Andrew Clavin and Michael Knowles debate the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment, arguing women’s suffrage expanded government via Harvard-backed studies showing liberal voting trends—despite pre-1920 state-level suffrage and temperance roots. They mock modern political correctness for stifling gender-debate, claim male-only voting would’ve secured GOP dominance, and contrast Spider-Verse’s "Republican inclusivity" with Get Out’s "anti-assimilation." Meanwhile, Clavin satirizes border talks—Trump’s $5B wall vs. Democratic amnesty-for-rape proposals—and exposes media double standards, like Rashida Tlaib’s unchecked anti-Israel rhetoric versus Trump’s "shithole" backlash. The episode ties cultural leftism to Hollywood bias, Christian Bale’s Cheney attack, and the Vatican’s socialist celebration, framing conservative pushback as necessary to counter radicalism. [Automatically generated summary]
The government remains partially shut down, as you can probably tell by the fact that you're not being held in contempt by people who do nothing in return for seizing a portion of your income.
And in this terrible crisis, President Trump and the Democrats continue to try to reopen the government, for some reason, by negotiating a compromise on the issue of border security.
To begin with, the president requested $5 billion, which at government prices would pay for the phone call to the guy who makes the canvas bags that would hold enough cement to build a three-inch high section of wall stretching from Arizona to another part of Arizona approximately five feet away.
In response, the Democrats offered to lavish welfare on anyone who happened to wander into America from some crap hole country or other unless or until they murdered an innocent bystander, whereupon they would be barred from receiving medical insurance unless they felt particularly under the weather.
Trying to demonstrate his flexibility, President Trump then offered to naturalize all 300 farm workers on Nancy Pelosi's Napa Valley estate in return for $4 billion, or enough money to ask directions to Rupert's hardware store in El Paso, where Rupert has offered to build four miles of the damn wall himself if it would prevent Mexican drug dealers from dumping bodies in his wife's garden every other night.
In response, the Democrats have offered to lower the sentence for rape to three months probation in order to help all those sad-eyed Honduran children in CNN news stories by not putting the men pretending to be their fathers in prison where they belong.
Trump counteroffered with amnesty for Hillary Clinton in return for a framed photograph of a wall signed by Dwayne Johnson suitable for hanging in the Oval Office.
The Democrats countered by offering to raise the top tax rate to 98%, abolish the Electoral College, stack the Senate and the Supreme Court, and burn every copy of the Constitution they could find.
So the negotiations continue.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Stacking The Supreme Court00:08:45
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dicky.
Ship-shaped dipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
Oh, to be a Democrat now that January is here.
It must be so relaxing.
If you're a Democrat, you can literally advocate ripping nine-month-old babies to pieces and be hailed as a champion of women's rights.
You can advocate anti-Israel policies that would lead to the murder of 6 million Jews and then call your opponent Hitler.
You can use the foulest language imaginable and get pasted on a magazine cover as a daring new voice.
Whereas if you even vote Republican, newsmen, Hollywood celebrities, and other lowlifes will instantly brand you a racist, hate-filled, racist, old, racist, oxy-continent-addicted racist.
But you know what?
It's worth it just to keep the levers of power away from these miserable leftist crackpots.
Let's take a look at what they're up to in just a second.
But first, we have to talk about Lightstream because I know what the holidays are like.
You go out there with your credit card, you're a generous guy, you want to give your wife or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend nice presents, and then January comes and suddenly this bill comes from your credit card company and you think, why, oh, why was I such a nice, generous guy?
But you can handle that with Lightstream.
With Lightstream, you can get a loan that consolidates your credit card debt and that will lower your interest rate and save you lots of dough.
You can get a rate as low as 6.14% APR with autopay and save thousands in interest.
The rate is fixed, so as rates continue to rise, your low rate won't budge.
You can get a loan from $5,000 to $100,000 and get your money as soon as the day you apply.
The application is 100% online and there are no fees.
And my listeners can save even more with an additional interest rate discount.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Andrew.
That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Andrew.
This is subject to credit approval.
Rate includes 0.50% auto-pay discount.
Terms and conditions apply, and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com slash Andrew for more information.
By the way, I should just mention, Michael Knowles is going to be here later to talk about, you know, to answer the question, should women be allowed to vote?
This is a very important question after watching the women who came into the House over the last week.
But, you know, people always ask me why I'm so mean to Michael Knowles.
I don't know if you were watching Backstage, on which Michael Knowles announced that he is going to do the audio book of Another Kingdom, which you can pre-order the novel now.
You can pre-order the audio book now, and he's going to be recording the audiobook.
He didn't even tell me about it.
I learned about this when you learned about it.
If you were watching Backstage, that's why we're so nasty to him, because this is the way the guy behaves to his friends.
All right, so while Mitt Romney and the Never Trumpers are brooding over the flaws in Donald Trump's doubtlessly flawed character, here's what the new House majority of Democrats got up to.
They drafted a bill to abolish the Electoral College.
They drafted a bill to make voter registration automatic so you don't need any identification.
You don't need to sign up.
You can be dead.
You're just suddenly registered.
I wonder why they want that.
If the Supreme Court gets in the way of the leftist agenda, what do they want to do?
We don't have to wonder because our old friend Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked about this at a preview for a Michael Moore film.
And here is what she said we would do.
Here's the question and the answer to what she would do with the Supreme Court.
This is cut 11.
In a few months from now, the Supreme Court looks like I'm pretty scared it's going to a court that would overturn Roe and make the president above the rule of law.
What is to be done?
I think that we take back the House, we take back the Senate, we take back the presidency, and we pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Next.
Next.
You pack the Supreme Court because then we get what we want and it doesn't matter.
We just put enough people in there.
So, you know, she's so cute.
And people keep writing to me and telling me what a sexist I am because I keep pointing out the fact that she's a very attractive young woman.
And I know right-wingers, right-wingers think that everything goes the way they like it.
So if they don't like her, what she stands for, they think she's unattractive, but she's not.
She's a very pretty girl.
And it may be sexist, but here's the thing.
Women and men have different strengths and different weaknesses, different powers and different vulnerabilities.
Who can deny, who can deny that a pretty young woman has a sense of confidence and entitlement that other people don't have, including women who are not as pretty and certainly including men.
Whoever turns to a beautiful young woman and says, you know what, you're kind of an idiot?
Nobody.
Nobody does that.
Maybe other women, but no men does it.
And you can tell she radiates this confidence while she is so ignorant of anything that she doesn't know how she would pay for any of her plans.
She doesn't know the traditions of America.
She doesn't know the laws of America.
And where do you get that kind of confidence if it's not from the fact that she is young and pretty and vibrant and like I even I find her likable.
I just find her a complete idiot.
If I met her, I would probably like her.
She was asked, Anderson Cooper had her on and just this incredible softball interview, the kind of thing that you would expect.
But he asked her about the fact that she doesn't know anything, that everything she says is untrue.
This is cut number, which one is this?
This is cut number four.
One of the criticisms of you is that your math is fuzzy.
The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios for misdating some statistics about Pentagon spending.
If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees.
I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.
But being factually correct is important.
Absolutely important.
And whenever I make a mistake, I say, okay, this was clumsy.
And then I restate what my point was.
But it's not the same thing as the president lying about immigrants.
It's not the same thing at all.
First of all, I don't know what lies she's referring to.
It seems to me that Donald Trump has got the immigrant story pretty much right.
I mean, criminals come in through the border, terrorists, suspected terrorists come across the border.
We need border security.
We all know it.
Everybody except Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
But, you know, what she just said there was, what difference does it make if you know the facts as long as you're moral?
But of course, the whole point is you can't be moral without knowing the facts.
So these are our new congresswomen, our new congresspeople from the left.
You can't be moral if you don't know the facts, because how can you get the right result if you don't know what the facts are?
You know, it's ridiculous.
Listen, I have this problem on the right as well.
I have this problem when people start talking about that they want a country, when people start talking about fixing the problems in a country that doesn't exist, when they start talking about how morality should be the same as it was before there was birth control, that may be, that's all well and good to say that, but it's not going to happen because birth control changes everything.
It changes the consequences.
And the one thing the founders knew is they knew human nature.
They knew its weaknesses.
They knew its sinfulness and its excesses and its greed.
And they played to that.
And if you can't play to that because you don't know the facts of life, you can't be a moral person.
You can be a moral person yourself, but you cannot work toward a moral nation and you cannot work toward moral solutions if you don't know the facts.
But it doesn't matter because she is Alexandrian.
Everybody loves her.
And that's going to be, that's what gives her the confidence that she has.
I'm sure she grew up with a lot of confidence.
As we now know from reporter Michael, our fearless reporter Michael Knowles, we now know that she grew up in a very fancy part of Westchester where both Knowles and I lived at different times.
So they ask her, she's got this thing, the green agenda, which basically is a government takeover of business.
That's going to work.
I mean, that has made Venezuela basically a paradise.
And Anderson Cooper actually took the time to ask her where this money, how she was going to pay for this.
Ring's Impact on Security00:02:36
This is cut number six.
Once you get to like the tippy tops on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.
That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.
What you are talking about just big picture is a radical agenda compared to the way politics is done right now.
Well, I think that it only has ever been radicals that have changed this country.
Abraham Lincoln made the radical decision to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like Social Security.
That is radical.
Do you call yourself a radical?
Yeah, you know, if that's what radical means, call me a radical.
Don't you dream of being a Democrat that you can get away with stuff like this?
A woman who could, you could actually move furniture into her brain because there's so much empty space in there and she can say things like that.
Nobody says a word.
Nobody comes out and says, why is this woman on television?
Why is she being asked questions?
I mean, except to expose her.
More stuff that was coming out as the clowns.
I mean, I feel like I'm singing that Sondheim song, Send in the Clowns, as the clowns come in and take over the house and get the majority in the house.
I just want to let you know what they're up to so at least we know so we know the facts and what we're talking about.
But first, we have to talk about Ring.
I love this thing.
It is really important.
It is really important to keep your home secure and safe.
That's why there are a million people using the amazing Ring video doorbell to help protect their homes.
Somebody rings at the door.
You can see them.
You can talk to them.
You can address them.
You can challenge them.
It makes a really big difference in your security.
And since Ring knows home security begins at the front door, but it doesn't end there, they're now extending that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring floodlight cam.
This is very cool.
People walk in, the floodlights go up.
You can challenge them again.
And just like Ring's amazing doorbell floodlight cam is a motion-activated camera and it connects a floodlight right and it connects right to your phone.
You can look at your phone no matter where you are and check on the safety of your house.
You can save up to $150 off a Ring of Security kit when you go to ring.com/slash Clavin.
That's ring.com/slash Claven.
Save $150 off a Ring of Security kit.
You'll feel much better and you'll have a lot more money in your wallet.
That's Ring.com/slash Claven.
Somebody comes to your door, you press the button, you say, How do you spell Clavin?
And if he can't answer, he doesn't know there are no E's in Clavin, call the police.
The Democrats' Treatment Advantage00:15:54
So what is so amazing, what I just envy so much about the Democrats is the way they get treated for the things they do.
Another thing they are trying to do is they are trying to, they're talking a lot about making the Senate proportional representation.
So in other words, they think it's unfair.
This is a big thing on the left.
They think it's unfair that each state, no matter how many people are in the state, get two senators no matter what, right?
It's the House where they have proportional representation.
So they don't understand that our founders were trying to make a federation of states, right?
It's the United States, and they wanted to make sure there was a balance between the states and the federal government, a balance of power between the states who could run themselves and the federal government.
That's why you have gun rights.
You have gun rights because when they said, well, wait, if the federal government runs the United States Army, how will we defend ourselves from attack?
They said, well, you can form a militia because all of your people will be allowed to have guns and that freedom shall not be abridged.
That was the balance they were trying to create.
And they keep going back to, well, it was all about slavery.
No, for some states, it was about slavery.
But for the rest, it was about being a free, independent state and joining this group of people.
You know, so why don't they like that?
It's all about power.
It's like, give me power.
I wish Democrats would just speak honestly.
I wish they would just give that speech.
Give me power.
I want power.
Give it to me.
I want the power.
You know, instead of talking about climate change, never mind, just give me, give me that power.
I want it so much.
That would be like such a much more honest speech.
You got a little bit of that from our pal, what's her name, Rashida Talib.
Rashida Talib, this anti-Israelist.
She's the woman who went into her office and pasted a little sticky note, or someone pasted a sticky note on the map over Israel saying Palestine.
She's a woman who strongly supports the kind of boycotts that could destroy the state of Israel, the only free nation.
She's obviously Islamic, and she just feels really, really like, you know, it's these young women, they have so much confidence.
But what is it based on?
You know, can we not question why they feel so self-confident when they got nothing?
And she came out with this rabbit hatred of Trump.
She made this speech that got a lot of press.
We'll play it, obviously edited.
People love you and you win.
And when your son looks at you and says, Mama, look, you won, bullies don't win.
And I say, baby, they don't, because we're going to go in there, we're going to impeach the mother.
So first of all, that's her talking to her child.
I wonder how old Juan is.
Like, is he five?
You know, is he like he's saying, yeah, mommy, what's a mother effer?
You know, it's like, this is the way.
This is that kind of that self-affirming confidence that these people bring to the House while they hatch plans to raise the top tax rate to 70%, which effectively would be 80%, to take over the marketplace by government fiat in order to save us from climate change.
Give me power.
I just want, please, I want it so much.
They make all these plans to rewrite and basically trash the Constitution.
So what happens?
What happens when a Democrat congresswoman calls the President of the United States a mother effer?
We know what happens when Donald Trump says anything rude, when he says anything unkind, when he says anything crass.
That's CNN 24-hour coverage.
That is 24-hour coverage.
If he calls a country a crap hole country, oh my lord, that is 24 hours of CNN programming where the guys just repeat this slur over and over again.
They repeat the obscenity over and over again.
What does Rashida Tlaib get when she calls the president of the United States a mother effer?
Here's a little, it's in the Washington Post, where democracy dies in rabid hatred of America.
We get an op-ed, what's so wrong with mother effer?
What's so wrong?
As Molly Roberts, who writes for the Post's opinion section, she writes, you know, the argument from the pro-slivility crusaders is that talking this way is sinking to Trump's level.
That's wrong.
It not only misses the meaningful difference between words and actions, but it doesn't even grasp the difference between words and other words.
Mother effer is filler.
It means little more than someone more unpleasant than unpleasant can convey.
Saying you grab women by the blank, on the other hand, is truly damaging because Trump never said that.
He said women will let you do things to them if you are a celebrity.
That's what he said.
But that is truly damaging.
It turns members of that gender into something to be played with, calling immigrants and infant festation to humanize them.
So they get to decide, just like with the dog whistles, they get to decide what's hateful, what's not hateful.
It's so much fun to be a Democrat.
And by the way, this thing with Rashida Talib's anti-Semitism is real.
Marco Rubio, you know, she is called, as I said, she's called for boycotts of Israel and all this stuff.
Marco Rubio tweeted today that the government shutdown is not the reason that Senate Democrats don't want to move to dealing with a Middle East security bill.
They shot this down.
A huge argument broke out at a Senate Dem meeting last week over boycotting Israel.
A significant number of Senate Democrats now support that, and Democrat leaders want to avoid a floor vote that reveals their support for that.
So what happens when you're an anti-Semite?
You know, we know what happens if you say, oh, we want to build a border wall on the right.
We know they say, well, you just want to keep out the brown people.
But what happens if you're an actual anti-Semite?
What happens if you hang out with Louis Farrakhan, like some of the people who run the woman's march?
LA Times.
Can you admire Louis Farrock and still advance the cause of women?
Maybe so.
Life is full of contradictions.
See, there's nuance when you're a Democrat.
You can hate Jews and still be a good person, just like you can kill babies and still be a good person, just like you can call the president an obscenity.
It is so much fun to be a Democrat.
I really, really envy them.
However, I'm going to stick to being a Republican because these people cannot be allowed, cannot be allowed to run the country, even if it means sometimes putting up with a little rudeness from Trump, a little bad behavior from Trump.
They have to be stopped.
Now, I want to turn from that to a cultural story, because you know the culture matters a lot to me.
I think it's where the battles of America are actually fought and won and lost.
And last night they had the Golden Globes, and that's not what I'm going to be talking about, because I don't care about the Golden Globes.
The Golden Globes is a bunch of drunken international journalists whose opinion nobody cares about.
You know, just kind of they like the perks they get for having an award, an award ceremony, so they build it up.
So last night's was not as bad.
Who won?
I think Green Book won for drama, which drove the left insane because it has a nice relationship between a white man and a black man in it.
They don't like that.
It's always got to be a white person's always got to be oppressive, and it can't have any nice white people.
But mostly it was kind of unpolitical.
They even made jokes about being nice and not getting too political.
Christian Bale was the worst.
He's starred in Vice, which is that attack on Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
You know, it's, you know, big surprise.
Hollywood doesn't like Republicans.
What a shock.
I'm going to run out to the movie theater to see that because it's so important to me to know what these guys think.
So here is Bale at the awards ceremony, attacking, thanking Adam McKay, the director, and attacking Dick Cheney, who he plays in the movie.
He said, he said, he said, I've got to find somebody who can, who can be absolutely charisma free and reviled by everybody.
So he went, that's got to be Bale in it.
You know, thank you.
And for all the competition, I will be cornering the market on charisma free.
What do you think?
Mitch McConnell, next.
That could be good, couldn't it?
Thank you to Satan for giving me inspiration on how to play this role.
So Christian Bell, you know, by the way, one of our writers at the Daily Wire pointed out that when he went on Fox News to promote the film, he spoke very highly, very nicely about Dick Cheney.
And I know some stuff about Christian Bale that I'm not allowed to say, but he does conform differently.
But let's also remember that this is a guy who was questioned about beating up his mother in Britain.
This was the guy who famously went off on the DP, the director of photography on, well, it was Terminator Salvation, I think, where he screamed at the guy for walking in his eye line while he was trying to attack, while he was trying to act, and he just unloaded all these obscenities.
So whenever you hear people in Hollywood talking, you always have to remember that these are not the stately statesmen and pastors and highbrow people.
These are people who are, you used to, you used to lock up your daughters when actors came to town because you knew they were disreputable.
Now they're still disreputable, but we listen to their opinions.
And that is what we expect from Hollywood.
That's not what bothers me.
What bothers me was Peggy Noonan's latest column.
And let me begin this by saying, I love Peggy Noonan.
I have a lot of respect for her.
I've said it before.
She was one of the few women columnists who writes like a woman.
She's gracious.
She's open-minded.
She's warm.
She is generous to the people on the other side.
I don't always agree with her.
That's not required.
But I always find her opinion really interesting and different.
She has a lot of experience as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration, so she knows how government works.
I really like her.
And when I disagree, strongly disagree with this column, it is not a personal attack on her.
It is simply something that cut me to the quick.
She wrote a column called Baby, There's a Chilling Effect Outside about the effect of political correctness on the arts.
And she starts out by saying, my greatest hope for 2019 is cultural.
It is that the left will rise and do what only it can do, strike a blow against political correctness in the arts and entertainment.
All artists are meant to be free and daring.
And she talks about how this has a chilling effect, this political correctness.
People are quiet, people shut down.
She talks about baby, it's cold outside.
She talks about famous works of art that could not be made now because they would be shouted down for being politically incorrect.
So here's the key paragraph that kind of just, it just made my, it hurt my heart to read this.
She said, but an end, she says, but an end to political correctness in the arts and entertainment cannot come from the right.
It can come only from the left.
All the organs of entertainment and art in America, from Broadway to Hollywood through Netflix, the museums and onward, are entities of the cultural left.
They are run and populated by the cultural left.
They have the pertinent power.
When conservatives write or speak against limits on free speech, what they say is heard by the left is mere reaction, a cover for intolerance, and so it's dismissed.
The left will listen only to entities of the left who say enough art needs air and that air is freedom.
And she calls on the left to get rid of political correctness.
So here's what I'm thinking.
Like, I am busting my chops creating culture.
I know other right-wing artists busting their chops, creating culture.
I just happen to be particularly good at it.
Knowles and Jonathan Hay and I, we made those podcasts, Another Kingdom.
The novel will be out in March.
The audiobook with Knowles reading will be out in March.
If this is not a work of culture, I don't know what is.
Where is the right recognizing the stuff that is being done in spite of the fact that all the corporate entities, the Netflix and the movie and the Hollywood entities, that they all do belong to the left?
In other words, instead of calling for the left to heal itself, why isn't Peggy Noonan giving some love to the people on the right?
We're the revolution.
We're the cultural revolution, but there is simply no infrastructure on the right to call us to mind, to bring attention to us, to award us for the work we do, and to reward us for the work we do with reviews.
Instead of calling on the left to continue their cultural onslaught, but do it without the political correctness that gets in the way of their talent, because many leftist artists are talented too.
I'm not saying they should be shut down at all.
I'm simply saying, why should someone on the right like Peggy Noonan, who is so talented and so insightful, why should she be calling for the left to heal itself instead of calling for the right to heal itself?
Who cares what they think?
Who cares what the New York Times thinks?
Why isn't Another Kingdom being reviewed in the Wall Street Journal?
Because we seriously do not care what the New York Times thinks of us.
We think they are old fuddy-duddies, closed-minded, miserable leftist fools.
We don't want their good reviews.
But it would be nice, it would be nice if instead of calling for the left to heal itself, Peggy was in the paper calling for right-wing artists who are working so hard in such difficult situations to be recognized, calling for an infrastructure to award them, to give them grants, to give them awards, to give them the love, which is what artists work for.
It drove me crazy.
It drives me crazy that the assumption that all art is made by the left is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Once you grant them that, once you say, well, that's just the way it is, all art will be made by the left forever.
All culture will be formed by the left forever.
And by the time you show up at the ballot box, it's not going to matter.
It's not going to make a damn bit of difference because people's minds and hearts will have been shaped by the art that they see.
Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.
As Percy Shelley said, as Andrew Breitbart liked to say, politics is downstream from culture.
They shape the conscience.
The artists shape the conscience of their people.
And to cede that incredibly powerful power to that incredibly powerful throne to the left instead of turning around and offering a hand to the right is just a major, major mistake.
Speaking of Michael Knowles, star of Another Kingdom, he is going to join us in just a moment to talk about the fact that women are allowed to vote.
Who knew?
I don't know how this happened.
It must have been when I was paying attention to somebody else, and he is going to come on in just a minute.
But first, I got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Come over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
You can watch the whole show streaming right there.
You can be in the mailbag where I answer all your questions with the actual correct answers.
You get Knowles' show, you get Shapiro's show, you get Walsh, you get a lot of stuff.
And if you subscribe, for a year, it's 100 lousy bucks, and you get the leftist tears tumbler, which is all you will need to get through the coming months.
Michael Knowles is coming up.
All right.
Now, well, first of all, let me say hello.
It's been a long time.
It's a long time to see.
You have a beard now.
I'm now 87.
You're now 87.
What happened?
You were traveling, I guess.
I was traveling, then you were traveling.
We've been doing all these campus speeches.
Yeah.
And I think our schedules are exactly the opposite.
I want to do more together, though.
We did that speech together.
It was the best one we've ever done.
That was my favorite one.
It was so fun.
It was really fun.
And it was different.
And it gave us a chance to kind of play off each other and them.
And most importantly, half the work.
Exactly.
That was a big deal.
No, we should.
We should be a little bit of a roadshow, I think.
Yeah.
The 19th Amendment Centennial00:10:27
So you're a clown because you landed the job, which I, you know, I did, you know, got you that job on the audiobook.
And you tell me on the air.
Like, no call, like, you know, I'm going to be recording this.
This tells you everything you need to know about publishing.
I mean, I know you've written a zillion books.
I have not written a very successful book.
And so we have experience in publishing.
There is no strategy in public.
There is no communication.
There's no core.
I assumed you knew that I got the gig to narrate your book.
No way.
I told you on the agenda.
I got an email saying, what's his address?
And I thought, oh, good.
Maybe they'll call him, you know.
But I'm really happy about it.
First of all, you did a great job on the podcast.
Thank you.
I'm really excited about the book coming out.
And I think this will be a big deal because now people can own it and have it and listen to it.
I think it's going to be terrific.
I mean, and I keep saying that every one of these gigs is my last time working as an actor in show business.
But they all, you know, as you were just saying, it's so important.
There are conservatives working in the arts.
Not many of us, I guess.
Not many working.
But it's really important for right-wingers to go out there and support them.
Everyone says they agree with Andrew Breitbart, politics is downstream of culture.
You got to put your money where your mouth is.
You can raise a million dollars fighting for the 103rd congressional district in Delaware or someplace, you know.
But to say, no, you know, we're making art, just give us a review.
Just pay attention.
Just say, you know, like even, you don't even have to like us.
Just say we're there.
And I'm telling you, it is really tough.
And it's really a shame because it's so powerful.
It's such a powerful tool.
It is.
And I tell you all the time, whenever I get recognized in public, it's always people tell me that they love my show.
People line up for stories.
Yeah.
I say, oh, that's great.
You watch the Michael Knowles show.
They say, no way, man.
Another kingdom.
That's my show.
So here is why I asked you the important question.
Should women have the right to vote?
It's kind of a joke because I believe that everybody should have the right to vote.
But I also believe that men and women are different.
They have different strengths and different weaknesses.
And giving women the right to vote creates certain problems that just having men vote doesn't create.
Nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.
Men can be perfectly stupid.
But you know, it's like when in the old days when they said Catholics shouldn't vote because they might have a dual allegiance to Rome, that was a fair objection.
Deo's voice, papa, absolutely.
You know, and of course they should be allowed to vote, but that is a problem that should be watched for.
What has changed since women have gotten suffrage?
I thought the reason you asked me to talk about the problems of women's suffrage is because you never want me to win elective office in my life.
But it might be I'm trying to save the country here.
So the entry point that I saw into this is that it's the 100th anniversary.
We're approaching now the 100th anniversary of Congress passing the 19th Amendment.
It was ratified in 1920, but it was passed by Congress in 1919.
And you see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our favorite, our old neighbor, she wore all white to her swearing in as a symbol of the suffragist movement.
Hillary Clinton did this when she accepted the nomination from the DNC.
She wore all white.
This is a symbol of the suffragist movement.
There was a Harvard study that came out a few years ago, which was done.
It was multi-universities.
Yale had a part in it, a number of others.
The question was, did women's suffrage change the size and scope of the government?
The answer is yes.
It is undeniably so.
It led to immediate increases in the size of state government, in state government expenditures and revenue.
It led to more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives in the Congress.
And this continued to grow as more women started voting.
Because it's a little bit misleading to say women have been voting in America for 100 years.
That's not true.
The 19th Amendment is about 100 years old.
But before the 19th Amendment, 29 states gave women the right to vote.
There was a whole progressive era.
There were all of these progressive amendments.
And this is another mark against the 19th Amendment.
It was passed alongside the income tax, prohibition, the direct election of senators, all three, which destroyed American government.
That one has a little guilt by association.
But prohibition was a female-directed idea, wasn't it?
Well, this is another aspect of it.
The suffragist movement largely came out of the temperance movement.
Even the characters are all the same.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, we think of as Susan B. Anthony, these leading suffragettes, they founded the New York State Women's Temperance Society.
Frances Willard, who was the president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, she called for suffrage for women specifically as a way of advancing this agenda.
Because it's more like their husbands spending their paycheck on booze, but that's right.
I mean, it's presented now as drunken men would go home and beat their wives, and that was the worst extreme of it.
But I think the much larger version was that these men were drinking all of their paychecks in a saloon, and women didn't like that.
I didn't even know that was wrong.
Where else are you going to spend your paychecks?
Exactly.
So this came about.
But, you know, before the 19th Amendment, you had eight states between 1910 and 1914 let women vote.
17 states between 1917 and 1919, so just two years.
There were four states that let women vote before the 20th century.
Just in the 19th century, you could have women voting.
So women had been voting for a while.
One of the arguments against women voting leading to an increase in the size of government is that the timelines don't match up.
But when you take into account when various states permitted it, the timeline start to match up much better.
The other side of this is that it's impossible to prove as a matter of numbers, but we know from the writings of the suffragettes that it was believed at the time that the majority of women did not want the right to vote.
There was the anti-suffragist movement.
And why did they not want the right to vote?
They said it would damage the family, and they said that women knew less about politics than men.
This sounds shocking and outrageous today.
However, every study that has been done of political knowledge, not just in the United States, but across the world, has shown that men tend to know more about politics and current affairs on average.
So in the United States, women, on average, know about 30% less about current affairs and politics than men.
This is true in the UK and Canada.
In Italy and Greece, that number shrinks to 20%.
That's because the men there don't know anything about politics either.
They're a little bit tuned out in those countries.
Because they have no governments, maybe.
Because they have no governments.
And we do know there's this gender gap in voting.
We know women tend to vote for left-wingers.
Men tend to vote more.
Well, there were some theories posited in this Harvard study.
One is that women are more risk-averse generally than men are.
The other is that, particularly during the time of the suffragists, women were reliant on men.
So if you couldn't depend on your man, one, to stick around, or two, to bring home the bacon for years on end, you would be more...
Turned to the man.
Yeah.
Yeah, you would turn to the man and you would hope that you can have something of a guaranteed income for more wealth transfer payments.
We know from these presidential elections, if only men voted, if only men voted in 2018, the GOP would not just have held the House, we would have held a vast majority of the House, 249 seats.
Democrats would have had 186.
That's according to Nate Silver.
President Trump would have won by a much larger margin, 350 electoral votes to 158.
Republicans would have won at least the 10 presidential elect the last 10 presidential elections.
They would have won every presidential presidential election.
We would have won every presidential election.
There would have been no Bill Clinton, no Barack Obama.
So this actually raises some questions.
I mean, one of the things that the left has done really effectively is they've made conversations like they've outlawed conversations like this.
So the fact that we are having this conversation, that different kinds of people have different kinds of weaknesses and strengths.
I mean, I've talked on the show a million times about the strengths of women, the fact that they see another half of the world that I don't see.
I get it.
You can't see the world in three dimensions without seeing that part of the world.
But just like men can be blustering idiots and can be over-aggressive, women also have female flaws.
Unique flaws.
Yeah, exactly.
And so by banning these conversations, you ban the question of, well, wait a minute, how is there a way of addressing this?
Is there a way of going to women and saying, hey, you have a natural tendency to go to the people who are going to give you government stuff, but it may actually be hurting your family and may be hurting your future.
By outlawing these conversations, what this is really an attack on is this is an attack on the study of history.
It's a replacement of history with ideology.
Because certainly when Media Matters watches this, they're going to say, Clavin and Knowles are calling for the end of women's suffrage, which of course we're not doing.
What we're pointing out, however, is that there are historical complexities to all of these issues that we want to wash over.
We want to look now back on history and say, oh, the 18th Amendment, prohibition, what a stupid and ridiculous amendment.
There was no argument for it whatsoever.
Nobody supported it.
Women's suffrage, there was no debate to be had.
It was just awful, evil, terrible people and men oppressing.
But that wasn't that at all.
The majority of women, most likely, opposed women's suffrage.
The historical reality is always much more interesting than the ideology.
That's exactly it.
And I mean, even when going back to the Catholics, going back to giving the vote to people who have no property, you know, of course I want people who have no property to vote, but it does raise questions about do they have skin in the game?
You know, are they voting to take your money without having any money of their own?
And they want to pretend that these are new questions.
They want to pretend.
It's always, we're always living in the eternal present for the left.
But this, I mean, the reason why it's very difficult in America to argue against women's suffrage, I don't know anybody who really argues against women's suffrage.
The reason you can't do it is because of democracy, because of our the nature of our country, the nature of our founding principles seems to lead inexorably to greater enfranchisement, to greater egalitarianism.
This is not the first time that someone has thought, hmm, perhaps democracy leads people to soak the rich and take away their money and leads to certain social problems.
I believe good old Uncle Aristotle wrote about this very question.
Tocqueville, you know, everybody's, but yeah.
All these questions, first of all, they're really interesting questions.
And it's just truth, you know, just talking about the truth and not trying to, because I believe in freedom first and then you solve the problems that freedom creates.
You have to be able to discuss the problems.
All right, we've got to stop.
What are you talking about on the show?
Today, we're going to be talking about the mother effer with the hat.
We're going to be talking all the way the similarities between Snoop Dogg and Democrat Congresswoman.
Spider-Man's Mainstream Journey00:05:40
It's going to be a blast.
Well, this is the one thing that I was watching these.
I was watching AOC, as we now call her, and Rashida Tliban.
I was thinking, you know, young women have a certain kind of confidence that you can have when you know that, first of all, you know, nobody's going to punch you because you're a woman.
And if you're a pretty girl, you know, nobody's going to say, you're an idiot.
I mean, have you ever looked at a beautiful woman and said, you don't know what you're talking about?
I usually look at a beautiful woman and I say, oh, exactly.
It's exactly right.
So it's going to be a lot of that on the show.
All right.
Good for you.
It's good to see you again.
Finally.
Yeah.
All right.
I'll talk to you later.
All right.
I want to talk about a movie I watched over the weekend because it comes back to a theme that I was talking about.
I think I was talking about this before Christmas, or maybe right after I came back, I was talking about Equalizer 2 and how all these conservative messages were buried in a film that you would have thought might have had a liberal agenda and that had some kind of liberal agendas.
But this is something that I see is happening more and more.
Over the weekend, I went and saw Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse.
And you might ask yourself, why did you do that when you hate superhero films?
And the reason is it was the only film my wife and I could agree to go out and see and we wanted to go out together.
So we went out and saw this film.
First of all, it is absolutely, it's a kid's film.
It's a superhero film.
If you don't like that, you don't want to see it.
It is unbelievably beautiful.
It is a work of art.
It's computer-generated animation.
I would so much rather look at an hour and a half, two hours of this kind of thing than go into a New York gallery and look at a splotch on the wall that brings in a million and a half bucks.
Let's play a little bit of the trailer of this.
And just if you're watching, you can see what incredible art it is.
My name is Peter Parker.
I'm pretty sure you know the rest.
I saved the city, fell in love, then I saved the city again and again and again.
Look, I'm a comic book, a serial.
I did a Christmas album and a so-so popsicle.
But this isn't about me.
Not anymore.
It's very much based on pop art.
If you remember the pop art of the 60s, it looks like pop art.
And the story is this: the story is: there's a new Spider-Man, the old Spider-Man dies.
And I guess if you read the comics, you know about this.
His name is Miles Morales.
He is a black kid from Brooklyn, I believe, from Brooklyn.
And he has to learn how to be Spider-Man.
And at the same time, there is a conjunction of two different dimensions.
And Spider-Man from other dimensions and spider-girls from other dimensions come into his world and start to basically unite with him, but also train him and teach him how to be Spider-Man.
So there is a dissolute kind of Peter Parker.
There's a girl Spider-Man.
There's a noir detective Spider-Man who's all in black and white, which is very funny.
There's a kind of porky pig Spider-Man.
There's a manga Spider-Man, a little girl and a robot, you know, from the Japanese cartoons and all this stuff.
And all of them start to teach him that he too can be Spider-Man.
And his father, who is a very stern, very straight-laced cop, is teaching him, is trying to teach him how to be a man, how to be a man in the world.
His mother and his father have both, he wants to be in the hood.
The kid wants to be in the hood, but they have sent him to a private school, an elite private school, because they see something special in him and they think he should be part of the elite and he should be a special guy.
They don't quite understand his graffiti art, but they do understand that putting graffiti art on public spaces is illegal.
So they're a little too strict on him about the art.
But the entire thrust of the movie is this: black people are now joining the mainstream.
They are becoming heroes as white people were heroes, as women have been heroes.
They are joining the heroic stories that Americans tell, which are Spider-Man and Superman and Batman.
These are the heroic mythos that America has developed.
It is welcoming black people in, but it's also saying, yes, you bring your special art and your special creativity and your special viewpoint from your neighborhood and from your experience.
You bring that into the mainstream.
But you also have to learn what the mainstream has to teach you.
You have to learn to restrain yourself and not put the graffiti in public spaces, but to find a place where you can express that.
You have to join the other kids of different races and white kids who are at the elite schools.
You have to listen to the old Spider-Man who's a white guy and find out what he knows and join.
It's basically the answer to Get Out.
Get Out basically says if you join with this white culture, they're going to steal your soul.
And that's what makes it a horror movie.
But this is a superhero movie.
And it basically says, no, join.
You will bring something to it, but you also have to accept something from it.
That is a very conservative message.
That's the message that conservatives have been saying to black people for these last 60 years.
It is why we are called racist.
They call us racist when we say, hey, join.
Yes, please join the crowd.
We have always been, the Republicans have always been the party of no racism.
We've always been the party of freedom from Lincoln on, always.
It's only the Democrats who have been the racist as they are racist still.
But we have always said, come on in, but there are great things in this society that you have to adopt.
There is a price of admission, as there was for the Jews, as there was for the Irish, as there was for the Italians.
There is a price of admission that you pay to become part of the mainstream.
And Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse, in a very compassionate and very enjoyable way, with, like I said, a lot of great visual art, sends that message.
We should be looking for that.
And in the same way, we should be supporting right-wing artists.
We should be supporting messages that we can agree with, even if they come in left-wing films.
That's all I have to say.
And I will be back tomorrow.
Supporting Right-Wing Artists00:01:02
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
And our animations are by Cynthia Angulo and Jacob Jackson.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire forward publishing production, copyright, forward publishing 2018.
I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.
What do Snoop Doggy Dog and the incoming Democrat Congress have in common?
Too much, I'm sorry to say.
Then Hollywood loses at the Golden Globes.
I offer my novel solution to the award show problem.
Finally, the Vatican celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution.