On this week’s episode, editor of National Review Charles Cooke joins the podcast to cover all the major topics: Biden’s VP pick, the pandemic, cancel culture, the state of conservatism, and guns.
Charles C. W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online and a graduate of the University of Oxford His work has focuses especially on Anglo-American history, British liberty, free speech, the Second Amendment, and American exceptionalism. He is the co-host of the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast, and is a regular guest on HBO’s (Real Time with Bill Maher). He has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times.
Transcript
Beverly:
And welcome to She Thinks, a podcast where you’re allowed to think for yourself. I’m your host, Beverly Hallberg. And on this episode, we delve into the topics of the day. Everything from Biden’s VP pick, to the pandemic, the cancel culture wars, the state of conservatism, and yes, even guns. So it’s really a smorgasbord with one of my favorite writers, Charles Cooke. Charles C.W. Cooke is the editor of National Review Online and a graduate of the University of Oxford. His work has focused, especially on Anglo American history, British Liberty, free speech, the second amendment and American exceptionalism. He is the cohost of The Mad Dogs, An Englishman podcast. And is a regular guest on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. Charles, it is a pleasure to have you on, She Thinks, today.
Charles:
Thank you so much for having me.
Beverly:
And there’s so much to get into. I want to start with politics, because of course we had a major announcement on Tuesday of this week and that is we have a VP pick for the democratic ticket. That is Kamala Harris is Biden’s VP pick. As a woman myself, I’m already getting all the messages on Twitter and on social media saying that because I’m a woman, I should be thrilled about this pick. I’m curious from your perspective, do you find that women typically vote for female candidates?
Charles:
Well, I can only speak from my experience, or rather the experience of those around me. Most obviously my wife, who doesn’t. She doesn’t vote against them, but she’s an issues voter and always has been. And is not remotely swayed by that. And I must say, actually finds it somewhat annoying to be encouraged to vote according to her immutable characteristics, which she didn’t choose. And that don’t have too much bearing on the future of the country.
Beverly:
And I am actually in the same camp as your wife. As I was annoyed during the 2016 election where people just automatically assumed because I was a female, I was voting for Hillary Clinton. I am in that camp as well. But I want to get into some of just the specifics about this pic itself with Kamala Harris. What I find most interesting is that we have a party, the Democrat Party, which has been beating the drum of defunding the police for the past few months. Yet, Kamala Harris is a former cop or a former prosecutor. So do you find that ironic?
Charles:
I think it’s actually a testament to the strangeness of our political moment. And in some ways to the incoherence of the political coalitions before us. And if you had said to me three months ago, the outcome of all of this angst, some of which has been manifested in the form of peaceful protest and some of which has not. The outcome will be the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, being the guy who wrote and shepherded the 1994 crime bill. And the vice presidential nominee, being the Senator from California, formally the Attorney General of California, who is known in progressive circles as a cop.
As somebody who has little respect for civil liberties. I would have thought that was peculiar. And then if you had told me that really the one achievement beyond the tax cut that the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, can point to in his four years is criminal justice reform as endorsed by Kanye West and Kim Kardashian. I would’ve thought that was even stranger, but that is where we find ourselves. It’s going to be slightly odd watching this election and trying to determine how what’s happened this summer should be filtered through the messages of the two political parties, because it doesn’t really add up in the way that it used to.
Beverly:
And of course, there’s a lot of polling about where we are politically. But I find that it’s obviously with the coronavirus has been such a strange year. I think we’re at roughly 80 days until the election. Yet, 80 days seems like such a long time. And that a lot can happen in those 80 days. What do you think could be some really important moments? I know the debates stand out to me as really important, but a lot can happen with the economy between now and then, including even whether or not kids go back to school. Is this just an odd year, an odd election year, in that 80 days a lot can happen within that timeframe?
Charles:
Yeah, it’s an extremely odd year. And we have lacked many of the way points that mark out election years, including the conventions. But I think that the race is going to narrow as it starts. It hasn’t really started in earnest. And the reason for that is that at the moment, Donald Trump is a known quantity. For better or for worse, he is a known quantity. He was before he ran for president, arguably the most famous man in the world. And now he’s certainly the most famous man in the world. Nobody in America is going to tune in to this election and learn something new about this president. Nobody is going to find parts of his personality that annoy them and be shocked by it. Nobody is going to discover virtues that he possesses and be thrilled by them. He is a known quantity. And in some sense, that means that he really only has movement in the upward direction to look forward to. Because the economy is probably going to get better.
I doubt coronavirus is going to get worse. And if we’re doing clinical trials in October, or if by some miracle there’s a vaccine, then he’s going to look a little better. Now, that’s not to say he’s going to win. But Joe Biden it seems has the opposite problem. Joe Biden has won the nomination largely because he’s not Bernie Sanders. And he is winning this presidential election, if the polls are to be believed, because he is not Donald Trump. And for sensible reasons, the coronavirus is a real thing. The pandemic has had massive implications. He has stayed quiet and stayed at home. In fact, he’s not even going to the democratic convention. That’s how locked down he’s been. But he will not be able to stay in that state forever. Even if he chooses not to get particularly involved in campaigning. The issues that this election is going to revolve around are going to come to the fore, even if that’s just through television ads, even if it’s just through radio ads, even if it’s just through surrogates arguing. And then yes, there will be the debate.
And when that happens, I think a lot of people are going to remember, this is an actual political election. This is a discussion as to who will be running the executive branch. It’s not an abstract judgment on this president. And at that point I expect things to tighten. So I think that the big moments, yeah, the debates will be among them. But the big moments are going to be economic news, whether the coronavirus continues to improve. But beyond that, when we actually start arguing over concrete things. Over judges, over tax policy, over health care policy, over the second amendment, over free speech. These are real issues people care about. And at the moment they’ve sort of been pushed to the side, but that can’t last until the election, even if the campaign is more muted than usual.
Beverly:
And it makes me wonder how big the school issue is. We have a major battle right now among teachers unions who want to avoid opening schools. You then have parents who are taking matters into their own hands, even forming pods, and then being ridiculed for it. Even claim saying that that’s racist and proves that there’s inequality in education that parents want to do this. How much do you think that the school aspect is going to play a role in the election?
Charles:
Yeah. Education cuts down some odd lines in our politics too. For example, I live in Florida. The reason that Ron DeSantis is governor of Florida and not Andrew Gillum is school choice. If you look at the polling, Ron DeSantis won around 20% of African American women, that’s high for a Republican. And he won the election by a quarter of a percent. They made the difference. And he ran on improving schools for African American kids, predominantly with charter schools and with school of choice. The media, because it comes from a middle class perspective, a lot of the time, has spent most of the debate over school reopening looking at suburban families.
And there is obviously some anger here, because people move into neighborhoods, and pay high property taxes to get good schools and they’re not getting them. But I think both those voters tend to be more predictable in their voting habits. What would be really interesting is to see whether there is some pushback, I don’t know in which direction, but whether there is some pushback on education from underrepresented voters and underprivileged voters, who are not happy with the school system as it exists. And who are the ones who are going to suffer the most from this, because they can’t set up pods and they may not have the resources to hire a tutor or what you will.
And conservatives have a lot to offer on this. A lot to say. It’s not just talking about teacher’s unions. It’s about talking about flexibility and the way in which the education system is really not always set up to benefit children. And I just wonder if that might become a sleeper issue during this election, far beyond the usual suburban world on which the media fixates.
Beverly:
I think so too, just because it’s been so disruptive, our education system due to the coronavirus. And I want to kind of go back to what you were saying about the economy, of course, education fits into the economy. But there’s always this idea and this notion that it’s about the economy stupid, and that’s true. How much do you think that the economy is going to factor into this election from this standpoint? And the standpoint is that people do not blame President Trump or any elected official for the fact that coronavirus is here. Now, they’re going to judge them based on how they responded to it. But we have seen a major, major impact on our own economy for a reason that people wouldn’t put on the president. How much does it factor in that they don’t think he’s the cause? But also how much does it factor in how they think he’s approached it?
Charles:
Yeah. If we imagine a nation that had somehow been immune to coronavirus, we can imagine a nation in which Donald Trump is in a fairly commanding position at this point. The economy prior to coronavirus was doing extremely well. And voters gave a lot of the credit to the president. Now, I’m not sure they should, in that I think we overestimated voters, the role that the government, and particularly the executive branch plays in economic growth. It’s policy that determines that, if anything, and policy has not particularly changed. But Trump was getting great marks on this. And he still is. He’s still trusted on the economy far more than Joe Biden, which means that the election insofar as it relates to the economy, is going to come down to dueling narratives. One candidate, Joe Biden, is going to say, “Sure, the economy was good.”
Although, he will credit Barack Obama. The economy was good. But then we were faced by this pandemic, which is not President Trump’s fault. And President Trump bungled it, completely bungled it. And as a result, we have 11% unemployment, millions out of work, a disaster. And President Trump’s going to say, “No, I did a great job in resuscitating this economy. It was booming because of my expertise. Coronavirus came along. It was other people who were more diffusive in their desire to shut down. I went along with it, because I’m responsible. And now it is time to reopen the economy. And you’re going to need someone like me to be doing that because I’ve proven I can do it. And you already trust me. You don’t want to go back to Joe Biden.” But those are the two narratives that you’re going to see.
And to be honest with you, I think the one that wins out is out of the control of both President Trump and Joe Biden. I think if we do see continued economic growth, and if the coronavirus pandemic continues to decline, then people are going to relax a little bit. And I think the idea is that president Trump is the right person to restore the economy to where it was, is going to look attractive. And Joe Biden’s down beat message is going to look somewhat odd. But if we now stagnate, which is the risk, if we now stagnate around here, then it is possible people are going to want change.
It’s not just the economics, of course, it’s an odd time to live in the world. So I don’t know. I do think that this is the one area where Trump has a distinct advantage. And as I said, it seems to me that whether it gets him to reelection or not, the news for him is all up. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that we’re going to see an economic downturn. So he’d better be hoping the numbers are big.
Beverly:
And something that you’ve written a lot about. And I think it plays into this year and how we’ve seen the media cover so many stories. And we’ve seen how people have interacted, especially on social media, is the culture war and the cancel culture environment that we find ourselves in. First of all, explain to us what you think about the cancel culture. You’ve written a lot about this, and how you think that could factor into an election.
Charles:
Yeah, I think it’s a disaster. I think it’s a disastrous development. In legal terms, the first amendment has probably never been better protected in all of American history. It was only a few years between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Throughout the 19th century, slave owners and segregationists suppressed speech almost at will in parts of the country. Woodrow Wilson presided over some of the most egregious violations. And all of these were upheld by the Supreme Court or were never heard. And we now have a Supreme Court that throws out censorship, eight to one, nine to nothing. It didn’t even past exam at the legal level. This is a great development. Unfortunately, at the same time, we seem to have developed this cultural aversion to freedom of expression and to eccentricity. Anyone who’s different, who descends, is suspected. And worse, they’re thrown out of their job and cast out of society. If you think about what the word canceled means, I mean, it’s a horrible, horrible thing to say about a human being.
I think it’s a disastrous development, and I think it’s particularly disastrous that it is the most rampant in the two places you would expect to be the most inviting for dissenters and debaters. College campuses and newspaper editorial pages. So we’ve got a dichotomy, we have a legal regime that is freer than it’s ever been. And by far and away the freest in the world. And a cultural regime that is becoming more and more censorious, less and less tolerant. And the underpinning of that is the idea that we can know for sure what is true and what is not, and what is right and what is wrong. If you read the cancelers, you will see that they believe themselves to be in possession of the truth. And they think that free speech and a culture of free expression is a loophole that allows people who are wrong, or who are stupid, to say wrong things, or to waste their time arguing.
And I think that any reasonable and humble culture should reject that. We have to argue with each other to find out what is true and what is not. And eventually to reach compromise. I’m very worried about it. In terms of the election, I think there is a degree to which one of the reasons that President Trump won in 2016 was that there are a lot of people out there who are aware of the cultural power that progressivism wields in the media, and academia, and Hollywood, and increasingly in the corporate world. And who don’t want to hand over everything to those people. They don’t want them to run the government as well. I think that that’s one reason that Trump won. And if he does win again, this will probably be a part of it, because there is a feeling in the country at large that the people who mean well and simply want to engage in the debate are being steamrolled by more powerful forces than themselves.
Beverly:
And I think the cancel culture is something that sticks out in people’s minds, even during a time like a pandemic. I read a study recently, I think it was a Rasmussen poll that said that 60% of people in this country are afraid to speak out on what they think, regardless of what their political ideology is, because people are afraid of being canceled. So I think that does play a role in 2020. And as far as your employer, so you work for a publication that was never Trump in 2016. I’m curious what you think of Trump or what your employer thinks of Trump these days, as far as the conservative movement? Is the conservative movement just very different than what it was years ago, or would you say his rhetoric may not always line up with what we want, but in many ways he has governed like a conservative? Or where is National Review on Trump these days and how they plan to endorse or not endorse a candidate for 2020?
Charles:
Sure. Well, this will sound like a nitpick, but we were actually… We ran a piece editorial against Trump. And we were against Trump in the primary. The never Trump label was something that we developed somewhere else. And I wrote this at the time. I was never quite sure what never Trump meant. I mean, if the argument was well, he shouldn’t become president. That’s fine. A lot of people thought that. I can’t speak for National Review as a whole, because we have a diverse group of writers who disagree with each other profoundly on a number of questions. But the never Trump thing, as I wrote in 2016, it always struck me as a little bit odd, especially once he’d won. What do you mean, never Trump? He’s going to be the president.
Beverly:
Right.
Charles:
He is the president. We were against him in the primaries. We thought he was a bad choice. And then after that, we diverged. Some people said, “Well, he’s the candidate. He’s better than Hillary Clinton. I’ll vote for him.” Some people said, “I’m not voting for him.” Most people, I think, voted for neither. And here we are. So what do I think of him? Well, I think that he has done a lot of conservative things and many conservative things that I thought were unlikely to come to fruition at the time. He has been exceptional on judges, along with Mitch McConnell, and the guidance of the Federalist Society.
He has cut taxes rather than raise them. He’s been good on the second amendment. He’s been poor on spending, that shouldn’t be a surprise. He ran opposing spending cuts. He’s not an economic conservative in that area. He’s against reforming social security. He’s against reforming Medicare. That’s disappointing. Disappointing for Republicans to have the Senate, the House and the executive branch, as they did in 2016. After 2016, and to do very little with it. But I suppose the argument would run well. Okay. But what would have happened if the Democrats had been in charge? So I think it’s a mixed record. He has been less… What’s the word? He’s been less iconoclastic when I thought he might be. In a sense he has governed much as other Republican presidents do.
His character is appalling. He has no self-control whatsoever. He has not adjusted himself to his office. He doesn’t seem to be aware that he’s walking in the same halls as did Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. And that he holds the same office as George Washington. And it’s not just his bad tweeting. It is reflective of a lack of seriousness and an unfitness that I think is real. He’s a mixed bag, but he is the president. And the job of a magazine, I think, has got to be to react to him as he is. And I think we’ve done a good job of it. We have been coruscating in our criticism when we feel that he deserves it. And we’ve supported him when we thought he was right.
One of the silliest things that I’ve heard over and over again, it hasn’t just been directed at National Review, but it’s been directed at say, Susan Collins, deeply unfairly. Is that if Susan Collins were really upset with the president when he does something silly, then she would vote against judges that she supports or tax policy that she supports. Well, why?
Beverly:
Right.
Charles:
Why would anyone in their right mind do that? Why? If you think that education reform, it’s going to help poor children, you don’t vote against it because you dislike the president. That would have been a very silly thing to do under Obama. And it would be just as silly, I think, to do under Trump. And for a magazine that is driven by an agenda and not by personalities, we have been engaged in the same game we’re always engaged in, which is trying to convince others, including the president, that our agenda is right. And happily a lot of the time he’s lined up with us. And when he hasn’t, we’ve said so. And when his character has been a considerable problem, we’ve said so as well.
Beverly:
I think something that’s been deeply unsettling during the past year or two is especially during the cancel culture is we are often presented with binaries. You either love someone or you hate them. Or you’re for something or you’re against it. Whether it’s the police, whether it’s for protest versus the riots. And I think the same thing of course has happened with Trump. It’s people put you in this camp of you either have to love him or hate him. And there’s so much complexity, and nuance and middle ground. And like you said, it’s about policies. And let’s debate the policies and not just the personality.
And I want to round out today with a policy issue. One that you’ve talked about quite a bit. An issue that I think has been a silver lining through this very hard time of the global pandemic. And that is, it seems that the second amendment is doing quite well. Meaning, people are buying guns at a dramatic increase than we’ve ever seen before. I’m one of those. I’m a first time gun owner, gun buyer, purchaser in the past couple months, because I live in an area that’s not as safe as it used to be. Where is gun control these days? And are you encouraged by people buying guns and realizing they do have the right to protect themselves?
Charles:
I am encouraged. I, of course, would not want any rioting or lawbreaking, but we live in a world in which we’re going to see criminal behavior. And we’re going to see aggressive behavior. We always have. If you look back to the first codifications of the right to bear arms, they were 14-1,500 years ago, at least in the modern world. And the Emperor Justinian. And human nature has not changed since that time. The right to bear arms is really an auxiliary right. The real right is the right of self-defense. And the argument is that you often need help in defending your own life. It’s not much use having the right to self-defense, if any tool you might use to defend yourself is prohibited. And it’s especially of little use if you’re say small. Essentially a right to self-defense without a right to bear arms is a right for the strongest among us to ride roughshod over everyone else.
And the riots, unfortunate as they are, have provided us with a great example of why that right is encoded in the United States constitution. Because the police cannot be everywhere at once. And you have an absolute right to protect yourself in the absence of others help. And in some cases, the police have actually declined to intervene. Which, okay, they’re an auxiliary force. That’s the decision. But again, that’s not much comfort to the people who are left in peril. I think what has happened is the combination of coronavirus and the rioting has led people to realize, look, I have to take responsibility for my own safety here. Sure, it would be nice if I didn’t. It would be nice if we didn’t live in a world that presents dangers.
It would be nice if all men were angels, but they’re not. And if you look at the people who have bought firearms, it’s really not the stereotype that you see in anti-gun publications of white southern men. It’s all sorts. You just said you’re a first time gun owner. You’re not a white man. But minorities as well.
Beverly:
I’m not.
Charles:
But minorities have been buying guns. It’s a human right. It’s not surprising to see everyone responding in this way. And I’m just grateful that we live in a country in which that right has been protected. That it is not contingent upon the acquiescence of the government or those who are noble, I’m sure, but obliged to protect us, but can’t be everywhere at once.
Beverly:
And if I could slip in one more question. You’re talking about America and the rights that we have here. People can pick up on your accent and know that it’s not an American accent. You were born in England. And you are an American citizen. Are you still glad you made the switch to come across the Atlantic to live in Florida and be an American? Are you still a proud American?
Charles:
Very much so. I became an American two and a half years ago. And it was a moment that I had looked forward to my entire life. I first came to the United States when I was three on holiday, vacation. And when I got back, I said, I want to go and live there. And I was a kid, so I think everyone said, “Yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure.” But I always did, right from that minute I wanted to be here. And no, there’s no regret. I’m just pleased you all agreed to have me.
Beverly:
Yes. We’re glad to have you. And one final question. Do your children have an English accent or is it a straight American accent?
Charles:
Nope.
Beverly:
They’ve assimilated?
Charles:
American accent. And in fact, my four-year-old tells me constantly that I say all of the words wrong. Which I suppose I do.
Beverly:
Well, we so appreciate you coming on and sharing all of your thoughts on what’s going on in the world. I really appreciate your writing. I feel like it’s always sober, and fair and focused on policy. Thank you for all your work and also for joining us on She thinks, today.
Charles:
Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure.
Beverly:
And thank you for joining us. If you like what you’re hearing on, She Thinks, then you won’t want to miss out on the latest news from Independent Women’s Forum. Sign up for mobile insight alerts and email updates by going to iwf.org. Last, if you enjoy this episode of She Thinks, do leave us a review on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts, it does help. And we’d love it if you shared this episode. And let your friends know where they can find more She Thinks conversations. From all of us here at Independent Women’s Forum, thanks for listening.