All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
59:18
ILLIBERAL EDUCATION: THE DOWNFALL OF THE CAMPUS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1171
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, I'm Danielle D'Souza Gill, and I am so honored to be hosting Dinesh's show while he is away in Israel, and it has just been so much fun being here this week.
Um, today we have some interesting topics to get to.
We're gonna talk about how liberals became radical leftists.
We're also gonna talk to one of my dad's first editors ever.
Um, we're gonna talk to his longtime friend Adam Bellow about um publishing one of his earliest books of liberal education, which was really his first book that kind of became successful and launched him into the conservative movement.
So we're gonna get some behind-the-scenes um information there from Adam, and we're just gonna kind of talk a little bit about campus culture and how the universities have changed over the years.
So let's get started.
America needs this voice.
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 de Souza podcast.
The word tolerate is an English verb that has two meanings.
One meaning is to endure something unpleasant for a time.
The other meaning is allow or permit something, such as tolerating a certain degree of theft or a number of traffic accidents.
In engineering, the term tolerance is used to describe stress limitations on certain structures.
Exceed tolerance, things break.
Both uses of the word imply the thing which is being tolerated, is at the very least not ideal, generally undesirable.
For example, we don't tolerate birthday cakes or presents.
Those things are desirable and great and wonderful, so we don't need to use the word tolerate in those cases.
I think this is important to point out these days because a considerable portion of our population have a completely different definition of tolerate.
For some, to tolerate something is to accept it, to celebrate it.
Not for a certain amount of time and not for as long as it can be endured.
Now, this group of people think that when we say we tolerate a thing, we permanently improve and love that thing.
This concept misconstrues tolerance as a permanent status, a perpetual state of being.
When we say we tolerate something, they believe we mean to say that we wholeheartedly accept what is being tolerated and will do so in perpetuity.
To use a travel metaphor, this group of people understands tolerance as a final destination.
It is a place we arrive at via a one-way ticket.
Once there, there is no moving back.
But man, was that ever wrong?
For the rest of us, tolerance is a temporary state.
It is us merely putting up with something.
It is not a destination, but merely a point along the journey that could be for a short period of time, a transitory condition.
You may have already guessed that because the group who sees tolerance as a permanent state are both factually incorrect and using that lie to bend everyone to their will.
But I am talking about leftists.
Right now, This massive misunderstanding of the concept of tolerance between the left and everyone else is coming to a head in a very dramatic way.
It's being hastened by outrage over the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the resulting reaction by the left on social media.
It's also the result of the general outrage felt concerning the casually brutal and racist murder of a helpless young white Ukrainian war refugee, Irina Zerutska, by the demented violent serial criminal.
The murder took place on public transportation in Charlotte, North Carolina.
And for some reason, those in charge of keeping the people of that city safe were taken aback by the outrage at their failure.
The mayor of the city is now infamous for shrugging her shoulders at the problem by saying there's too much crime, homelessness, craziness in the world already, and quote, we will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health.
She argues that the solution is not, quote, villainizing those who struggle with their mental health for those who are unhoused.
See what I mean?
To them, tolerance is the destination.
Tolerance is the end goal.
And in her mind, we've arrived at it, and there's no way we can ever leave it.
We simply have to accept the situation as it is.
The luggage has been offloaded and unpacked.
We are stuck there in a place where we have no choice but to use our endless stories of sympathy and empathy for the criminal and the deranged, even the insane, to cope with their lust spill blood.
And it's up to each of us to offer as many necks as possible to make sure that the left that they are able to project tolerance, and this continues unimpeded as if that is the highest goal.
Leftists don't think tolerance is a tactic that will lead to anything better or something that is going to be used in the process of anything else.
They believe that that is the here and now and the best it is going to get, and we need to simply accept criminals like this the way they are.
That's why they not only don't care when an illegal immigrant murders a random teenager or rapes a minor, or leftist protesters, they will actively try to stop law enforcement from arresting illegals from being in this country.
Leftist judges want the same people to walk free and do everything they can to stop President Trump from deporting illegals.
It's all part of that cycle of violence and enabling evolutionary behavior, scientist God Sod calls it suicidal empathy.
It's a good description.
Leftist media cover up the fact that Kilmore Abrego creeped out his fellow human traffickers for soliciting explicit pictures of minors.
Think about how depraved you have to be to creep out people who treat their fellow human beings like cargo.
The same media is now upset that people are mad about this man murdering Irina by dismissing the outrage as a product of a right wing plot.
Also a right wing plot, being outraged at the assassination of a debater like Charlie Kirk.
It's not right wing to be outraged at murder and horrible killings of people.
I mean, if this is what right wing is, everyone should become right wing.
A defenseless young woman was murdered, and this is one of the last things that Charlie Kirk tweeted about before his death.
It's not right wing to be angry that leftists reserve for themselves the right to murder anyone who bests them in open debate.
This is merely common sense.
This is good and evil, and yes, that is now what right wing is.
Notice that no one on the left is forthcoming with any of their own solutions to fix these issues of crime and political violence, we merely have to accept it and tolerate it the way it is.
That's what they believe.
They believe that tolerance is the ultimate destination, and we are living in their solution right now.
Their solution is to just have more people be trans, anyone can just be whoever they want, take pills, all this kind of stuff, even if it inflicts harm and danger on anyone around them and they start shooting, killing people, or they're indoctrinated online, it's okay.
We have to tolerate everything.
This is an act of kindness in their mind.
Patience.
Their expectation is that people being tolerated will be great the way that they are.
There's no reason for anyone to have to change.
When you accommodate someone like a guest in your house, they don't get to move in permanently like squatters in the leftist hellhole of California.
Guests are tolerated, but only because their presence is temporary, which is quite different.
Tolerance was never meant to be permanent.
In fact, for anyone who isn't part of the left's favored violent and terroristic demographics, it still isn't.
But for leftists, any hint that you're no longer on board with their interpretation of the word invites mass hysteria and violence.
You're not allowed to make demands of those being tolerated because then you wouldn't be tolerating them anymore.
That would make you intolerant, which is the ultimate sin if you were on the left.
Curiously, intolerance isn't a sin found in the Bible.
In modern politics, however, intolerance is literally the end of all things for the left.
Not being willing to forever endure the worst of society, no matter how violent, how unpleasant, is a sign of the end of all things.
Consider the story of American Catholics in the early 1900s.
At that time, anti-Catholic sentiment was reaching a fever pitch.
The majority of America's Protestants suspected Catholics of having divided loyalties because Catholicism is the only religion which is run from the Vatican.
So what did Catholics do?
Something that not so-called civil rights leaders in the US have done in our current age.
They listened to their detractors.
Amazing, I know.
A priest named Father Michael J. McGivney formed a Catholic fraternity, which he called the Knights of Columbus.
They named the group after the Catholic man Christopher Columbus, who discovered America.
Not only that, the Brotherhood heavily promoted the principle of patriotism, and knights became prominent participants in civic ceremonies and other public displays of patriotism.
Father McGivney successfully combined love of country with Catholic identity, thereby changing how Catholics are seen by their detractors.
Today, no one suspects Catholics of being anti-American saboteurs from the Vatican.
The civil rights of Catholics are secure in American society.
And in the process, exactly zero American cities were angrily burned to the ground.
There were no riots demanding justice.
Catholics who were subjected to discrimination did not take up arms to settle scores.
That's pretty impressive when you consider that Catholics belong to the same faith that banded together to expel Islam from Europe during the crusades.
But sincerely listening to your detractors and making good faith overtures, such an approach is completely alien to the left.
It's like they cannot see the need nor the potential benefit.
This is but one example of how tolerance requires those being tolerated to act in good faith as a kind of return gesture for the benefit of being tolerated.
That is the real process here.
The tolerators express both patience and kindness, while the tolerated are the ones who do the accommodating as a token of their gratitude.
For most of us, this is just simply how it works.
For example, I mentioned if you're if you uh open your home to a guest, you tolerate them while they are there, and if you are a guest in someone else's home, you also try to be pleasant while you are staying in someone's home.
So there's a give and take and it is a temporary situation.
We as a society work together to solve these kinds of problems.
For example, people with a mobility issue, people with a stroller, for example, you may move to the side to allow them to pass you.
They will also then keep in mind the fact that there are people around them, and so this is a bit of a give and take situation.
So those who are visually impaired, they use seeing eye dogs, they use canes so they are able to be independent.
Why do such aids exist?
Because things like wheelchairs, canes, seeing eye dogs are signs that the disabled are making a good faith effort to get around, that they're able to use this to help them do what they're doing, and we're also mindful of the fact that, hey, this person is using this device to get around, we're not going to get in their way.
And so, in any case, we are all tolerant, we're all understanding of the situation around us.
When people in society experience problems, when they are in a sudden situation, hopefully people would jump in to help because someone else would do the same thing for them.
But it's funny how the left likes to constantly talk about this thing called dialogue, yet they have no understanding that they are the ones who shut down dialogue.
They are the ones who prevent it from continuing to take place.
They are the ones who will make sure conservative speakers can't go to campuses in the first place.
And in the cases when they do go to campuses, well, we've seen what happens when that happens.
And it's more than just a way to point out that this is intolerant.
It is far worse than that.
Intolerance, the intolerance of the left towards conservatives, is quite ironic because the left claims that tolerance is their highest virtue, when in fact they are intolerant of literally half of the nation of Christian, conservative people, white people, men.
It really could be a wide variety of this group, but if you check any of those boxes, they are very intolerant of you.
And it's very clear that this misunderstanding of tolerance is at the heart of some of the biggest problems faced by the West today.
In Europe, whole Christian nations are being treated like the playthings of disrespectful, militant, illegal immigrants.
Here too, we find women who are subjected to random violent assaults by illegals.
Places like Paris and London are now no longer safe for solo female tourists.
They've been taken over by Muslims in a big part of Europe, and these are radical Muslims whose views do not align with that of the West.
They insist on taking over, not following law and order.
They insist on conducting free-for-all violent mobs in large public spaces.
They even block off streets sometimes.
Their shows of power are also happening in places like London, Hamburg.
Why?
Because they have learned from leftists that tolerance is a synonym for capitulation, a surrendering of all rights and claims to our own customs, culture, and faith.
And so while we may tolerate them, they do not tolerate us.
Radical left, radical Islam, they do not tolerate Christian conservatives.
We can look at the trans movement as another example of a group of people mistaking tolerance for approval.
For years, people have been trying to accommodate trans uh trans ideology by using gender pronouns and changing the bathroom signs and having them giving them permission to participate in women's sports.
But did a single one on the left ever say enough enough is enough?
What about a trans activist?
A single one of them ever say we need to walk this back.
Inside the community, there became a militant and more demanding push that you need to accept these things.
And if you don't, you no longer are welcome.
You no longer can be in the Democrat Party, certainly.
And that is when the left has left the precipice of being liberal to becoming far left.
The movement has openly sought the destruction of anyone who points out the obvious problems that arise from letting men have free range in women's spaces.
The clear problem with letting men compete in women's sports.
The transgender movement has sought to expand their reach into the lives of children through school questionnaires justified through well-funded gender identity studies.
Access to students' answers is kept secret from parents in states like Illinois and California.
Despite the fact that transgender medication and procedures permanently disfigure and sterilize children, causing physical and psychological damage.
Leftists want to encourage gender confusion and keep their efforts secret from the children they prey upon and their parents.
They revealed themselves to be insincere and acting in malicious faith.
And now all these groups, the violent racist thugs, the pro-crime, pro-assassination, leftist bureaucrats, they have shown their true colors.
They have shown that they are supporting illegal immigrants, they are supporting drug trafficking gangs, uh, There are white female liberals crying on TikTok about all of this.
There are violent leftists who are the ones who actually are in Antifa doing these horrible things.
They're about to learn the true definition of tolerance with the introduction of a new word in the popular lexicon.
This new word is making its round on social media, and you may have heard it before.
It's called fatigue.
Fatigue was first used in reference to crime and is rapidly becoming a term and tone to express our collective sense that we're tired.
Enough is enough.
We are sick of radical leftism.
We are done with it all.
We are going to turn to conservatism.
We're going to turn to God.
We're going to turn to Christianity.
Because this tolerance has only been leading us to tear apart our culture.
And the reason why people are using the word fatigue is because it directly relates to the feeling that people have had for so many years.
And we just don't have the endurance to bear it anymore.
And that means that in addition to saying no to mass unchecked illegal immigration, the trans ideology.
We are also saying no to living in crime-infested cities.
And we are saying no to people using violence to stop other people who they disagree with.
And now the left is about to realize what happens when the right is fatigued like this.
And then the answer is they only become more right wing.
They actually only become even more conservative, even more Christian, because we don't have much common ground anymore with the left.
Unfortunately, they have gone too far off the precipice.
And it is really the left's choice to bring us to this position.
And honestly, it is long overdue.
Mike Lindell tells me a major retail chain just canceled a big order, leaving MyPillow with an overstock of classic MyPillow's.
But hey, their loss is your gain for a limited time.
My pillows offering the entire classic collection at true wholesale prices.
Get a standard my pillow for just 1798.
Haven't seen it that low.
Upgrade to Queen Size, 2298, King Size, 2498.
Snag Body Pillows for 2998 and versatile multi-use pillows for just 998.
Plus, when you order over 75, you get a hundred dollars in free digital gifts, no strings attached.
That's right.
Premium pillows at unbeatable prices and bonus gifts to top it off.
So don't wait.
Call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227.
Or you can go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H-Dinesh.
Grab your standard MyPillow for just 1798 while supplies last.
For too long, Christian entertainment has been trivial and second rate, but Angel Studios is proving that that's no longer the case.
They've launched two new original series that excel in storytelling and production.
The first is a week away, a musical about a teen dragged to a Christian summer camp.
At first he rejects it, but through music, community, and faith, his heart begins to change.
It's entertaining while delivering a clear message of redemption with music that will move you.
Then there's Testament, the series.
This one's extraordinary.
It reimagines the book of Acts in a modern setting, showing believers risk everything to follow Christ.
It raises a profound question: how far would you go?
Would we go to stand boldly for the truth today?
Here's the key.
Boat shows were chosen by the Angel Guild, ordinary families who want better stories on their screens as a premium member.
You'll enjoy ad-free access, two free tickets to theatrical releases, and a real voice in what gets made next.
Go to Angel.com/slash Dinesh and join the Angel Guild today.
Angel.com slash Dinesh.
Microplastics are everywhere in our food, our water, even our air.
A new study shows 94% of our drinking water contains microplastics.
And they're in 88% of our meat and seafood.
Even if you eat clean, you're still taking in plastic and it's damaging your health from the inside out.
These particles pass through the gut barrier, enter your bloodstream, and trigger a wave of oxidative stress, leading to inflammation, mutations, and even cancer.
BPA plastics disrupt hormones, damage DNA, and are now showing up.
Wow, in the human brain.
But there is hope, and it starts in the gut.
Kimchi 1 from Brightcore Nutrition is packed with over 900 probiotic strains, unique to Kimchi and proven to break down BPA.
Right now, my viewers and listeners can get 25% off Kimchi 1 with code Dinesh by going to my Brightcore.com slash Dinesh.
Or an even better deal, call.
If you call them, you get up to 50% off and free shipping.
And here is the number to call, 888-927-5980.
The number again, 888-927-5980.
I am delighted to welcome our guest today, Adam Bello.
Adam is an author as well as the executive editor at Bombardier Books, a conservative imprint at Post Hill Press.
He previously founded and led the conservative imprint all points books at St. Martin's Press and Broadside Books at HarperCollins.
And he also served as executive editor at large at Doubleday and as editorial director at Free Press.
And he is actually someone who um edited and published uh my dad's um one of his earlier books called A Liberal Education.
So Adam has has known him for for many years.
And so I'm so delighted to get to reconnect with one of his his long friends and um to be able to talk to someone who's really been involved in the conservative movement uh for such a long time.
Thanks, Danielle.
It's such a pleasure to to speak with you.
Um and yes, Dinesh and I have a long uh uh conspiratorial relationship.
Um we've published a number of books together, I think four or five at this point.
Um and I've always enjoyed working with him.
We came into the conservative you know movement at the same time um and our generational uh uh contemporaries, and that gave us uh uh uh sort of a special bond.
So it's and it's just wonderful to see how you've uh stepped into the end of the fight.
Good for you.
We need you.
Oh my goodness.
Well desperately.
Um I'm excited I get to ask you these things while he's away because I'm sure that if he was here he would, you know, I've heard his perspective, so I have to really hear your perspective.
So um Adam, okay.
So you're gonna have to take me back to when you and Dinesh first met.
How did that happen?
And how did you two begin working on a liberal education?
Well, I was this very early in my editorial career.
I I started um at the free press, which was then a part of McMillan Publishers in in New York in 1980 uh eight.
And um I was hired by um a sort of a senior figure in the in the conservative uh uh intellectual publishing world, uh someone named Irwin Glickus, uh, who nobody has heard of.
I mean, you're not supposed to uh also know who who publishers are.
We're we are typically background figures.
Um but um Irwin had published sort of the older generation of conservatives, um and uh for like for example, George Will.
He was George Will's publisher, um he published Robert Bork, um, a bunch of sort of heavy hitter, you know, conservative intellectuals.
And um uh and he explained to me when he hired me that that uh publishing in general is a kind of generational phenomenon.
You you uh you uh he said the job of an editor is to find and identify and publish the most uh interesting uh writers of of their own generation and um and that they have a certain kind of affinity, you know, it's sort of a mysterious thing, it's a generational thing.
So Irwin's job was to publish the older generation uh of his of people of his generation, and my assignment was to publish the younger the younger ones.
Now this was in the in the Reagan era, late Reagan era, and the Reagan presidency brought into into into Washington a new generation of young people, uh young conservative people.
And like like uh like other people of of that era, Dinesh had come up through the campus conservative college um newspaper network, uh that had been created by some far seeing individuals on the right.
And it was in fact a very effective way of of attracting and identifying talented young writers.
Um and I think Dinesh started at Dartmouth at the Dartmouth Review.
Um he and he was um published at the Wall Street Journal.
He he, I think he spent time at the Heritage Foundation.
And he sort of uh did the circuit um uh in institutional circuit in Washington, uh sort of policy and intellectual circles, and he was publishing articles and so forth.
And um, and he got an agent, and the agent called us up because that's the agent's job is to matchmake.
Um and so uh I I was the person to whom, you know, there was there really wasn't anybody else doing conservative books in in New York.
There was there was at the time at this time there was Regneri, which was a venerable um serious um uh conservative outlet, and there was the free press where I worked, um, which was a little bit more commercial, much more commercial, but we were still free press was still sort of an academic publishing outlet.
And so we we were see we wanted serious books.
Um by going into uh you know, kind of political, conservative political publishing, we were doing something edgy in our context.
Um but we still wanted um and we wanted books that would sell, but we still wanted them to be serious.
Uh that was our brand, it was important.
And I had been recruited, you know, really and trained as an academic editor, and I'd had a lot of academic background.
Um after going to Princeton, I went to University of Chicago, I was at uh Columbia um studying different uh you know different fields.
So I had a I had a sort of a let's say a bro broad but shallow um uh graduate education, uh I compare it to the Rio Grande, um uh sometimes.
Uh I mean it gave me it made me conversant with a large number of fields.
Um and I was and I was used to dealing with uh with academics and people who know scholars, people who had no deep knowledge, and my job was to help them fashion uh an argument out of out of their their field of expertise.
Um Dinesh and I uh he came into my office, we had a very fun first conversation.
Uh he was 25, um, as I recall.
I was a few years older.
And he said to me, you know, people are telling me that I should write a memoir, um, because I'm very interesting, you know.
Yeah, and I said, well, you know, you you are, and I agree with that.
I said, you know, well, Winston Churchill, as I recall, wrote a wrote a memoir when he was 25.
Um, but he'd been to war.
Um, you know, he'd had some, you know, he he'd actually fired a gun at a, you know, in the in the Boer War.
Um, and maybe you should have some more life experience before you write a memoir.
And he, and what I loved about your dad is that he just laughed.
He he is he is a very fun person.
Um, and we always laugh a lot when we when we talk together.
Anyway, what he wanted to do, we we kicked around ideas and we decided that it should be something about the university.
Um and I will say, you know, Dinesh and I came had a sort of a similar intellectual background.
We had both been influenced by the Straussian school of political uh thought.
Um we sort of spoke, it was somewhat esoteric, we spoke the same language in many ways.
Um but I think more than anything else, what what what characterizes the Straussian outlook and what and what attracted both your dad and and me to that school of thought is that it's Socratic.
Um it bring it was it brings a Socratic perspective to what people think and believe uh today.
And the model, so the model book in that genre is Alan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, which was published a few years before I went into publishing.
And I I was a student of Bloom's at the University of Chicago, and I read his book before it was published.
And um and I asked him what he thought the response to it would be, because it's pretty dense philosophical book.
And he said, Well, it'll be just like the trial of Socrates.
I'll be I'll be accused of disrespecting.
He's like, of course, everyone will totally like that idea.
Yeah.
And I'll be, you know, accused of of disrespecting the gods and corrupting the youth.
And that, and that is exactly, I thought it was funny, but that's actually what happened.
Um and it showed me, uh, and I think it showed Dinesh also what you could accomplish with a book.
Um, that by challenging uh received ideas and opinions, uh, which most people, you know, most people's ideas and opinions are not are not very deeply rooted.
They're they're just sort of assimilated from their environment.
And uh, you know, you go to college, you're meant to be, you know, challenged there and and taught how to think and decide for yourself what you believe.
Um that was the idea.
Uh it's true for some people, but um, although increasingly, as we know, not these days, it's much more of an indoctrination uh factory.
But it um that kind of approach where you kind of try to sort of you know challenge people to to rethink ideas that they they have made a commitment to, but that they don't really know how to defend.
That is a real thing.
That's in fact turns out to be a mo a way of publishing, uh, a model for a public intellectual.
Um in your father's case as a writer, in mine as a publisher.
And we uh we started to cook up a mischievous um project, which turned into illiberal education.
And um he had a wonderful time um going out to do battle uh and uh take on um the various uh he and he did he debated I I I remember that uh I had suggested this to him that he that he went on a campus debate tour with Stanley Fish, who was one of the leading um sort of new critical deconstructionist voices.
Um they did they made a wonderful dog and pony show.
Dinesh also debated uh Christopher Hitchens, um uh who I I could see was enjoying himself, although he Yes, yes, and just to give people a little context.
So this is the 1980s, this is coming out, and liberal education is all about really college campuses, right?
Tell us a little bit about kind of what the book is and what this was calling out, because I think today we think, oh, of course, these colleges are liberal indoctrination centers, and they've only gotten worse since back then.
But this was kind of a newer, a newer idea.
So maybe you can tell us a little bit about what thesis of the book was for those people who haven't read.
Sure, it's a good point that you raised.
So this was I should contextualize this.
So this is the beginning of what was called the the the canon wars.
There was a there was a big argument going on, this is in the late 80s, about whether the uh whether the curriculum should be revised to be less Western focused, uh, more multicultural.
Uh this went along with this went calls for for a more diversified faculty.
Uh there were a number of you know new studies uh programs created, feminism, black studies, and other other fields that have turned out to be more problematic, such as anti-colonial theory, uh the origins of critical race theory uh are found in this era.
Um, you know, we as conservatives knew that we were against it.
I mean, it wasn't a good thing.
We wanted, you know, it was fine for people to to to think what they wanted to think, but we've we uh you know, Dinesh and I shared as coming out of our backgrounds, um uh different as they were, they were similar in in their orientation, that it was important to it to preserve the core legacy and values of Western civilization, the Western heritage.
It was fine to read books from and and you know from other cultures, but let's not abandon our own.
And um, and this was uh at the time, you know, a very controversial stance.
Uh there was a lot of bitter argument about it.
Um the book generated a tremendous amount of publicity, um, and it really launched Dinesh as a public intellectual.
And then we went on to publish a number of books together doing sort of a similar thing, challenging, challenging ideas, trying from a sort of uh mischievous Socratic point of view, but but in a serious way, on a you know, on a serious level, where the where the homework had been done, uh the arguments were were were addressed as though to a to a reasonable minded person on the other side.
Um they were not uh they were polemical, but they were not harsh.
They were not personal um uh and uh or strident.
And um, and I believe that that those books actually had an impact and changed people's minds.
Um and that's what it was, that's what it was like conservative publishing in the beginning, as far as I was concerned, in the beginning of the the modern era.
Um before that, conservative publishing was not, there was no mass market for for conservative books.
It was very small.
Uh Regnary, you know, was a uh a sort of sectarian publisher outside of the mainstream of the publishing establishment.
Um Dinesh had published a book with with them in the first place.
Um But I was part of what's called the trade publishing industry, which is the mainstream, you know, corporate publishing world, where conservative books were viewed as a curiosity at best and uh an anathema at worst.
Um and so, you know, being a conservative editor in those days uh was not easy.
Um because uh you were you know, people thought it was strange.
Uh why would you why would you do that?
You know.
And but the book really did blow things away, right?
It was on the New York Times bestseller list for many, many weeks.
So that was probably surprising the people who thought, oh, you know, conservative books, I don't know if they're gonna be so mainstream.
But it turns out it actually did kind of take off with um a larger audience than maybe uh what they thought would be.
Well, here's well, here's what's interesting about it.
I I learned a lot of things from publishing that book, uh, as you do when you when you publish a book, you know, you learn more from the response to it uh than you might think.
Um it's it's always very significant.
Uh in the case of uh liberal education, what I learned was that there was in fact a substantial number of or proportion of of um professors and students, people in the academic world who were uncomfortable with,
let's say, with the new multicultural agenda, um, particularly with its the speed of which it uh with which it was adopted, the uh and the discarding of um uh classic uh classic works and literature and philosophy.
Um they were it was really being replacing uh an old form of pedagogy with the new one.
But these people were not willing to speak up, um uh, which is a problem that we see today as well or have seen.
And what uh liberal education pr uh offered them was a an opportunity to say, yeah, I agree with him, you know.
He Dinesh gave them cover.
Um uh because the book was a bestseller.
Once a book becomes a bestseller, it's sort of validated, you know.
Um uh it has the sort of general seal of approval and it's taken seriously, um, and it becomes a phenomenon, and it redefines the boundaries of what is allowed to be said.
It moves the overton window, if you if you will.
Yeah.
Uh uh so I think it was very significant, and it and it and it uh it taught me a lot a lot about uh how to how to how to frame and position and publish books to have that kind of impact, to continue moving the the window more in uh uh away away from the sort of leftward drift of the of the culture and of the university world particularly.
Yeah.
When you look back to a time like that and look at kind of what conservative politics was like, even let's maybe let's just say the campus, because there was a lot of, you said go into battle, do campus debates, the book was about a lot of things happening on campus.
Um how do you think that's kind of changed to now from then to now?
Well, first of all, I think the book was prophetic.
Um at the time, um the the there was but the argument from the other side was, oh, don't be silly, you know, Mr. D'Souza.
Um you're exaggerating.
This isn't this isn't a terrible thing.
It's a good thing.
Um and uh you know, we have to embrace, you know, uh diversity and the and and you know, the and and uh rethink our our approach to liberal education.
And um uh so and of course the problem did not go away.
Um and this is one of the things you have to reconcile yourself to as a as a as an author of books or a publisher of books.
You're you're often fighting a losing battle.
Um you it's being right is your is in the end your your your consolation.
Um but the the battle was lost uh over the intervening decades.
Uh campuses got worse.
The campus has got worse.
Um uh fewer and fewer conservatives uh were were hired by universities or produced by them.
Um and the and the campus orthodoxy became more and more rigid and authoritarian, and um uh and people just kind of tuned it out.
You know, there was a uh a general attitude in the in the in America, which was, oh, who cares?
You know, kooky kooky professors, you know, uh it's not gonna affect us in the real world of the college campus thing.
Yeah.
And I and I remember also even like even during the early period of of wokeness, which would be say the the uh you know the early 2000s, um uh, you know, people talk made, you know, uh there was a a tendency to call these uh we know where the students wanted safe spaces and were complaining about uh you know feeling unsafe and um uh and we called them just words from just yeah words ideas you know so we called them snowflakes which was a term of derision and and
mock mockery and we said wait till they come into the real world then they will learn
and actually that's not what happened they came into the real world and they turned it on its on its ear um which was a real shock woke ceos and woke everything else all the other industries that they turned woke just beyond the campus and um it's ironic because of course with charlie kirk being assassinated going on to college campuses debating liberals things like that does it seem eerie in a way when you think about kind of the assassination of
charlie kirk recently and how he would go to college campuses he would debate liberals he would talk to other students and then thinking back to liberal education thinking back to um dinesh going college campuses and you guys talking about all these ideas um engaging with the other side um does it seem weird in a way because i i asked my dad about this i was like can you believe that this even happened and he was like you know on campuses it would be different we'd have a campus security guy
but he would be you know a local person or there'd be a local policeman but they would be more to watch out in case things got heated or somebody rushed the stage or something um no one would have thought something like this would have happened and um he did a lot of campus tours for many years and that was just part of his thing you mentioned a lot of the debates he did oftentimes hosted on campuses and
And it's really a tragedy to think that we may not have those kinds of debates in the same way anymore.
I think, you know, Charlie Kirk was in a way doing something similar and he had his own path.
You know, he didn't go to college and he changed the minds of a lot of young people.
But we may not have open air situations anymore.
But what was kind of your reaction to seeing something where someone's trying to have this, you know, debate, this engagement with the other side and then seeing something so horrible happen?
Well, you know, I was shocked but not surprised, if you know what I mean.
That is, you know, it's a shocking thing, of course.
But at the same time, it's clearly been building.
And, you know, anyone who has paid attention to the trends on campus over the last 20 years or so, 30 years.
And, you know, as a book publisher, I've published numerous books about, you know, academic problems, intellectual problems on the campus and so forth.
And so, you know, I'm conversing with it.
I knew all about, you know, critical racial theory, for example, back in the 90s.
Nobody else was following it as close.
You got a preview of things before they really reached the masses.
It did, you know, I think it was really, it would have been incomprehensible for this to happen to someone like Charlie 20 years ago.
But in the intervening years, the Maoist takeover of the university has become, you know, kind of an irrefutable problem.
I don't want to exaggerate that you know to the extent that we're I mean we're really talking mostly about elite colleges um uh where the activism is uh so perform it's become part of the curriculum you know that's that's kind of what the what the issue is um uh of course that's that that doesn't excuse the many lower levels of you know uh lower lower order indoctrination that you get at communic community colleges and so forth.
I mean the the entire educational establishment has been ideologized.
And so, you know, um, you know, just teachers at every level, at the elementary level and in colleges, all over the country.
This is a very, very widespread phenomenon.
You know, as a conservative, you're somewhat of a fatalist.
Um as a publisher, you realize that you know there's very little you can do publishing books is is really just a kind of a way to blow off steam.
It doesn't really, you know, you don't know that you're gonna change anything.
Well, it's it's it's a good thing to be able to do.
Um it's my vocation.
Oh, and I, you know, well, you know, I mean, I I have a fairly grandiose view of my of my role.
People ask me, you know, what you know, what what are you doing?
What do you how do you what do you imagine yourself to be doing?
I said, well, what gets me out of bed in the morning is that I'm trying to save Western civilization.
You know, it's not a we all do our part.
I'll do our part.
Everything we can to make it happen.
Yeah.
I think the I think the the uh you know you can clearly see the stages by which we arrived at this point.
Um just increasingly radicalized.
The yeah, the arguments that words are violence and violence is speech, uh, the the uh um the the shutting down and shouting down of conservative speakers and the attacks on them on campus, short of you know, shooting, um, this is where we have gone.
And then of course, you know, the environment that we're in now is really inten intensely exacerbated by the Trump presidency, by the return of Donald Trump.
Um and the left is just, I just have to say, they just seem to be losing their minds.
Um and uh and it's really about control.
I mean, when I came into publishing in the late 80s, conservative voices were totally marginalized.
There was you could not get an op-ed into the New York Times if you were a conservative.
Um so that's why conservatives built their own, you know, their own alternative media out, you know, construct at whole sector, and it's been very powerful and it's you know continues to flourish.
It's had its ups and downs, but it's gone through phases, but it's it's it's a match for the liberal media, but only in the era of Trump has the conservative point of view um started a break through uh to the jet to the general public.
And I think um what the were so the left after I would say after the George Floyd uh the BLM phenomena has been on a tear and they have overreached, and there is a uh, as revolutionaries do, always do, and um, and now we're at a point where the mask is off and and people are are honestly decent people, I think are horrified, properly so.
And they're asking themselves now for the first time, where where did all this come from?
Yeah.
And you know, it was all kind of prophesied in in illiberal education.
Yeah.
Are you seeing a lot of the liberals you've known over the years digging into the left where they're they're more radicalized than they were in the 80s, or do you see more saying, you know what, the left has become really radical?
This wasn't really the party I was part of, and they might be more interested in um some more centrist views.
Do you see either of those?
Maybe I should say within um within the publishing space.
Do you feel like there's under certain direction that it's leaning?
Well, I think in the publishing space, you know, there was a you know, uh uh to go back to my own trajectory.
There when I came into it, there were, you know, there were no conservative imprints.
Imprint is a line of books maintained by a large publishing company.
Uh when I was publishing conservative books in the in my first phase, uh, and I've been doing this almost 40 years.
Um we published conservative books on the same in the same list of books, same program as books on other subjects.
It was part of the mix.
It was, you know, everybody was seated at the same table.
Um then there was a a time came when conservative books became bestsellers, mass market best sellers, and so the big houses created separate lines and imprints for them.
And um that I had a mixed feeling about that.
Um it there was a compelling business rationale for it, but I I actually didn't like it.
I I preferred for conservative books to be published as part of a I wanted the conservative voice to be heard as part of the general conversation.
Um and that also required us to meet a high standard uh of of evidence and argument um and tone, certain kind of tone, that um that wouldn't be perceived by someone on the other side as an attack.
So we in w in the era of the of the conservative imprint, dedicated conservative imprint, several of which I ran uh over the years, we pushed liberals away in a sense, while giving our own side um more esprit de corps, you know, and and intellectual ammunition.
Um I think we've now come to a place where you know we have to we have to walk that back.
The the um and I have thoughts about how to do that, but um uh I'm sort of losing the thread of your question.
What was it the other thing?
Oh, it's okay.
I'm gonna pivot a little slightly different and going to Reagan and Trump because you guys came about in the Reagan era.
Um Dinesh calls himself a Reaganite, and of course we have the Trump MAGA movement today.
How do you feel like those um are different?
How do you think maybe the conservative um GOP has kind of changed over the years?
Well, I think what you just to just to hop back briefly to the to your question.
I think you wanted to know whether whether liberals are more open to conservative views.
Um are they digging into the left or are they kind of interested in the process?
I think I think liberals are in a tough place because you know, liberal liberals have taken their cue there from the left for a long time.
Liberals, all of my friends are liberals, my family, my relatives, my colleagues.
I've I I live in New York City.
I, you know, I live among you know and have my whole life.
Oh, no, no, no, they're wonderful people, and you know, the eanwell.
Um but um uh they th they tend to they don't recognize what the left is.
Uh they don't recognize the distinction between the between liberalism and leftism.
They think that a leftist is just an impatient liberal, uh uh someone who's motivated by a desire for justice and you know, and uh and maybe sometimes is a little extreme.
Um and this has been hard, this is uh, you know, my my effort as a publisher in in many, many different ways and forms with books that I've published has been to sort of uh open up a little bit more of a of a of a a little more space between the liberals and the left.
Because I because why?
Because liberals are the majority in this country, and I as a conservative, let me put it this way, I don't think that I'm gonna change the trajectory of our country by publishing books uh or convert anybody to my point of view.
What I want them to do is to be liberals, you know.
I want liberals to be what liberals are meant to be, um, and which is not radicals, you know.
Uh the the in the long durée of American history, we can have change, we can have reform, we can have amelioration, we can have, you know, we have new ideas, um, we can admit new people to the you know to the franchise and to the American uh politic, body politic, but we can't accommodate revolutionary Marxism.
And uh so but this creates problems for us.
Like, do we accord free speech to people who don't respect our freedom of speech once they get into power, you know?
Um uh and so you're constantly trying to, you know, publish books that explain to liberals this is what happens when you don't, you know, when you vote for people like this, this is what you get.
And um I think you know it's beginning.
So, you know, the problem for liberals is Trump because they can't stand him.
He rubs them the wrong way.
They he doesn't conform to their idea of what a president should be.
Um they're deeply offended by everything he says.
Um and it's very difficult for them to agree with with him about anything.
Um and so they tend to adopt the left-wing view of him.
And this is sort of papered over.
I mean, I have a whole you know, dot, you know, discourse about uh how changing the name of uh adopting the name the word progressive to just to redef redefining liberalism as progressive has erased the distinction between liberalism and leftism.
Now so this is a so that we have words count, so words matter.
And so I will, you know, I'll publish a book that says that makes that argument.
Um So I'm I'm trying to get I'm trying to get liberals to pay attention to what is actually happening.
I I I I have to say, since you brought up Charlie as sad as I am about this, I I I feel that it could have a positive uh impact that that that liberals are starting to wake up to the they're seeing the face of the of a of a radical sect of of leftism that is completely lacking in in sense or empathy or humanity and they are showing a face that
uh you know does does his in history has been exposed at various times.
And whenever it is it's horrifying to decent people.
And I of course that doesn't mean that they're going to embrace Trumpism and I don't expect them to.
I understand why liberals are appalled by Trump.
I I have lots of sympathy for them.
I would be too if I weren't a conservative but as I keep saying to them we don't get to choose in politics we don't get to choose.
We don't get to vote for someone we like necessarily you know these are the choices that are offered to us and we have to we have to assess them you know on the on the uh in terms of what we think this these people will do.
What will the effect be of electing these people um so I I think we're at a very we're at an inflection point I think and it remains to be seen what will happen.
Well, Adam, this has been absolutely fascinating.
My last question for you today is on a lighter note, which is, you mentioned Dinesh coming into your office when he was 25.
How do you think he's changed?
How have you changed?
How has, what have you guys learned over the last few days?
Dinesh and I are, it's like we were college roommates.
And no matter how much time passes, whenever we get together, it's always the same.
We just amuse each other.
We have the same sense of mischief.
I can't tell you all the book ideas that we've cooked up and discarded because they were just too much.
But Dinesh is kind of the ideal author in my view.
Again, I think my boss was right.
There's an affinity among people of a generation.
We understand each other.
And I think Dinesh has just become, he's never changed.
He's, you know, criticism and attacks just roll off his back.
People attack him, he laughs.
You know, he's a happy warrior.
And so am I, you know.
But we, you know, at the same time, we care deeply and passionately.
And we have a common, you know, purpose.
And it does come down, you know, I'm Jewish.
Dinesh is Catholic.
There's an affinity in a way around the Western civilizational project.
This is where we really, you know, where we started out.
And it's the same place we're in today.
We need to have, what's the answer?
And this is my, this is where the future of conservative publishing needs to go.
It's fun to publish bestsellers and mass market books and, you know, sell tens and hundreds of thousands of copies of books.
But what, what is really needed, what we really need now is to reforge, like the sword in the Lord of the Rings.
It has to be reforged.
That is the, the alliance, the affinity between Christians, Jews, conservatives, and traditional liberals on the, on the high ground of, of, of preserving the Western liberal heritage.
And we need to, we just need to remind ourselves.
our liberal friends that it that that it's important for them to be part of it and um and that's where I think that's where we have to go next.
Yes that makes a lot of sense and I will leave it with this by saying that despite many decades having passed Dinesh has still not yet written that memoir so I don't know if he ever will I don't know what about the novel crazy idea he had at that age.
What about the novel that he said he was going to write that's that's what I want to read I don't know I don't know he's he's very into this whole political thing so that keeps him busy.
But um, but Adam, thank you so much for joining us today.
I really appreciate your insight, and um, thank you so much.
My pleasure, thanks for inviting me.
Well, that wraps up today's show.
If you enjoyed the show, make sure to follow me on social media.
I'm at Danielle D'Asouza Gill.
Make sure to find me on Instagram, Facebook, X, Rumble, True Social, all the places.
And I will see you tomorrow.
Mega.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection