S1: From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan,
S1: where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught,
S1: nurtured and honored. This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour,
S1: bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners
S1: across the country.
S2: Car pulls up on the other side of the pump.
S2: Woman gets out. For 20 ish year old son gets
S2: out and takes a few steps to go pre-pay. And
S2: she stood there with stress. She looked at him and said,
S2: let's do $20. That's why we need greater supply of
S2: natural resources to lower the cost for that woman. And
S2: that's what we want to tell. The story is at
S2: the gas pump.
S3: This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio
S3: Free Hillsdale Hour. Part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network.
S3: That was John Tillman. He's the author of the new book.
S3: The Political Vice of the Radical left controls America and
S3: the path to regaining our liberty. We go in depth
S3: with John on today's program. Also later on, Luke Foster
S3: from Hillsdale in DC tells us all about the spirit
S3: of a gentleman first. We're joined now by John Tillman,
S3: who's CEO of the American Culture Project, one of the
S3: nation's most prominent leaders in the free market public policy area.
S3: And he's got a new book, The Political Vice How
S3: the Radical Left Controls America and the Path to Regaining
S3: Our Liberty. It's right there. John, thanks so much for
S3: joining us.
S2: Great to be with you, Scott. Thanks for having me.
S2: Good to talk to you again.
S3: The book attempts to answer this question. Why do all politicians,
S3: whether they be Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, move to the
S3: left once in office and there is a device. It's real.
S3: There are diagrams that you've designed called the Political Device
S3: to help us describe this. Let's sketch this out, because
S3: it will help provide the basis for a lot of
S3: the conversation to come. What's the political vice as you
S3: describe it?
S2: Well, the political vice, the politicians, the political decision makers,
S2: mostly we think of elected officials, but it applies to
S2: anybody that has political power to make policy decisions. They're
S2: in the middle of the vice, in the traditional sense
S2: of it. And then on one side of the vice,
S2: it's a three sided vice. Think of it as the
S2: letter U. In the middle of that, you are the politicians.
S2: As I've said. On one side is the media, on
S2: the other side is the people or the public. And
S2: on the bottom side, which is the most important side
S2: are elite influencers. And all three sides apply pressure squeeze
S2: like a vise. Think of the trash compactor scene in
S2: the original Star Wars movie, where they're getting squeezed from
S2: all sides, and there's terrible trash in there. It's a
S2: very good metaphor for politics, which is a trashy business.
S2: So anyhow, the point is that well, well thought, thoughtful
S2: conservatives often get elected. And the question I began my
S2: journey with is why is it conservatives who claim to
S2: be conservative and some of them are. Get into office
S2: and move left and start voting for big government programs
S2: and all the rest of it. And why does nobody
S2: ever move to the right? So I started on this
S2: journey to study it. I've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of
S2: elected officials and people in politics, and what I learned
S2: was that the incentive structures in politics all move you
S2: to the left. And in terms of policy decision making,
S2: because the way you win votes, even for your pet projects,
S2: are by voting for bigger and better and more extravagant
S2: government that will solve all our problems. And the influencers,
S2: by the way, Scott, are important because they not only
S2: apply direct pressure to the political decision makers, they run
S2: operations that create influence in the media, as well as
S2: with the American public. As we're seeing with these indictments
S2: that just came out from the Department of Justice on
S2: the Southern Poverty Law Center.
S3: Yeah. And influencers, we should sort of, uh, define because
S3: it's not influencers necessarily in the new social media definition
S3: of the term employers means those who have influence on politics.
S3: And as we'll talk later, one of the biggest employers
S3: are like unions, public and private sector unions. So it's
S3: not just social media stars, it's those who have an
S3: influence on politics. And one of the reasons that's important
S3: is because the lesson that you learned, too, is that
S3: pressure works when the vice surprise applies pressure, most of
S3: the time it works in pushing someone an entity, an organization,
S3: an individual, a politician towards an intended goal. Why is
S3: pressure so important in moving someone toward a prescribed policy goal?
S2: Well, the three motivators of a political actor are a
S2: political principle political fear, and political expediency. So most politicians, 60, 65%
S2: of the votes that they take, positions that they take,
S2: they're just doing an expedient thing. Insane. I'll vote for
S2: your bridge if you vote for my gazebo in my
S2: home district, or whatever the case might be. My new
S2: highway deal making of one sort or another. And most
S2: of those votes go under the radar of the influencers,
S2: the public, and the media. There's just a lot of
S2: that work that is done out of sight and out
S2: of mind, and people sort of go along and get along.
S2: And then there's fear. Political fear means I really don't
S2: want to take this vote because my constituents will be
S2: unhappy with me. My donors will be unhappy with me.
S2: The media may be unhappy with me, my community influencers,
S2: my leaders may be unhappy with me. Or if I
S2: do take it, this other set may be happy with me.
S2: And so fear is a big driver of what makes
S2: an elected official tick. And then I mentioned political principle,
S2: of course, when I got involved in all of this
S2: over 20 years ago, I was a very naive former
S2: political science minor who thought that all politicians operated out
S2: of principle. Uh, sadly, it's only about 5% of the votes, 30% fear,
S2: and about 65% expediency. And so the reason this pressure
S2: works is because politics is a pressurized system. He who
S2: can apply pressure has power and politicians don't like pressure,
S2: so they take votes to try to minimize or avoid pressure.
S2: I write in the book about the case with former
S2: Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, who actually ran a libertarian
S2: think tank at one point, and he just crumbled under
S2: the pressure during the Kavanaugh hearings that we could see
S2: right there in front of our eyes in an elevator
S2: bay where these paid activists, fake influencers, if you will,
S2: were shouting at him to take a procedural vote to
S2: delay the Kavanaugh hearings further. And he crumbled under that
S2: and eventually left the Senate because he couldn't take the pressure.
S3: John Tillman with us. His book, The Political Vise How
S3: the Radical Left Controls America and the Path to Regaining
S3: Our Liberty. So why why is the left so much
S3: better than the right in operating? The political vise?
S2: A bunch of reasons, but the biggest one is the
S2: left loves government power. They actually believe in expanding the
S2: purview of government to to regulate and tax every aspect
S2: of our lives. They believe they have the moral and
S2: intellectual high ground on how society should be organized. And
S2: they think that the American people are just dumb rubes
S2: who vote the wrong way all too often, and make
S2: bad choices for what's good for America and good for
S2: our various communities, and good particularly for subsets within group
S2: identity politics. And so they really think that government power
S2: is the only way to overcome rapacious capitalism or free
S2: enterprise system. That, in their view, is, is a flawed
S2: entrepreneurs become super successful and take advantage of the system
S2: and don't pay their fair share. They believe in all
S2: of that, and they believe only the government can come
S2: in and put its foot on the scale to right
S2: those wrongs and create fairness and quote unquote, equity for
S2: their agreed coalition within their voting bloc. So they love
S2: government power. So what happens is, even though you have
S2: somewhat of a diverse coalition of the left, the one
S2: thing that unifies them is for all of them to
S2: be successful, they have to work together because they all
S2: require government power. And going back to the influencers, you
S2: mentioned government unions, private sector unions, the trial bar, nonprofits
S2: that get most of their money from government that we've
S2: learned through Doge and much of what's been going on
S2: during the second Trump administration. They all have one thing
S2: in common as well, which is that their business models,
S2: their revenue models, require government tax and regulatory efforts and
S2: policies in order for them to have a business model
S2: that works and creates revenue. A union, whether private or public,
S2: relies on government regulations, and the government unions directly extract
S2: money from taxpayers to pay union dues and to pay
S2: union members. Trial bar relies on government regulations to allow
S2: them to sue people in the private sector. And then
S2: going back to the other side, in the private sector,
S2: most of the people just kind of want to be
S2: left alone who are conservative. They want the government to
S2: protect our rights as enshrined in the Constitution and the
S2: Bill of rights. Other than that, they want a light
S2: hand and just let's go live our lives. And so
S2: we don't really like power as much. We want to
S2: actually devolve power. And so you don't attract the power
S2: hungry people into politics on the right as much as
S2: you do on the left. And when we do, sometimes
S2: they're big government Republicans, which is also not good.
S3: John. Sometimes it does work for those on the right.
S3: And one of those examples is prominent in the book
S3: and one that you were involved in the Supreme Court case,
S3: Janus versus AFSCME, which was which was a victory for
S3: for freedom. And this is an example of the right
S3: using the vice, uh, squeezing people toward a desired outcome
S3: and defeating even the powerful public sector unions in this case.
S3: How did that all come together?
S2: It was one of the greatest experiences of my life.
S2: I founded the Liberty Justice Center in 2011. And then
S2: you might recall that there was going to be a
S2: case called Friedrichs That was going to bring this issue
S2: of forced union fees in government workers to a head.
S2: But then then Supreme Court Justice Scalia died in the
S2: Friedrichs case was deadlocked at 4 to 4. We happen
S2: to have the next case in the docket right behind it.
S2: Ours would have become would have become, become irrelevant if
S2: the Friedrichs case had gone forward in Scalia had lived
S2: and assumed that he voted with what was later a majority.
S2: So the basic point there was that a 1977 case
S2: called Abood, uh, split the baby. When it came to
S2: union dues, the court said that, uh, mandating dues from
S2: a union worker who's opted out of the union for
S2: collective bargaining was reasonable. And you can do that, but, um,
S2: union fees are if you opted out, you couldn't do
S2: the collective bargaining, but then you still had to pay agency,
S2: what we called agency fees. And basically our case, Janice
S2: versus we said that everything the union does is political
S2: by its nature. Therefore, no money should come out of
S2: somebody who has opted out of out of the union's membership.
S2: And that's what the ruling was. Justice Alito wrote the ruling.
S2: A great jurist when it came to worker freedom. And
S2: it came about because a court's respond to politics, too.
S2: And there was a really, uh, anybody who's a political
S2: watcher knows that courts respond. Politics just go back to
S2: Justice Roberts and the Obama care case. And you know
S2: how that works, right? But nevertheless, in this case, we
S2: really had a coalition of people on the right. And
S2: I think the best illustration of why we won that
S2: fight is because during the protest, when the case was
S2: heard in February of 2018, I was one of the
S2: leaders of the protest in front of the Capitol, and
S2: we were having a good old time with our signs
S2: and right next door, where the government unions and they
S2: were protesting, too. And the irony was we we all
S2: had the same size signs, rather workers rights were for
S2: the worker. Empower the worker. And eventually, as I write
S2: in the book, these women came over to try to
S2: infiltrate our protest and disrupt us. And I got to
S2: talking to him and I said, so what are you
S2: protesting for? And she said, workers rights. And I said,
S2: that's what we're protesting for. I said, let me ask you,
S2: you know, who do you think should control your relationship
S2: with your union, you or the union boss? And she
S2: kind of gave me that look like, oh, no, this
S2: is a trick question. But she goes, I think I should.
S2: I said, you should be over here with us. And
S2: she kind of walked away with her friend sheepishly. And
S2: I realized that that was the point, right? Who should
S2: control your destiny? We believe in the workers, and that's
S2: what that case was about. So we had a great
S2: coalition of people from the State Policy Network, the D.C.
S2: think tanks all around the country, the state think tanks,
S2: all publicizing this case for many, many months and frankly,
S2: years in advance of it. And that really helped, I think,
S2: give the justices the courage they needed.
S3: My old friend John Tillman will continue with us in
S3: just a moment. His new book is The Political Vice. First,
S3: take a moment now to make your plans for May 31st,
S3: June 1st or June 2nd, or maybe all three dates.
S3: That's when Hillsdale College's big screen debut is in theaters.
S3: It's Revolutionary America, the first documentary about the revolution you
S3: can trust from Hillsdale College, America's 250th anniversary is approaching,
S3: and you can find out more about what happened all
S3: those years ago with Revolutionary America. hillsdale.edu/film. FIL. Don't let
S3: the anniversary pass without seeing the film. That shows what
S3: our founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their
S3: sacred honors. Tickets available now for a limited run. Find
S3: a theater near you and find your tickets@hillsdale.edu. For Revolutionary America.
S3: Edu slash film. We continue with John Tillman, CEO of
S3: the American Culture Project. Find him on X John M Tillman.
S3: His book The Political Vice How the Radical Left Controls
S3: America and the Path to Regaining Our Liberty. John. Discussion
S3: about those different sides of the vice. One of them
S3: is the media. And there's portions of the right that
S3: would say, why ever go on CNN? Why ever talk
S3: to NBC? Why try to have an op ed placed
S3: in the New York Times? They're biased. They don't care
S3: about our voters. They're going to twist your message. There's
S3: an argument in the political vice that says, well, there's
S3: value to that for a couple of reasons. Why should
S3: the right conservatives still consider legacy media opportunities?
S2: It's a great question. And the point I make in
S2: the book is that the reason you want to go
S2: on the legacy players is there are persuadable, soft Democrats
S2: who are open to moving to our side, and that
S2: is the place where you can reach them. And if
S2: you come across as a reasonable communicator, you make a
S2: moral high ground argument about why our ideas are better
S2: for all people, and especially the poor and disadvantaged. You
S2: can move some of those people over. I would be cautious,
S2: for example, with a long form interview with the New
S2: York Times reporter who's going to do a print interview
S2: because they will twist your words. I prefer, in those
S2: cases to use email and or keep my own recording
S2: of it, but live or even taped events. I highly
S2: recommend people engage because you can win people over. And
S2: the other reason is that even if you don't get
S2: the greatest message out, you can edit yourself, edit it yourself,
S2: put it in the framework that you want, and then
S2: redistribute your version of that interview that's favorable to your argument,
S2: to the target audiences using digital tools. And you can
S2: target the very people I just described. You can just
S2: target soft lefties who are open minded on issues and
S2: would hear that message on CNN because they're hearing it
S2: on CNN. They see you on CNN. They'll give you
S2: a listen. Or as you did, the same exact verbiage
S2: on Fox News, that soft lefty Democrat won't give you
S2: a listen. And that's why you should take advantage of
S2: all types of media.
S3: Also inside that chapter is a portion on on cancel
S3: culture and how to resist cancel culture. And I found
S3: this very interesting, this advice that to, to, to, to
S3: beat back and to defeat cancel culture, you need the
S3: ability to deploy your own media. You call it a
S3: marketing machine, you help to build this inside Illinois Policy Institute,
S3: which is one of the reasons why the Janice fight
S3: was so successful. So for I don't know if it's
S3: possible for individuals, but for organizations or for those who
S3: might be in the crosshairs of cancel culture, what does
S3: it mean? And how can you deploy your own media
S3: to fight back against those allegations?
S2: Uh, we deployed what we call the continued use across
S2: all the organizations. I'm involved with what we call an
S2: owned audience strategy. So the strategy is twofold. One is
S2: you have content that you create, that you want to disseminate,
S2: and that content should be customized for the different audiences
S2: that you're after. So if you're after parents and suburban schools,
S2: that's one audience. If you're after African American men living
S2: in urban America who are fed up with the crazy
S2: progressive agenda, and they might be open to voting the
S2: other way, that's a different audience and so forth. So
S2: you first start with your message, but then there's a
S2: distribution strategy. And the distribution strategy, as we just talked
S2: about a moment ago, is taking advantage of third party
S2: channels such as legacy media. The other way to do
S2: it is to try to build a channels of communication
S2: that you largely control. And with an owned audience strategy,
S2: what you do is you use third party channels such
S2: as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, etc. and you put content
S2: out there that is compelling. And all of your listeners
S2: have certainly seen this, where they see something on one
S2: of the social media platforms, and there's a little button
S2: there that says, learn More. Well, we do the same
S2: thing in our issue, uh, ads on those platforms when
S2: you click Learn More, you're given the opportunity to provide
S2: your first name, last name, zip code, and email address.
S2: From that point on, that person has opted in to
S2: our content stream that we can now directly go to
S2: them with through email, and then we often get their
S2: cell phone number and can directly go to them with
S2: text messaging. And the key, of course, is to not
S2: abuse that privilege, but always to have interesting, compelling content
S2: that is given at a proper pace and proper cadence.
S2: That is where they're receptive to it. And then over time,
S2: with a really thoughtful strategy of messaging, you can develop
S2: a relationship with all those folks, educate them on various
S2: issues long before an election happens, and then when election
S2: time comes along, turn them out. So this is something
S2: that anybody can do at any scale. If you're a
S2: city council member, if you have just a very modest budget,
S2: it's not as expensive as you think to do this.
S2: If you're doing it in a statewide or national effort,
S2: you're going to have to spend a lot more money
S2: and have a material budget. But what I highly recommend
S2: is starting somewhere with a social media strategy. Thinking through
S2: your brand identity, whether you're an individual activist or whether
S2: you're running a small or mid-sized or even a large
S2: size nonprofit.
S3: John Tillman is with us, whose book, The Political Vice.
S3: How do we turn that vise toward liberty? Perhaps we
S3: look at another example of school choice and the fight
S3: for school choice in areas all across the country. It's
S3: one of the issues on which I think the right
S3: has been most successful over the past decade or so.
S3: What lessons can we learn from the successful campaigns for
S3: school choice and school options across the country that can
S3: be applied toward other issues of freedom and liberty?
S2: It's a great question. So briefly, there are three types
S2: of vices the political vice. There's the traditional one in
S2: which I described earlier. There's the one we're in the
S2: middle of, where the political left is trying to restructure
S2: the vice and put the American people in the middle
S2: of the vice, and then partnering with liberal media, liberal
S2: politicians and elite influencers of the left, force us to comply.
S2: They are really into coercion and submission. And the trial
S2: run of that, of course, was the pandemic. And they
S2: watched and saw how many people were much more worried
S2: about their security and were willing to submit to those
S2: pressures and start to comply with the government mandated behavior
S2: instead of those who really want to preserve their freedom.
S2: So we got a real experiment there. To answer your question,
S2: we have to create a liberty focused political advice. And
S2: what we have to do there is move the American
S2: people to the bottom of the vice, which is the
S2: leveraged position. Put the politicians back in the middle. And
S2: then through our work and how we follow people in
S2: media and which elite influencers we choose to follow, restructure
S2: the other two sides of the vice. There's a lot
S2: of really good work and great investing going on right now.
S2: On the media side, there's a great burgeoning media infrastructure
S2: that's been going on now for well over ten years
S2: that needs to continue and expand into popular entertainment, in
S2: my view. And then on the other side, we're watching
S2: right before our eyes, different elites being chosen. The election
S2: of President Trump is the choice of an elite, and
S2: all that he has done to put different people into
S2: the cabinet positions in the various agencies, the governors that
S2: were endorsed and supported when they started to reject the lockdowns.
S2: Governor DeSantis in Florida, um, all the governors that, you know,
S2: around the country, Governor Kemp in Georgia and elsewhere, who
S2: did right by the people and stopped the lockdowns. So
S2: we get to choose who the elites are by who
S2: we choose to follow. And we get to choose who
S2: the media, which media has power by, who we choose
S2: to pay and subscribe to. That's how we begin to
S2: put the liberty focus back into the political device and
S2: put the politicians under the pressure of the people once again,
S2: the way it should be.
S3: One additional hurdle that you identify inside the political device
S3: for the right is that we fracture often, more often
S3: than we unify. It seemed like the Trump 24 campaign
S3: was one instance in which that didn't happen. And that's
S3: how we ended up with people like RFK and Tulsi
S3: Gabbard and Lori Chavez Dreamer in the cabinet, because those
S3: those different portions of the voter base all came toward
S3: Donald Trump in 2024. So is that a singular event
S3: due to a singular candidate, or is there a lesson
S3: learned on the right?
S2: No, I think this is a this is a really
S2: important discussion point because I think we're in the middle,
S2: maybe not the middle. I forget exactly where I would
S2: or I haven't thought too much lately about where I'd
S2: say we are in this process that I'm about to describe,
S2: but I've been talking really since the advent of the
S2: Tea Party back in 2009, and I'll call the Tea
S2: Party area two era, 2009 to 2014. That that was
S2: the beginning, that the public became aware of a complete
S2: political restructuring. And the Trump candidacy that was publicly launched
S2: in 2015 picked up the reins of the now falling
S2: behind or, you know, sort of going dormant Tea Party movement,
S2: but took the energy that was still there, uh, had
S2: had gone dormant, dormant because of a lack of leadership.
S2: And he rebuilt it into what we now call Maga.
S2: And this movement is not about partisan politics. This movement,
S2: and the reason you got this coalition that you just described,
S2: which is across partisan divides, is because it's really a
S2: rejection of the duopoly in politics between Republicans and Democrats,
S2: of sort of a settled wisdom about how things should
S2: be run in America with this bipartisan consensus on big
S2: government ever expanding spending deficits and the insiders, the privileged,
S2: the the connected, always getting the the favoritism and average people,
S2: middle class people and even affluent people. And of course,
S2: the poor and disadvantaged always being left on the outside in.
S2: There's been great discontent for decades with the establishment of
S2: both parties. That's what the Tea Party was about. That's
S2: why Donald Trump got a lot of Bernie Sanders votes
S2: in 2016, because the Occupy Wall Street movement, which was
S2: part of the left during the Tea Party movement, there
S2: was a Venn diagram overlap with the grievances, such as
S2: corporate bailouts and corporate welfare by government. So the reason
S2: I think that this is going to continue is because
S2: those structural problems are going to continue. And people who
S2: think Maga is going to die when Donald Trump's presidency ends,
S2: I think, are sadly mistaken. There is a great awakening
S2: among the American people that is rejecting the bipartisan consensus
S2: since the end of World War Two era.
S3: John Tillman, one of my favorite portions of the political
S3: advice is when you begin talking about group identity politics. Wokeism.
S3: But this idea that you lay out the progressive left
S3: that insists that government institutions are responsible for providing their
S3: sense of purpose and fulfillment, and later that they are
S3: seducing the American people into a mindset of learned helplessness, dependency, grievance,
S3: and fear. Uh, these are, uh, these it is seductive, uh,
S3: when you hear those messages to believe them and believe
S3: the deck is stacked against you and there's nothing you
S3: can do to overcome. You need someone, something the government
S3: in this instance to come in and lend you a
S3: hand and help you out and punish someone else to
S3: help you rise. All right. What do we have in
S3: our in our weapons? What? What weapons do we have
S3: to fight against that kind of message?
S2: Yeah. You're talking about the fact that every human being, uh,
S2: experiences calamity in their lives. We all experience disappointments. We
S2: didn't get the job. We thought we should get the promotion.
S2: The girl married my neighbor instead of me. Whatever the
S2: case might be, we all we all suffer. And as
S2: a result of that, the American tradition has long been that. Geez,
S2: I'm so sorry that happened to you. And a little
S2: pat on the butt from your your parent or your
S2: your coach and get back out there, pick yourself up
S2: and go at it again. And we had to lift
S2: ourselves up and overcome that. The left's message is different. Now.
S2: Not only do you not get a pat on the butt,
S2: you actually get a pad that's patronizing on the head
S2: and saying, yes, it's so terrible. These awful things have
S2: happened to you, and you need to you need to
S2: marinate in your grievance. You need to marinate in your
S2: resentment of these terrible things and these specific people that
S2: cause this problem. And as a result of that, you
S2: need to come and join us in our political coalition
S2: because we are dedicated to alleviating and mitigating your grievances
S2: against the man. And the man is often a white,
S2: middle aged dude like me. I won't put you in
S2: that category. Uh, but, um, you're too young. But the, um,
S2: but the point is that they, they sell the idea
S2: that is very seductive, that every calamity that befalls you
S2: is not your fault. You're a victim. And as a
S2: result of that, you need to join with us. And
S2: you can be on the righteous side of history when
S2: we all come together to solve these problems and fix
S2: these problems for those that have been aggrieved by unjust society,
S2: and particularly a free enterprise system that is broken and
S2: doesn't work, founding principles that were never noble and don't work,
S2: and they particularly don't work for people of color. They
S2: particularly don't work for anybody that's different and unique. And
S2: that's why the Grievance coalition of identity politics is an
S2: ever expanding group? The only people left standing are basically
S2: white men who are not allowed in to the grievance
S2: coalition because they're the oppressors. I write in the book, Scott,
S2: as you probably remember, that one of the reasons young
S2: men are turning to faith more than ever is because
S2: I really believe it's because everywhere else they turn, they
S2: are seen as the villain, and they're looking for support
S2: and hope and redemption in a wonderful place, and I
S2: think that's actually a good thing. Our antidote to this,
S2: by the way, is what I just described about grievances.
S2: One side of the human condition that we all face,
S2: that the other side of the human condition, what we
S2: must gravitate to and sell is that human beings, by
S2: their nature, are builders. We, by our nature, our collaborators,
S2: we like to think of how we can make tomorrow
S2: better than today for ourselves, our families, our communities, our friends.
S2: And so we like to build. We are creative beasts.
S2: We're a gathering species. And when you look at the
S2: places in this world where that part of the human
S2: spirit is most unleashed, the greatest achievements have been created.
S2: And that, of course, is America and the American miracle.
S2: And that's what we have to focus on as the
S2: antidote to the grievance culture.
S3: John Tillman, the end of the political vice, lays out
S3: a grand strategy to help take back the vice and
S3: to take away power and control from the left. So again,
S3: how do we do that? What's the grand strategy behind
S3: taking back the turning the screws on that vice?
S2: Well, I'll try to summarize it briefly. Number one is
S2: we have to build more capacity to compete for the
S2: commanding heights of American cultural narratives. The late, great Andrew
S2: Breitbart popularized the idea that politics is downstream of culture.
S2: That's true. The point I'm always trying to make to
S2: everyone that's involved is that means we have to be
S2: at the headwaters of the river, engaging in competition for
S2: mindshare of the American people and thus the American cultural narrative.
S2: For example, in Virginia, the very narrow laws on the
S2: ballot measure that did the Democrat favor and gerrymander that
S2: battle was being fought months and months and months and
S2: months before the actual voting. And I was involved. One
S2: of my organizations was very involved in Virginia directly and indirectly.
S2: And the Democrats were on the ground long before the election, socializing,
S2: if you will, this idea and trying to get the
S2: yes votes and the only one very, very narrowly. Our
S2: side waits too long. We do not go in early.
S2: Our donor class and some to some degree, our consultancy
S2: class has a blind spot to perpetual investment and we
S2: have to get to those headwaters. So that's number one.
S2: Number two, we have to really build capacity in message
S2: creating messages. And it has to be done in a
S2: data driven way and tested relentlessly. One of the things
S2: that various teams I've been involved with over the years,
S2: we have capacity to do data analysis. We have a
S2: whole data science team at the marketing agency I co-founded,
S2: Ion Light, and we analyze constantly on a daily basis
S2: different segments of the audience that we're after. We slice
S2: and dice it into very fine pieces, and then we
S2: test different messages with them to see which one resonates
S2: and which one. You can test a proxy call to
S2: action in voting so that by the time we get
S2: to elections many months later, we have a pretty good
S2: feel for what's going to move voters to a call
S2: to action. Um, unfortunately, there's not enough people investing in
S2: that work between elections. We have to do more of that.
S2: The third thing we have to do when it comes
S2: to messaging is we have to take the moral high
S2: ground back. One of the things that Trump administration and
S2: all of its spokespeople have been particularly good at, and
S2: Marco Rubio is perhaps the best at it, is not
S2: accepting the premise, the narrative premise of the media and
S2: the left. They always reject it, and they pivot and
S2: reestablish a premise where we are on the moral high
S2: ground of the argument, and that is why they've been
S2: so effective in persuading. Despite the media onslaught of negativity.
S2: So taking the moral high ground back and all the
S2: arguments is important, and then we have to continue to
S2: invest in building distribution. We need distribution across the board.
S2: As I mentioned earlier, we have excellent investments going on
S2: in conservative media, but we've got to compete in podcasting,
S2: which we have good advantages there, but we have to
S2: keep doing that. A popular film and entertainment streamers and
S2: all the content that comes out of the streaming programs.
S2: Taylor Sheridan, the creator of Land Men and Yellowstone and
S2: the one I just started watching the Madison. I mean
S2: that if we could clone Taylor Sheridan, we would have
S2: some really good content because he is putting out content
S2: that is pro liberty and not just in a, in
S2: a perfunctory or, uh, pandering way at all. I mean,
S2: he is doing it in a challenging and interesting and
S2: compelling way. One of the problems, Scott, with content on
S2: the right is our creatives tend to want to beat
S2: people over the head with the message. And what we
S2: want to do is actually create compelling characters and compelling story,
S2: and the message is an underlying part of it and
S2: not the thing that you drive home in the face.
S3: Well, this is something that Illinois policy did and does
S3: so well. Um, is, is, is telling the story and
S3: not just using facts, figures and graphs, identifying people who
S3: will really be affected by the policy change and how
S3: their lives will be different and how it will affect
S3: the difference or affect the lives of people around you, friends, families,
S3: loved ones. Uh, the right has to get better at
S3: telling those stories and in that way, influencing voters minds
S3: and activities.
S2: The easiest way to think about how to do that,
S2: because it's not easy, and especially for people that come
S2: out of the policy side who are a little academic.
S2: It's very hard to think about how to do that.
S2: But here's the way I've taught people this over the years,
S2: is you want to tell the story about public policy
S2: at the point it intersects an individual's life. So, for example,
S2: high gas prices, when you want to talk about that,
S2: you don't talk about the fact that we need to
S2: expand fracking. We need to drill offshore, we need to
S2: open up Anwar and all the other places and all
S2: the national lands. That's that's the way policy people talk
S2: about it. So we need to talk about is, you know,
S2: I was at a gas station recently and I pulled up,
S2: pulled out my credit card and put it in there.
S2: I was going to fill up my tank. I can
S2: afford to fill up my tank. Every time a car
S2: pulls up on the other side of the pump, woman
S2: gets out. Her 20 ish year old son gets out
S2: and takes a few steps to go pre-pay, and he
S2: turns back and looked at her and said, mom, how much?
S2: And she stood there with stress and tension in her
S2: face and did some calculations in her head. She looked
S2: at him and said, let's do $20. That's why we
S2: need greater supply of natural resources to lower the cost
S2: for that woman. And that's what we want to tell.
S2: The story is at the gas pump.
S3: John Tillman is CEO of the American Culture project. You
S3: can find them on X as well. The brand new book,
S3: The Political Vice How the Radical Left Controls America and
S3: the Path to Regaining Our Liberty. John Tillman, thanks so
S3: much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
S2: Thanks for having me, Scott.
S3: Up next, Luke Foster from Hillsdale in DC tells us
S3: all about the spirit of a gentleman. I'm Scott Bertram.
S3: This is the radio free Hillsdale Hour. Welcome back to
S3: the radio free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Go ahead
S3: and follow us on Spotify at YouTube or Apple Podcasts.
S3: Never miss an episode of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.
S3: When you subscribe, we're joined by Doctor Luke Foster. He's
S3: assistant professor of government at Hillsdale College in Washington, D.C..
S3: Doctor foster, thanks for joining us.
S4: Thanks for having me. It's great to be here.
S3: Talking today about an essay you wrote over at Modern Age.
S3: People can find it there. It's called The Spirit of
S3: a gentleman. For those who haven't caught this piece, what
S3: do you mean by that? What do you mean by
S3: the spirit of a gentleman?
S4: Thank you. Um, so the the inspiration is a famous
S4: line from Edmund Burke and the reflections on the revolution
S4: in France, where he's trying to articulate what the sources
S4: of liberty, self-government in the Western world were and how
S4: they're threatened by the new revolutionary ideological tyranny coming out
S4: of France. Um, so he says, uh, everything good about
S4: our civilization is dependent for ages upon two principles and
S4: were the result of both combined combined. I mean, the
S4: the spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of religion.
S4: What I think he's trying to say there is we
S4: used to know how to civilize and gentle men literally. Right.
S4: The the harshness, the the aggressiveness, the even the cruelty
S4: of other human beings. And I think men specifically have
S4: to be refined and polished into something, um, that uses
S4: the raw materials, but is, is better and more finished
S4: than those raw materials. And if we don't have um, education,
S4: social practices, customs and institutions, political institutions that, that know
S4: how to do that gentling work, we really can only
S4: be governed by force and fear basically. So constitutional self-government
S4: and all the good things that go with that require
S4: this gentlemanly attitude and spirit. And part of why I
S4: wrote the piece is to say, this is not just
S4: a quaint argument from Burke, but is actually just a
S4: human principle, which our civilization has understood for a long time.
S4: And even when things are very disordered in the world,
S4: you can work to cultivate it in yourself, to foster
S4: in others, to, to create expectations, to behave this way.
S4: So it's a concrete good that we can seek as well.
S3: How would you how would you explain the way that
S3: people perhaps think about Gentlemanliness today? And how does that
S3: compare to what we've just explained?
S4: Yeah. So this is part of the problem is meaning
S4: of a word shift over time. And sometimes that's a
S4: neutral thing and sometimes things get lost. I think to
S4: the extent people think about gentlemanliness, typically in our in
S4: our society today, what we mean is holding doors for ladies,
S4: taking off your hat indoors, a sort of superficial derivation
S4: of maybe like mid-century classic Hollywood ethos. And there's all
S4: that stuff is good, right? All that stuff is part
S4: of Gentlemanliness, and it's in its true and fuller sense,
S4: but it's not, um, it's not essential to it. And
S4: there's a danger, I think, of superficial politeness, almost kind
S4: of prissiness being, uh, be becoming held in contempt, uh,
S4: and therefore getting dismissed. Right. So, um, what I'm trying
S4: to do is point people to the deeper philosophical sources.
S4: Much of the piece is really, you know, extended quotations
S4: from canonical thinkers. Yes. Burke. But also Aristotle, Cicero, um,
S4: John Henry Newman. I want, I want to put people
S4: in touch with the deeper tradition that I'm just riffing
S4: off of, uh, to show them where they can go
S4: to learn about this.
S3: Mhm. So, yeah, you trace this back to Aristotle, Cicero,
S3: this idea of the spirit of a gentleman as well.
S3: What what did they understand about human formation that perhaps
S3: we've we've forgotten a little.
S4: Right. So the core notion, along with this insight that aggression, strength,
S4: masculinity is in a way easy but manly. Refined, um,
S4: civilized habits are difficult. The other core principle they they
S4: share is the notion that nature needs to be perfected
S4: and fulfilled by what, what, what Burke calls art. Um,
S4: convention social practices, how we, how we live together. Um,
S4: so human beings are a strange kind of animal because we,
S4: we have a nature. The classical thinkers argue, we, we
S4: develop and flourish in certain characteristic ways that are given
S4: and not chosen. But at the same time, you know, we're,
S4: we're born, um, unable to walk, unable to, unable to
S4: talk minutes away from death without proper care. Right. So
S4: the human being, the human nature to be fulfilled requires
S4: an awful lot of work by other human beings. But
S4: that work isn't arbitrary as well. And so part of
S4: Gentlemanliness in this tradition thinks about what are the customs
S4: and and conventions that are build out what nature intends
S4: and what are, what are things that would thwart it.
S4: So eating with a, with a knife and fork is
S4: good and, and proper. And one way to, to make
S4: out our eating together, not just barbaric, but there are
S4: other possible ways, right. You could eat with chopsticks or
S4: there are even ways of eating with your hands, which
S4: are which are manually. Right. So culture doesn't necessarily culture
S4: is not arbitrary, but it's also quite flexible. And so
S4: different contexts are going to develop different rules, different practices. Um,
S4: and there's legitimate variation as well.
S3: So is the rejection of the gentleman really a deeper
S3: rejection of, of tradition and inheritance over the years?
S4: Yes. So in the piece, I kind of finger Russo
S4: for this. You could point to other people, but Rousseau
S4: in the 18th century is the the a very beautiful, articulate,
S4: poetic argument for saying, no, no. Our real nature is
S4: the raw, primitive thing down beneath. It's not it doesn't
S4: have anything to do with convention or society. And in fact,
S4: society should be suspect, because that's how his version of
S4: the fall is socialization. So this has a tendency to
S4: move people to think in terms of year zero, blank slate, start,
S4: start all over again in each generation. Um, we can
S4: undo all the sins and failings of our ancestors. We
S4: don't inherit anything from them necessarily. Um, and that unfortunately
S4: means a lot of, a lot of gentlemanly codes become
S4: unintelligible because they require generations and even sometimes centuries of
S4: practice to build up.
S3: So in this piece over at modern age called the
S3: spirit of a gentleman, we talked with Luke Foster here
S3: on the program. You describe the gentleman as someone who
S3: recognizes unearned advantages but responds with magnanimity rather than guilt.
S3: Why is that distinction so important?
S4: Right. So I think this brings us to one of
S4: the most important things about this argument today. In a way,
S4: what you have from the left, the very powerful kind
S4: of philosophical, poetic move on the left is to say
S4: any hierarchy, any inequality, is necessarily oppressive and well, at
S4: the very least, suspect. Right? Maybe it can be dealt with,
S4: but it's a problem. Um, and so this means that, um,
S4: of course things like family name and inherited wealth, we know,
S4: fall in this category, but increasingly things like, um, someone's race,
S4: someone's sex, um, you know, even even increasingly, right. Citizenship,
S4: the very idea of being born an American citizen, which
S4: is not open to everybody in the world. All these
S4: things are problematic because, because they're unearned, right? They're not
S4: directly the products of our own labor. And there's a
S4: certain kind of, I think, shallow response on the right
S4: which plays into the hands of this right, which says, well,
S4: I'm just defending merit. I'm defending earned success. But the
S4: reality is that if we are as if human beings
S4: are natural and artifactual in this complicated combined way that
S4: the classics, the classic thinkers articulate, there's going to be
S4: a lot of things, um, we have which are good
S4: and we value that we haven't created for ourselves, going
S4: all the way down to our nature ultimately, which is
S4: a gift of God. We can't, we can't make that happen.
S4: So they're basically, you know, the response on offer today
S4: from the left is guilt tripping, right? And, and that,
S4: you know, we know about how this gets, you know,
S4: our public arguments about reparations or about structural injustice. But
S4: on a personal level, I think what this leads down
S4: to a lot of people feel guilty and ashamed about
S4: their advantages in life. And my argument is to say
S4: I'm very worried about people who want to respond to that.
S4: Also by just saying, yeah, let the let the great
S4: do what they will and the weak suffer what they must, right?
S4: Just to kind of doubling down on, you know, sort
S4: of Nietzsche and spirit power, um, domination, success, as if
S4: that's all there is to, to, to the moral life.
S4: And I'm trying to say gentlemanliness is part of actually
S4: the missing piece there, which is you can be great
S4: and magnanimous. You can use your greatness in a way
S4: that's gentlemanly, generous, and builds up others. And this is
S4: core to the gentleman's understanding, right? His, his gifts and
S4: his powers are not for himself alone, but are actually to, uh,
S4: make for a richer, more beautiful, more enjoyable social and
S4: political life for everyone. Um, so in a certain way,
S4: the most gentlemanly thing to do is to actually is
S4: to raise others up to your level. If you genuinely
S4: are better and greater than others, right? And this, I think,
S4: was the attitude of, of our of our founders. This
S4: was the attitude of this is, in a way, the
S4: attitude of God himself, right? Who's who, who comes down
S4: to us, but in the process raises us up. Mhm. Um,
S4: so it actually has very, very rich philosophical resources, but
S4: practical resources to think this way as well.
S3: All right. Let's get to that, which is how can
S3: we revive this spirit of gentlemanliness in this day and age?
S3: What does it look like in practice? And perhaps are
S3: there figures from your historical overview who might be beneficial
S3: for the challenges we face in our time?
S4: Thank you. Um, this is yeah, something that's dear to
S4: me and, and genuinely difficult, right? In the historical overview, um,
S4: one of the people I talk about I is, is
S4: John Henry Newman who wrote this wonderful book, the idea
S4: of University in the middle of 19th century. And Newman
S4: was worried that, you know, because he's a he's a
S4: Victorian Englishman. Uh, he's worried that gentleness is in the
S4: process of decaying because it's disconnected from what Burke called
S4: the spirit of, of, of religion. Right. Gentleman is just
S4: becoming mere social convention, mere mere niceness, mere politeness. Um,
S4: you know, he says, he says it's almost the definition
S4: of a gentleman to make all feel at home, to
S4: never give offense. But when there are real evils or
S4: errors being promoted in society, you need people to not
S4: just go along to get along, but you need people
S4: to actually stand up and object and argue back. And so, um,
S4: I think Newman's warning is really salient, right? If we
S4: try to revive Gentlemanliness, it can't just be mere conformity
S4: because that would get to that would get us to
S4: acquiescing with the Di regime, with, uh, giving your pronouns
S4: before every, every board meeting, right? It can be corrupted
S4: very easily. So I think it has to start with
S4: with religion, with philosophy, right? With higher transcendent standards of
S4: justice and goodness that aren't just mere convention. Right? But
S4: then we have to work out, you know, in our
S4: particular day and age, what are the forms these things
S4: should take? You know, I think one really important area
S4: today is social media and electronics in general, right? We
S4: probably should shame people more in more social settings, right,
S4: for being glued to their phones. Right. It ought to
S4: be normal in a nice restaurant that you put your
S4: phone away. It ought to be normal. Thankfully, in a
S4: Hillsdale classroom, it is normal that you that you put
S4: your phone away in class, right? Yes. Not everywhere. Right.
S4: Some institutions are struggling with the kind of the selfie narcissism,
S4: narcissistic age intruding on everything. Um, and we have to
S4: fight that. But I also think especially, you know, in
S4: a context like Hillsdale, we can teach these virtues explicitly.
S4: We can exhort people to see why they matter, to
S4: think about their positional duties based on where they are
S4: in a, in an institutional hierarchy and how they can best,
S4: how they can best reflect their their rights and duties.
S4: I mean, I'll give you a little example from the
S4: from the office, right. There are certain privileges that faculty
S4: have that are different from, from staff privileges, right? Like
S4: we have better parking. I think it's really important, therefore,
S4: that I don't leave my dirty dishes in the sink,
S4: but I wash them up after myself because if I
S4: don't do that, it means de facto, I'm assuming somebody
S4: from the staff has to do.
S3: It.
S4: Right there. That principle should percolate into all our social
S4: interactions of the more we have privilege, the more responsible
S4: we are. And that's the core of the ethos.
S3: Luke Foster has piece at modern age the spirit of
S3: a gentleman. One final question. Is there a female equivalent
S3: to this ideal, or is the spirit of a gentleman
S3: pointing to something that is specifically masculine?
S4: Excellent and difficult question. Um, which I in the piece
S4: I mostly speak to young men because that's the, that's
S4: the experience. That's the context I know best. So I
S4: think unfortunately, it's a slightly complicated answer, but let me,
S4: let me try to take it on two levels. A
S4: large part of this gentleman, the ethos is just, um.
S4: What the conduct of a noble person. Right. That's how
S4: the classic authors think of it. Aristotle, Cicero, primarily they're
S4: saying this is what it is for virtuous human being
S4: to be like. And you even have equivalents in the
S4: Confucian tradition, like the Junzi in East Asia is, is
S4: really meant to be the excellent virtuous person of both sexes. However,
S4: I think there are. two things which make it gender
S4: to an extent. One is one, as I mentioned, aggression. Warfare, right.
S4: Men need to be gentled as part of their civilizing
S4: socializing process in a way that women do not as much.
S3: Mhm.
S4: Um, so that does mean historically there is an emphasis
S4: on um, self restraint on, on learning how to value
S4: persuasion and friendship rather than force and fear. Uh, for
S4: men particularly. And then I think there's another layer, which
S4: is the, the Christian Middle Ages with the codes of
S4: chivalry and the poetry around chivalry, um, make many of
S4: the things of the gentlemanly duties specifically have to do
S4: with his treatment of ladies. Right. So the superficial courtesies
S4: I talked about earlier are, you know, holding doors, taking
S4: off hats. Those are remnants of, of, of that code,
S4: which is just distinctively Christian because the assumption is you're,
S4: you're trying to civilize people into the marriage of free
S4: and equal spouses who can, who can commit freely to
S4: each other for life. Um, so there's a much actually
S4: higher view of womanhood and therefore of what a man
S4: has to do to become worthy of a woman to
S4: win her. Um, so that's where again, there's, there's specific,
S4: I think different duties for, for each sex, but, but
S4: it's called lady likeness for, for women and there are
S4: concomitant duties, I think of, you know, knowing, uh, one
S4: of the great sources on this is, is Jane Austen, right?
S4: How does a woman discern, well, when a man is
S4: worthy of her trust, how does she learn to inspire
S4: and motivate the best in him without making him feel
S4: mothered or stifled? Right. These are really rich and complicated
S4: themes of wisdom and tradition, which, if we cut ourselves
S4: off from them, I you know, I think it's not
S4: surprising that young men and women are increasingly having a
S4: really hard time forming couples and forming families. Um, because
S4: because the internet alone won't civilize you.
S3: Doctor Luke Foster is assistant professor of government at Hillsdale
S3: College in Washington, D.C. you can read his piece at
S3: Modern Age. It's the spirit of a gentleman. Doctor foster,
S3: thanks so much for joining us here on the Radio
S3: Free Hillsdale Hour.
S4: Thanks for having me. It's a real honor.
S3: That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free
S3: Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to John Tillman, his book, The
S3: Political Vise, and Luke Foster from Hillsdale in D.C. remember,
S3: you can hear new episodes every week on this station.
S3: You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews,
S3: or listen any time to the podcast, podcast.hillsdale.edu, or wherever
S3: you get your audio. Until next week. I'm Scott Bertram,
S3: and this has been the radio free Hillsdale Hour.