Andrew Clavin dissects Trump’s fascination with dictators like Kim Jong-un and Putin, framing it as a pragmatic rejection of Western idealism in favor of transactional power—where "bad guys" wield uncomfortable truths while media misinterprets engagement (e.g., Acosta’s mistranslated question). He contrasts this with leftist narratives, exposing "budget cuts" as code for resisting fiscal control and Heather McDonald’s reporting on campus activism, which she argues weaponizes victimology to dismantle meritocracy. From Harvard’s SAT score disparities to NSF diversity mandates, the episode ties authoritarian pragmatism and progressive ideology together: both prioritize control over truth, whether through nuclear brinkmanship or racial quotas. [Automatically generated summary]
After an historic meeting between President Trump and murderous North Korean Looney Toon Kim Jong-un, the whole world is asking one question.
Look at me, I'm Jim Acosta, look at me.
Acosta shouted the question at Looney Kim as he met with Trump in Singapore.
Mr. Kim, will you give up your nuclear weapons, sir?
Kim then asked his translator to translate the question, and the translator said the question is translated as, look at me, I'm Jim Acosta, look at me.
President Trump also asked for a translation of Acosta's question and received the same answer.
CNN assembled several panels to examine the question, but were unable to agree on what is the answer to look at me, I'm Jim Acosta, look at me.
On Fox News, one commentator remarked that the problem was that the question wasn't actually a question, but simply a demand for attention by an adolescent no-talent who hasn't yet comprehended the depths of his irrelevance.
CNN, of course, dismissed this remark as typical Fox News Trumpian right-wing demagoguery and went on searching for the answer to the question, look at me, I'm Jim Acosta, look at me.
Good luck, CNN.
Tricker warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boo.
Birds are wingy, also singing, hunky-dunky-dunky.
Shipshape, dipsy-topsy, the round of zippity-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, it's the mailbag tomorrow, folks.
So go onthedailywire.com, subscribe for a lousy 10 bucks a month.
Hit the podcast button, hit the Andrew Clavin podcast, hit the mailbag button, ask your questions, anything you want, to talk about your personal life, religion, politics, anything at all.
The answers are guaranteed 100% correct and will change your life on occasion for the better.
We have so much going on here.
I feel like I have to spend the first 20 minutes of the show talking about just what's going on.
Today at 7 p.m. Eastern, which is 4 p.m. in real time, we're doing a special live stream in honor of Father's Day with the Daily Wire God-King, Jeremy Boring, who will descend from on high, which is the ceiling, and will host a discussion with me, Michael Knowles, and Shapiro.
Leave Shapiro's name out of this.
I forget he works here.
Also, special guests, Zoe Rachel be here and Nick Searcy to discuss the role of the father in our society.
We'll be live streaming on Facebook and YouTube.
And if you're a Daily Wire subscriber, go to dailywire.com and you can submit live questions and hear them read in the mellifluous tones of Alicia Krauss.
And the conversation is coming in one week, Tuesday, June 19th at 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
Ben Shapiro is answering the questions.
Alicia Krauss is asking them.
The Q ⁇ A will stream live on YouTube and Facebook for everyone to watch.
But only Daily Wire subscribers can ask Ben questions.
So submit your questions, log in to thedailywire.com, head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream, type your question into the Daily Wire chat box to have it read and answered on the air.
You got to subscribe to get your questions answered by the great Shapiro on Tuesday, June 19th at 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
Join the conversation.
And while you're at it, stop spending so much money.
Or if you're spending so much money, keep track of it.
You know, one of the things, these are good times.
We've got this Trumpian economy going.
Things are going great.
In good times, people tend to throw their money away and they don't think about it.
They think, ah, I have it, I've got it.
So you spend money with your credit card.
Pretty soon, your credit card debt mounts up.
Lots and lots of interest on that debt, but not with Lightstream.
Lightstream rewards consumers who have good credit with a great interest rate and no fees, so you can get a credit card consolidation loan from 5.49% APR with autopay.
You could save thousands of dollars in interest.
Application is 100% online.
You can even get your funds as soon as today.
My listeners get an additional interest rate discount on top of Lightstream's already low rates.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Andrew.
That is L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Andrew.
That way you will not have to pay those enormous rates.
Subject to credit approval rate includes 0.50% auto-pay discount available only when you select autopay prior to loan funding, terms and conditions apply, and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com for important information about limits on Lightstream loans and same-day funding.
Assuming The Best00:15:23
All right, let us talk about Trump and you know, you learn a lot by writing fiction.
You learn a lot you don't learn if you don't write fiction.
And one of the things you learn is what is the use of bad guys?
Because people are asking, why is Trump nicer to bad guys than he is to his friends?
I mean, it sounds like teen beat.
They're going like, why does he like, why did he like Kim more than Justin?
Why does, you know, he's like a rock star dating people.
Why is he nice to Kim, but he's not nice to Justin?
But here's the thing.
You know, bad guys have their uses.
And one of the uses they have in fiction, you know, when you're making a big transition, as I've made several big transitions, one from being a liberal to being a conservative, one from being a secular Jew to being a Christian, there are certain things that mark that progression along the way that you remember.
And one of the things I remember in my transition from being a liberal to being a conservative, or I should call it leftist because I'm not liberal about anything.
One of the things I remember is noticing that in the stories I write, and I'm a suspense writer, a mystery crime writer, one of the things I noticed was that my bad guys always spoke the truth.
That the bad guys spoke the truth, but the good guys, not always.
They couldn't say the things because you need people to love your bad guys, to want to be like your bad guys, to identify with them.
And the truth is sometimes very unpleasant.
Let me just show you, remind you of one of the most famous scenes in movies from, what's his name?
I forgot the guy who wrote The West Wing.
Sorkin.
Yeah, Sorkin wrote A Few Good Men.
It's a very famous scene.
But listen carefully to what Jack Nicholson is saying.
He's the soldier who was accused of allowing one of his soldiers to get murdered because he was gay or a coward or something like this.
And Tom Cruise goes after him.
He wants the truth.
I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
Who's going to do it?
You?
You, Lieutenant Weinberg?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines.
You have that luxury.
You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.
That Santiago's death while tragic probably saved lives.
And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties.
You want me on that wall.
You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty.
We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something.
You use them as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
What makes this a great scene, and I'm not even sure Sorkin knew that's what makes this a great scene, is every word he says is true.
Every word that he says is true, and he's right.
We can't handle the truth.
That is the whole point of being a good person is you don't want the world to be as it is.
You want it to be as it should be.
You don't want to say it is as it is.
You want to assume the best about people.
You want to assume that things can work out in some ideal way.
And bad guys speak the truth.
And that is why so often what you remember from movies is what the bad guy says, what people, the poster people put up on the wall from horror movies is the monster because the monster just is an absolute force of nature and is real.
And everybody else is just trying to stop this from happening.
So let's take a look at what really happened.
I mean, the coverage on this has been insanely stupid.
You know, there are lots of things to say, good and bad, about the Trump-Kim conference, but let's talk about why Trump does it.
First, let's look at a montage of coverage of this going into this thing, just so you understand that what you're seeing when you see people talk about an event like this, this is an event whose ramifications haven't played out yet.
We don't know what's going to happen.
The future isn't written.
No one knows what it is.
The experts don't know what it is.
Nobody knows what the future is.
So we don't know whether Trump is doing the right thing, the smart thing, the good thing, or not.
We don't know yet.
He's doing something different.
He's doing something very different than we usually do.
So we don't know.
But listen to the coverage.
And what this helps you to understand is when you hear people talking about this, you're hearing them talk about themselves.
You're hearing them talk about their prejudices, their biases, their desires, not about what's going to happen.
And of course, in this case, it's our media, so they're completely anti-Trump.
Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it's historic.
Any previous president could have easily had a sum with any previous leader of North Korea because they've all been very eager to be legitimated by the president of the United States.
What he is able to do is not care enough to get through every successive interaction.
And other people are burdened by Karen.
But the self-proclaimed deal maker-in-chief has so far proven to be more of a deal breaker, tearing up international deals and coming up short on domestic policies.
Donald Trump can relate to authoritarians.
He, as a former businessman, he likes absolute control.
Does he want to be despot?
I've conceded that for years now.
He calls Kim Jong-un honorable, yet Justin Trudeau of Canada.
Should go to hell.
They can't just sit there and watch and report what happens.
They have to tell you what is going to happen.
They have to fill that news time.
And all they're doing is filling it with themselves.
I love the guy who says it's not historic just because it never happened before.
Like all Obama had to do was pick his nose.
And it was like, oh my God, the first black president is picking this.
This is amazing.
It's history.
Let's just take a look back in time.
Remember when Clinton got screwed with North Korea?
He gave them all this money, basically, and got nothing for it.
Here's how Dan Rather, who was the CBS guy at the time, here's how he reported that.
President Clinton today officially announced a deal that could end the long-running crisis with North Korea over nuclear weapons.
It could also ease tensions on the Korean peninsula and open the way for normal relations between the U.S. and one of the world's last O-line, hardline communist states.
I love it because this is the man, Dan Rather, who thinks he's an objective guy, who as the anchor of the CBS Evening News once said to Bill Clinton on air, if we could be 100th as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners, tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her, and we're pulling for her.
So this is like the guy.
This is all you're hearing, all you're hearing is the newsmen's bias and their opinion and their feelings and their hatreds.
It's all you're hearing because we don't know.
All right.
So Trump goes into this meeting.
And we'll get to the question of whether he should have had the meeting at all in a minute.
But first of all, this is the attitude.
He comes out afterwards and he makes a speech.
What they did is they signed a piece of paper that really doesn't mean very much at all.
It says that Kim is committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but he already signed papers saying that.
So he's just recommitting to something he obviously lies about all the time that he didn't do.
So I just want to play one thing at the press conference afterwards that Trump said that gives you the idea of what Trump is thinking.
I think this is actual real Trump.
As an example, they have great beaches.
You see that whenever they're exploding their cannons into the ocean, right?
I said, boy, look at that.
Wouldn't that make a great condo behind.
And I explained, I said, you know, instead of doing that, you could have the best hotels in the world right there.
Think of it from a real estate perspective.
You have South Korea, you have China, and they own the land in the middle.
How bad is that, right?
It's great.
It's great real estate.
This is the way Trump is thinking.
They could set off a nuclear weapon and he'd be going like, what?
What are they doing?
They're ruining the beach.
You know what?
You could build three hotels on that beach.
This is the guy who's going into this meeting.
All right, before we get on with this, we have to talk about Peter Millar because I am wearing one of the most comfortable shirts I have ever worn.
I got to tell you this.
I don't know what it's made of.
I really don't.
I should probably say something scientific.
But the thing is, Peter Millar started out making sports clothes and then they branched out into more fashionable things, things you can wear anywhere you want.
And this is one of them.
And it just has this feel.
On the one hand, it fits really well, but on the other hand, you can move inside it and you just feel really, really flexible.
I just really like the it's comfortable, but if it's airy, it really is different.
And they've been, you can do this for any occasion.
It's like wearing sporting clothes that fit any occasion.
They're that comfortable.
This is called the performance polo, by the way, I should say.
It's a performance.
It's really an incredibly comfortable shirt.
And everything I've gotten from Peter Millar has been that way.
It's been comfortable, flexible, breathes.
It's really nice.
And you can head over to petermillar.com slash clavin and check out some of the Peter Millar favorites, my Peter Millar favorites.
Be sure to use my link and you'll receive complimentary shipping and a free hat.
That's PeterMillar, M-I-L-L-A-R dot com slash Clavin.
PeterMillar.com slash Clavin, PeterMillar.com slash Clavin for shirts as nice and as comfortable as this.
And I know what you're thinking.
Sure, they're comfortable.
But how do you spell Clavin?
You should check our sponsors.
You'll love what you'll be saving.
But you must remember, there are no E's in Claven.
There's jobs and flowers, crates and wine, and all the folks are raving.
But you help me spell it right.
There are no E's in Claven.
Well, you can even have them bring the meals that you are craving.
There is an E in Andrew, but there are no E's in Claven.
KLA, V A N, there are no E's in Claven.
All right, this is Dave Ali's.
Immortal, immortal song, there are no E's and Clavens.
All right, so the thing is, this is what Trump is thinking.
Why wouldn't you want a country that's as successful and rich and wonderful as South Korea?
Surely this guy, and let's face it, let's make no mistake about this.
He is talking to a monster.
Kim Jong-un is a monster.
His country is, people are starving, people are enslaved, people are brainwashed, people are in gulags.
It is an absolute nightmare.
It's the kind of place where if you don't like clap loud enough for your dear leader, somebody, you know, two guys come into your home and carry you away.
It is a nightmare.
This guy is a monster.
And so the press is asking really fair questions here.
I mean, leave aside the gym acostas of the world.
They're just dross of this Trump-hating left-wing Democrat machinery that the press has now turned into.
That doesn't mean that sometimes, like even a stopped clock, right, is right twice a day.
It doesn't mean it's not a fair question.
Should, for instance, the American flag be standing next to the North Korean flag.
Should the beacon of freedom to all the world be standing next to a flag no better than Hitler's?
I mean, obviously not as he's not as powerful or as ambitious in the long run.
He can't be as ambitious.
But should this be happening?
Should the American president be staying.
So one person, one reporter asked him this question.
This is cut number six.
And here's Trump versus the press.
The man you met today, Kim Jong-un, as you know, has killed family members, has starved his own people, is responsible for the death of Otto Warmbier.
Why are you so comfortable calling him very talented?
Well, he is very talented.
Anybody that takes over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it and run it tough.
I don't say he was nice or I don't say anything about it.
He ran it.
Very few people at that age.
You can take one out of 10,000 probably couldn't do it.
Otto Warmbier is a very special person, and he will be for a long time in my life.
His parents are good friends of mine.
I think without Otto, this would not have happened.
Something happened from that day.
It was a terrible thing.
It was brutal.
But a lot of people started to focus on what was going on, including North Korea.
I really think that Otto is someone who did not die in vain.
So Trump is saying nice things about Kim Jong-un.
And the reason Trump says nice things is that's part of his negotiating technique is flattery.
He knows he's not talking to you when he says that.
He's not talking to the press.
He's talking to Kim Jong-un.
I love you, buddy.
I love you.
Let's get this done.
That kind of thing.
Still, still, he is the president.
He is talking about a monster.
So it's jarring.
And we have a right to ask whether this is going to work out.
Because if it works, hurrah.
If it doesn't work, then he's given away some American prestige and American value for nothing.
And so far, let's face it, he's got nothing.
Let's not argue about that.
I mean, he did get the three hostages out, and that's great.
But going forward, if he gives them anything, he gave them, what did he say?
He's going to suspend war games.
That doesn't mean very much in the long run or even in the short run.
It doesn't mean very much.
But still, we want to know if this is going to work out.
And he put out this video.
I mean, I found this video kind of jarring.
This is cut number four, where he showed this to the press, kind of a, I don't know what you call it, a promo video for the summit.
Two men, two leaders, one destiny.
A story about a special moment in time when a man is presented with one chance that may never be repeated.
What will he choose?
To show vision and leadership or not?
All right, so he's playing the guy, but at the same time, it has these two leaders, two men, and one of them is running the greatest country on earth, the freest, richest, most powerful, best country that God has ever made on earth, and the other guy's a monster.
So it's very, very jarring.
But here is what bad guys know, specifically that Trump knows.
Here's the truth that bad guys see that Trump identifies with, because we see that he does identify.
He does talk well about Putin.
He does talk, you know, he does say, oh, look how strong, you know, Kim Jong-un was in handling.
You know, he's a young guy and he showed the talent of taking over.
I don't know how much talent it takes to eradicate all your relatives.
I'm not sure talent is the word I'm going for there.
But the bad guys know what Trump knows, that globalization without westernization is a scam and it will lead to tyranny.
Now, they want that.
They want the globalization tyranny.
We want, what we want is we want an American imperium of ideas.
We want an empire of ideas.
We do not want, globalization is coming.
There's nothing anybody can do to stop globalization.
We're a global world.
The world has gotten too small, too well connected for us to really hide in our corners.
It's just not going to happen.
But what we want is a global world run under American ideas.
And as we see in the UN, that doesn't happen if everybody's treated equally.
If everybody's treated equally, then the tyrant in North Korea gets just as much say over how the world is run as an American.
What he knows is that the new world cannot be the global world that the Europeans want where, oh, now no one can insult Islam and no one can say that homosexuality is wrong.
It's got to be the global world that we say where everyone has freedom of speech, everyone has freedom of religion, and governments are put on earth to make sure that we have those rights, right?
B Is for Budget Cuts00:04:31
And the only way to do that right now is to maintain national strength, is to maintain American strength, maintain the American military, because the only people who care about this, guess what?
It's you and me.
We are it.
We are it.
If there is going to be a Western imperium of ideas, it's going to be because of America and because America stays strong.
It's going to be an empire, but we hope it's going to be an empire of ideas.
That's what Trump is looking for.
He likes Israel because Israel knows that nations matter.
He doesn't like Germany because Germany opened its borders and gave their country away.
Doesn't understand what it's Germany does not understand what the West stands for anymore.
I'm not even sure they ever did.
Maybe for a brief moment there, they did.
But it's not Putin's tyranny he admires.
It's Putin's honesty and his strength in knowing that he is going to defend his country.
He's not part of any global system unless it's a global system run by Russia.
We're not going to be part of any global system unless it's a global system inspired and run according on American lines.
And that's what Trump knows, that Putin knows.
Now, the big question is, does that make him a bad guy?
And that question will not be answered until we see that he understands what he's fighting for.
We know what he's fighting against.
We saw it in the G7.
We saw it again.
We see it when he gets rid of the Paris Treaty.
We saw it when he gets rid of the Iran Treaty.
But does he know what he's trying to build?
It's a fair question.
Nobody knows where this is going right now.
And what we got to do is blank out the press that is telling us, oh, he's evil.
Oh, he's a tyrant.
He has done nothing tyrannical.
He has done nothing evil.
He has harmed American governments in no way.
We don't know if he has a vision that he is building yet.
We have not seen it.
We haven't quite seen it.
We've seen it expressed in the Poland speech, but we haven't quite seen it expressed out of like Trump's own mouth.
Let's see if he has.
We will see where this goes.
But the thing is, he is dealing with bad guys because the bad guys know how the world works.
And right now, the good guys don't.
And that's the difference.
All right.
It is time, huzzah, for the release of our second.
Have we got this?
Yes, we do.
All right, the lefties dictionary.
Last week, it was two weeks ago, we had A is for Antifa.
That thing has gotten more, between Facebook and YouTube, it's gotten more than a million hits.
So it's doing quite well.
Please spread these around.
It's a big series.
Obviously, we're going to go through the whole alphabet.
And this one is B is for budget cuts.
B is for budget cuts.
In lefties, the phrase government budget cuts means government budget increases.
Budget cuts are not just any budget increases, but only those budget increases instituted by Republicans that are not as large as the increases would have been had Democrats been in power.
Thus, when you hear a Democrat screaming, my God, they are cutting the budget, that actually means they are making the budget larger, but not as large as the Democrats wanted it to be.
You see, in the minds of leftists, the government and its budget must always be increasing by a large amount.
The budget must increase and increase and increase until all your money must be taken away in taxes to pay for the government.
Then, when all your former money has become government money, the government can decide how and where to spend it.
In this way, instead of having you throw your money away supporting local businesses and church charities, the government can make wiser decisions, like filling 200 square miles of arable land with wind turbines that produce enough electricity to power the cigarette lighter that is no longer in your car because the government has decided you shouldn't smoke.
After all, the government knows what's best for you.
That's why it took all your money.
Therefore, if by some accidental warp in the sure and certain progress of historic inevitability, a Republican administration should come to power and somehow work up the courage to cut back slightly on how much the government and its budget are increasing, this is a cut in what leftists thought the budget was going to be.
Thus, a budget cut is when the budget increases.
Now, I know this can sometimes seem confusing to right-wingers and other sentient creatures, because normally when you cut something, there's less of it than there was before.
But when you cut a government budget, somehow there's more of it.
But in leftism, this paradox is easily explained with the simple phrase, give us all your money.
B is for budget cuts.
Racial Stereotypes and Policing00:15:45
I'm Andrew Clavin with the Lefties Dictionary.
I gotta say, these things, the art in these things is unbelievable.
This is Rebecca Shapiro.
It's Ben's sister, right?
She is doing such a great job.
I'm watching this.
I'm thinking, this guy is brilliant, but it's really her, I think, that's doing brilliant.
All right.
You know, O Clavinites, oh my people, if you haven't heard this already, the Andrew Clavin show is now available on Amazon, Alexa, and the Google Home device.
That means that you can just tell your machine to play that sucker, and it will.
If you use one of these virtual assistants, you can get my podcast with a simple voice command once you enable the skill on Alexa or ask Google to talk to the show.
For more information, check out our pinned tweets on Facebook and Twitter.
All right, we got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube right now, but you can listen to the rest of the show on YouTube.
You can listen to the rest of the show here at thedailywire.com.
But if only, if only, if only you would subscribe for a lousy 10 bucks a month, you could watch the whole show right on thedailywire.com.
And when I tell you the mailbag is tomorrow, and I'm telling you now, the mailbag is tomorrow, you could type in your questions, hit the podcast thing at the top, hit the Andrew Clavin podcast, hit the mailbag, and ask me anything you want.
All your problems will be solved as of tomorrow, and your life changed maybe for the better.
All right, Heather McDonald's coming up.
Come on over to thedailywire.com and hear a terrific interview.
Heather McDonald, you know, I will read her credits, but I have to tell you, as far as I'm concerned, she is one of the very, very best reporters in the country.
The fact that she has not won a Pulitzer Prize, as far as I'm concerned, negates the validity of the Pulitzer Prize.
She is a sensational, brave, courageous, intrepid reporter, as they used to say.
She is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and she covers topics including higher education, immigration, policing, homelessness, and homeless advocacy.
She's the recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize.
Her work appears in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, just about everywhere.
She has had an experience where she was just almost assaulted on a college campus.
And so I wanted to talk to her about intersectionality, college campuses, racial quotas, and she is, as always, seethingly honest.
Here she is, Heather McDonald.
Heather McDonald's, great to see you.
How you doing?
Great, Drew.
Thanks for having me on again.
It's always a pleasure.
I really want to talk to you about a string of things, but starting with the universities, which we hear all this stuff about.
I've been speaking at universities.
Nobody's thrown anything at me yet.
But you, I mean, you had a really, what sounded to me like a terrifying experience at Claremont McKenna, I think it was.
Well, yeah, I did get a little visceral sense of understanding of what the victims of the French Revolution felt like as I was huddled there in my safe house, waiting to be escorted through back channels, through the kitchen, and to the room by police escort.
So I was deemed an absolute lethal threat to the existence of minority students because I was there to talk about my book, The War on Cops, which argues that there's actually enormous minority support for policing in high crime areas.
This was said to be racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynist, you name it.
So, of course, the students blockaded the building that I was supposed to speak in.
The police, as is typical today, were utterly feckless.
They let the students take over.
There was all sorts of lovely maudlin gestures like the white protesters stood in the outer ring of protest with the black students inside because the thought was that the brutalizing Claremont and Pomona College police would be just going after the black students with their billy clubs and whatnot.
So there was about two hours of chanting and drumbeating beforehand that I could hear from my safe house.
And I was, as I say, I was brought in through a secret passageway, but nobody had been able to resist the blockade.
The police let the students take over the outside, the perimeter of the building.
And so I gave my speech to an empty room.
The students were pounding on the plate glass windows during my talk.
And the police then decided it was no longer safe and escorted me back out through the kitchen into a waiting police car.
Oh my.
Has anybody been punished for this in any way?
Well, actually, Claremont McKenna is about the only school that has delivered some punishment to these student fascists.
Seven students were given either a single semester or a single year suspension.
It's unclear whether those who were supposed to graduate were actually allowed to graduate at the ceremony with their diploma.
I suspect they were.
This sounds pretty innocuous, but it's more than any other college.
Middlebury, which was where a faculty member was physically assaulted given a concussion.
And Charles Murray, who was their version of the racist speaker, was almost knocked down.
Nothing has happened at Middlebury.
So a lot of people, I hear a lot of people, and I've read a lot of people saying, oh, this is bad parenting and this is a psychological thing.
But you don't agree.
You do not think this is based on the helicopter parents or anything like that.
Not at all.
The explanation doesn't line up.
The main proponent of this, I have enormous respect for, Jonathan Haight, an NYU social psychologist who runs an extremely important institution called Heterodox Academy.
But he is arguing that this is a psychological problem.
And he and his co-author, Greg Lukianov, of another very important organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, they actually propose giving cognitive behavioral therapy to students, which allegedly will make them much more open-minded towards people like me.
I think this is wildly naive, to be honest.
What we have here is a vicious ideological phenomenon.
The snowflake explanation doesn't hold up because white males are the victims of this or the products of the same helicopter parents, but they are not, by and large, demanding safe spaces.
And a lot of minorities do not come from a helicopter parent type environment.
What's going on here is a very concerted effort to instill racial and gender victimology in students in order to completely upend the structures of meritocracy and high standards that have made this civilization great.
Wow.
All right.
So let's talk about this for a minute, the whole idea of the victimology.
First of all, Let me ask you a simple question.
Is this a racist country?
Oh, God, no.
I mean, it has been.
You know, that's the thing.
It's very hard for anybody to argue against that proposition given the absolute clear violation of our founding principles through so much of the country's history, given the role of the police in segregation, de jure segregation, slavery.
We have very unclean hands.
Nevertheless, social transformations are possible.
We've seen this with regards to gay rights, with regards to attitudes toward smoking, say, which is a trivial matter compared to slavery and segregation.
Nevertheless, right now, if you had a choice to be a black male with SATs of 1400s applying to Harvard, or a white male with SATs of 1600s, this is on a 1600-point scale applying to Harvard, you are much better off being a black male with SATs of one standard deviation below.
There's not a single mainstream institution in the country that is not twisting itself into knots to hire and promote as many blacks and Hispanics as possible.
If you go into the middle of the country, which most academics don't, although they're obviously there's schools in the middle of the country, but they're in their bubble.
The fact of the matter is, this sounds simplistic to say, but Americans are simply nice people.
It's fair to generalize and say all whites are toxic masculinity and white privilege.
That's a generalization.
I'm going to make a countergeneralization, which is that most whites just want to get along.
They are ready to be post-racial.
They do not bear racial animus.
And nevertheless, the activists and the multiculturalists, the victimologists are not willing to take yes for an answer because their livelihoods depend on this phantom idea of endemic racism.
And they are pouring the poison of identity politics into the country.
You know, not only endemic, the one thing I keep hearing them say is I keep hearing them say the whole point about racism is you don't know you're racist, that there's this kind of subconscious bias.
I mean, the idea that Starbucks is throwing these guys out of their store, not because they didn't pay anything, but because they're black.
I've heard you speak about this.
I mean, you really feel that this is a racket, don't you?
Well, it is a racket.
You know, there is, it is true.
You know, let's be honest, that there is a crime tax that law-abiding blacks pay.
In New York City, blacks are 23% of the population.
They commit about three quarters of all shootings.
If you add Hispanic shootings to Black shootings in New York City, you account for 98% of all shootings.
Whites are 34% of the population.
They commit about 1 to 2% of all shootings.
What this means, this has very real consequences for white males and black males.
These disparities exist in every big city in the country.
In Chicago, whites and Hispanics are each about a third of the population.
I'm sorry, blacks and whites are each about a third of the population.
Blacks commit 80% of all shootings and murders, whites about 1%.
If you're a law-abiding black male, you stand a much greater chance over the course of your life of getting stopped because you meet the description of a street crime suspect.
That's because of the behavior of a small but significant portion of your ethnic group.
And whites who are in cities at least, you know, I can't speak for what's going on in Appalachia, but they are not, they are not the face of street crime today.
So there is a reality, the consequences of the fact that there are a greater degree of dysfunction for reasons we can discuss in the Black community means that there are going to be people working on rational stereotypes that affect what it means to be Black.
I would say that that is not racism, though.
If we had, there's a thought experiment your viewers can engage in.
If Blacks and Asians, say, acted identically for the next 10 years with Blacks having the same rates of school completion, not dropping out of school, not getting involved in gangs, not getting involved in street violence, graduating from college, studying fanatically, and we still saw socioeconomic disparities.
We still saw Blacks in prison at higher rates, even though their crime rates were as bottom low as they are for Asians, then we could start talking about racism in this country.
But right now, those socioeconomic disparities are fully explained by the different average behavior of different groups.
You know, this victimology has wide-reaching ramifications.
Jason Riley wrote a piece talking about flight controllers being picked not according to their qualifications, but according to the color of their skin.
You have written extensively about the sciences, how this is polluting the sciences, what's sometimes called STEM science and technology studies, because they want more women.
And is that right?
Have I got that right?
Yes, women and underrepresented minorities.
The National Science Foundation, which is the main federal funder of basic scientific research, things like Alzheimer's cures, cancer cures, how to help paraplegics deal with the world.
It has made diversity its paramount mission.
It argues that we cannot have good science unless we have race and gender quotas in scientific laboratories.
This is insane.
It's having an enormous effect on how science is being taught at the university level.
Things are being slowed down so that nobody falls behind.
We're not teaching to the top.
We're teaching to the bottom.
You have faculty, if you want to get hired to a chemistry department in many schools now, you have to have a statement about your contributions to diversity, something that is irrelevant to whether you can work out a new chemical device that would say, free us from having pesticides or reduce the toxicity of various chemicals.
Of course, the best way to contribute to diversity is to be diverse yourself.
But short of that, you have to come up with mentoring.
Again, none of this is relevant.
The only thing that should matter in the STEM fields is are you the best qualified scientist?
And if a lab is all black and they're the most qualified, great.
If it's all female, great.
But if it's all Asian males, I really don't care.
The only thing I care about is that it is working at the cutting edge of knowledge.
Absolutely.
Now, looking at the, I mean, I thought the Obama administration was insane about some of this stuff.
Looking at the Trump administration, is it getting better?
Well, there's stuff that is not happening.
You know, we do not have a further incursion of, say, trans ideology into bureaucracies.
They have pulled back on, you know, one of the worst campus excrescences of the Obama administration, which was the so-called dear colleague letter that mandated that very willing campuses eviscerate any kind of due process standards and campus rape tribunals.
But I think they could be doing a lot more.
Disparate Impact Jurisprudence00:02:01
They could try and get rid of something known as disparate impact jurisprudence throughout the federal government.
This is the idea that it's not, you don't have to prove that somebody actually has an intent to discriminate.
But if a job qualification like literacy has a disparate impact on blacks, for instance, or a high school graduation degree, if that has a disparate impact on blacks, the employer is going to be presumed to be discriminating and will have to throw out that minimal job qualification unless he can persuade a federal bureaucrat that it's absolutely essential to his workplace.
Disparate impact concepts have, they're behind undoubtedly the flight controllers and a whole range of other insane diversity mandates that have come out.
And I think Trump should be really working really overtime to try and extricate that from federal bureaucracy.
It really is a danger.
I mean, eventually planes will crash, buildings will fall, science will not get done.
And nobody is going to say, nobody certainly in our journalistic community is going to say this is the reason.
The reason is diversity is actually our weakness.
Of course, unless we can change the culture of the country, to be honest.
But if the left is in control, there will be no honesty about what is going on.
And it's flight controllers, it's doctors as well.
Black students are admitted to medical school with medical qualifications that are just miles below those of whites and Asians.
They're pushed through.
And then again, they're pressured by the federal government.
Medical labs and faculty and hiring agencies are pressed by the federal government to hire blacks, even though they're not the most qualified doctor.
Monica Lewinsky On Tone-Deaf Responses00:05:22
So, you know, this is possibly resulting in less good care.
We saw that in the Baki case with the black student who was admitted in lieu of Baki that ended up medical student that ended up being just a nightmare gynecologist with numerous malpractice suits against him for really egregious surgical violations.
Unbelievable.
Heather McDonald, one of the best reporters in the country, certainly one of the bravest.
It's always good to see you.
I hope you come back again.
Thank you.
Look forward to it, Drew.
Thank you so much.
Thanks a lot.
She's great.
I just think she's terrific.
City Journal, if you don't read City Journal, you should.
You can get most of it online.
It comes out slower online than if you subscribe, but you can read all the articles.
sexual follies.
So I'm going to do this fast, but I really have to play all these clips.
Bill Clinton, you'll remember, a couple weeks ago was asked about in an interview, he's got a new novel out that he co-wrote with James Patterson, right?
I'm sure I bet neither of them did any of the actual writing, but they've got their names on it.
And so he's out on a promotion tour and he gets asked how, looking back at the Monica Lewinsky affair in the light of the Me Too movement.
You typically have ignored gaping facts in describing this, and I bet you don't even know them.
This was litigated 20 years ago.
Two-thirds of the American people sided with me.
They were not insensitive to that.
I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the 80s.
So that didn't go over very well.
People were, no, no, you've got to grovel over Me Too, and you did a terrible thing.
And he did do a terrible thing.
Monica Lewinsky has come out in light of Me Too.
She said, hey, you know, this was abusive.
He was the most powerful man on earth.
I was an intern.
Finally, she figured it out.
It took her 30 years to figure it out.
So now Clinton goes on Stephen Colbert and Colbert gives him a second chance because that's what you do with Democrats, right?
Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.
When I got home last night on the CNN, they had a lower third banner that said something about William Clinton's tone-deaf response to the question from the Today show.
My question is, would you like a do-over on that answer?
Do you understand why some people thought that was a tone-deaf response to his questions about the Me Too movement and how you might reflect on your behavior 20 years ago and how that reflection may change based on what you've learned through the Me Too movement?
So he's not only giving him a do-over, he's telling him what to say.
Doesn't take because now Clinton goes on PBS News Hour and he's asked the same question again.
I love this.
Listen to this.
I think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work.
You don't have to physically assault somebody to make them uncomfortable at work or at home or in their utter just walking around.
Poor Patterson, his shoulders are up his ears at this point.
Yeah, you know, you can't do that rape thing like you used to.
I don't know why you can't do these things against people's consent.
I don't, you know, in the old days, back in the old days, you saw a woman, you liked her, you raped her.
I don't know, you know, I don't know.
So now, Jake Tapper now reacts to this.
I've been amazed at how poorly he's handled these questions.
I mean, a lot of them you could have anticipated.
The world has changed in just the last year.
It was, I mean, I think, I mean, who was the Emmy?
Who was the Tony's host a year ago?
Kevin Spacey.
Kevin Spacey.
Yeah.
So, I mean, that was a year ago.
So I thought he should have done it again.
I thought he was great.
So, I mean, it's the world has changed, so you have to adapt.
And I would think he would have had automatic answers for, do you owe Monikolinski an apology?
What do you make of the Me Too movement?
What do you make of this individual case, Harvey Weinstein, whoever?
And boy, some of the answers have been just, you couldn't, if you wanted to write the worst answer he could give, it is almost as if that one he did today about whether or not you can grope people.
Yeah.
People have different rules today about where you're allowed to talk, to touch them on their bodies involuntarily.
It was, yeah, it was not well thought out.
And then he said, and then he ended it with, you know, maybe I'm old-fashioned.
Not a good way to frame it.
He's amazed because they cannot accept this is who Bill Clinton is, first of all, and they can't accept that the Me Too movement has got it wrong.
It's not about men and women.
It's about these men and women.
It's about Clinton and women.
It's about Weinstein and women.
It's about men who treat women like this.
It's not about all men.
It's not about men and women at all.
It really is about these guys and their characters and what they are like and that Bill Clinton is like it and they supported him.
That is really what it is about.
And by the way, if you're thinking to yourself, yeah, well, Trump too, hey, I'll tell you, like Trump too is absolutely right.
Except I don't think Trump is doing any of that anymore because I think Milani would simply shoot him dead on the White House lawn.
All right.
It's About These Men And Women00:00:41
Tomorrow is the mailbag.
Get your questions in.
All answers guaranteed correct and will change your life sometimes for the better.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Emily Jai.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing Production.