for you.
	Stop wasting your time invoicing.
	Try BlinkSale for free at BlinkSale.com slash Ben.
	That's B-L-I-N-K-S-A-L-E.com slash Ben.
	BlinkSale.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	Okay, so cancel culture has now come for Vox.com.
	So Vox.com, a supposed explanatory journalism website.
	It is very much of the political left.
	And let's be frank about this.
	Vox.com has for a very long time been on the side of the cancel culture, right?
	They've been deeply enmeshed in the cancel culture.
	When Steven Crowder said some not very nice things about Carlos Maza, who was then working for Vox, Carlos Maza claimed publicly that he had been victimized and that he was, his feelings had been hurt, his safety had been imperiled because somebody said mean words about him on the interwebs, which as a person who's, I think it's fair to say I've taken my fair share of mean words on the interwebs.
	It's like, come on.
	Get over it, dude.
	Like, seriously, just move on with your life.
	Grow a thicker skin.
	As Don Lemon might say, right?
	Just grow a thicker skin.
	But, Vox went all out and tried to have Steven Crowder basically ban from the YouTube platform.
	Like, they issued a full letter from the editorial board trying to ban.
	So they've been very involved in cancel culture for a long time.
	But one of the people over at Vox.com, Matthew Iglesias, Again, is not a person who I think I've spoken about positively much on this program other than maybe in the last couple of months when it seems like he has had an awakening to the fact that free speech is actually a good thing.
	Iglesias signed on to this Harper's Weekly letter that was signed by 150 different people, all of whom were from center to central left, I would say.
	The most right-wing figures there were people like David Frum, right?
	Not a single Trump voter among them, obviously.
	It was signed by about 150 intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, like Noam Chomsky.
	And it was basically just a statement that we don't like cancel culture.
	So Iglesias signed it, and he was immediately hit with an accusation by one of his own staffers, who is a trans woman, meaning biological male, who believes that he is a female, that Iglesias was somehow threatening his safety, right?
	That Iglesias was somehow targeting him.
	Which is patently absurd.
	There's nothing in the letter about trans issues at all.
	In fact, a couple of different trans people signed the letter because it had nothing to do with trans issues.
	This person sends this letter, an open letter, right, on the interwebs, just throws it out there to the editors of Vox.com.
	Ezra Klein is one of the heads of Vox.com.
	Is he technically editor-in-chief?
	I'm not sure what, Ezra.
	I don't think so.
	I think somebody else is the actual editor-in-chief of Vox.com.
	But Ezra is a high-ranking staffer.
	He's a co-founder at Vox.
	He's currently editor-at-large over there, I believe.
	So Ezra, obviously a very high-ranking staffer over there.
	And Ezra, who's always been semi-warm toward cancel culture, and you can view our Sunday special that I did with him.
	Perfectly nice guy, Ezra Klein, but not somebody who has fought very hard against cancel culture, and in fact has sort of sat there sort of cheering it for a while.
	Ezra Klein and Matthew Iglesias get into a flame war.
	Now remember, Iglesias is another co-founder of Vox.com, right?
	Matthew Iglesias and...
	And Ezra Klein were, I believe, co-founders of this thing in 2014.
	He's currently an editor and columnist over at Vox.com.
	So Iglesias signs this letter and then he gets into a flame war with Ezra Klein.
	And meanwhile, other people at Vox.com are basically flaming, like really flaming Iglesias online.
	And here's how it happened.
	So here's some of the tweets that started flying back and forth last night about cancel culture.
	So what happened is that Iglesias tweeted out, I've committed to not doing contentious stuff on Twitter anymore.
	So I seriously can't get comments on this.
	I would appreciate being taken out of the thread.
	There was a whole thread about Iglesias and whether he was sort of being canceled from within over at Vox.com.
	And then Ezra Klein basically subtweeted Matthew Iglesias.
	Right?
	He subtweeted him.
	He tweeted, a lot of debates that sell themselves as being about free speech are actually about power.
	And there's a lot of power in being able to claim and hold the mantle of free speech defender.
	So that is Ezra Klein dishonestly suggesting the exact radical left rationale for shutting down freedom of speech.
	If you stand for freedom of speech, what you're actually standing for is evil people taking advantage of freedom of speech.
	And Matthew Iglesias, that's what you're actually defending.
	Right?
	It's a very obvious subtweet.
	There's only one reason that Ezra Klein is tweeting about this.
	Which makes him kind of a nasty person, right?
	I mean, this is pretty nasty stuff.
	To take the co-founder of your website, who signed a letter that basically says free speech is good and cancel culture is bad, and then tweet, actually, what he means, actually, what he means is he wants to be powerful.
	He gets power out of defending free speech.
	First of all, let me just make something perfectly clear on the left today.
	There is no power in claiming you're about free speech on the left today.
	None.
	The amount of power and prestige to be earned on the political left for being pro-free speech is very low.
	By the way, it ain't that high on the right either.
	Because I end up having to defend a lot of people that the right doesn't like particularly much.
	I've ended up defending people like James Gunn on this show.
	I've ended up defending people on this show Who have been hired by the New York Times after saying anti-white stuff.
	I've defended a wide variety of people.
	You're not going to earn friends and influence people, really, by defending free speech.
	But according to Ezra Klein, if you say you're for free speech, you're for the re-enshrinement of power, which is a trick that Ezra does a lot, and I find it really, really ugly, is this idea that when you say one thing, what you actually mean is this other thing.
	You don't even know.
	But what you actually are about is re-enshrining hierarchies of power.
	And that's what Ezra Klein says about Iglesias.
	So then Iglesias fires back, should I reply to this with a concrete example or stick to my commitments to you?
	Which is basically him saying, do you want me to violate my confidentiality that I've signed with Vox.com and the commitments that I've signed to Vox.com and the personal commitments?
	You're flaming me online, but I'm not going to flame you, is what Iglesias is saying right there.
	Okay, then, so it appears like people online are speculating that basically it looks like Vox is going to fire Iglesias, right?
	It's not me, right?
	Yasha Monk over at The Atlantic is sort of suggesting that this looks very much like Ezra Klein's talking about power here.
	Ezra Klein is editor-at-large and co-founder of Vox.
	He has a little bit of weight over there.
	So then Iglesias and Ezra Klein at the very end of the night, they decide that they're going to go sort of weapons down.
	So Iglesias tweets out, I would like to deescalate this.
	Nobody is losing their job.
	I think I've spoken my mind very clearly on this subject.
	I'm just trying to move on to other things instead of endless rounds of Twitter wrangling, which of course is not what's going on at all.
	Basically.
	He is trying to keep silent so that he is not ousted from Vox.com and publicly bashed by his former co-founder partner, Ezra Klein.
	And then Ezra Klein does the same thing.
	They must come to some sort of agreement.
	Ezra Klein tweets out, The idea that I would try to get Matt, literally my co-founder and the oldest friend in journalism, fired over this letter is risible.
	I've asked Matt and others at Vox to not subtweet colleagues.
	My mistake here is this tweet read like a subtweet of him when it honestly wasn't.
	I am sure that it was not a subtweet of Iglesias.
	Sure, sure it wasn't a substitute of Iglesias.
	The bottom line is that the sort of Iglesias versus Klein battle inside Vox.com is quite indicative of the extent to which the radical left has influenced the debate.
	Right?
	That is the real key here.
	Is that there's a whole contingent at Vox that doesn't like free speech.
	There's a whole contingent at Vox that wants cancel culture to win.
	And it sees cancel culture as an ultimate good.
	And it sees rights as an obstacle to the building of a new society.
	The radical left has attacked the liberals and many people who are sort of wavering, like I think Ezra was kind of wavering here.
	Some of the people who may have been wavering or reportedly publicly wavering are not wavering much anymore, obviously.
	And now, does Ezra actually have the power to fire Iglesias?
	No.
	The actual EIC of Vox is a woman named Lauren Williams, who tweeted out, Okay, well, if you're the EIC of Vox, you might want to get your house under control, lady.
	I don't tweet, so folks who don't know or work with me seem to think a variety of other people wield that power.
	Okay, well, if you're the EIC of Vox, you might wanna get your house under control, lady.
	I mean, like, let me just put it this way.
	I am the founder of Daily Wire.
	And if people inside my shop were subtweeting other people inside my shop, the way that this is going on at Vox, somebody would be on the breadlines tomorrow.
	This is not the way you run a business.
	But again, the way that you run a business now is to basically let your woke staffers control the whole thing.
	And the liberals, do the liberals have an immune system to this?
	I really wonder.
	I really wonder because once you have that combination of tear down the system and also anyone who says don't tear down the system is a racist.
	Once you have moved from traditional liberal views of racism to the anti-racism of the Ibram Kendi, Robin D'Angelo crowd, there is no immune system among liberals to fight this.
	I think the battle's over and I think that the liberals just haven't acknowledged it yet.
	Or they're going to have to acknowledge that they are on the outside of their own party.
	And I think that, let me just say this, I've spoken to many, many liberals at mainstream organizations in the past three weeks.
	I never reveal who I talk to because I understand the way this works.
	If they say they've ever had a conversation with me, they're immediately canceled.
	Right?
	I can say, I could say it with no fear, right?
	I can say it because guess what?
	I don't care.
	But if you're a liberal working inside a mainstream media organization, You can't say you've ever had a conversation, like, you've never glanced at me publicly.
	If you ever glance at me publicly, you might get canceled.
	Let me just say, I've gotten a bevy of texts, not just from one or two people, from many, many people, who are mainstream liberals, asking me what the hell is going on.
	I'm like, guys, sorry that you're late to the party.
	Sorry I've been warning you about this for a while.
	Just, I hate to break it to you, but welcome.
	I feel like Bruce Willis in Die Hard looking down on Carl.
	Welcome to the party, pal, as the shots rain down from the third floor from Hans Gruber's crew.
	It's pretty incredible.
	Meanwhile, you know how much the... So, a couple of the key arguments that have been made here by the radical left, you can see that, again, their argument is not absolutely wrong, right?
	The liberals made a couple of arguments.
	One is that rights are good.
	And the second is that if you don't adopt our tactics, you're going to lose.
	And the radical left is like, well, we don't have to adopt your tactics.
	We could just tear down the entire system and we'll win.
	I'm gonna show you evidence that the radical left is not wrong here.
	The radical left is not incorrect here.
	We're gonna get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that there hasn't been a whole lot to smile about these last few months.
	I mean, it's been pretty damned miserable, but things are getting better.
	I know you don't believe me, but they will.
	They will get better.
	And you should be able to smile at some point.
	At some point in the future, when smiling is no longer canceled, you want your teeth to look absolutely fan-freaking-tastic.
	And this is why you need Candid Clear Aligners.
	They are comfortable, removable, totally invisible, unlike wire braces, so you can transform your smile without anyone noticing.
	Plus, your treatment is prescribed and monitored remotely by a licensed orthodontist who's an expert in tooth movement.
	Candid only works with orthodontists, never general dentists like other companies.
	And with some of these other companies, you may never hear from a doctor as you go through treatment.
	Which is kind of ridiculous, frankly.
	With Candid, your treatment includes remote monitoring by the same orthodontist who created your plan, so you never have to wonder how you're doing.
	You will always know, which is just fantastic.
	I mean, right now is not the world's best time to go to the orthodontist generally, and Candid makes things easier than going to the orthodontist anyway.
	The average Candid treatment, six months, costs an average of 50% less than Invisalign.
	If you're ready to take the first step toward your dream smile and you can't wait to show it off, get started today from the comfort of your own home with Candid's risk-free starter kit and $75 off.
	Go to CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Use code Shapiro.
	That's CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Code Shapiro for your risk-free starter kit and $75 off.
	CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.
	Code Shapiro.
	Okay, so as the liberals lost, I think, their unity with the country.
	As they began to give ground over time to the radical left that claimed that the entire system was corrupt and evil and anybody who opposed institutional change was racist.
	As that happened, as they went along with the full-scale destruction of America's history, culture, philosophy, the destruction of the elements of which I talk about in my upcoming book, comes out very soon now, in about a week and a half, my new book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	As the liberals and the left basically formed an alliance to go along with the destruction of these things in pursuit of political power, it turns out that the left gained the upper hand because as the culture changed, as people began to accept liberal arguments, that to oppose changes to the system was in fact an element of racism, an element of bigotry, the great stain on American history.
	As people began to accept this, the left began to credibly make the argument in the institutions of power that they could make as radical an argument as they possibly wanted and people would basically go along with it.
	And they're not wrong.
	I mean, they've spent an inordinate amount of time, an inordinate amount of money, people on the radical left, to push this message.
	They've captured institutions.
	They've participated in institutional capture.
	The most obvious example of the institutional capture is, of course, the 1619 Project.
	The 1619 Project, by the way, one of my favorite things about the New York Times, their dishonesty is just astonishing.
	The New York Times spends day after day after day trying to browbeat companies like Facebook into shutting down all the outlets they don't particularly like.
	The New York Times has column after column suggesting that Facebook is evil and horrible and risible and terrible because they allow sites like Daily Wire to exist and monetize.
	You know, this kind of stuff is very bad, according to the New York Times.
	Every single day, there's a columnist at the New York Times who'll tweet out how popular my Facebook page is.
	And it's like, well, thanks, dude.
	What he's really doing, obviously, is he's suggesting that Facebook is evil for allowing my page to be popular.
	Listen, it's not my fault that you write good headlines over at the Daily Wire and people want to click on our stuff, you jerk.
	But the reason that people at the New York Times are doing that is because the New York Times is simultaneously dropping millions and millions of dollars in marketing on Facebook.
	You know how much money the New York Times spends on the 1619 Project marketing?
	There's a good story over at Daily Wire today by the new editor-in-chief over there, John Bickley, in which he talks about how much money the New York Times has spent on the 1619 project.
	According to the marketing intelligence platform, Pathmatics, the New York Times, which has spent all of its time suggesting other outlets should basically be shut down on Facebook, the New York Times has spent around $65 million over the course of the last 12 months on Facebook advertising for all of its various promotional campaigns.
	A review of just three ads promoting the 1619 Project, which of course reimagined America as a racist hellscape from inception to now, over the course of about two months, in fall 2019, estimates a spend of around $3 million for three ads.
	Three ads.
	Basically, the New York Times used Facebook to purchase a Pulitzer for Nikole Hannah-Jones.
	Essentially, what happened here.
	Okay, so the radical left, they can incredibly make the arguments of the liberals, listen, we don't need you guys.
	We don't need your soft peddling.
	We can go as hard as we want.
	I mean, Nicole Hannah-Jones, what a racist hellscape America is.
	I mean, what's hilarious about this is the more the radical left takes over the institutions of American culture, the harder their argument should actually become.
	Because their argument, particularly the racially radical left, their argument is that America is a racist hellscape, bigoted, evil in every way.
	And at the same time, they're in charge of all the major cultural institutions of the country, right?
	Colin Kaepernick is earning millions of dollars from Disney for some sort of first-look deal, plus millions of dollars from Nike for kneeling.
	Nicole Hannah-Jones, who spends her entire life talking about how racist America is, is now working with Oprah Winfrey, perhaps the richest woman on planet Earth, a black woman from America, partnering with Lionsgate to bring the New York Times' project to a series of films and TV shows.
	Does this sound like people who are shut out of the halls of power by a racist hellscape system?
	Apparently the answer is yes, but the broader argument the left can make now is, listen, we're in control.
	We don't need to tolerate rights anymore.
	You used to need those things like freedom of speech in order to push your point of view, because it turns out that most Americans didn't agree with it.
	We don't need freedom of speech anymore.
	We control the means of distribution.
	We control the dissemination of information.
	And if we don't, then we'll try to bully platforms into mirroring us, right?
	We'll try to bully Facebook into shutting down all other dissemination of information.
	Once the left has taken the reins, it's totalitarian.
	I mean, that is what is going on here.
	According to the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times have chosen global content leader Lionsgate to be the home for a wide-ranging partnership to develop Ms.
	Hannah-Jones' landmark issue of the New York Times magazine, The 1619 Project, and hit New York Times podcast, 1619, into an expansive portfolio of feature films, TV series, and other content for a global audience.
	Wow, I mean, what a racist hellscape America is.
	What a terrible, terrible place where people of color simply cannot get ahead.
	Like Nikole Hannah-Jones, who's made a living, an incredible living, and an incredible profile out of suggesting that America is, from root to branch, the worst place ever.
	Really amazing stuff.
	So again, the left's argument is really effective against liberals.
	They say, listen, we don't need any of those rights that you used to talk about.
	You know, we're old enough to remember when you used to say things like, we'll defend your right to say anything, even if we disagree with it, but we don't.
	Because really what you're doing is you're enabling evil, guys.
	You're truly enabling evil.
	And this is why you see people on the hard left who feel no shame at defending, openly defending just terrible behavior, so long as the person who's engaging in the terrible behavior is a member of a victimized minority group.
	It truly is amazing what people are willing to go along with.
	For example, there's this football player named Deshaun Jackson.
	Deshaun Jackson is a wide receiver for the Philadelphia Eagles, very talented guy.
	He also happens to be apparently a rabid anti-Semite who is fond of quoting Hitler on his Instagram page, which is always a delight.
	Okay, he quoted Hitler, he quoted Louis Farrakhan.
	We already know that Ice Cube does this, right?
	There was all this blowback for about 24 hours about Ice Cube.
	Does anyone actually think Ice Cube won't be hired to play a part anytime in the next year or two?
	Imagine somebody white in Hollywood quoting Hitler about the Jews and think whether that person would be hired anytime in the near future.
	They'd at least lose a decade, right?
	Mel Gibson lost a decade of his career because he did this sort of stuff, right?
	But if you are on the left, and you are on the hard left, and you're a person of color, you can basically say what you want about the Jews.
	So, Deshaun Jackson is openly quoting Hitler, and Shannon Sharp, the former tight end for the Denver Broncos, and I believe Green Bay Packers at one point, Shannon Sharp, he comes out and defends Deshaun Jackson and Louis Farrakhan on national television.
	Because this is, the radical left does not have to have, they don't even have to abide by their own rules.
	The only rule is domination of power.
	They don't have to abide by their anti-bigotry rules after all.
	They're moving in pursuit of the destruction of the system.
	And if that means allying with people like Deshaun Jackson, they'll do it.
	Here's Shannon Sharp defending Deshaun Jackson.
	Where are the calls to boycott first, to boycott undisputed?
	Right, really, if this happened on Fox News, right, not on Fox Sports, if this happened on Fox News, And it was right-wingers talking about excusing pro-Hitler commentary from a white guy.
	How fast would the boycotts mobilize?
	Where would Sleeping Giants be?
	But here's Shannon Sharpe defending Louis Farrakhan and defending Deshaun Jackson.
	By the way, my favorite is that Shannon Sharpe tweeted out, where are Jews defending people when they say stuff like this?
	Wait, what, you want the Jews to defend a guy who's quoting Hitler?
	I'm kind of confused, Shannon.
	Here's Shannon Sharpe defending Deshaun Jackson.
	No matter what you think of Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam, he has made it pretty clear over the years He does not like Jewish people.
	Is that fair to say?
	Well, not from the conversation that I've had with the minister.
	He said this abundantly.
	He's made it clear to anybody that sat down with him.
	He says he doesn't.
	House Representative Omar, when she said it was all about the Benjamins, they jumped all over her.
	President Trump said the exact same thing.
	You guys won't vote for me because you care about your money and you can't control me.
	He said the exact same thing.
	Nobody said a word.
	Okay, I love the whataboutism on behalf of Louis Farrakhan.
	Really solid stuff there from Shannon Char.
	Bottom line is, if you're on the proper side of the left, all defenses are available to you.
	If you're not on the proper side of the left, no defenses are available to you.
	And again, the cultural commanding heights have been captured by the radical left to the point where bloviating idiots like Chelsea Handler are fully compliant with the line, right?
	The new line is it's time to dismantle the entire system.
	Here is Chelsea Handler talking about this yesterday.
	Coming to the realization that my success has a lot to do with my skin color, I wanted to really do something that set an example about how to, you know, contribute.
	Because at this point, it's not enough to just say you're not racist.
	You know, you have to be, we have to be working to dismantle the system because we are reaping the benefits in exchange for people losing benefits.
	We have to, we have to dismantle the system.
	Okay, well, when you've got the entire culture echoing the message, it's time to not just work within the system, the old liberal line, right?
	Not to change the system, to dismantle the system, to fundamentally transform the system.
	Then, you got a problem.
	Now, this is why.
	The line that is being used about Joe Biden right now is pretty damn dishonest.
	Joe Biden is going to be a bulwark against these folks.
	We can get to that in just one second.
	First, it's literally never a bad idea to save money, and now would be the best time ever to save money.
	Shopping for life insurance can raise a lot of questions.
	How much coverage do you need?
	Which insurance company is the best one for you?
	How much should it even cost?
	And at a time when it's more important than ever to have life insurance, the pandemic is making it a little more complicated to shop for, but Policy Genius can help you.
	As a life insurance marketplace backed by a team of experts, Policy Genius is keeping track of all the changes in the market, so you don't have to.
	They'll find you the right amount of coverage at the best possible price without the headache.
	PolicyGenius will compare quotes from the top life insurance companies all in one place.
	It takes just a few minutes to compare quotes from those top insurers and find your best price.
	This doesn't just save a lot of legwork.
	You could save $1,500 or more a year by using PolicyGenius to compare life insurance policies.
	Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team handles all the paperwork and the red tape for free.
	So if you hit any speed bumps during the application process, they will be there to take care of everything.
	By the way, if you don't have home insurance or if you're overpaying for any of that, disability insurance, auto insurance, PolicyGenius will do all of that for you.
	Get it done.
	Be an adult.
	If you need life insurance but you're not sure where to start, head on over to PolicyGenius.com.
	PolicyGenius will help you find the best rate and handle the process completely.
	They'll get you and your family protected and covered and give you one less thing to worry about.
	Check them out today.
	PolicyGenius.com.
	Okay, in just a second, we are going to get to The Joe Biden of it all, because the left kind of wants to have it both ways, right?
	Joe Biden was nominated on the basis of the liberal promise, not the hard left promise.
	But can Americans trust that Joe Biden is going to be a bulwark against this sort of stuff?
	In other words, would Joe Biden have signed the cancel culture letter or would he be on the Ezra Klein side, basically pooh-poohing cancel culture, pretending it doesn't exist and suggesting that if you care about free speech, it's about relationships of power, right?
	Where does Joe Biden lie here?
	And can Joe Biden be trusted to basically stop The radicalism of a movement that wants to tear it all down.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, if you're not already a Daily Wire member, you should consider getting a reader's pass to dailywire.com.
	It's a great value for only three bucks a month, and when you sign up, you get that first month for only 99 cents.
	You also get access to our mobile app, articles ad free, access to exclusive editorials, like this one from Christian Toto.
	Shut up, the celebrity said, hoping the PC police would spare them.
	So if you haven't checked out the Reader's Pass already, head on over to dailywire.com and sign up.
	We're just about people are really enjoying it.
	Also, I have a great book pitch for you.
	Ready for this?
	I know you've heard about my book a little bit.
	It's my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	You're watching it like enacted step by step.
	But my book is really the response to the attempt to destroy America and what you should do in order to stop that.
	It really is an activism manual, philosophical activism manual for how to fight back against the leftist lies about the disintegrationist, really is what I call them.
	People who want to destroy our common heritage.
	The Disintegrationist Lies About American History, America's Culture of Rights, America's Philosophy.
	All of those things are under assault.
	How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	It is easily the most relevant book at the moment.
	I mean, there's just no question about it.
	I didn't think it was going to be that relevant when I wrote it.
	It is far more relevant now than when I wrote it back in December and January.
	You can go check that out right now.
	You can pre-order a signed copy at dailywire.com.
	You can even ask me a question with your purchase, which could be read aloud.
	During my live signing event on the day of the book release.
	It's a lot of good stuff happening with that book.
	That book comes out July 21st.
	Go pre-order your signed copy right now and make sure that you are one of the first to receive it at dailywire.com slash Ben.
	I am busily signing copies as we speak.
	Go check everything out right now at dailywire.com slash Ben and pick up a copy of How to Destroy America in three easy steps right now.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty.
	So can Joe Biden be trusted to stop the march of the radical left?
	So remember, Bernie Sanders was going to be the guy.
	You go all the way back to February, Bernie Sanders was sort of the apotheosis of all of this.
	He was the pinnacle of it.
	I mean, he was having rallies where he literally had indigenous people get on stage and talk about how the rally was taking place on stolen Native American land.
	He was going up there and apologizing for America's history.
	He was going up there and suggesting that America's entire system was thoroughly corrupt and evil and had to be torn down and built anew.
	And this is stuff that Bernie Sanders talked about.
	So all the kind of most radical stuff that you're hearing right now about Mount Rushmore and tearing down statues.
	Bernie was ahead of that stuff.
	Bernie had already made his peace with the radical racial left and he had made the alliance.
	And then Joe Biden waltzed to the nomination because it turns out most Americans are still not up for this.
	So the great lie that this is what the liberals really should be resisting along the lines of is That the old promise is still kind of true, which is you can't win, except that the radical left thinks they can win and that they're going to use Joe Biden as their vehicle for winning.
	So Joe, is Joe Biden a captured vehicle is really the question of the moment for the 2020 election.
	Because Joe Biden basically won the primaries by saying, I'm not Bernie.
	And most Democrats were like, you know what?
	We could use a not Bernie in order to win.
	But as Trump becomes more unpopular and the radical left gains more and more credence in the culture wars, the radical left has been able, as I've been talking about, to suggest that it does have the power to win elections on its own without the soft peddling of people like Joe Biden.
	And here's the problem for Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden basically knows it.
	Joe Biden, secretly, and not quite that secretly, is making overtures to the radical left.
	He's still making noises about how he's gonna be sort of a bulwark, but we know that the bulwark doesn't really exist.
	In the same way that Barack Obama, in 2008, was suggesting that he was very much pro-traditional marriage, when everybody basically knew that he was lying, everybody kind of knew, because he'd already talked about it in 2006, 2007, that he was pro-same-sex marriage, but in 2008, running for president, he was like, I don't think the American people are ready for that, so I know, I'll just lie.
	And he went out there and he was like, I'm pro-traditional marriage, In fact, the same election that elected Barack Obama basically brought a proposition in California to fruition, Prop 8, that protected traditional marriage.
	And it was largely on the back of black votes, right?
	A lot of black voters voted for Obama and also voted to preserve traditional marriage.
	And those were not in conflict in 2008 because Barack Obama was saying he was for traditional marriage in 2008.
	So now it feels kind of the same thing with Joe Biden and him standing up for quote, America's values and America's history, right?
	Joe Biden was asked, would you tear down statues?
	And he said, well, I would let them tear down the Confederate statues, but I wouldn't tear down statues of Washington, Jefferson and Columbus, which is, by the way, the sort of mainstream American position.
	But it's a holding pattern, isn't it?
	Isn't it a holding pattern?
	Like, do you think that Joe Biden is genuine?
	There are two questions.
	Is Joe Biden genuine when he says that sort of stuff?
	That he's going to provide some sort of wall against the radical left, destroying our culture from within, turning us into a censorious Mao struggle session?
	Shaming culture.
	Is he going to be with the people who signed this Harper's letter?
	Or is he going to be on the side of the people who are attacking the people who signed the Harper's letter?
	Or is he just going to enable those people?
	Or is he just going to stand back and let it happen?
	And my bet is on the third.
	Joe Biden will say whatever he has to do to get elected, but Joe Biden is not going to be an activist on behalf of traditional American history, philosophy, or culture.
	When it comes right down to it, if Joe Biden thought he could get away with signing into law a hate speech regulation, I think Joe Biden would probably do it.
	I think that if Joe Biden thought he could get away with signing into law slavery reparations, I think Joe Biden would probably do it.
	He wants to be seen as a historic figure.
	You're not seen as a historic figure for holding the line.
	You're seen as a historic figure on the left for radically changing things.
	Okay?
	And the best indicator that Joe Biden is really not what he is campaigning as, which is, you can trust me.
	I'm not going to change too much.
	I'm an old dead guy.
	I'm not even alive.
	I'm Joe Biden and I'm not...
	The best indicator that this is not the case is what's happening right now with the Democratic Party platform.
	So as Steve Guest from the GOP points out, the Biden platform is purely ripping off Bernie at this point, purely ripping him off.
	So Biden has picked up the Bernie criminal justice unity task force idea.
	He just picked it up directly from Bernie's platform, like word for word.
	He's plagiarizing.
	I mean, Joe Biden is famous for plagiarizing, but he's now plagiarizing Bernie Sanders' platform straight.
	Biden copied Bernie's workplace democracy plan straight, word for word.
	His economic agenda copies directly from Bernie's disability rights agenda.
	Biden's social security agenda is copied directly, word for word, from Bernie Sanders' agenda.
	That's the story here, is that while Biden is posing himself as this kind of Moderate Democrat you can feel safe with.
	He's the return to normalcy candidate.
	Donald Trump is this wild, crazy guy.
	But here I am, barely alive, and I'm not going to change all that much.
	We'll all go back to our daily lives and this craziness will end.
	That's not where this is going.
	That's not where this is going.
	You know who knows this is not where this is going?
	Bernie.
	So Bernie was on MSNBC.
	He said, listen, we have been able to basically shovel our entire platform into Biden's platform.
	Bernie said on MSNBC with Chris Hayes, he said Biden could be the most progressive president since FDR.
	Here's what it sounded like.
	And these folks, needless to say, people who represented the progressive movement had a different perspective on things than did Biden's people.
	But there was serious discussion and I think a real honest effort to come up with a compromise.
	And I think the compromise that they came up with, if implemented, We'll make Biden the most progressive president since FDR.
	So as you can hear, Bernie is sounding pretty happy there, right?
	Bernie has engaged in institutional capture and the institutional capture is complete.
	And Biden is now a tool of the radical left.
	And this is one of the reasons, by the way, why I think that it's very likely that Biden is going to avoid debate with Trump.
	Because I think Trump could simply ask him some very simple questions, some very simple questions.
	He could ask him, do you believe that America was founded in 1776 or in 1619?
	Do you believe that America was founded on slavery?
	Do you think that America was an incredible system marred by the great sin of slavery?
	Or do you think that America's systems are rooted in slavery?
	Do you believe in slavery reparations?
	Do you believe that the cops should be defunded, as so many members of your own party seem to have suggested?
	Do you think the cops are endemically racist?
	Forget about defunding them.
	Do you think that they are systemically racist and targeting black Americans?
	There are a thousand things that Biden could be asked that are part of the radical left's agenda.
	Biden doesn't want to be asked those questions because his entire goal here is to elide those questions in very much the same way that Barack Obama was able to elide many of the questions about his own radicalism in 2008.
	Barack Obama was very good at this.
	Biden is not quite as quick on his feet as Barack Obama was circa 2008.
	Also, he's not faced with an opponent.
	Who was quite as conciliatory as John McCain in 2008.
	In 2008, John McCain was not willing to ask Barack Obama any tough questions.
	Donald Trump has no limits and will ask Joe Biden pretty much anything on a debate stage, which is why I think it is quite likely that Biden actually just does not debate Trump.
	I think that, especially with coronavirus, I think it is quite possible that Joe Biden basically says, I'm not debating Trump and there's no reason for me to debate Trump.
	I'm up double digits in the polls.
	Right now, Cook Political Reports, which is a fairly, I would say, cautious, Cautious organization.
	Cook Political Report basically says Biden's won the election already.
	According to Cook Political Report, just looking at, they rank sort of states lean Republican, lean Democrat, solidly Democrat.
	They say that Biden has already locked up 275 electoral votes.
	They basically called the race already.
	It's July.
	Now that could change, but Trump's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
	One of the rabbits he's going to have to pull out of the hat is a debate in which he just clocks Biden across the head.
	And so Biden's best move here is to avoid all these questions.
	Biden's best move here, because you know he's going to pick somebody radical for his VP.
	There's just no way he's going to pick somebody who is not, in some sense, radical.
	The least radical candidate on his list is Susan Rice, which does not speak very highly of the non-radicalism of your list.
	But Thomas Friedman is openly suggesting now, in the New York Times, that Biden should not debate Trump unless Trump releases his tax returns for 2016 through 2018, which, of course, Trump is probably not going to do.
	And second, Biden should insist, says Thomas Friedman, on a real-time fact-checking team approved by both candidates be hired by the Nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, and that 10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate, his team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers, or outright lies either candidate had uttered.
	Okay, there's no way Trump's going to agree to that, because there is no possible way he could come up with an actual bipartisan fact-checking team approved by both candidates.
	It doesn't work that way.
	I mean, check the fact-checking organizations.
	The fact-checking organizations are dominated by the left.
	There may be two fact-checking organizations on the right, and they're very, very small outfits.
	So basically, Thomas Friedman is setting a bar that he knows that Trump will never clear, such that Biden will never have to debate him.
	So that's the goal here.
	The goal here is to wander through Biden, the radical left, to use Biden as the final sort of moderate elderly guys for what's coming next.
	And everybody knows this, right?
	Biden himself has said that he is a transitional figure.
	He has said this openly.
	He's the only candidate in my lifetime who's openly proclaimed that he's not running for president.
	He's running to be the guy who's before the next president.
	That's a pretty amazing statement, but it also happens to have a ring of truth to it.
	So, all the people, this is why Trump's being off-putting is so bad for him, frankly.
	Because if Trump were anything but the kind of off-putting candidate he is, there'd be a lot of people, liberals, who might be inclined to think, okay, well, I gotta think about the alternative here.
	It's funny, I was talking to somebody yesterday who, again, is working inside one of these organizations that's currently experiencing the purge, and I said to him, have you thought about voting for Trump?
	He said, I could never vote for Trump.
	He said, I could never vote for Trump.
	And I said, well, you do realize that Trump might be the last bulwark against the people who are trying to, you know, cleanse the culture.
	He said, right, but I could never bring myself to vote for Trump.
	And this is the biggest problem for President Trump, is that the conditions are lined up for Trump, not just to win, but to win enormous.
	You've got an entire culture of people who wish to wipe out the livelihoods of an entire side of the political aisle and claim they are racist without any evidence.
	And somehow Trump, the least politically correct president ever, is going to blow this?
	If he does, it's one of the great political sins in American history, if that happens.
	I understand that now Trump is the underdog again, and so we get to play the game where Trump is being batted about the ears by the media, and none of it's his fault.
	He was always batted about the ears by the media.
	That isn't his fault.
	What is his fault is the fact that he's become so off-putting to so many people that the left can riot, send crime skyrocketing in every major American city, cancel everyone in the culture, including people who are just moderate liberals, and somehow he receives no political benefit from that.
	I mean, that's a pretty damning indictment of how he's running his campaign.
	He better turn this ship around.
	He better turn it around fast.
	Because it's my belief that Joe Biden is not going to be any sort of bulwark against the radical left.
	And not only won't Joe Biden be a radical bulwark, I think that he is going to exacerbate the gains of the radical left by laundering their ideology into the mainstream.
	And if that makes Trump's election a lot more important, not a lot less important.
	So you should be upset with him if he's down 10 points at this point.
	Okay, quick commentary on a piece of good news.
	I may as well not say a couple pieces of good news here.
	So the Supreme Court actually gave a couple of good 72 decisions yesterday.
	There were two decisions on this.
	One of the decisions was about the contraception mandate.
	So the little sisters of the poor got dragged up again.
	In front of the Supreme Court for the great sin of nuns not providing birth control in their healthcare coverage.
	And 7-2, the Supreme Court said, no, they're nuns.
	They can pretty much do that.
	That's okay.
	So according to the New York Times, the Supreme Court upheld a Trump administration regulation that lets employers with religious or moral objections limit women's access to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
	Naturally, the New York Times says could result in as many as 126,000 women losing contraceptive coverage from their employers because we have to force people to violate their most dearly held principles.
	I was amused to see people very, very angry at nuns yesterday.
	That was pretty incredible.
	Literally, this woman tweeted out, there's a picture of the nuns from Little Sisters of the Poor speaking to the press.
	They said, nuns, the people that we should listen to on birth control?
	I just thought, you, the person I should listen to on nuns?
	So that was a good decision.
	That's good.
	It's good that at least sometimes you get good decisions from the Supreme Court.
	The other one is a 7-2 decision in which Chief Justice Roberts sided with the court's conservatives, so did Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.
	The two radicals on the court, like really truly radicals, are Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
	They are always taking the most radical position.
	The case before the court involved two Catholic schools, St.
	James Catholic School and Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School, that dismissed employees who later sued, as Emily Zanotti writing for Daily Wire.
	Religious institutions have a ministerial exemption that allows them leeway in hiring and firing and protection from employment discrimination suits.
	The case before the Supreme Court tested whether there was a specific limit to the ministerial exemption.
	So if you are an English teacher at a Catholic church, at a Catholic school, can you be transgender and be protected on that basis from firing, for example?
	The ministerial exception says, yes, you can, because if you are working for a Catholic school, the assumption is that you're going to abide by basic Catholic principles, at least while you are in school.
	Fox News reports the decision covered two cases involving teachers at religious schools who claimed that they were discriminated against.
	In one, Agnes Morrissey Beru alleged that a Roman Catholic school in L.A.
	did not renew her contract because of her age.
	She taught a variety of subjects, including religion, but didn't have any religious training or title prior to working there.
	She did take religious education classes at the school's request once she was working there and prayed with students.
	In a second case, a woman named Kristen Beal claimed she was let go from another L.A.
	Catholic school because she asked to take leave due to breast cancer treatments.
	She too taught multiple subjects, including religion, prayed with students despite not having a formal religious title.
	The Supreme Court affirmed that religious organizations have broad protection against employment discrimination suits.
	Alito noted the court could not carve out loopholes to the exemptions or they would basically moot the exemption.
	So this is more in line with the suggestion by my friend David French that what Justice Gorsuch was doing in the LGBT civil rights case is he was basically making it so that unless you are a church, you cannot fire people on this basis.
	So if you're just a religious person in regular life, you can't fire somebody on the basis of same-sex marriage, for example.
	If you are a religious organization, you can, which again is a distinction I think is really not protected by the Constitution or by the Civil Rights Act, but it's what has been called the Utah Compromise.
	It's something that Utah has pressed forward with a lot of robustness in law.
	Okay.
	We'll be here tomorrow with a bunch of additional content, including your updates on everything COVID-related.
	President Trump is now in a debate with Anthony Fauci about whether schools should reopen.
	There's good evidence from Europe.
	The brief story is there's good evidence from Europe that schools reopening is not endangering the kids in the schools.
	The big problem is what do you do with the teachers?
	The answer might be you have to hire some younger teachers.
	Because if you don't want to endanger the teachers, but you also want kids to be able to go to school, which kind of is vital at this point, then you might have to just put in teachers who are less health vulnerable.
	That might be a possible solution here.
	We'll get to more of it tomorrow because hope it ain't going away.
	So I'm sure that we'll still be talking about it tomorrow.
	In the meantime, hang in there and we'll see you then.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas, executive producer Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, assistant director Pavel Lydowsky, technical producer Austin Stevens, playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan, associate producer Katie Swinnerton, edited by Adam Sajovic, audio is mixed by Mike Koromina, hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Joe Biden mutters incoherently, Don Lemon shows us why the left can't meme, and the Supreme Court magnanimously allows a group of nuns to pray another day.

▲