Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone.
And the libertarian Institute today.
I am joined by Bob Spenser. He is a social studies teacher,
national teacher Hall of Fame class of 2020 to mr.
Fenster. Thank you so much for your time.
Thanks so much for having me. Keith.
Why is history important? That's the big question for day.
One. Pretty much of most most social
studies teachers classes and it was the question that in some
ways. I used to ask my, my mother when
I would come home frustrated, why we had to learn about
ancient Mesopotamia, but there's yeah, we can go to George.
Santa Anna's famous line about those who do not remember their
history are condemned to repeat, it learning about the mistakes
of history is Really important. I don't really buy the fact that
you know, history doesn't really repeat itself.
But if we don't actually look at the lessons of History, then we
can repeat aspects of it. So for me, that's the most
important piece of it and making decisions about public policy
and where we should go moving forward.
That should all be informed by our history.
What differentiates a good historian from a bad historian.
Well, first of all, of course, everything Should be rooted in
facts and evidence. Unfortunately, well, I'll tell
you a little something that I don't always I don't always
share with people and I briefly thought about being a historian
myself, but my problem was figuring out, what, what
original thing I could bring to the table.
When I would do, when I was doing research on South Africa,
South African apartheid, and the history of the, in the 20th
century. I wrote a 50-page Paper.
And my professor came back to me and said, okay, you've
summarized all of the information that you found in
mostly secondary sources. What's the new thing?
What are you, what are you going to add?
And I think the important thing for a good historian to be able
to do is is offer interpretation that is rooted in facts and
rooted in the evidence that they can provide.
But one thing that we need to Absolutely.
I need to absolutely stress is that history is always going to
be open to interpretation. And there's I would argue that
there's there's like a spectrum of acceptable interpretation
where you can say, okay? That's rooted deeply that's
that's in trench to enough in the facts to provide that spin
or that that take on it as opposed to the reinvention and
appropriation of history for political.
Says, which happens, I would say, all over the, the
multi-dimensional political Spectrum.
What is the difference between history and social studies?
Social studies encompasses a variety of fields, besides
history, political science, economics, sociology psychology,
all of all in and more history is more.
The focus. Of course what happened and how
we interpret, what happens? When it comes to finding
accurate sources, of course, we might all agree that it's
important to find accurate sources, but not agree on what
sources are accurate. How can we determine whether or
not a source is accurate? One of the, I think pushes in
recent pedagogy for educators, has been to do more with primary
sources. Now, of course that can't be the
solution and the direct answer to your question, because we
know that primary sources themselves are not always going
to be reliable, particularly when it comes to people's
journals. And you know what their their
memory of what happened? Maybe Shaped in a particular
direction or not, but there are some things.
There are some primary sources which are really going to be
there almost, wouldn't be in a reason to lie to fake when the
statistical data, you know, the census that sort of thing.
Of course, there can be a range of, you know, a margin of error
I suppose in data collection, but when we can, when we start,
they are, when we start with looking at the actual
documentation, we have and look. Looking at what people at the in
the time period said about it. Everything does have to be
considered through a particular filter.
I mean, I think students have the hardest time.
Many students have a really difficult time with social
studies or with history and particular because unlike
science and math where there is a correct answer to a but you
know, it's you know, it's binary.
It's always going to be somewhat difficult but getting back to
your question. I think there's there's a Not
that we have to do. And whether we're talking about
history or even current events to vet the sources that we use.
There's there's a lot of things that we have to consider about
credibility and it's it's not easy.
Sometimes we are going to rely on short, you know, we don't all
have the time to vet every single source.
So you rely on on things like the publisher or the the audio
of the actual author. Those are the shortcuts that
everybody's going to have to take and And ultimately, I mean,
I would also say that normally the normal approach would be to
say, well, if if most of the sources are saying something,
then that's probably true. Unfortunately that often is not
the case and there are certain legends that get handed down
that become truisms. That are not either.
So I haven't really answered your question other than be
skeptical and and do the best you can to try to filter out the
nonsense. What are some of the most
misunderstood or Appreciated historical events.
That's a great question that ultimately will depend on on who
were measuring. You know, who are we talking
about the American population, and we talking about the even
among the educated Elite. So, to speak, for me.
I would go right to my single favorite Topic in American
history, is reconstruction. And I think the conventional
wisdom on that, that or most people seem to think that
reconstruction was a failure, for example, and part of it.
Just in the phrasing for me. I don't think Reconstruction was
a failure. I think Reconstruction was
derailed by mal-intent by cowardice.
And to some extent by practical reality on the part of you
couldn't get Northern Republicans to continue for more
than a dozen years, trying to support causes that were hurting
them politically, but the spin that people have on that is, is
often just just flatly Incorrect.
And I think Has led to a lot of the problems that never fully
resolved in the Civil Rights Movement.
I mean, going back further. Obviously the Civil War, you
know, there's there's undoubtedly millions of
Americans who still interpret that as being about something
other than slavery. And that's like to me that, you
know, anybody who, I mean, I don't encounter those people,
very often. I'm happy to say that my
students. I don't I no longer have to
spend a great deal of time telling my students about
Columbus, you know, about the truth about You know, a more
balanced account of Columbus or the truth about the Civil War.
They, they've been taught that. So there has been some kind of
Correction made at least in New Jersey.
I can't, I can't and at least in the town that I teach and I
can't speak to many other places.
So reconstruction, is that for American Elites or the average
American populace? Would you say I would say the
average person doesn't even know what reconstruction is.
I mean, I'll be brutally honest. I don't remember.
I don't remember ever learning about reconstruction myself as a
student in New Jersey. We teach us history over the
course of two years and the dividing line is usually the end
of reconstruction, but I don't know what your experience was.
In high school, but US, history teachers are kind of notorious
for running out of time. And and the last thing that and
and at this time of year where we're in the waning days of the
school year, in New Jersey, it's hot and nobody wants to be
there. They're looking out the window.
I don't know if I was taught and didn't pay attention or they
never got to it in u.s. To just as a this this may be an
apocryphal story. But it really it works.
I've been telling it for at every back-to-school night.
For 29 years at the end of u.s. To my teacher said, oh, that's
how we won. World War 2 and there were two
more Wars after that, but don't worry about it.
It's not on the final. And so that's that was not very
helpful to somebody who wanted to talk about politics and
government in the current day. Those are the things that, you
know, the that I. But what were the most
interesting to me as far as most misunderstood historical events.
We among the American Elite so to speak.
What would you say is? Are some of those events.
That's a good question. I don't know.
I don't know exactly. I bet I set up that exam.
I set up that dichotomy. I suppose.
I should have been prepared better prepared to answer it.
My guess I would just lean on something that I think applies
to everybody, but also to those who are educated or well
educated and attentive. I just think that's so much of
our Reliance on are worshipping of the Founding Fathers.
As demigods is something that I just think it, frankly is
childish. I think it's true of any.
I mean, I grew. I mean, I'm maybe I'm strange,
but I didn't have Heroes. I had people, I looked up to but
I didn't have people who I worshipped wanted to put on a
pedestal and as a teacher, one of the things that I really
strive to do is humanize individuals, you know, and I'm
not just talking about, you know, Washington and Jefferson
owned slaves or enslave people, but I the, the flaws that they
had the mistakes that they made to me, actually make what they
do. The accomplishments that they
had better, that these are not Flawless human beings.
That these are flawed human beings who stepped up at a
moment, of Crisis and, and did some incredible things.
But the idea, for example, that the constitution was fully
realized. It's exactly what they wanted.
Nobody wanted. The Constitution, The Way It Was
Written. It was a, it was no one.
No one's been able to figure out who actually said the line.
A bundle of compromise. Izes, but it has been clearly.
Nobody got what they wanted. And if nobody got what they
wanted, then they none of them had the perfect vision going in.
They accept that. You, they came up with something
that enough people, not everyone that enough people could accept
and it's worked pretty well, but it's also not a Flawless
document made by Flawless people.
Do you think that Elites will generally sort of push myths?
So to speak in order to have a nation be able to Rally around
one core belief system? So they could have something in
common. So when they pledged their
allegiance, they can recognize this guy.
Joe Biden is the current president.
This is who we're going to more or less listen to for the next
four years until the next person.
Isn't that sort of how Nations will get people on the same page
either by by getting them on the same myth or having them
identify with a certain set of events.
I think. Yes, and yes, but or yes, and I
really should say absolutely. I think that there is, there's
always a narrative that that is pushed by by whoever is in power
by the and and not even necessarily be elected power
people, the moneyed interests, whatever, whatever phrase you
want to use influential people. I also think there's a
benevolent. See to some extent.
It's that things align that way. And people want to join the
team. I mean, I don't know, this is
far afield, but you know, I don't care who wins the
Olympics, I like sports. But why do I care that?
The United States is winning versus somebody else.
It doesn't? It II have not been given the
gene. I suppose or Fallen prey to the,
we have to band behind. And this and this is this is
what brings us together. I'd rather ideals.
And I, you know, of Liberty and freedom be the things that bring
us together rather than three colors and three letters.
Is it maybe? Because understanding things
like ideals or any abstract concepts are just too costly for
330 million people to get on the same page for you need something
almost immediately. Identifying that guys, waving
the flag Hills, guys, waved the same flag, or on the same team.
And what do you think about rawls's theory of Justice?
I mean, that would be a little difficult.
Is it? Maybe you need something?
So, Important motive. I don't know something.
So immediate that instantly identifies.
Good guys from the bad guys. I think you make a great
argument. I think to some extent, that's
true. I wish I wish we had a less anti
intellectual culture. I mean, I'm I'm not pretending
that I'm, I don't have my own brainless activities that that,
you know, that that I connect to, I am a New York Yankees fan
because I'm From New Jersey, you know, like it that there are
things that, you know, that that we are not necessarily resistant
to, there are reasons why people don't want to spend the time
reading philosophy and and it's simpler.
And they can, they can find an enjoyment.
We all root for somebody even if it's not for, you know, whether
it's sports or anything out television shows, we find people
to root for. We found things to root for and
so sure when there is a tide going in One Direction.
It's I think it's very easy. For people to join that.
And I'm not saying these necessarily anything wrong with.
It's just a matter of. I wish people were a little bit
more deliberate in their thought processes, what differentiates a
good teacher from a bad teacher? There are probably a hundred
ways. I could answer that question.
I mean there, there there's a lot of bad teeth.
There's a lot of both. I would say, you know,
obviously, the most obvious thing would be a bad teacher is
one who doesn't care about their students.
Who doesn't, who doesn't, you know, see, see them as
individuals who just comes in with a negative attitude about
the kids these days and doesn't doesn't have any The flexibility
for me. What I've always prided myself
on is to borrow a phrase, or to contort a phrase.
I've always believed in building the more perfect classroom where
I want my students to, like, I never, I'm never satisfied with
anything that I do constantly reworking it from from year to
year. And sometimes from the first
period that I taught something, and then teaching it later in
the day, making making adjustments because it lives in
it. You know, it's a living thing
that what I'm providing in the classroom.
The other piece of that I would I would also make a quick note
of, I mean there was an old. I mean you may not be familiar
with the phrase or something audience might not be the sage
on the stage versus the guide on the side.
The sage on the stage was the teacher, who has all the
knowledge and just imparts their wisdom to the class.
Whereas the guide on the side, helps them find their way to to
their own understanding. Standing of the material and I
frankly, I think we're, we probably should be somewhere in
between because I've benefited pretty greatly from really good
teachers and college professors who have done the work and can
actually you know, this nothing wrong with a really good lecture
every once in a while as long as it once again, we go back to
grounded and rooted in facts and evidence, but I think that's
that's it. It's ultimately comes down to
caring about about what you do. And not just pulling up lesson
plans from last year, this worked last year.
Let me just do it again and not even think about One of your
former students was Nina jankowitz.
She has more or less gotten very heavy-handed treatment from
people like Fox on Twitter. A lot of people were very upset
that this governance disinformation board was pushed
by Homeland Security as big haters of George w-- Bush.
We hate the DHS and everything that comes from it.
Is there anything that has gone under appreciated?
From Miss jankowitz or the governance disinformation board.
The yes, quite a bit. I mean, I was not.
I knew that she had been appointed to be the head of the
decision disinformation governance board, but I didn't.
And that it was newly created. And I didn't know what exactly
it was. So I looked it up and it says
the board's function is to protect National Security by
disseminating Guidance to DHS agencies on combating foreign
misinformation Mal information and disinformation.
Terrible name, terrible name, but a perfectly reasonable
Mission. Considering the sheer amount of
disinformation that was produced in the last decade by countries
that are that are supposed to be our enemies or that are, I
should say that. That should be considered our
enemies in many respects, Russia, and China, and Iran.
And the other, the biggest thing, the most important thing
to note, and I mean, I looked at the various.
Politicians. I mean, they're the the hatred
on Twitter. I Stephen King actually tweeted
out his support for Nina and I just I put a benign comment,
which was simply that she's one of the one of the best people.
I know. And then I throw in the fact
that I've been a huge fan of yours for 40 years.
I got 100 to 150 tweets about how much of a kiss-ass.
I must be, you know, a moron. I'm, you know, brown-noser.
All of this stuff. And then just one thing after
another attacking Nina, through me or just attacking me my
handle. It's I forgot.
My Twitter name is at HHS. Fenster.
HHS is the school I teach at Hillsborough High School, but
the genius has assumed that I was a, I was working for Health
and Human Services, and I was, you know, just another
government. Lackey working for Joe Biden
defending her. All I actually, I didn't say a
word about the disinformation. Governing board.
All I said was she's one of the best people.
I know, you know, she's a really good person.
Now, the other thing that so then I actually looked at some
politicians comments and they were way off base as well.
The Secretary of Homeland Security, said that the board
would have no operational Authority.
None. It would just collect best
practices to give out to the other agencies and asserted that
the board would do no monitoring of American citizens.
This is strictly about Russian disinformation, you know, pick
your country. China Etc, efforts by a foreign
countries to interfere with our politics mean has actually
written a, you know, wrote a book about this was just why big
reason why she was going going to be heading the governance
board, before she ultimately decided to resign.
And in the book, lays out, just the sheer amount of of
interference through, you know, through the Twitter Bots and
face. Facebook fake Facebook accounts
that they have group, you know, fake, AstroTurf organizations,
that they've that they created, the evidence is overwhelming,
but back to that issue of some people don't actually care about
evidence and just Twisted it to their own, I guess political
game. I certainly get that there can
be disinformation from the Kremlin or from Tehran or
Beijing. I just think that it's important
to have the same standard for the DHS.
For example, Hillary Clinton falsely said, on the
presidential debate stage that 17 intelligence agencies
confirmed that Russia interfered in that Russia was behind the
hacking of her emails. The New York Times retracted,
that story June, 29th of 2017, Joe Biden on the debate, stage
said that the hunter Biden laptop was a Russian plant that
was confirmed by the New York Times.
Earlier this year, along with 51 Intelligence Officers 5c for CIA
directors, from both parties. At also said that.
So, my problem is not that everything that Putin says is
true. It's just this shortcoming in
China. And Russia also applies to
America. Can you see why?
A lot of citizens would not trust the government to be a
good Arbiter of truth from fiction.
Well, again, I don't. The idea is it's not a fact,
checking organization on American citizens or even
American politicians. It's not supposed to be a fact,
checking thing about the United States at all.
It's about what are the idea that this is would be based in
homeland security. It's important that the
information that we get is able to be Be properly sourced and
identified. And so what they, what the idea
of this organization who knows if it's even going to exist
because they did such a great job of the the enemies of the
folks on the far right. Did such a wonderful job of you
know of mischaracterizing this. But the idea would be that we
don't want foreign enemies manipulating our common
understanding of what the truth is and I have no problem.
I'll of fact-checking I think What you're getting back to your
an earlier question, you asked. I mean, there's several
different independent fact-checking organizations that
do wonderful work that I consult on a fairly regular basis when
I'm not sure about something, you know, just just as a quick
example, you know, like pro-choice people are seeing all
over my feed, you know, saying that 191 Republicans voted
against formula, you know, a providing formula to poor people
and while There is a vote in which a hundred, I think 191
they voted against a bill. That's not exactly what the bill
was and and those in facts matter.
And I I I bristle whatever when anybody, you know, right, left,
libertarian, whatever they might be, just finesses the facts to
their the way they want them to, to try to get across to score
political points, but this isn't supposed to be about political
points. This is about.
Hey, let's make sure that we understand that they're trying
to manipulate us. And let's not Let them do that
in a debate. I mean that's there's there
several organizations that do live fact, checking and the
truth usually comes out about about those sorts of things
until unfortunately the the last president of the United States
broke records with the amount of just made up stuff that he would
say. And and then and then people who
supported him stop paying attention to the fact Checkers
because the that was inconvenience.
And so now those are, you know, those have been discredited in
their minds. And we end up with this weird
situation where people make up their own facts and then he cut
off the ability for the public to determine how many civilians
are murdered in drone strikes. So yeah, this is like every
other thing. We we are getting it from from
both sides. How would you determine if I was
informed or misinformed on politics in general?
I that's interested. Keep that I've listened to a few
of your shows. And you know, we we have some
areas of agreement in some areas of disagreement on politics and
on philosophy, but I haven't I haven't caught you in anything
that I would say was a, you know, a flagrant Whopper of a
distortion of facts. You just, you know, you had you
just had some it's a great tactic.
I'm not suggesting you were you were not Accurate.
But to throw in dates, you know, it's she said this on this date
and, you know, that's something that one could easily
fact-check. So I mean, it's just a matter.
I don't. I mean it's not really my
exactly my my job or my, you know, to sort those things out
but I I think you matter of one of the biggest things is you
know, when someone says something that sounds too good
to be true or sounds incredible. Well, you gotta, you gotta check
that fact and I I find more often.
I'm my engagement in political conversation, tends to happen
more digitally, you know, online on Facebook and that least, then
you have the opportunity to instead of live in the moment,
look up what the facts are. So when people will frequently,
distort things you can actually find out that that's true.
I will say not knowing you at all.
You do seem very well-read and very well informed, you know, if
we were actually going to have a debate of some kind, I would I'd
have to bring my a game. Well, thank you for saying that,
and I wasn't necessarily using me as an example, even though I
specified myself. What I meant to say, was
something like, a lot of people will say, gosh, you know, I'm
really informed. It's just those other idiots in
the world. So we're all saying that we're
the right side and are a puppet. The world would be great if it
just wasn't for our stupid opponents.
So how can we actually determine who was informed and who is
misinformed? And the reason I use myself as
Say, is there something you would ask me?
Is there something you would look to see if I knew about
this? If I understood that, if I had
how much humility I had with regard to things.
I didn't know. So it was using myself as an
example of how individuals can talk to their loved ones or
whoever they're fighting with and get a general idea of you
who was informed or misinformed in their life.
Considering this is like the root of, of all love so much.
Tension in the country at this time.
You have maybe a litmus test or maybe some criteria.
Some people can actually ask them to ask others when they're
in person to determine whose informed or misinformed.
I don't have a question, a specific litmus test or anything
like that. But one thing you said, which is
to me, that is sort of like, at least my online litmus test is
people not being 100% sure of everything that they say or
being willing to say you made a good point.
You know, I see your eyes. See your point or even, I can
see that part of it, that argument was good.
Let me back off. I overstated it.
Let me, you know, recalibrate that I mean, I think that is so
sorely. Missing.
You know, I'm not a Libertarian but I have sympathy for someone
from any of the views of Libertarians and I'm I was
excited to have this conversation with you and I hope
that at some point I can have you on my own podcast, you know,
so we can talk about and we can actually talk about the
philosophy that you ascribe to. I think the exchange of ideas is
is hugely important related to that.
I teach AP US Government Vance placement US government and on
the AP exam. There was a question where
students are supposed to make. It's called the argument essay
and they can have whatever argument they wanted, doesn't
matter. Just they have to they have to
root it in a one of the required documents that they're provided.
But one way that they're graded is on whether they have a
rebuttal or a concession and And I always tell my students.
I don't care if it's easier to write a rebuttal.
What's do, you know what they're looking for?
Is some lame, you know, like some some people say, such and
such, but they're wrong because this, it's childish, bad
writing, that they learned in middle school about how to write
a persuasive. Essay.
Is you set up a straw man. You give him a terrible argument
and then you say that why the argument is wrong?
I tell them right. A Start your start, your thesis
statement with although give away something to the other side
or a different side. I should say.
I always want to be careful not to say there's two sides to it
to a different side. Although admittedly.
This is a problem on the whole. This is the position I hold.
And so for me, that's the litmus test is, can I can I talk to
somebody and may not be about being informed or not, but it's
about, can I have a conversation with somebody where an exchange
of ideas can actually make Make both of us.
Better off for it. So, I haven't looked at the
population numbers in the countries that are generally
mentioned when it comes to enemies of America.
But if it's Syria, North Korea, Iran, that sometimes China.
But but certainly Russia, at a point like this with sanctions
and everything. It's got to be something like
1.5 billion people between all those countries.
Is it fair to say those countries are Knees of America
or is it may be more accurate to say the current ruling classes
of these countries are not on the same page, but we should
still see populations in other countries as fellow human beings
who should be treated with dignity.
So we don't justify things like sanctions which killed a ton of
kids in Iraq, in the 90s. Sorry, if that was leading it.
I mean, I I have I'd certainly have sympathy for that position
for the general position. I I mean, obviously the human
part of it is that there's no way to there's no way to
disagree with that answer. Of course.
These are all human beings. Many of whom are victims of
circumstance of being powerless in a regime, where weather is
brutal mistreatment of anybody who steps out of line.
I mean to some extent you could make the same argument about
American about some Americans who have, you know, whatever
your political ideology is, you know, you and I probably I vote.
Doesn't mean that I'm represented.
My Views are not usually rep are often not represented.
And you know, although I don't I can't complain about.
I'm not living in North Korea, you know, I can certainly I do
have sympathy for for those people sanctions.
That's a tough one. I mean, I don't know that
sanctions. I mean, I'm no expert on foreign
policy. I do know that sanctions were
pretty pretty effective in South Africa.
There certainly are ramifications and when the
ruling class what or the woman in this case a dictator has no
heart whatsoever and doesn't care about his own people passes
the buck along to them and they're the ones who ultimately
suffer. I mean, I think it's more, it's
a complicated issue where your whether you're, you know, maybe
you're trying to foment Revolution or you're trying to
Garner sympathy from from third parties that aren't even, you
know, the ones that are directly involved.
My ultimate, I'm just not prepared to make a to, to
completely agree with you, but I understand and appreciate the
position. The reason is because there is
an alternative view, even though I did not lay out a, a very
unbiased position here. But people like, even on our
side, a lot of us were ashamed to hear the head of the Ian Rand
Institute, yaron Brook, talk about how you know, killing
civilians and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Look at what how evil emperor Hirohito was to.
Which we said the civilians are not Hideki.
Tojo or, you know the ruling class in Japan, he goes well, so
what it's not like those people were working to overthrow the
current regime in Japan. They were more or less
co-conspirators by living there. And basically, we were just
shocked to see him say this. And we're like, all right.
Let's give him the 48-hour rule. He's going to apologize and
clarify and of course he doubled down.
So when I hear something like that, come from my side, we're
all terribly ashamed. Because that is a point of view.
Let's go bomb, Iraq, let's bomb Afghanistan.
And if we generalize in those terms, were much less likely to
engage in a pollicis of a policy that consists of humanity or
anything like that and much more likely, I think to engage in an
aggressive policy that provokes other nations and creates more
enemies than friends. Is that stupid.
You've fairy tale land that I'm living in.
Or is there any any possibility that the you're on?
Brooks of the world are incorrect?
Well, I'll go with you as far as saying that the yeah, that's an
awful statement. It reminded me like the store.
You just shared was the anecdote.
You just shared reminds me of that that moment in I couldn't
tell you what year 2012 2016 in a republican debate that when
Ron Paul was running and he was asked to ask the loaded
question. About people without health
insurance. Do we?
Let them die in the street and one person in the audience?
You just heard him yell. Yeah.
It's like, no, no, like that. That's not what any human being
should be saying, I mean, I think, obviously, we, there are
times where I guess, realpolitik plays a role where the powers
that be, you know, dropping the, a bombs in the grand scheme of
things. Be saved.
Human lives was a heart. I mean, the way the way to
phrase that if you want to make the argument would be, that it's
a tragedy that these people died but it's saved a million live or
whatever. Not magical number, your magical
thinking number, you're going to come up with.
I don't subscribe to that particular point of view, but I
think that there's a way for us to carve out and develop a
foreign policy. That's more Humane than drone
strikes and assassinations and and indiscriminate bombings.
That's that's kind of what Vladimir Owens doing right about
now and that's that's we we should be condemning that just
as we should be condemning it when our own government does it?
What were some of the biggest takeaways you learned from
studying apartheid in South Africa?
For me, the, the power of resistance and agency was was
something that I learned before those words.
Well, resistance was, what was obviously a word.
I didn't know the word agency in the way that it is commonly used
today, where, you know, people are making decisions for
themselves even oppressed people and and for me, the as a
teacher, the thing that I've concentrated on the last several
years has been trying to make sure that I talked about
marginalized people, whoever they are throughout American
history. Obviously slavery is the most
obvious one, but there are plenty of other groups that you
can that you can look at as well, that any distance you just
going back to the Ian, Rand person.
You mentioned, you know, that their co-conspirators, of
course, they're not co-conspirators.
But if they were to stand up to the government, they would have
got like, overtly they'd be shot in the head and that's it.
That's not a, that's not a viable option but instead.
Ed of looking at people who are victimized as victims, to take a
closer look and see what, what did they do in their lives
enslaved. People.
Obviously, some of them escaped. Others sabotage, the, you know,
the the processes in their Plantation or factory or
wherever they would be working. So I'm poisoned, you know, they
poisoned their and slavers others harmed themselves there
was or they A culture that was they created a new culture out
of whole cloth because that was the best way that they could
kind of almost get revenge. Instead of conforming, they
created something of their own. There's lots of different ways
that that happened, and obviously, that something was
happening in South Africa. And a brutally oppressive regime
where people were relocated to the word just every relocated
not allowed to leave their these horrible fake.
Lands forced to carry a pass if they were even given Furnishing
to go anywhere. Brutally murdered if they
offered any kind of resistance. So, I mean that to me that was
it was inspiring to see that this generation of leadership
that came of age in the 1950s led by Nelson Mandela, but many
others like Oliver Tambo and Walter sisulu.
They were they were people who again, not Heroes but heroic and
and so that was something that I certainly got out of that study.
So, what would you say, were the main factors and taking South
Africa, from apartheid state to where it is?
Now? I know you mentioned sanctions
earlier. What are some of the sanctions
that you thought were most effective?
Is that where the Beatles wouldn't go and play?
Or was that America? I think it was America under Jim
know. Now that I say it out loud.
Yeah, I'll be, they'll be a little earlier.
I mean, there was the, the boycott of of entertainment in
South Africa was for there. Las Vegas, like like resort
called Sun City. Where many performers decided to
that, you know that they weren't going to play for the white.
The rich white Elites who were, you know, getting there who are
exploiting the 78% of the population to have to live the
lives. They LED again.
I like the my focus was more on the early part of that.
But I mean, my understanding was Farhan pressure was a huge part
of it. It was just the the, it wasn't
even sanctions. But the divestment was, it was
an immuno, huge part of the South it, South African economy
involved, foreign investment and so far.
And so, Ronald Reagan, wanted what he referred to as
constructive engagement. He wanted more money to go into
South Africa and say, Hey, you know, we're going to buy your
Goodwill and we're going to get you to change your philosophy,
but that didn't go over. Well, I would say based.
Luckily for the from the American left and and instead
there was a movement to say, no, let's take everything out and
you know, and demonstrate to them that it's going to, it's
going to hurt their economy and then there were other over at
sanctions. And again, I am brutally,
brutally honest with you. Here economics is like my my
Achilles heel as a social studies teacher.
I hear the Flight of the Bumblebee in my head as soon as
we start talking about economics, and I don't know, I
don't understand a great deal of it.
It. I'm not I'm not suggesting that
this was necessarily the right way to go, but we know that it
happened. We know that It ultimately, the
National Party recognize the leader, FW de klerk recognize
that the economic recession, that was caused by a lot of.
This was just not sustainable in that country and that the time
had come law, had long, since come for them to lift and
obviously overt. A system of racism and
separation. Let's say that I have arranged
for you to be the speaker at the conservative political action
committee. So you'll be talking to a ton of
Republicans, conservatives, and you have them as a captive
audience. These are not just the average
ones. These are the ones who go out of
their way to go to see pack. What do you say to those people?
That's a great opportunity. I would stress.
You know, that we need to find a way to talk to each other.
Another former student of mine Yuval Levin who probably has
spoken at CPAC, but he certainly was a writer for.
He's a writer for these written for the National Review and many
other organizations or Publications.
His work. In recent years, has been
specifically about that about his last book was called the
time to build and trying to find Bridges and between the Various
camps, we have developed such a horrible hostility that it's
just as I indicated based on, you know, the the Twitter
exchanges and so forth. It's just that if somebody
disagrees with you the devil and unfortunately an organization
like that, that's pretty much. I mean that's what that the red
meat that they throw to the audience.
It's who can outdo each other about how, how, you know,
subhuman Democrats are or liberals or whatever.
It might. B II bristle, when I hear people
do the the overt statements on the from the other side about
all Republicans this and it's it's a little harder for me to
do that too. For me to object-- when we're
talking about support for, you know, for the way the that
political party has moved and has embraced to some extent lies
and ignorance as like, they're the watchword of what they do,
but I also don't I don't want to emphasize that because I think
there are plenty of good Republicans out there still who
are willing to listen and willing to talk and cooperate
and unfortunately, the bottom line of things like controlling
the Senate, so you can control who gets nominated to the
Supreme Court, become has become far more important than trying
to find solutions to problems that don't necessarily have to
be partisan where we don't have to have winners and losers on
the basis of, you know, which party was To get their way, so I
don't know how I would craft that speech, but I would, you
know, I would, I'd probably be booed off the stage, no matter
what if I just, you know, encourage them to go find a
Democrat and have a decent, you have a convert, ask them
questions instead of, you know, instead of telling them what you
think, ask them questions and then ask them more questions and
see see what they have to say as a teacher.
One of the things I'd like to do in my government class actually
in my history class 2 is give give give students a question or
tell them to Make an argument from a particular point of view
and sometimes it's a left-wing sometimes as right-wing other
other points of view as well. And it's and and I'll
occasionally get a kid come to me and say do I have to do?
Can I say at the no, I want you to make the argument.
If you can understand the other side's argument.
You're not really understanding your own.
The reason that I think is much as it seems people are staunchly
in one camp and have one set of ideas.
We've seen a drastic shift from the free trade issue, you know,
going from more laissez-faire to more protection.
It's in the Republicans. It's not front and center enough
to really say that that's been an ideological shift, but when
it comes to support for something like the Iraq War you
had People unapologetically saying you can almost never to
question. The military is to commit
treason under Bush that more or less literally is what
Republicans would have told you, then you had Donald Trump in
South Carolina running for president saying they lied.
The Republican president lied us into a war that killed civilians
and caused a terrible crisis in the Middle East.
And it gave rise to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so we
have the Republican being So to go from probe or to not just
neutral to, not just anti-war to, this was a war that we were
lied into so because you can almost it so long as you're not
stealing people's identity from them.
You can say, here's your new identity.
It's instead of pro-military. It's pro-military, but anti
Elite the poison in the military at the time.
Was this elitist prick Bush him and his brothers and their, you
know, Skull and Bones stuff. Screw them there in the past.
This is how we're moving forward.
So when we understand that, when we, you know, try to extract
lessons from something like that.
It does seem like this divide can be yielded or more or less.
Can this wound can be healed more or less when it comes to
maybe finding the source of the Divide between people.
Do you have any theories as to what the primary cause of this
divided? It certainly seems like it's
getting worse. But then again, there was a
Civil War in America. So maybe it's been worse before.
Yeah, that's one of those things that we can do.
I keep saying articles about people trying to point to other
times in history, where we were more polarized.
Obviously. We were polarized based on one
issue during the Civil War here. It's it's much more than a
single issue. And I think you put your finger
on it. I think you put your finger on
something really important is that I don't know that the the
ideology actually matters that much.
I think it's it's ultimately it's sort of making an enemy.
Demonizing The Other Side, the fact that you know, that you
could have the exact example you gave about Trump coming up with
like a complete opposite position on on foreign policy on
the war in Iraq and not just shedding huge numbers of
Republicans as a result of that indicated to me.
That they didn't really care about that issue.
I mean, there's a certain small segment of people who maybe
were, you know, that maybe came back to the party who might have
left it because they were disgusted by neoconservative ISM
in in the Bush Administration, but probably not that many.
I think about a friend of mine who is a pastor, a very
fundamentalist Christian Pastor, who was utterly tortured by the
choice between Queen Trump and Clinton, I'm sure you believe
that he had more choices than that, but in his mind and you
know, the traditional I don't want to throw my vote away kind
of kind of argument. He he did not like Hillary
Clinton for a whole slew of reasons and I don't know exactly
how he voted. He's clearly a republican
attribute very much a traditional Republican, but
Donald Trump was utterly disgusting to him.
I mean just everything about the man was just like anathema to
who this person was except. There's that nasty it You for
him of abortion, which genuinely believes that abortion is murder
of children. And I suspect at least the first
time, he probably voted for Donald Trump, and obviously with
the pending decision might have ultimately gotten the that goal
realized. And would that for some people
would that be worth the price, probably.
But back to the question is that?
I think it really comes down to any position.
Mission. I mean Joe Biden saying that
it's really warm today. In New Jersey, the response.
The response would ultimately be by some Republicans after
saying, let's go. Brandon would be you know, what
a wuss. He can't take the heat, you
know, it's because he's old and crazy.
And it's just what is what is wrong with people?
Yes, it's hot. Good point.
Every once in a while. I would take a moment to say
something that Donald Trump said was genuinely funny.
I didn't agree with almost anything.
He ever said or did politically but I would occasionally say,
you know, and and I have like friends who are liberals and
Democrats who would be like no, no couldn't possibly be
intentional. Like know he was making a joke
and you may find him Heart Like a horrible human being and
disgusting but you know terrible.
People can do funny things or even do good things
occasionally, you know, it happens.
So let me use an analogy to explain what.
I think the source of this divide is and ice.
Specially think it's, an unnecessary divided.
So, if I'm a serial killer, and you're not a serial killer, my
answer would not be well. Can we just get along?
It should be, you put me in a cage and shoot me if I resist.
So there are some genuine divides.
What I'm referring here are false or arbitrary or
unprincipled divides. Imagine if we had a national
vote 330 million people every year to decide which religion,
Everyone should be. And if the Catholic Church winds
were all Catholic and we all answer to the pope or maybe the
Protestants win. And then we all have certain
pastors that we've listened to in the 50 states whether you
like the Church of Catholicism and protestantism.
If they win, everyone has to pay a percentage of their property
value and send it to the Catholic church.
If the Catholic Church wages war on Scientology.
They have the right to conscript.
You and everyone. It has to chip in for this war
whether you like it or not. If you want a job, you have to
make sure you get a license from the Catholic church.
This way. They can keep you safe.
And there's a new Catholic misinformation board that's
going to decipher, false and accurate information.
From other religions. Just as a way of letting people
know what is true, what is false?
It doesn't have regulatory power but more or less the Catholic
church in that case would then have the right to do things?
No one else would have the right to You, I propose that this
would cause so much division. It would literally lead to a
civil war after, I don't know, two or three rounds.
But because we have freedom of religion, where I can say, I can
tell Bob Fenster, you're going to hell and I know it and you
need to get baptized the fact that I don't have the right to
coercively impose that on you. I can do everything voluntary,
but I can't use coercion is what allows us to have.
I don't know what your religious views are.
I'm an atheist. But the fact that my friends, I
think two doors down. They think I'm going to hell in
my unbaptized kids are going to hell.
And I think they're delusional were able to trade or able to
cooperate with been 20 years that we've lived next to each
other. Because this source of
contention is not up for coercive decision-making.
It's totally in the voluntary sector there for entering, in
coercion or the state into this issue.
Is the source of divided. Am I wrong on that?
Your well, certainly, your analogy Works fairly.
Well, I think that I mean I would raise the question about
why we are more divided now than 20 years ago or 30 years ago.
When that's the state was still involved in plenty of coercive
acts, but I will say, just piggybacking onto my previous
answer, the son of the pastor who I mentioned was in my Debate
Club. This is probably 15 20 years
ago. And he was as right wing as they
come. I mean just unapologetically
right wing and in a way that was would be incredibly like we one
of our first issues was something about gay rights and
he went up to make a speech and he delivered a blistering gays
are going to hell kind of, you know, kind of terrible like
really what would be horribly inappropriate.
Certainly would be Arbol inappropriate today was
inappropriate then in terms of the context and so forth.
But over that that was what? So as a freshman over the next
four years, he and I developed an affinity towards each other
me. Coming from one end of the
political Spectrum, him from another and often times.
We would be sequestered off to a in a corner of the room.
And I remember distinctly him saying to me, something very
similar to what words you just use where he was saying, you
want the government to control this and and forgot which issue
we were. Talking about and I was like,
well, yeah, but you want the government to tell people this
and it was it was exactly both of us kind of found that moment
where I was just like, huh? We are both talking about
government coercion at the government, the government
coercion that we liked. And I think we sort of found an
affinity right then and there of like, well, maybe maybe is the
answer that the government shouldn't do either of those
things. And for, you know, there was a,
there was a sort of weird spark of libertarianism between us us
about, you know, about that sort of thing.
It's like, well, are we going to be ideologically consistent?
And that's the thing that I often disagree with with
Libertarians on various things and on basic philosophy, but I
got to take my hat off on the 10th, on the, on the consistency
Democrats or Republicans are rarely consistent about their
philosophy. They have to bend over backwards
and twist themselves into knots to try to justify things and
often just ignore. The actual philosophy,
underlying it. That's why.
Donald Trump could be a republican despite having bit
protectionist views, despite how you know, the all of those
things. It's populism is what that
ultimately amounts to not actual philosophy.
When it comes to we got about five minutes left, thank you so
much for being generous with your time.
By the way. What what were some of the
greatest traits that Nelson Mandela had as a leader and what
can we learn from him? I think the resilience and
seeing seeing the big picture. The Long Haul, My My My Mentor
in college was a labor studies professor.
And one of the things that he always said to activists was
that you have to be in it for the long haul and that would be
true. Whatever your political
philosophy is. I mean, it kind of somewhat
lonely being a Libertarian. When you get Two percent of the
vote in many in many cases. And and like, how do you, how do
you keep it going? Well, you keep it going by
looking at like this, not living, and dying by every
single Victory or defeat like being a manager of a baseball
team that plays 162 games. I would be terrible at it
because it's really hard for me. Not to live and die by successes
by the defeats in particular, and I think that's something I
meant in Mandela was, you know, he understood.
I mean obviously, Ali serving, 27 years in prison, only to
eventually emerge and be able to have been kept his wits about
him. Having been a leader within the
Robben Island prison, and then being able to become president
of South Africa. That's a long, that's a long
haul. Philosophy of it certainly
worked out for the better. Not that.
Not that all the problems of South Africa, one away.
But at least the fundamental Liberties of, millions of people
were restored as a consequence. Imagine you get one but one task
as new education, Czar in America.
And your first thing is, you're going to recommend a book that
everyone's going to read. What is the book that you would
recommend for all Americans to read assume they have to do it
and they can't resist. What book would that be and why
would you choose that book? Huh?
You know what? I'm gonna give you a second to
think because I didn't prep for that one.
Mine would be there's a book by a guy named Madison Prairie.
He is from Britain and his book is titled.
The use and abuse of logic. This book.
Is that what essentially took me away from now supporting Mitt
Romney or go or conservatism. This would have been around.
Gosh. I guess just after the 2012
election. So he takes probably 100 lat.
No, fallacies and says just because something is fallacious,
doesn't mean it has its of no value.
But please recognize that, there can be times where you're doing
things for unjustified purposes that on the surface level seem
good but actually are not justifications.
So each chapter is about a page and a half long and he just goes
through one logical fallacy after another.
The reason I'd recommend that book is because that would at
least get us talking on the same page because so much So often
it's like we're not even speaking the same language.
It certainly seems on more topics.
Just people, it's almost impossible to get people
divided. However, or it's impossible to
get people on the same page. I saw a great experiment where
someone with an opposing shirt would walk up to an event that
you know, the opposition was having and they'd say, oh guys I
lost my dog. Have you guys seen my dog and
they be holding an empty leech of of course, there's no dog and
then and then people would Oh, no, sorry, and then they talked
for five minutes. And then when they brought up
politics, it was more or less. We can agree to disagree.
You have some good points. I have bad.
Just bringing in that human factor of.
I'm going through a loss here. I'm real vulnerable.
This is so stressful on me that alone got people to sort of
lower their swords just for a minute.
And I think this book, The use and abuse of logic by Madsen
Prairiewood would do that. Bob Fenster one book for every
American to read. It's a little dated, but I think
certainly people need to read. If they, if they're unaware of
it. James lowens lies.
My teacher told me and not even because of the specific.
I mean, there's a chapter on Columbus and all you know, and
and it did a survey he did surveys of American textbooks.
And again, this is 20 probably 20 years old, American textbooks
from the previous decade and what what people were taught and
again, I'm not it's pretty much a very I'd say left-wing.
Of and I would not be presenting it to you or anyone else as a
necessarily by the politics of the book.
But understand that those myths that we talked about much
earlier, that become collectively, you know,
Collective truths are things that need to be examined about.
How did that happen? What we teach in the classroom.
I'm guilty of having taught things that were just not, not
true, but it was something that I was taught.
Thought and so, you know, I just would offer that as an idea just
to to see the Mecha nations of how of, how how reality our are
supposed factual reality is created.
Who would chapter on John Brown? One of my heroes?
Oh, gosh, you've done a terrible disservice.
Now. I have to restart now.
I have to restart my Prime Membership because I I said I
wasn't going to buy any books, but you've ruined that for me.
Now I have to mr. Fenster.
Thank you so much for your time is Twitter.
The best place for people to follow you?
Yeah, I think so. That would be at HHS fence
turkey. Thank you so much.
I really enjoyed this conversation and I definitely
Definitely want to have you on my own podcast, which is called
Bob's. Just asking.
There's my plug, which is a podcast about me talking to
people about subjects. I know, very little, but little
about trying to get a better understanding of the world, not
only for myself, but hopefully, for Curious listeners and thank
you to everyone for watching the libertarian Institute and Keith
Knight. Don't tread on anyone.
Take care.