Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  September 7, 2013 9:00am-10:01am EDT

quote
9:00 am
not existed then we would not have done that. and it was exciting for me. each event or person was a challenge to how we would then present it to a reader in a fresh kind of way. about the different and new revelations there are so many. you mentioned clarence king who went on to finish 7 sections of the book, i can move westward because i want to get -- i realized i couldn't move westward. i hadn't said the west up. how do i set the west up? i don't want to set it and as a place where we are going to destroy it another people. i want to set it up for what it also represents, great beauty,
9:01 am
natural resources not just in terms of gold or copper or trees that can turn into paper but because of a grand expanse of beauty which involve photographers and enthralled many groups of people, not allowed to get to the west in that particular way. i could go on and on. there are certainly people i have known about like an dickenson before, a revelation to me in many places as well. i didn't know she existed when i wrote about emily dickinson and come came up, can't you get their name right? there is an dickenson, she is enormously important in history. when the abolitionists and her out like a canary in the
9:02 am
moorings like pennsylvania coal miners to talk about anti slavery movement and republicans in a hostile environment, they sent her out. it worked okay so the rest of us will come out afterwards. >> can you talk about coming from literature and writing history? >> yes. i am intrigued that i am often introduced as a historian which is fine. i am very flattered. history writing, historians were something else i had to throw out of my barrel of received wisdom and prejudices against. as i mentioned in the book, and dickenson and higgins and in both of those cases i am writing about writers involving those cases, part of what always
9:03 am
interested me is that they live in time and as i mentioned, something like that, really didn't meet lincoln, he went to manassas and was close with the man who invented the term manifest destiny call of those things. i was never that far from history or writing about history. it just was filtered through literature, literature is something that i love very much. but it exists in time. history is embodied with literature in that way. when i wrote the book on dickenson and higginson that i mentioned earlier some -- so much of that book is non literary. it really is about anti slavery, the abolition movement, what happens to poetry, how it gets published, that is historical too. we don't just need words or another destination of native peoples to the history, history can be power a poem gets
9:04 am
published so that is moving into this book with this particular, "ecstatic nation: confidence, crisis, and compromise, 1848-1877" was a tremendous opportunity, it made me very ecstatic in fact to have the opportunity to be able to do what i had been drawn to all along which means i didn't sideline literature if anything is cultural and political history in that sense because i think of them as the same. that is what i mean about reading the newspaper on the front page where you have egypt and chase bank you also have a story about an art critic who love them a lead dickenson and longfellow. there we are. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause]
9:05 am
>> for more information visit the author's web site brenda wineapple.com. >> only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. it did happen and the assaid rich beem did it. remember iraq. secretary hegel remembers iraq. general dempsey remembers iraq. secretary hegel and i and many of you remember iraq in a special way because we were here for that vote. we voted. and so we are especially sensitive, chuck and i, to never again ask any member of congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and reese
9:06 am
scrub the evidence. we have declassified unprecedented amounts of information and we ask the american people and the rest of the world to judge that information. >> this weekend on c-span john kerry and chuck hegel from tuesday at senate foreign relations committee on syria today at 10:00 eastern. on c-span2's booktv roar looks at the impact of foreclosures and the evictions in african-american communities lose later today at 7:30 and on c-span3's american history tv lectors in history looks at the 1955 murder of emmett till sunday at 1:00 p.m.. up next, author and columnist ben shapiro, an editor at large of breitbart.com talks about hollywood's influence on how americans think, the types of personalities voters wanted a u.s. president and what he says is the tendency of the lead to intimidate political opponents.
9:07 am
mr. shapiro is the author of five books including "primetime propoganda: the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv" and his "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans". >> host: your newest book "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans" you write president obama was elected at least in part because he was black. with a positive for him. many americans believed america needed to elect its first black president to move beyond issues of race once and for all but instead they got a champion race boule masquerading as a racial unifier. what do you mean? >> guest: is great wave of american approval, this idea he was going to unify the country on racial lines and instead the president has really suggested in multiple ways not only the continuation of american racism but that is one of the most serious problems still facing the country. it manifest in everything from the george zimmerman trial to continue focus on voter id, the
9:08 am
attempt by the obama administration to paint voter id as a racist thing instead of an attempt to quash voter fraud. the motivations of the american people at least his opponents is something the president likes to do on a frequent basis and it his tremendous dividend. the only sector of the racial population that showed up in larger numbers than the previous election cycle in 2012 was the black community, they showed up in numbers far out waiting their proportion of the population which is great and it is wonderful they showed a. lot of folks showed up because they were convinced by voting for president obama they were stopping a great racist tied, swarming to the surface against president obama and get people oppose politically. >> host: when you hear the term post racial what does that mean? >> guest: the idea that we live in a country where everyone is free to make their own way and the obstacles folks face should be identified and targeted on an individual level. i think we get into a ghost hunting pretty quickly when we
9:09 am
start talking about institutional racism and the idea there is this vast racist conspiracy to keep people down. i don't think that is true in america anymore people of my generation and the continued push we saw at the 50th anniversary of martin luther king's i have a dream speech the idea that the greatest obstacle facing young black folks is white racism not only is not true, it is tremendously damaging for white folks and black >> host: in "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans" you have a subchapter, anatomy of a racial bullying, the smear campaign 2012. >> guest: what i was talking about, the racial bullying, the racial bullying of the trayvon martin case. that case turned pretty quickly into an attempt by the left to paint george zimmerman as a white guy who had tracked down and murdered a black kid as opposed to what actually happened, and half white guy who is really hispanic, first time anybody ever said someone was a white hispanic bias saying president obama is a white black
9:10 am
but george zimmerman was hispanic and he under disputed circumstances shot trayvon martin after presumably having had jury ruled that his head hit against the grounds of the times by trayvon martin and that turned into a clear-cut attempt to murder a black person by a white person and that is not what happened at all. not only not what happened but something the left likes to do a regular basis which is to take controversial situations and turn them into a great referendum on the race question in america whether you are talking about o.j. simpson or rodney king or something that wasn't even in fused with race like the george zimmerman keys. the fbi has searched for evidence that was a racist for months and unable to find anything. george zimmerman was picked out and targeted and that race was turned into a race case as opposed to what it really was which was a tragic circumstance for both, more tragic for trayvon martin because he ended up dead. >> host: you say the associated
9:11 am
press roading story that seemed racial in nature. is the media part of this bullying? >> guest: absolutely. the media are the chief police in american political life at least to portray themselves as objective. i don't have as much of a problem with media folks who don't portray themselves as objective. that is what we do and at least they are honest about it but a lot of folks in the media say that objective and use that objectivity as a baton to wield against others so for example cnn tried to make out that george zimmerman had actually used a racial slur in his 911 call. not true. nbc famously edited the 911 call to make it sound like he was a racist saying george zimmerman tracked trayvon martin down and said he was black without being prompted by the 911 operator. the a peer originally reported george zimmerman was white when he was actually hispanic. all of that was geared toward building up a racial controversy because that's old newspapers and racial controversy also pushes for a certain political line. if there's a tremendous amount of institutional racism it still
9:12 am
pervades all areas of american life and historically the way it has been rooted out is government intervention. if that continues to be the case of america continues to be a deeply racist country than what that really is is a call for more federal, state and local government intervention into the lives of americans to read out that racism. >> host: back to "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans," feminists want to cheaper over differences between men and women in favor of a bizarre sort of gender androgyny. if there are real differences between the sexes and women might need plant men might need women and that would destroy any semblance of pure e quality. >> guest: equally according to many women on the left, many feminist left say it means to feminists saying that as opposed to eat quality. i believe women should have the ability to get a job the same as men should. my mom is not only a working woman but does business affairs on reality tv shows like hell's kitchen.
9:13 am
has a company. i am a big believer of women in all work place but not ignoring the reality of the situation which is men and women are normally different in terms of genitalia but how they think. every study ever done, scientific study has shown men and women's brains to operate in the same way. that is a beautiful thing, diversity is a great thing but attempting to pretend the plant with an identical especially with regard to how the sexes relate with one another is a mistake. >> host: who are these other believe you referred to? >> guest: i break it down by topic. race bullies, sex bullies, environmentalists bullies, anti-israel belize, all sorts of belize in american life. what i mean by belize is not just folks who disagree with you publicly. i mean folks who say you are morally inferior if you disagree with them politically and this is something the left likes to do with frequency, not that they disagree with you on the topic, that the left, many on the left think that you are a bad person
9:14 am
if you disagree with them. if you disagreed is not because you can have honest differences of opinion or bring evidence to marshal for your argument but because you are just a nasty cuts. i said to peer is morgan on the gun-control issue because this is the argument he was making, here is why i support gun-control, because if you don't support and control you don't care about did kids in sandy hook so i said it is a nasty thing to stand on the graves of folks and claim moral superiority. most americans thought the same thing. we all want a better life for our children, safer life, more moral life. we all want a spiritually higher life. we want a lot of the same things. proclaiming vote on the other side don't want those things and are actually nasty deep in the corps because they disagree with you is a way to silence the debate and it seems one side of the political aisle has taken the monopoly on that. >> host: you write we spent decades being cowed by the
9:15 am
publicly correct. the race beaters, class warriors, secularists and scaremongering suggs. we bowed to their wins, we tried to be polite, they spit in our faces and blamed us for debasing the level of our national discourse, tried to minimize the number of voices in the political arena and we have gone along with it because we power line for a time when americans could all share their hopes and dreams together rather than quarreling over what separates us. we want each floor of the pseudonym, they want the opposite, from one many. >> guest: diversity to many folks on the left does not mean that we can all share the same goals and aspirations and still have different cultures and bring those cultures to bare. what it means for many on the left is a few don't think like me than you are in tolerance and not diverse and those words have been used to castigate folks and science folks and make people feel morally inferior for taking a different political position and that should be unacceptable
9:16 am
in the american discourse and as we are unfortunately as a response the only response is to get in the mud. politically speaking, this is why if you -- y mitt romney lost the 2012 election look how he portrayed barack obama al barack obama portrayed mitt romney. mitt romney portrayed barack obama as a non competent president, not good at his job, not good on the economy or foreign policy, didn't know what he was doing. but he was a good family man, a good guy, somebody you want to go out to a beer with, mitt romney would say president obama is a good man. just not good at being president. if you look how the left campaign against mitt romney including people in the obama campaign met romney was a guy who put -- undersold women because he hated women, but you all back in jeans, the sort of guy who specifically fired employees that five years later their wives would die of cancer because he didn't have health insurance, mitt romney stashed
9:17 am
his money in offshore bank accounts, a ghostly version of america the beautiful because he didn't like america. the polls showed this. the exit polling most americans agree with mitt romney on a lot of issues, there's one issue they disagree, when it can to the exit polling that said which candidate do you think cares more about people like you, romney got blown away a 80-20, including probably a certainly plurality of republicans, barack obama cared more about people like them van mitt romney. said is because he spent years castigating somebody as the world's meanest figure of you have a choice between competent president and second to mussolini you will generally choosing competent president. >> host: your fifth book, holes were you when you wrote your first book "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth"? >> senorita in college. >> host: at the come of with the idea of writing >> guest: "primetime propoganda:
9:18 am
the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv" when i started and the first day of school at picked up the ucla daily bruin, the paper there, had an editorial comparing the prime minister of israel to a delphi's amanda knox the. i walked to the office and asked to write a response. that turned into a point counterpoint column which turned into me doing a regular column for the ucla daily bruin and after that i was 17 i went to my dad and he was reading my stuff and i said do you think my stuff is good enough to be like a regular paper? let me do some research. went on the internet and found creator syndicate which was the syndicator for david limbaugh and a bunch of folks on both sides of local little island sent in my columns and they didn't even know how old i was. and three weeks later i got a call saying they wanted to syndicate my column and at 17 iowa's beyond a syndicated column in the country, parents on the contract because i wasn't
9:19 am
age of consent. on doing that, it served better when it came to pr so i proceeded to e-mail a bunch of folks and one of the people i e-mail was david limbaugh, russia's brother and he said not only are you talented but if you write a book i will arrange it for you. i have been taking notes in class, beyond that i was interested, i was taking notes on what my professors were saying, writing down dates, times, specific quotations and three weeks i wrote the whole book. i wrote "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth" in three weeks from my notes from my -- nelson decided to publish it and halfway through my senior year in college when i was still there it came out and professors were not happy, the daily bruin did a huge spread trying to debunk the book but it did very well and i stand by it
9:20 am
obviously. >> host: the forward to "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth" was written by david limbaugh. at the 11, can you fall into a trap of being selective in the incidents? wikipedia in the book is anecdotal. i cite a number of polls, there's no question every poll ever done of major universities shows professors are significantly more to the left than the general population. at ucla it was in the 2000 election they voted almost universally for al gore where population split it 50/50. the universities are very much to the left but stories are more interesting than statistics. i'm not a gallup pollster so the book is not just a pant -- compendium of polls. i do call out specific professors and name them by name and talk about things they said in class. was the first of its kind, inside the classroom it was presaging a lot of other books that have been like that were
9:21 am
not only experiences from within the classroom but direct quotations from dade, times, what they said and a lot of folks want to know, especially at ucla, what are my tax dollars funding. was an eye opener for a lot of folks. >> host: in "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth" you write the brainwashing of students by the university system is one of the most severe problems plaguing america's youth. under higher education, objectivity lies a grave and overpowering bias that deeply affects the student body. to find viable solutions to this crisis we must now answer three crucial underlying questions. why are the universities so biased? why do students take their professors at face value? what can we do to stop it? what is your answer to those questions? >> guest: let's go through one at a time. the first is why are the ever cities so biased in the first place? one reason the universities are biased is folks at the university level in the 1960s,
9:22 am
universities were infiltrated by a lot of folks on the left. the establishment at those universities decided not to challenge the student body when the student body rose up in the 1960s and a lot of the very bad ideas that started earlier in the 1930s and 40s took over the universities in the 1960s. most professors don't have to live in the real world, they don't have to get a job outside the university setting, they live in a kind of ego chamber where they can't distinguish between opinion and fact so everything that disagrees with them becomes not factual. george w. bush didn't disagree with among politics, he was a lie. everyone who disagrees in the classroom, they are just liars. when they go back to the faculty lounge everybody agrees with them virtually universally. once it became left it is self perpetuating because you have to work with the professors who are there to get your doctor and i guarantee at ucla, you really like to write your doctoral
9:23 am
thesis on how gun-control is ineffective you will have more trouble than if you write a doctoral thesis how gun-control is to be effected and the only solution to solving the problem of gun violence in america. that is the answer to question no. one. why do they have all this authority? the answer is pretty simple. most parents spending thousands of dollars on a kid's going to these schools. my parents spent a lot of money on me to go to ucla which means that kind of the authority your parents have this transferred over to this new group of people of the older generation typically do speak to you from a position of knowledge, you go to college to learn so as a student you also know the best way to get an a is to go in and basically vomit to back out everything the professor told you in class. i got great rage in college which is power ended up in a harvard law. if you read my blue book i wrote like a communist. they're all done with your student id number, thank god for anonymity. i would speak in class and when it came to the test, a
9:24 am
conservative students don't waste a grade. is not worth getting a seat in the class, then the degree is worth something. that is the reason -- as far as how that changes, the bison university campuses change, the most optimistic solution would be the universitys open themselves up. that won't happen because it is not even militias. when you live in that echo chamber you think people who disagree with you as deniers, the climate change deniers, somebody who denies the power of keynesian economics, not somebody disagrees but denies. the only way to do this would be to exercise the power of the market. parents are going to have to stop spending their kids to schools that they disagree with on a political level, they have to instead take the money and people are doing this take their money, $100,000 instead business again around the business or send your kid to school that you have more agreement with and alumni are going to have to start realizing the money they're spending is not just going to football teams helmets,
9:25 am
often is going to the marxist professor who sits in front of the class and plays guitar while these things communist tandems which actually happened when i was in geography class at ucla. there are a lot of ways to tackle that but i prefer market solutions to any sort of other solution. >> host: from "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth," separate graduation ceremonies for black students, the university of michigan has ceremonies for black, latino, american indians and jewish students with the ceremony focusing on the customs of that group. ucla is the center for separate graduation ceremonies. the university holds graduation for homosexual students which they call the lavender graduation. at the commencement students wear rainbow tassels. errors graduation for latinos, blacks, filipinos, graduation for asian pacific islanders, graduation for iranians and graduation for american indians. the only ones who don't have their own graduation are
9:26 am
straight white males but they will before long if only by process of elimination. >> guest: this is the polarization of american society that carries over from universities to president obama's politics, separation of the american population from the melting pot idea to what is essentially marbles, we're separate and live in our own fear is and it is self segregation that has done a lot of damage in american life, diversity is about associating with folks on campus. there is not a ton of diversity going on. people hang out with people who are like them. go to the student group where people hang out with people like you, that was what was for me, i hung out with a lot of folks, when it came time to be out of place you gravitate toward the people who are like you. state resources push that is another idea. that is where i start to get upset because if we are to learn from one another, to experience life as americans first rather than as blacks or jews or gays
9:27 am
or asians we are going to have at some point to realize we are allowed to graduate to the. we can hang out on our own time together when times to sponsor graduation why don't we get in the same room together because this is a rite of passage as americans and a rite of passage as our growth as human beings. >> host: at 11, you were 18 years old when you rose "porn generation: how social liberalism is corrupting our future". we did this come from? >> guest: i wrote it when i was 20, right after "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth". this book came from iowa's -- what i had seen on campus as well as what i was seeing in the culture. someone who is a deep religious believer, i was upset with the kind of culture that has been awash not only in basic immorality but imagery that i felt was damaging teenagers, imagery i've always damaging to young adults and a culture that
9:28 am
tries to inculcate perennial adolescence in the american population, makes you feel that avoiding responsibility is a sort of responsibility. you have moral superiority if you are promiscuous as opposed to if you are a virgin. there's a lot of pressure to participate in culturally approved of activities which generally involves exploring yourself and exploring yourself in variable ends of being something or parents would not want you to generally and involve withdrawing money from your parents adm accounting deuce of your parents would not want you to do. that is what i objected to enroll about in "porn generation: how social liberalism is corrupting our future" which revolve around the sexual liberation of the american population ranging from pop music to movies to magazine to what happens on campus. >> host: you discuss the monica lewinsky affair. >> guest: it is a really interesting piece because there were actual studies done in the aftermath of that about
9:29 am
awareness of oral sex for example and rose dramatically among teenagers because the president of the united states was being talked about on television every second as someone who participated in oral sex in the oval office that was something that had an impact on a generation being told oral sex is not actual sex, it is fake sex and people took that in and people imitate folks they think are important culture. is true across the board from celebrities to politicians, and celebrities who become politicians and politicians who become celebrities, you see a crossover have a real market impact on how young people live their lives and does no damage, it is just ridiculous, of course it does -- everything you do in life has an impact on the. we are not just a bunch of ice men walking around and all our activities have no impact on us whatsoever. they all have an impact, spiritual impact, great impact, lifelong impact in terms -- we'll do things we regret and wish we hadn't done but the more we have a culture that tries to
9:30 am
minimize those things, the learned wisdom of the ages sometimes is wrong the lot of times it is right. throwing away willy-nilly is an exercise in foolhardiness. >> host: portrayal of sexual activity on screen is not simply about telling a story or an lightning viewers. is about legitimizing the behavior. when increasingly younger teens are exposed to soft core pornography, on the big screen there's a cultural results. >> guest: you have to give permission to teenagers to do something. how is it teenagers decide suddenly that it is ok to participate in certain activities when it wasn't okay before? when you subsidize an activity you get more of that. made we decided it is okay to subsidize some of these activities but there's a tremendous impact in terms of that and most obvious example you can use for something like this is the impact of the culture's acceptance of for example single motherhood. there is our culture that
9:31 am
largely accepted that. you may think that is a good thing or bad thing. it is sternly up more, nothing. in the black community when the civil rights act was passed the unwed motherhood rate was near 30%, now 72%, the white community it was low single digits, now is 40%. that is a tremendous increase in short time and that is largely due to a culture that has decided it is not important to regulate your sexual -- you are almost glorified if you participate in the -- as opposed to containing it. the other point in judaism was always sexual activity is a wonderful thing provided it is within certain boundaries namely the boundaries of marriage but when liberated from that it makes, calling you out as a person. one thing i object to in "porn generation: how social liberalism is corrupting our future" i thought this was a feminist point that men should not act like pigs. the feminist movement sort of came along and noted rightly to act like pigs and instead of the art to act more morally now everyone connected morally in the name of the quality and that
9:32 am
had the market ramification especially for young women who are different from the. anyone who acts like sex, young men and young women exactly the same is blind to the realities of life. >> host: you are watching booktv on c-span2. this is our monthly in depth program. we invite 1 offered to talk about his or her body of work. this month it is author ben shapiro, the author of five nonfiction books beginning with "brainwashed: how universities indoctrinate america's youth," 2004, then "porn generation: how social liberalism is corrupting our future" came out the next year, "project president: bad hair and botox on the road to the white house" came out in 2008, "primetime propoganda: the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv" 2011, and his most recent book this year "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans". he will be our guest for the next 2.5 hours and we welcome
9:33 am
your participation as well on phone calls. you can dial in if you have a question or comment, 02-55-3880 in the central time zones, 583-3881 in the mountain and pacific time zones and of course social media as well you can send an e-mail to booktv@c-span.org or you can make a comment on our twitter page at booktv and finally facebook.com/booktv, you will see right there at the top where you can make a comment for ben shapiro. i want to go to "project president: bad hair and botox on the road to the white house". you write many people believe that our style of campaigning is broken. why should john kerry's $1,000 hair cut decide who holds the most powerful office on the face of the earth? shouldn't politics be about politics? shouldn't policy be the crux of our campaign elections?
9:34 am
what does it matter if barry goldwater looked to do in glasses or michael dukakis look goofy in a tank? it matters, you say. >> guest: it is human nature. people who argue with reality, stand arguing against the wind all day. if people make a snap decision on who you are, within a second of meeting you they decide whether they like your not want to hang out with your not. all of that is made within a second and ready to >> reporter: our opinion. is rare that someone besides after making that decision they want to be your friend. if they decide they hate you in the first moment. this is why candidates -- what democratic party continues to win. republican party has no clue how imagemaking works. barack obama came down from the sky onto a stage and gave a speech, 60,000 people in john mccain jump in for the podium and for the line green screen --
9:35 am
people because of obama for the teleprompter. he understands what he is doing. when he goes out in a kindergarten and you take the camera back and he has two teleprompter than 6-year-olds it is easy to mock that but his audience is not 6-year-olds but all the folks watching on camera. he was the first candidate to use the iowa caucuses, to lebron ready iowa caucuses. he was the only tv produced candidate may be in american history but democrats for a long time not only had tremendous respect for what hollywood does and what damagemaking is for but a willingness to use it where every republican looks like an assistant high school principal. i know >> host: suits versus boots. >> host: >> guest: americans like a cowboy. people and afflicted think americans are anti cowboy george w. bush he was a cowboy and so terrible the truth is americans
9:36 am
like the rural feel. president obama is unique. sea-tac any of that. obviously he is a city guy but every president before him for a long time had a ranch. this is something that is an oddity. reagan had a ranch and george bush sr. had a ranch that he didn't use very much and clinton had a ranch as well as george w. bush. all these folks had this kind of roll down to worth nitty gritty you want to get a beer with them because they are somebody who really experienced rugged life where if you're a businessman, mitt romney, no one wants that, he is the very nice guy and i respect him tremendously, the most moral man ever to run for president, tremendous moral person but nobody looks at mitt romney on that screen with the hair that a brick would bounce off of and say somebody that is down to earth, really understands people and that is what hurt him. his image match what people thought of him. your image has to convey
9:37 am
something about you. bill clinton's image conveyed with a girl boy from down south when this to the troubles of regular folks even though he was -- george h. w. bush is a bad example because he lost reelection handily won first election because he was reagan and succession but reagan was a great example, hollywood guy originally from illinois and suddenly there he is out there chopping wood at the reagan ranch in santa barbara. that has an impact, market impact on how people see you so i was always recommend every politician-year-old the image consultation and those guys who go out and shop for you and give you a better erica, it will matter because when you get on camera that is all that matters. if you look like you have a dead cat are your head you will lose. >> host: american voters always understood that when they elect presidents they elect complete individuals and that means we worry about here. we think about height, we contemplate whether a candidate is a suit or a boot, we ponder over candidates's military images, worry about youth and inexperience and worry about age
9:38 am
and decrepitude. we wonder about candidates' spouses. we ask ourselves whether the candidates are beer buddies are steps. and all seems so trivial, it isn't. i want to go to the point you made that we make snap judgments within a minute or so of what we think of that person. >> guest: the problem of american politics is also how human nature is and the problem of democracy in general. more often than not we make good decisions that is why i am a believer as winston churchill was, and the idea that we make snap decisions it is worthless to ignore it. if more candidates focus on that we could get an estimatemaking. of we all focus on imagemaking, a all candidates for equally handsome man equally well kept and really thought this stuff through than they could get down to the politics of it but even george washington understood this. when george washington walked into the first continental
9:39 am
congress he was the only man who walked in in full military uniform. he was lobbying to be the first commander in chief before there was a commander in chief in the country. all of these guys thought about this and politicians today are smart they will think about it as well without painting themselves orange like john boehner looking like an overgrown impala. >> host: in "project president: bad hair and botox on the road to the white house" you write about william henry harrison and how he won? >> guest: a lot of beer. they called him -- he was a military leader. campaigned on this platform of military leader, tougher than nails, it ended up killing him. he went out in range and died after 40 days but he brought forecastle lot of beer and actually would sweep the beer at the rallies, would stand in the rain swigging peer at the rallies with people and then they would realize he is not just an old guy. he is like us, he likes peer. it is a matter as early as 1840
9:40 am
that increased in scope. once we reached the age of television everyone is in your living room all the time so you feel like you want to be friends with a candidate more than you did in 1840 when he never saw william henry harrison. >> host: and finally your one other book we haven't talked about "primetime propoganda: the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv" start by telling us about your experience as a screenwriter. >> guest: i started writing this book before i was interested in doing screen writing. it was the last thing i wanted to do. when i was a kid my parents worked in hollywood. my mom does business affairs on major tv shows, my dad composes for film and tv so both of them were in hollywood. my cousin started miracle on 30 fourth street. the whole family was involved in the hollywood industry. that is something i desperately did not want to do and more than that my parents didn't want me to do that and somebody asked if i could be in a commercial but i sent you crazy? absolutely not he can't be in a
9:41 am
commercial but when i started writing this book what i did to do the book, shows how bias creeps up on them without knowing it is i call up a bunch of folks in hollywood, and i had written three books already when i wrote this book and had a syndicated column for ten years and i said i am writing this book about the most prominent people in television, i am hard rock school -- law school graduate, ben shapiro from los angeles and all of them granted the interview, a lot of those folks was because they saw a couple things, harvard law school, ben shapiro, a jewish name from harvard law school, lives in los angeles, got to be a liberal. 99% shocked this person is going to be on the left. i would go in and do interviews with folks, harvard law baseball cap to reinforce the impression. when i would do the interview i would ask questions from a progressive viewpoint instead of asking if they were stacking their shows with liberal propaganda like a right-wing person what i would ask if they felt they were in fusing and of
9:42 am
social justice perspectives into their shows and that is how you get an honest answer, pretend to be a friend of the person or act as though you are on their side. this is what is great about being a partisan journalist. i can do all that. i went in and did all of that. one of the people i interviewed was goldberg's. he was the guy who was behind charlie's angels and recently was in a movie and known, the remake of charlie's angels, blue blood on cbs, a real powerhouse, an icon in the industry and he is very pro israel and by was pro-israel so he asked me to go ahead and write a pilot about harvard law school which i did. leonard, when we worked on it went through several meetings and like every project in hollywood even julie got shelled. i got an agent and the agent started getting scripts i had written around town. one day i got a call from the agent and the agent says we have a problem.
9:43 am
what is the problem? we have one of your script out for the good wife. want of the producers and producer, i can't remember -- one of the major studios called < can like your script -- he was honest about it, would never work with someone of that political viewpoint. but that is what a lot of folks have to encounter. bias in hollywood was accepted and dealt with on a normal day-to-day level. people in hollywood like universities. it is and insular industry, get jobs from people you know for the most part. of you are not invited to a big cocktail party is a shot you are not going to get a job on the show. if there's one slot left in the
9:44 am
ryder's room in will go to republican jew from hollywood or a liberal hispanic woman, even close to equal the liberal hispanic woman will get the job because they assume the republican is going to be more abrasive in the writer's room even if there is no evidence of that. >> host: ben shapiro 11, how did france, how does the big bang theory, how did they contribute to liberalism on tv? >> guest: they are wonderful show. my wife is a huge friends and i bought all ten seasons of friends for her. she is an addict of the big bang theory. all these shows are great, the writers are incredibly talented. the way it contributes is much more insidious than normal politics. more politics nowadays attention to. people have their values shaped by the people they know. what tv does is create a set of friends for you, people you want to hang out with an tune in every week and like your family where they stop by and bother you. people who you actually are going to physically change the channel to to hang out with and
9:45 am
what hollywood does have these people do things you have always thought were kind of -- have people engage in behavior you always thought was not particularly appropriate and then comes the point when you say i like that person, unlike that person so i have to approve of the behavior they are exhibiting. what is fascinating about this is when conservatives say this they are portrayed as jerry falwell and tell the tubby or dan quayle and murphy brown but what dan quayle said that murphy brown was legitimizing motherhood, raked over the coals, candice bergen agree with him and said that is what it did but when joe biden says will and grace was the biggest step forward for gay rights in the country's history everybody accepts that because it is true. joe biden is right and dan quayle was right, everybody was right, hollywood has an impact. they do and unconsciously, is half and half, they do it consciously and wants to put forward a certain narrative. a very midwest person doing a
9:46 am
fund-raiser for president obama september 9th in l.a.. when i talk about funds, they have a lesbian wedding in season 2 or season 1 of the show, i said what prompted that? you had next door neighbors and had a daughter and they were lesbian and she was there and we wanted to make the daughter feel good so we specifically wrote that in with politics in mind. the entire writers room was very much to the left. some of it is more conscious. some is unconscious. some of it is sometimes leftists minds work better. if you are trying to write a villain in hollywood you will be better off writing a corporate white villain than you are going to be writing a government felon for example liberal government or writing an arab terrorist as a villain. 24 had to run an apology when kiefer sutherland had to explain to americans all muslims are not terrorists. by watching 24 we will start
9:47 am
burning down mosques which is absurd ready. this is what hollywood does and is very clever. very effective, why people's opinions have changed and the best argument for gay marriage always is not even an argument, an emotional appeal. a friend, sympathy for that day person, allow them to get married. is not even an argument about a pros and cons of gay marriage but you love this person therefore should be ok with what they do. that is what tv does in a nutshell, what tv is all about. identify felons as people you hate even if you might like their politics, just like any other -- a tremendous amount in this country but i hate the villain on law and order as much as any other person if it turns out he is a business person who murdered someone. it is in cities, clever, highly effective and something any informed viewers should know about as well as something the right should engage in, the left has perfected the art of
9:48 am
storytelling, they're great storytellers, president obama in a political way is a fantastic story teller, he likes to tell a story and get into the team of "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences americans" for folks on the left like president obama every political issue is a story. is not a set of policies or evidence or pro and con argument, it is a story. here is the white house, you are the black cat. he is the good guy, you are the villain. by doing that that has a tremendous impact on the voting population because the truth is all american voters vote no. they don't vote yes, they vote no based on what they don't like just like when you watch a movie you actually sympathize with a character based on who you don't like. in star wars you don't care. luke skywalk her is the most boring character and whoever was, why any teenager so they open the movie with darth vader. you have a huge interesting villain who strangles an innocent guy and you know when they cut to luke here is your hero, even if he is why your kisses his sister, he is your hero.
9:49 am
this is your villain. painting the villain is what is very effective than the left uses that in television and also in politics to tremendous effect, a right continues to pretend none of this matters. >> host: in prime-time propaganda -- "primetime propoganda: the true hollywood story of how the left took over your tv" you write three words, a love television. is this a call to action for conservatives? >> guest: i think it is. in a certain way. i was a lost addict. i like homeland. there's a great canadian tv show called arrows about shakespeare, conservatives need to get active in the storytelling meeting. it is what works. conservatives need to -- crazy hollywood people, look how stupid they are, obama with beyonce and j z and the actors, jamie foxx at the march on washington, that is so ineffective, silly.
9:50 am
storytelling, that -- god uses storytelling, as a biblical jew, god tells a story, all of genesis is a story, the first five books of moses are all the story. the profits of a story. god uses stories for christians and the new testament, parables, stories are tremendously effective with the emotional connections, a lot more connections and paul ryan reading his budget plan like an accountant at a table with a briefcase. >> host: ben shapiro is our guest for the next two hours and 15 minutes, 202-585-3880, 585-3881 in mountain and pacific time zone. want to begin with this e-mail from bill in washington. since the left will not engage in a serious intellectual discussion with the haters, quote, and the media will not call them out on this how do we point out there bullying tactics to the broader public without
9:51 am
sounding like crybabies? >> guest: the important thing is to impose -- expose the tactic itself. it is not about attacking people as jerks' because that is in effect of. what it is about is making clear what the magic trick is. they are arguing character instead of policy. arguing character instead of policy is a nasty thing. if you say to someone they are a racist and have no evidence they are a racist that makes you a nasty person ended is not wrong to say that is nasty to say that i am racist without evidence. that is a necessary thing. the right has to do that on a regular basis. when somebody from the right appears on george stephanopoulos on abc news it would be to that person to say thanks for having me, i appreciate it. before we start i want to point out you are a man of the left, you portray yourself an object of joy littlest, you were in the clinton more remand you have certain principles you believe in, why can't you be honest about what you are? imac conservative, you are a liberal, less of a conscious population, that destroys his
9:52 am
entire credibility base. he wouldn't accept the premise. that is something that needs to be done on a regular basis. if you are on the left, if you portray yourself as an objective journalist of your on the right admit you are on the right. i'm on right. i am a journalist but i'm on the right and opinion journalist and that means i take a certain view of the issues and make very clear up front what my view if you read any of my stuff you're going to get a pretty good angle on who i am and what i believe. it is important to point that out when it comes to the media. when it comes to politics if someone is race baiting is important to say this person is race baiting, not only are they race baiting but it is a nasty tactic. you don't attack somebody's character without evidence. that is the definition of being a nasty person. if they are calling you nasties they have to show evidence why you are nasty. it can't just be left calling you a villain because you support voter i.d. or oppose affirmative action or oppose gay marriage. this is not something that is restricted to the broader political world where big figure
9:53 am
fights big figure, romney versus obama and we are all watching, and applies at the dinner table too. we all had dinner, i am jewish, my extended family is liberal, we all had thanksgiving dinner and firmly believe you are a nasty human being if you voted in favor of proposition 8 in california, the answer to that is i'm not a nasty person, how dare you suggest i am a nasty person, your nsc intolerant bigot if you think i am a nasty person gives you have no evidence i anti-gay and his justice because i disagree with you on a matter of public policy i am a bad person that makes you a bad person and then we can get that are to table. want to get them off the table and we can actually get down to the hard business of forging policies that is good for americans but if we're going to be stuck in this political trap where one side argues character and the other side argues policy the side argues character will always when. character is always a more effective argument than policy. it almost doesn't matter what policy is. if you argue character you're going to win right off the bat
9:54 am
and of the right acknowledges this and fights back on the same level it sounds like fighting fire with fire it is. you have to do that. if you tugged at the heart strings, once you do that and hopefully there will be a mutually assured destruction and both sides with the characters off the table, let's figure out the best way to do this may the best argument when. >> host: what is your connection to andrew breitbart? >> guest: we were friends for a long time. i met him when i was writing for the daily bruin that 17 and got an e-mail from this guy named andrew, didn't sign his last name. i read your column in the ucla newspaper, and he lived in westwood and picked up the ucla paper, who is this crazy right wind writing for the liberal paper at ucla? e mail me and said let's get together and i said sure. we ended up and agrees paco joined, i couldn't eat anything kosher, i watched and chow down on tacos and talked about his theory of the me and we were friends for a solid ten years. after that, before he hired me
9:55 am
at breitbart, three weeks before he passed away, when he hired me he called a long dissertation in political history because we were friends for a long time and he had given me advice and i tried to help him out and he was a wonderful human being, leaving aside what he was publicly which was iconic he was a wonderful human being, he was also a tremendous populist, someone who appreciated the. i don't know anybody left or right, don't anyone who didn't like him and that was because andrew at heart was not really political. the book is dedicated to andrew because more than anything else andrew disliked belize. andrew was not even that conservative on a lot of policies. on social policy he didn't care that much. when it came to fiscal policy was interested but really not on a supreme the deep level. he wasn't somebody would invite on tuesday abc news round table and be discussing the vagaries of obamacare. andrew was somebody who understood the tactics of the left and understood how they were making their arguments and
9:56 am
understood pop culture in understood how regular folks think and why the right was losing all the regular joes out there while they were arguing abstruse theory. >> host: did you get your political leanings from your parents? >> guest: yes. i would say absolutely. i think everybody's parents have a tremendous impact. i am extraordinarily tight with my parents, very tight with my dad, my best friend outside my wife. my father and i are very close. he and my mom were regular republicans, voted for carter in '76, reagan twice, clinton in '92 because they didn't like george bush selling iraq to the saudis, then they shifted back to the right side of the aisle after they saw clinton trying to extend government and they saw clinton was not nearly as pro israel as he portrayed himself to be early on in his campaign so my parents were conservative. i grew up in a religious household which means default
9:57 am
conservative, i became more conservative as time went on as i informed myself about topic areas that were not really in my family's wheel house, economic, my family, i would say they were more foreign policy and socially conservative than fiscally conservative although like everybody else in the country they are not fans of higher taxes but not economic boom is in any sense, they didn't sit around reading milton friedman. me and my sisters they promise of in a very patriotic way. my earliest memories are of watching the musical 1776, my dad write musicals and diana huge musical fan. and dressing up the jewish equivalent of halloween for of in that we all dressed up when we go to synagogue, i used to dress up john adams regalia, red coat, short stockings, that is the whole deal. we groper that patriotic sensibility and as i got older inclined me toward being more
9:58 am
conservative. >> host: is there a political split among orthodox jews -- >> orthodox jews the republican. conservative reform jews the pretty much the opposite, 90% democrat. there is a reason for that. unfortunately most jews are not really connected to any of the tradition. there is ethnic judaism, you are born of a jewish mother and are therefore jewish, known chauncey is a jew. you care about judaism and believe in values and philosophy, we a philosophy. most jews do not believe in. they believe in the bagels and going to synagogue once a year maybe, fasting until noon on yom kippur war and considered a minority and a lot of jews out there don't want to be considered -- don't want to be
9:59 am
those folks, they want to be a minority because you get special status in america for being a minority. they don't really have much to do with judaism beyond the cultural aspect of it and that is an aspect, the ethnic aspect of judaism are not particularly interested. when people ask why jews liberal most don't have anything to do with judaism. like asking why are so many people who are born into christian households liberal, a lot of them are not religiously and fervently christian, not evangelical or catholic. ethnic judaism is measuring a different measure than believe in judaism. traditional believing biblical jews, and two indicators, believe in biblical do, it is kosher, those two behavioral indicators to do this we to things those people are the folks foregoing to vote at the 75% to 80% republican and do it for a variety of reasons ranging from what has become an amazing transition in america with republican party has become a pro israel party and the democratic party unfortunately is moving away from the stronger
10:00 am
pro-israel position, ranging from that issue to issues of social morality where the orthodox community is more conservative than the conservative reform reconstructionist community are more socially liberal and believe judaism is inherently about social justice rather than the standard. .. >> guest: was clearly as a warning to the iranians. if you go in and lob a few

119 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on