All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
47:32
Whose Border is More Important? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 484
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
You hear me talk about the amazing benefits of taking Balance of Nature every day.
There are so many satisfied customers, including Dinesh and Debbie, who tell stories about Balance of Nature has been one of the healthiest decisions made this year.
Balance of Nature has decided to do something special for those of you who are ready to get this maximum nutrition that people are talking about.
Their founder, Doc Howard, often talks about the benefits of combining their star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule, with their fiber and spice supplement.
So he's giving you a way to get both at a special holiday price.
Right now, as a special holiday offer, get $25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies when you use discount code AMERICA. This offer can end at any time, so don't delay.
Call 800-2468-751 or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code America.
Hi, everyone. I'm your host this week, Danielle D'Souza Gill.
I'm so happy to be here.
I hope you all had a Merry Christmas.
This is such a special time of year, and we can never forget the reason for the season, which is the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
I hope you're staying warm in the midst of this cold and the blizzards that have swept the nation this last week.
Dinesh is taking a little vacation.
He's taking a rest, some time off.
He's spending the rest of this week just relaxing and reading.
So I am filling in for him for the rest of the week.
If you enjoy the content I'm putting out, please follow me on social media.
I post videos all the time on my Facebook page at DanielleDiSusaGill, as well as on my Rumble channel.
You can also find me on Instagram, Twitter, and Truth Social.
But today we'll be asking the question, why does the left care more about Ukraine's border than our southern border?
We'll also speak with Charles Kessler about the current problems with our university system.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Have you ever picked up a towel set because it felt really soft in the store, but then when you go to use it, it's not very absorbent?
It's basically a towel that's leaving you out to dry.
That's why MyPillow has developed the MyPillow Towels, towels that work.
I know it's mind-blowing that towels actually dry you.
Their six-piece towel set includes two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths.
They come in a variety of colors, and right now, you can receive a six-piece set For only $39.98 with promo code Dinesh.
Go to MyPillow.com right now and click on the radio listener special.
MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty, have their 60-day money-back guarantee.
To receive this amazing offer on the six-piece set of MyPillow towels, just go to MyPillow.com, click on the radio listener special, and enter promo code Dinesh.
Or call 1-800-876-0227.
That's MyPillow.com, promo code Dinesh.
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." That was the oath of office which is sworn by every member of Congress when they assume their duties.
Interestingly, there was some debate among the founders as to whether such an oath should be required.
One of the criticisms was that the oath was pointless.
A good man would keep it and a bad man wouldn't think twice about violating it anyway.
That criticism seems pretty prescient these days.
It appears there is indeed a distinct lack of true faith and allegiance in the same body that would pass a bipartisan omnibus spending bill bestooned with kickbacks in pork, and of course, billions in funding for Ukraine.
Increased military spending and defense funding for Ukraine were the reasons the so-called electable class of Republicans used to justify the omnibus.
Statesmen like Mitt Romney explained that actually the omnibus is a pretty good deal for our men and women in uniform.
I think a lot of Americans are starting to feel like our leaders no longer represent or serve our country.
It's crystal clear that the left cares more about Ukraine's border than America's border.
It's beginning to feel like our two political parties are on completely opposite trajectories, where one wants to defend the ship, prevent it from sinking, and the other party just wants to do all they can to add water to the ship so it sinks, while they sit on the top deck and sip cocktails and send aid to other ships.
Meanwhile, the rest of the people on our ship in the lower bunkers are drowning underwater.
It's certainly reasonable to assume that Biden is incapable of serving in a role for national Republicans bring that up often.
Biden's mental capacity.
But this is, at the end of the day, a distraction from the fact that many Democrats, aside from Biden and Fetterman, are coherent and they want America to fail.
They want Americans to suffer.
Why? Because it seems like the last thing they want to defend is our nation.
How else can you explain the gaping holes at our southern border, with endless masses of millions upon millions streaming across it, completely unchecked?
In any other country in the world, this kind of thing is recognized as an invasion.
And what exactly is happening in Ukraine, then, that has sent our politicians up in arms?
An invasion of Ukraine's border, which Ukraine knows cannot continue and must be stopped?
Our attitude towards our southern border is not normal.
In fact, many militaries around the world plan and train for contingencies like these.
Contingencies where a neighboring country's government implodes and the resulting unrest threatens to spill across your country's borders.
It's the kind of thing you do when you care about the well-being of your fellow countrymen, is protect them.
Which is unfortunately not the kind of thing Democrats and Mitt Romney are into.
These representatives are now touting this deal as if the logic isn't something to be extremely ashamed of.
They talk about military spending as if the Afghanistan pullout never happened, as if we never spent thousands of American lives to free a distant country, only to have the Pentagon squander every last precious drop of American blood through their incompetence.
No one is asking for more military spending.
The Instagram Karen screaming over pronouns are more basket case than fighting force.
Woke generals aren't the answer here.
Throwing billions of dollars at Ukraine while fomenting tensions with a nuclear power like Russia only invites disaster.
If push comes to shove, we will see a catastrophe so terrible, the service members who were kicked out and denied their benefits for refusing Biden's mandate would consider themselves lucky.
We can joke about how silly this looks, that our Congress are like the peewee soccer players cheering after kicking the ball into their own goal, that Ukraine has less a chance of happening than fetch.
But the fact is, these people aren't really that clueless and dumb.
Zelensky knows exactly what he's doing.
And what about the corruption?
Well, the money is going to companies like Northrup, Raytheon, and Leonardo.
And these companies will in turn donate big to the campaign coffers of these same congressmen who gave the omnibus the green light.
It's the oldest trick in the American playbook.
I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.
But you'll notice that any time a politician gets caught red-handed in one of these schemes, the last thing you'll hear from them is remorse.
No. Instead, they deflect the guilt right back at their critics.
But we all recognize this trick as well.
Glenn Greenwald noted that neocons and establishment Dems had begun to merge policies, tactics, and resources back in 2014.
When National Review neocon Bill Kristol tried to paint anyone critical of Ukraine funding as a member of the anti-American right, Greenwald responded, saying, quote, End quote.
And if you squint really hard and look back at how the neocons lambasted the anti-war left as unpatriotic back during the Iraq war days, you really do start to see the nascent form of cancel culture.
But who is really being unpatriotic here?
Bill Kristol brought the topic up, so let's humor him for a moment.
What is the function of the United States military?
It's a defense force.
In fact, the common defense of the colonies was the reason that the Second Continental Congress established the Continental Army in 1775.
Now ask yourself, which of these two is a part of America?
Texas or Ukraine?
Now ask yourself, which flag was honored in Congress last week?
flag of Texas or the flag of Ukraine? It seems to me that if we go by the strictest definition of the word patriot, then this group of political positioners Greenwald has been warning us about are far less patriotic than their critics. Critics who on the left want to avoid sending more young people to die for corporate kickbacks and on the right want to defend our own country from being ripped apart by the forces of unchecked crime and chaos. Moreover, the omnibus also
has several limitations built into it that prevent money from being spent to fortify our southern border, which is shockingly unpatriotic.
It is literally anti-defense.
The $45 billion for the defense of Ukraine now brings the total amount of money spent on that one country to nearly $100 billion for the year.
But not a penny of American money will fund a border wall or expedite the deportation of illegals.
Like the years prior, 2022 has been a very strange year.
Many of us were shocked and offended that a foreign leader stood before our representatives demanding billions more of our taxpayer dollars to defend a nation embroiled in decades of corruption, much of which has been facilitated by none other than Hunter Biden.
We were also shocked to see those same representatives enthusiastically promising even more support, all while waving the flag of that foreign nation.
And by its very nature of being unimaginable, we are brought face to face with exactly how much our government cares about the American people.
So correct me if I'm wrong here, but the idea that you are going to leave our country vulnerable while spending more on a country we have no treaty or pact with seems a gross violation of the oath of service.
Putting the needs of another country ahead of the needs of our own also sounds like the furthest thing from patriotic.
What some of us would do just to be young again, the simple things like climbing stairs, getting in and out of bed, and taking a walk aren't that simple.
Too many aches and pains. Thankfully, now there's 100% drug-free solution. It's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation. That's the source of aches and pains.
The majority of the people who try Relief Factor order more because it works for them.
Debbie can finally do the exercises she loves like planks, push-ups, and her stationary bike thanks to Relief Factor.
It's been a game changer for her and for many people.
You too can benefit.
Try it for yourself by ordering the three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That's relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast, Charles Kessler.
He's the senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and the editor of the Claremont Review of Books.
Charles, thanks for joining us.
Well, Danielle, thank you for inviting me.
It's always a great pleasure to be on the D'Souza podcast.
Oh my gosh. Well, yes, he's taking a little time off this week because of Christmas.
So I've been hosting his podcast this week and whenever he takes off.
And so I wanted to invite on my favorite people.
And I loved going to your seminar this fall.
It was so interesting because your guys' information always really dives into the heart of You know, what is most important.
So I wanted to just ask you a little bit about your story and what inspired you to pursue political theory.
Oh, sure. Okay.
I guess I've always been interested in politics.
I mean, my first political memories go back to the 1968 election when I would have been about 11 or 12 years old, I guess.
The late 60s were a very anarchic time in American politics, very conflict-ridden time.
Somehow or another, I got the bug for politics and history back then.
Then when I was in high school, I started reading political theory.
I guess I was inspired partly by National Review and sort of the conservative literature at the time that I was reading, but even more so, I think, by a couple of my teachers in high school who were very good and very knowledgeable about American politics and about American history.
And then I went to school.
I went to college. I went to Harvard at a very good time in the 1970s when Harvey Mansfield, who my teacher, my main teacher, who is still there teaching at age 90.
This is his final year of teaching, however, but still, it's been an amazing run.
He was there.
James Q. Wilson was there, the great American political scientist.
His teacher, Ed Banfield, was there and was a good friend of mine.
Also, a handful of other conservatives were teaching at Harvard at the time.
And they were a great resource.
I mean, you wouldn't find that at Harvard or anywhere else, I think, today in the quantity and quality that was available in the 1970s, mid-1970s.
So it was sort of a golden age of political science and political theory in particular at Harvard when I was lucky enough to be there.
And that was certainly...
It's crucial in forming my career, you might say, my career interests and career goals.
Wow. And what do you think led to such a big change at a school like Harvard as well as other elite colleges to not have so many professors like that anymore who are, whether it's more conservative or just interested in maybe a different view of truth, things like that. Those professors are so rare now.
Well, it's an easy and a difficult question to answer at the same time, I think.
The people who influenced me were not all conservatives.
Judith Sklar was a great professor of political philosophy who was definitely on the liberal side.
Michael Waltzer, who's still alive, still going, was there also.
And Sam Huntington, who became more conservative in his own life, And career as things went on, but he was not known as a conservative back then.
And so the trends have changed, I would say, somewhat from political theory to more postmodern themes, which first affected comparative literature and philosophy and eventually the whole university.
And among the directions that postmodernism took was woke, you know, wokeness, which is the latest version of that.
And none of those movements, those postmodern movements, has been friendly to the serious study of history or great political or other great texts.
They have been parasitic on those traditions.
And I'm afraid that that has impacted the universities of the country enormously and badly.
Right. And can you tell us a little bit about why postmodernism has taken over in this way?
And why is it so harmful if students only learn from that perspective?
Well, postmodernism is, you know, it has, in some sense, deep philosophical roots in the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger and other really great thinkers at the end of the 19th century and in the early 20th century.
But it is a frivolous and unserious thought.
I think.
It's not worthy, really, of the great sources of its insights.
And it's frivolous because it can be used so unseriously.
If you're a postmodernist, you really don't believe in reason.
You don't believe in the capacity of reason to come to discover truths or to apprehend truths that are out there.
That is, that are not shaped by human will or human culture or human ideology.
And as such, it becomes a kind of power game.
It reduces serious philosophy, theology, all serious intellectual enterprises, in a way, to a kind of power-hungry game-playing in which what matters is really not the truth, but And truth is a means to power and thus it is not truth anymore.
And that, I think, is what has engendered so much cynicism and hopelessness and lack of what would have been called idealism in undergraduates today and in faculty members today.
I mean, if you're on a college these days, you find out that there's not a lot of courage to be observed in anyone, least of all in the administration or the faculty.
But even among students, it's in very short supply.
And that's because they're all very sensitive to their reputations.
And this is where sort of postmodernism and social media meet, I think, in the current intellectual landscape.
Nobody wants to have a virtual mob arrive outside their virtual mailbox and pelt them with virtual stones for the rest of their lives about something they said on a college campus when they were 18 or 19.
And so there's a certain kind of cowardice, a certain kind of cowardly, in a way, cowardly concern for your reputation that acknowledges, you know, that truth is just what most people say or assert, and that you don't want to be on the wrong end of such assertions.
And that's...
Is why, you know, where you once had demonstrations on political campuses that were, I mean, going back to the 60s, demonstrations that were political and idealistic and moral and, you know, the civil rights movement and things like that, you have very few of those anymore.
The typical demonstrations you have are much more denunciations of a speaker than For heterodox viewpoints.
Denunciation of people with whom you disagree because they must be wrong if they don't agree with you.
That kind of thing.
Very disappointing and very exhausting in a way.
And very unidealistic.
And that's sort of the modern campus life I'm afraid.
Right. And they often say, you know, truth to power and things like that.
And they do often do a lot of their demonstrations as being negative, really trying to prevent people from speaking, kick speakers off of a campus, prevent anyone from having an opposing viewpoint from being a professor or another student.
And I think like you were saying, if you were more idealistic, you might hope that there would be more debate or you would hope that there would be more discussion between these different viewpoints.
But can you tell us a little bit about some of the kind of debate going on about whether moral truths are factual truths?
And I think this was something that is just really interesting that a lot of people don't get to hear about that kind of a debate.
And maybe students today don't get to hear.
Yes, well, you know, that's a large subject.
The question is, what's the best way to attack it?
I think maybe to, let's start here.
The notion that morals are Not knowable.
That is, they're not objective.
They're not something that really exists that reason has to discover or recognize.
But that they are embellishments of our preferences, of our tastes, of our values.
That the difference between right and wrong is really just indistinguishable from your taste in ice cream.
You know, you prefer Rocky Road to coffee, ice cream, for no reason except that it appeals to you more.
And unfortunately, it's not uncommon in the intellectual life of the West today, not just on campuses, to assimilate morality to the question of taste that might drive your Preference for ice cream.
So you have your values, our culture, America, whatever, has its values.
But these values don't really have a chance to be true.
They are simply projections of our passions, of our own ungrounded tastes.
And as such, all morals are relative.
And you can draw two conclusions from that premise.
One is, and this is the one that liberalism and universities used to draw, one is openness.
You know, that we should be open to every other person's truths.
And that formulation is very popular these days.
Your truth, my truth.
There isn't a truth or the truth.
It's just that everyone has his or her, or now I understand many other pronouns worth, of truths.
And if that's the case, then one possible consequence of that is we should listen to each other and sort of regard each other as equally prejudiced or equally creatures of our upbringing and our Passions and our preferences.
But that doesn't really follow logically.
That's a sentimental conclusion.
And the one that follows with less sentimentality and that one begins to see more and more of, I think, in the 21st century, is that if your truths are no better than mine, Then why not impose my truths on your truth?
You can't tell me it's wrong to do that, since we've admitted there is no such thing as right and wrong outside of your own value structure, your own preferences.
And so, if truth really is a means to power, why not use truth, your truth, in a very illiberal way, To erase other people's truth, to dominate other people's truth.
And I'm afraid that's where, you know, the campus is these days.
That's where cancel culture in a way comes from.
That's where a lot of the illiberalism of modern political life comes from as well.
If you really don't believe in truth, after all, what kind of a politics can you have?
What kind... Of a morality can you have?
It's not coincidence, I think, that there's a lot more shouting and shouting down in today's life than there used to be, at least in America.
And it's no coincidence that our politics is so divided and bitter because there's really very little hope of There's very little hope of converting anyone.
There's very little hope of persuading anyone if you start from the premise that there is no truth to be persuaded to.
Yeah, it seems like the idea that, oh, you know, we live in this relativistic world and people just believe whatever they want and it's okay.
It seems like that...
I almost feel like it sort of ended, at least in the last, like, maybe six to ten years, maybe sometime under Obama, because I feel like that coexist phrase, things like that used to be so big.
People were... Even atheism used to be much...
There used to be these atheists who would say, oh, you know, this is my view on science and reason and all of these things.
And now it seems like the left has taken over so much that the religion of the left is basically their values, which are power, which is winning, winning, winning everything.
And it's not really about this kind of vortex where everybody can think whatever they want.
It's kind of like you said, where if you don't agree with them, then they'll basically just silence you.
So at this point, they have these values, but I guess they think they're true or they think that that's the only acceptable truth or the only acceptable way to view something is their view.
Yeah. I mean, when I was in college, this is many years ago, of course, but when I was in college, one of the most typical activities in the college year would be debates.
All sorts of student societies would sponsor debates of various people.
We had something, I helped him create something called the George Washington Society at Harvard many years ago.
And we sponsored a series of debates.
We brought Bill Buckley to campus to debate John Kenneth Galbraith.
We brought him to campus to debate well-known law professors about censorship and various things.
And believe it or not, students paid money to attend these public debates.
I think we charged, you know, five bucks, which is a lot of money back then, per seat.
And thousands of students would come to sit and listen to a debate.
And now on campuses, there are no debates, or there are very few debates.
I mean, there's a debating society or a club, maybe, for students to debate, you know, a topic per year.
That goes on. But there aren't big, sizable, public debates that everyone is talking about and everyone is interested in because postmodernism doesn't favor debates.
It's not inclined to react to differences in values by having people try to discuss it Discuss them and discuss the facts connected to those values.
Its position really is you risk offending people when you disagree and when you entertain contrary values.
And why would you want to do that anyway since there is no truth, you know?
And so it's a very different campus and very different campus life now And it used to be.
And some of your listeners are probably thinking about sending their children off to campus to college.
And so it's a much more fraught decision now than it was 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.
And it's one that parents and potential students need to think through very carefully where they're going and what they're going to be I mean, it's very difficult to know before you get there what the real character of a college is these days.
The reputations of them are well behind the reality.
Harvard is really not the same place, I would say, as it was in the 1970s.
It's become a rather different sort of institution.
And that's true of a lot of colleges.
Yeah. Do you think that that will ever catch up with them in the sense that maybe the next generation, they will know Harvard is what it was now, and so maybe they will not think of it as highly?
Well, it's possible.
And you're already seeing fewer people going to college.
You know, the numbers are down 10 or 11 percent.
In terms of the undergraduate populations in America over what they were 10 years ago.
And so people are, there is beginning to be a reaction, of course, probably in the first place to the cost, the enormous cost of going to college these days, but also to the, as it were, ideological and philosophical and moral costs of Of going to colleges and having to hear a lot of nonsense.
And not just hear it, but affirm it.
Which is the worst thing about, I think, college life these days.
The sense that there really is a kind of moral consensus based on nothing but the values of the people in charge.
And everyone is expected more or less to swear And if you don't, you know, you get in trouble.
And it's not just, this is in terms of your speech can get you in trouble, and your conduct can get you in trouble as well.
Yeah, no, of course.
And some professors, they may believe in absolute truth, but they feel like they can't talk about it because even if they teach math or some other science, they feel like they could be fired or feel like they will no longer be able to teach anymore.
Yeah, there's a lot of self-censorship among professors, but among students, too.
When you get to know students and you talk to them in office hours, not in public so much, but in office hours, you can hear.
They will confess how much they don't say in class that they'll talk about maybe in private but not in front of other students and other people whom they don't trust Or know very well.
Right. And it's sad because it seems like this has happened in so many colleges, not just a few colleges, but most colleges.
So how do you think that happened in such a grand scale?
Do you think that the people who maybe were those more Marxist professors decided we're just not going to give tenure to these guys because they have this different viewpoint than we do and we're just going to make sure we bring in more...
Professors that agree with us, and we're going to prioritize diversity of skin color, not diversity of thought, things like that, and they all just decided to do this?
Or what do you think kind of led to this result that we're in now?
Well, there's a great deal of that, of precisely what you're talking about.
And within each sort of discipline, there was also simply a kind of generational effect of That, you know, each generation of graduate students has been more, broadly speaking, has been more liberal than the preceding one.
And so each generation of professors is more liberal than the preceding one.
And it works.
It's not always overtly ideological.
It may be simply that trends in the discipline Go in a direction such that all of a sudden the hot thing is to, you know, is whatever it might have been, international organization, let's say, and not the study of war and conflict in the international relations departments and curriculum.
And so when you get a whole generation that is pursuing the latest sort of trendy thing in academia, That has political consequences for the university and for, you know, expertise more generally in those fields.
And, you know, as I mentioned before, as comparative literature and philosophy and even economics and political science, this happens.
It certainly happened in history departments as well.
The profession moves leftward.
Not, as I say, in a kind of propagandistic reaction, but rather because they really do think that the latest thing, which must be the truest thing, or at least the most powerful thing,
It compels them to do a certain kind of research and not pursuing other more old-fashioned questions, like the nature of war, for example, in international relations.
Right. And it's so interesting because those old-fashioned questions that you're saying, people have thought about for thousands of years, even though the thoughts may have changed over time.
So it seems like this kind of ramping up of this big change that's happened in the last maybe couple decades has been such a departure from how things have been in the past and how people have learned.
Do you think that there's much further they can take this to the left?
Because at a certain point, it seems like...
What else is there to think about?
How much more can you push the boundary?
I often wonder about this with art because it's not really exciting or new to deconstruct something because everything's already being deconstructed.
So you just have to go off of that, I guess, continually.
And so what would be kind of the next step for them?
Well, you know, if Hunter Biden is the new frontier of art and I suppose we're only a short step away from every major museum having to have a Hunter Biden painting in their collection.
You wonder, is there any stopping point to the sort of pursuit of nonsense?
I think there is hope, at least.
As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people All the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
And, you know, there is beginning to be, I think even among students, there's beginning to be eyes are opening to the politicization of the university and the lack of intellectual vitality in so many modern institutions.
I think there's hope that this can't go on, but I think it's not going to be the university that reforms itself, or at least not anytime soon.
politics is much more open to change and to renovations than the Academy is.
And so if we, if it's, it certainly is possible and I think it's even somewhat likely that that our politics will reach a point of a turning point, you know, where, where something, obviously the, the Trumpian populism will not define what the, what the future of American politics is going to be.
because I think Trump, that's already passing from the scene.
But Trumpian populism has set off actions and reactions throughout the political system that are going to be working themselves out long after Trump himself has gone from the political scene.
And some of the consequences of that and other Developments coming from other people, other movements, and other directions might really change American politics fairly suddenly in the next decade or two.
And that is probably the best short-term hope for change in the academy.
If our politics becomes more rational and more In the long run, that will have an effect on the university as well, and probably more of an effect than any internal reform movements within the American university, of which there are, of course, very few.
There's very little in the way of self-criticism within the university, at least so far.
Right. Yes. And you mentioned earlier how there's this huge divide in politics and how a lot of this postmodernism explains that.
And I think that's also why there's probably so much infighting on both sides, because in many ways, many people don't interact with people from the other side, or at least that happens a lot when it comes to someone who's on the left.
Oftentimes, conservatives are forced to.
In the workplace or in school.
But I think that then it leads to a lot of tearing down within and a lot of confusion for people because they feel like their enemy is almost like their friend or is on their side.
And it just creates a lot of turmoil, this situation that we're in, because of all of the destruction that's happened.
Yes, that's right.
And, you know, it isn't Particularly pleasant, the modern university, because it does lack some of this intellectual openness and vitality that I spoke of.
Students and even professors who spend a lot of their lives in the university are Catching on to the problem, even if they don't really have a solution for that problem yet.
The other factor in the university system today is administration.
And it used to be that the administrative sector was a small part of college or university life.
Well, not any longer.
I mean, the number of assistant deans and associate deans for this and that, and the number of deanlets, as they're called, somewhat cynically.
I mean, they really, they're probably now more people in administration than there are faculty, and in some places, than there are students, even.
And so it's possible that a kind of coalition of Of students and parents who are tired of paying for that, and professors who are tired of seeing their influence overawed by the sheer number and power of the administrators on campus.
It may be that there is some possibility of a kind of internal resistance to the growth of the administration.
And since the growth of the administration correlates Very closely with leftist politics on campus.
You know, that's some unpredictable consequences of such a coalition if it forms, and I think it is somewhat likely that it will begin to form, are a source of hope also, even for our beleaguered campuses.
Yes. Wow. Well, Charles, thank you so much for this fascinating conversation and hopefully things get better in the future.
But thank you so much.
Dinesh's family didn't believe in the stock market.
They were a put-your-money-in-the-bank kind of people.
But Dinesh discovered in the early 1990s that investing in the market makes sense if you're in it for the long term.
Problem is, we're in a very rocky economy with lots of craziness at home and lots of instability abroad.
There's always a risk of a black swan event, a single event that comes out of nowhere and basically cripples your savings.
So how do we take advantage of the upside of the market and protect ourselves against the downside?
We need some really good guidance here.
My friend Rebecca Walzer is a tax attorney and wealth strategist with her MBA from the London School of Economics.
She and her team can help you protect your wealth during these unprecedented times.
Go to friendofdinesh.com and book your complimentary introductory call today to see if you qualify.
Again, that's friendofdinesh.com.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection